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.

 jy2 wrote:
And so instead, they go and get Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. Lol!

Although Wade and Bosh are good, the difference between them and a replacement player is not as staggering as difference between LeBron and anyone else. Just like most choices in Necron codex are better than similar choices in other codices, but some are miles ahead of others. So if you're forced to take things across the codex that won't be as powerfull as spamming anihilation barges and night scythes.

Every top-tier team should have what I call the triumvirate. All the great armies will have a Lebron, Wade and Bosh in their armies:


Necrons:
Lebron - Wraithstar
Wade - Troops in Night Scythes
Bosh - Annihilation Barges


Eldar:
Lebron - Beaststar or Seer Council
Wade - Wave Serpents or Jetbike Troops
Bosh - Wraithknights


Tau:
Lebron - Riptides and/or broadsides
Wade - Jetbike allies or Crisis troops
Bosh - Buffmander


Everyone else are just role-players.

Ok, let's keep this analogy train rolling.

If those 3 codices have their big three, they're getting a great return on the money they spent on salaries under the salary cap.

The problem for the league is that all the other teams have to spend their salary cap, but they don't have access to good players. That's how the Blood Angels end up with Brandon Jennings, Josh Smith and Greg Monroe and spend the same money for inferior talent.

I would like to hear how they justify deployment on top of the pod. I mean, wtf?

OMG.... Sports analogies are the next big gaming meme. So bad....

My biggest beef I guess is that the best 40k player isn't always the winner in these GT's.

Will TIMED 40k be balanced? No, never. But that isn't the issue. Myself and I'd imagine others aren't suggesting it.

People keep saying, you want perfect balance? Play chess. Those people aren't getting the main point.

If the game is so imbalanced then it drastically diminishes the credibility or value of being a "champion." I am not saying those players are bad, but most of their skill set is currently geared at gaming the system, not the player/opponent.

I'd love to give people credit with list building but that is hardly a skill anymore thanks to the internet.

I am really hoping they address some of the issues with 7th, but I am starting to gag on the required salt.

 Red Corsair wrote:
OMG.... Sports analogies are the next big gaming meme. So bad....

My biggest beef I guess is that the best 40k player isn't always the winner in these GT's.

Will TIMED 40k be balanced? No, never. But that isn't the issue. Myself and I'd imagine others aren't suggesting it.

People keep saying, you want perfect balance? Play chess. Those people aren't getting the main point.

If the game is so imbalanced then it drastically diminishes the credibility or value of being a "champion." I am not saying those players are bad, but most of their skill set is currently geared at gaming the system, not the player/opponent.

I'd love to give people credit with list building but that is hardly a skill anymore thanks to the internet.

I am really hoping they address some of the issues with 7th, but I am starting to gag on the required salt.

So me failing to place lower then 5th in any of the events that i attended last year is because the system is messed up and not because I am a good player? If the system is so flawed then why do you consistently see the same players at the top tables? Those players have adapted to the changes and bring units or strategies to the table to deal with the unbalances.

 Tomb King wrote:

So me failing to place lower then 5th in any of the events that i attended last year is because the system is messed up and not because I am a good player? If the system is so flawed then why do you consistently see the same players at the top tables? Those players have adapted to the changes and bring units or strategies to the table to deal with the unbalances.

Just because some players have embraced the absurdity that 6th ed 40k has become, and done consistently well does not alter the fact that 6th ed 40k bears scant little resemblance to any traditional wargame. You can do well in a messed up system, doing so does denote you as a good player, but does not mean the system is not flawed.

What I see is that some people are willing to embrace 6th ed fully, with allies and min-sized last-turn scoring jetbikes, and 2++ rerolls... and some people want to play a game where a unit of space marines have a place. And some good players are in category A, and some good players are in category B (and, consequently, not really playing much anymore).

Jy2 wrote:

Tomb King wrote:One scoring unit in any tournament is ouch. Did they explain why they did it?

I think for mainly 2 reasons:

1. They were like us. They just teamed up at the last moment and took whatever was in their list currently.

2. Their focus was offense. Either table the opponent or lose. Something like that.

Because we had big balls of brass !

Joking aside, that's pretty much what Jy2 said =)

We teamed up shortly before the team tourny : I was looking for skulls to crush after loosing 1st place overall to the infamous thudd gun army in round 5 because of some dice crazyness, Pascal didn't had any team-mate for the team tourny, and we ran into each other something like 30 minutes before the event start. So we decided to team up !

However, as BA and daemons can't technically ally to each other, we asked the TOs how to figure it out. They asked us to designate which one of us was the "primary" detachment and who was the desperate ally (whose units are never scoring).
Plus, because of the models we had at that time, we were limited in our choices.

So we decided to go for a crazy army of Tzeentch daemons with mind-controlled death company / crazy dreads allies, and only 1 scoring unit because we can !
But yeah, we were conscious it was very bad tactically speaking ^^ That's when you decide to play for fun

 Redbeard wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

So me failing to place lower then 5th in any of the events that i attended last year is because the system is messed up and not because I am a good player? If the system is so flawed then why do you consistently see the same players at the top tables? Those players have adapted to the changes and bring units or strategies to the table to deal with the unbalances.

Just because some players have embraced the absurdity that 6th ed 40k has become, and done consistently well does not alter the fact that 6th ed 40k bears scant little resemblance to any traditional wargame. You can do well in a messed up system, doing so does denote you as a good player, but does not mean the system is not flawed.

What I see is that some people are willing to embrace 6th ed fully, with allies and min-sized last-turn scoring jetbikes, and 2++ rerolls... and some people want to play a game where a unit of space marines have a place. And some good players are in category A, and some good players are in category B (and, consequently, not really playing much anymore).

Yea I have noticed a certain drop in the amount of intermediate gamers. I will say for the record that you do not need those above options to still be succesful. You only need to understand completely how they work and then remove the bits the make them so good. I have yet to run a 2++ unit, a seer council, or even jetbikes in 6th edition. I did play 1 unit of jetbikes before eldar got updated though. I am also guilty of using necrons(not wraith spam) but their hardly as broken and easier to deal with.

Dont get me wrong the above stuff does make it easier to achieve a win but its also what everyone is building to fight. You have 3 options, go with the meta, go against the meta, or go with a list that balances the two. I usually like to take somewhat wonky TAC list that people arent really prepared to deal with. Anyone can run 3 riptides or 3 wraithknights etc... That just is not my style. I am actually sad that eldar are so good because I really like how they play.

 Tomb King wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
OMG.... Sports analogies are the next big gaming meme. So bad....

My biggest beef I guess is that the best 40k player isn't always the winner in these GT's.

Will TIMED 40k be balanced? No, never. But that isn't the issue. Myself and I'd imagine others aren't suggesting it.

People keep saying, you want perfect balance? Play chess. Those people aren't getting the main point.

If the game is so imbalanced then it drastically diminishes the credibility or value of being a "champion." I am not saying those players are bad, but most of their skill set is currently geared at gaming the system, not the player/opponent.

I'd love to give people credit with list building but that is hardly a skill anymore thanks to the internet.

I am really hoping they address some of the issues with 7th, but I am starting to gag on the required salt.

So me failing to place lower then 5th in any of the events that i attended last year is because the system is messed up and not because I am a good player? So you could just be good at playing the system If the system is so flawed then why do you consistently see the same players at the top tables? This one is great, notice that the top players list isn't 3-5 players but according to the TOF Inv. for example is well beyond the 32 that attended, THAT ATTENDED, some weren't invited others didn't make it.Those players have adapted to the changes and bring units or strategies to the table to deal with the unbalances. Notice every one of those lists does the dame thing, taked advantage of rerolls and plays for last turn

Also since you called yourself out chief. I watched you play at NOVA on the live feed, and despite having 3 wave serpents and an immobile fire base to play with. none of your games made it to the games end. Your turns took forever despite never leaving your DZ until you knew when the clock was ending up. Oops.

Target priority, deployment and lists are all available to anyone who can read now. Rules holes too. Dice are random, but the clock never is. Its THE MOST consistent feature in tournament 40k which is why it is arguably the most gamed factor from list design to execution.

So to answer your questions more bluntly, you did well because just as you stated yourself, you dealt with the imbalance of time. You found a hole, and won leveraging it.

Its a skill on its own, I am just tired of hearing that just because a couple people do well at timed events, they somehow are the best players. Best 40k player, sure maybe, but then again maybe not. Best at time management in a comped system, definitely. I just want the difference to be noticed and acknowledged I guess.

bogalubov wrote:
Ok, let's keep this analogy train rolling.

If those 3 codices have their big three, they're getting a great return on the money they spent on salaries under the salary cap.

The problem for the league is that all the other teams have to spend their salary cap, but they don't have access to good players. That's how the Blood Angels end up with Brandon Jennings, Josh Smith and Greg Monroe and spend the same money for inferior talent.

I know.

That's why there are upper-tiered, mid-tiered and lower-tiered ballclubs (armies). While everyone wants a Lebron on their team, most won't have him (or another superstar player of a similar caliber).

Naw wrote:
I would like to hear how they justify deployment on top of the pod. I mean, wtf?

Maybe it's part of the rules of the Lucious? That you can "disembark" within the Lucious because you can actually fit the dread in there? I don't know for sure as I haven't seen their new rules. It's definitely an interesting mechanic but it didn't really make too much of a difference in this game.

 Red Corsair wrote:
OMG.... Sports analogies are the next big gaming meme. So bad....

My biggest beef I guess is that the best 40k player isn't always the winner in these GT's.

Will TIMED 40k be balanced? No, never. But that isn't the issue. Myself and I'd imagine others aren't suggesting it.

People keep saying, you want perfect balance? Play chess. Those people aren't getting the main point.

If the game is so imbalanced then it drastically diminishes the credibility or value of being a "champion." I am not saying those players are bad, but most of their skill set is currently geared at gaming the system, not the player/opponent.

I'd love to give people credit with list building but that is hardly a skill anymore thanks to the internet.

I am really hoping they address some of the issues with 7th, but I am starting to gag on the required salt.

You make some good points, but let's just say we can agree to disagree on some of them.

Just because you use the best tools for the job that's available to you doesn't mean you are gaming the system. Everyone has access to the same tools. It's just that not everyone wants to use them. Perhaps some just like to use a regular screwdriver because they actually like to flex their arm muscles. Doesn't mean the guy with the electric drill/screwdriver is less worthy to be a champ just because he didn't want to use a less optimized tool for the job. Because if he wants to handicap/challenge himself by using a normal screwdriver, there will be plenty of other guys out there who will be bringing electric ones to the building party.

Hey, I didn't use a sports meme!

 Redbeard wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

So me failing to place lower then 5th in any of the events that i attended last year is because the system is messed up and not because I am a good player? If the system is so flawed then why do you consistently see the same players at the top tables? Those players have adapted to the changes and bring units or strategies to the table to deal with the unbalances.

Just because some players have embraced the absurdity that 6th ed 40k has become, and done consistently well does not alter the fact that 6th ed 40k bears scant little resemblance to any traditional wargame. You can do well in a messed up system, doing so does denote you as a good player, but does not mean the system is not flawed.

What I see is that some people are willing to embrace 6th ed fully, with allies and min-sized last-turn scoring jetbikes, and 2++ rerolls... and some people want to play a game where a unit of space marines have a place. And some good players are in category A, and some good players are in category B (and, consequently, not really playing much anymore).

Things change. Unfortunately, that is a sad fact of life. Things will evolve, and not necessarily for the better (at least in the opinions of some). Honestly, I am not a big fan of a lot of the changes of 6th, even before all the craziness that are dataslates, formations and now super-heavies. There are a lot of good things about 6th, but I hate random charge lengths and I am not a big fan of allies. While allies do allow for some variety (and thus, more $$$ for the almighty GW), all allies really does is to create further imbalance in the game, giving advantages to those armies with the most allies (and most brotherhood allies). That is why I try to play purist armies whenever I can and seldom run allies.

HOWEVER, you either get WITH the program or you get OUT. Those who don't like the game as it currently is, they either leave or they don't play competitively anymore. That's too bad really. As for me, I love the game too much to leave. Thus, I adjust with the times.

 RabbitMaster wrote:

Jy2 wrote:

Tomb King wrote:One scoring unit in any tournament is ouch. Did they explain why they did it?

I think for mainly 2 reasons:

1. They were like us. They just teamed up at the last moment and took whatever was in their list currently.

2. Their focus was offense. Either table the opponent or lose. Something like that.

Because we had big balls of brass !

Joking aside, that's pretty much what Jy2 said =)

We teamed up shortly before the team tourny : I was looking for skulls to crush after loosing 1st place overall to the infamous thudd gun army in round 5 because of some dice crazyness, Pascal didn't had any team-mate for the team tourny, and we ran into each other something like 30 minutes before the event start. So we decided to team up !

However, as BA and daemons can't technically ally to each other, we asked the TOs how to figure it out. They asked us to designate which one of us was the "primary" detachment and who was the desperate ally (whose units are never scoring).
Plus, because of the models we had at that time, we were limited in our choices.

So we decided to go for a crazy army of Tzeentch daemons with mind-controlled death company / crazy dreads allies, and only 1 scoring unit because we can !
But yeah, we were conscious it was very bad tactically speaking ^^ That's when you decide to play for fun

Hey Adrien! Nice to meet you at the LVO. At the time of our game, I really didn't know how well you did at the Championships. Congrats on a job well done!

Yeah, despite playing as Desperate Allies and with only 1 scoring unit, I think you guys surprised a lot of people (well, your 1st 2 opponents, at least) with how dangerous and how well your armies actually worked together. Honestly, I was actually sweating a little after seeing what you got for your psychic powers.

And while I teamed up with Chuck just before the Team Tournament as well, we were lucky that our armies complemented each others very well, like 2 peas in a pod.

Once again, congrats on the Main Event and also for the success at the Teams Tournament.

Again I don't want my message being misunderstood that skill isn't required or that only the lit matters. My main beef currently is, I suppose, when GT players lend most of the score card to player skill and don't acknowledge that a MASSIVE portion of winning a GT is gaming the tournaments inherent inequities. I agree that this is a skill in it's own right, but has much less to do with 40K strategy.

Tournament winners are very good players, but so are MANY tournament losers. The difference a lot of the time does come down to a very different skill set, one that can be applied to any system with similar flaws. This doesn't make them gods at 40k it makes them gods at gaming flawed systems.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
OMG.... Sports analogies are the next big gaming meme. So bad....

My biggest beef I guess is that the best 40k player isn't always the winner in these GT's.

Will TIMED 40k be balanced? No, never. But that isn't the issue. Myself and I'd imagine others aren't suggesting it.

People keep saying, you want perfect balance? Play chess. Those people aren't getting the main point.

If the game is so imbalanced then it drastically diminishes the credibility or value of being a "champion." I am not saying those players are bad, but most of their skill set is currently geared at gaming the system, not the player/opponent.

I'd love to give people credit with list building but that is hardly a skill anymore thanks to the internet.

I am really hoping they address some of the issues with 7th, but I am starting to gag on the required salt.

So me failing to place lower then 5th in any of the events that i attended last year is because the system is messed up and not because I am a good player? So you could just be good at playing the system If the system is so flawed then why do you consistently see the same players at the top tables? This one is great, notice that the top players list isn't 3-5 players but according to the TOF Inv. for example is well beyond the 32 that attended, THAT ATTENDED, some weren't invited others didn't make it.Those players have adapted to the changes and bring units or strategies to the table to deal with the unbalances. Notice every one of those lists does the dame thing, taked advantage of rerolls and plays for last turn

Also since you called yourself out chief. I watched you play at NOVA on the live feed, and despite having 3 wave serpents and an immobile fire base to play with. none of your games made it to the games end. Your turns took forever despite never leaving your DZ until you knew when the clock was ending up. Oops.

Target priority, deployment and lists are all available to anyone who can read now. Rules holes too. Dice are random, but the clock never is. Its THE MOST consistent feature in tournament 40k which is why it is arguably the most gamed factor from list design to execution.

So to answer your questions more bluntly, you did well because just as you stated yourself, you dealt with the imbalance of time. You found a hole, and won leveraging it.

Its a skill on its own, I am just tired of hearing that just because a couple people do well at timed events, they somehow are the best players. Best 40k player, sure maybe, but then again maybe not. Best at time management in a comped system, definitely. I just want the difference to be noticed and acknowledged I guess.

Alright, interesting stab that was not expected. My first game in the live feed finished and was one sided. The second game I was not the one slow playing and even went first. So not sure where your information was garnished from if in both instances you were incorrect on your assessment.

However, I would say I was a little slow in my first game. It was my first time ever playing the army and I hadn't played in over a month before the event.

Here are a few reasons why I excel at the game:
1. I have played with just about every army that has come out (never bough grey knights). I did this to understand an armies strength and weaknesses. I also do it because I get bored playing the same army for an extended period of time.
2. I come from a very good competitive based gaming group.
3. I am a fire support officer. Most military officers would excel at this game. However, as a fire support officer this is especially so:
The mission of field artillery is to destroy, neutralize, or suppress the enemy by cannon, rocket and missile fire and to help integrate all lethal and nonlethal fire support assets into combined arms operations.
I have received advanced training to increase my recognition and understanding of multiple assets and threats within the same area. I have integrated direct fire, indirect fire, and rotary wing aircraft all in the same engagement. I honestly believe this gives me an unfair advantage over some of my opponents and it is partially responsible for me wanting to drop from competitive gaming. The things you need to do to be a good gamer coincide with what I have been professionally trained to do.
4. Sometimes I wont lie.. I am just lucky.

Finally, for the record I hate 6th edition and cant wait for 7th to hit though I think it will take us further into the realm of a broken system. Grey knights broke 5th but they were still beatable if someone had enough dakka. In 6th edition its a whole new beast.

I believe the role of a Fire Support Officer is to run targeting meetings and develop a kick ass civil affairs plan =)

Tomb King is good at 40k.

/unneeded branch jab over

 Tomb King wrote:

Here are a few reasons why I excel at the game:
1. I have played with just about every army that has come out (never bough grey knights). I did this to understand an armies strength and weaknesses. I also do it because I get bored playing the same army for an extended period of time.
2. I come from a very good competitive based gaming group.
3. I am a fire support officer. Most military officers would excel at this game. However, as a fire support officer this is especially so:
The mission of field artillery is to destroy, neutralize, or suppress the enemy by cannon, rocket and missile fire and to help integrate all lethal and nonlethal fire support assets into combined arms operations.
I have received advanced training to increase my recognition and understanding of multiple assets and threats within the same area. I have integrated direct fire, indirect fire, and rotary wing aircraft all in the same engagement. I honestly believe this gives me an unfair advantage over some of my opponents and it is partially responsible for me wanting to drop from competitive gaming. The things you need to do to be a good gamer coincide with what I have been professionally trained to do.
4. Sometimes I wont lie.. I am just lucky.

As someone that has actually played you before(many times) all our matches where hard fought and wins did not come easy. As for #3 we all know Enlisted are the ones that control the troops while the officers play frisbee lol

 jy2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would like to hear how they justify deployment on top of the pod. I mean, wtf?

Maybe it's part of the rules of the Lucious? That you can "disembark" within the Lucious because you can actually fit the dread in there? I don't know for sure as I haven't seen their new rules. It's definitely an interesting mechanic but it didn't really make too much of a difference in this game.

Its just a case of Forgeworld writing terrible rules again. The rules for the Lucius gives Shrouded to anything standing on top of it/firing past it, which presumably meant standing on top of the petals. However because of the way this is worded you can argue that you can disembark on top of the main part of the Pod itself. I know Pascal clarified this with FW but I somehow doubt they actually understood what their own rules allowed you to do when they responded. There are absolutely no rules in the game which allow you to handle one model occupying the same space as another model, its a three dimensional game which never allows you to move on top of another model (i.e you have special rules for transports so you don't have two models in the same place) so the game just falls over. For example there is nothing stopping you assaulting the Dread inside the Pod if it has disembarked on top of it, because you ignore the 1" restriction when you are assaulting but then you end up on top of an enemy model in the process. In the absence of a tournament FAQ/TO who understands the rule/FW fixing their mess then allowing it to disembark on top of the Pod works RAW, but you just have to accept that the game mechanics could well fall over in the process.

You can't embark into an enemy vehicle. The pod is huge so it's easy to remain inside. The rules are fine.

Thank you for the input. Regarding the Lucious Drop Pod and disembarking within, it doesn't really matter. It's an unclear rule so Pascal brought it to our attention before the game. We were ok with them playing it that way, so whether it was RAW, RAI or wishful thinking, we gave them permission to play it the way they did. No harm, no foul. It's all good.

Besides, I wanted a challenge. Haha....j.k.

Yeah, when he explain this strange rule to me i was like "Wut ?", then he said he clarified it with the TOs and FW so in the end it was ok. Plus he explained it thoroughly to each of our opponents so there was no bad surprises for them.

Hey Adrien! Nice to meet you at the LVO. At the time of our game, I really didn't know how well you did at the Championships. Congrats on a job well done!

Thanks ! But at that time i didn't knew either =) They made a small mistake and gave the best daemon title to Goatboy during the "closing ceremony" even if I ended up right before him on overall ranking. Well.. in fact not by much, we were only separated by 3 or 4pts on the Strengh of Schedule (I was 3 ahead on battlepoints, but he had 3 more in painting) so we could say that we both ruled \o/

Yeah, despite playing as Desperate Allies and with only 1 scoring unit, I think you guys surprised a lot of people (well, your 1st 2 opponents, at least) with how dangerous and how well your armies actually worked together. Honestly, I was actually sweating a little after seeing what you got for your psychic powers.

Yep, 3 FMC + 2 SR is still pretty nasty whatsoever ! Plus those lucius pods are making dreads worth something (which is good given the BA current lack of cheesiness).

Once again, congrats on the Main Event and also for the success at the Teams Tournament.

Well you kicked our asses, so congrats to you =) It really was a good game. Plus you made what, 1st or 2nd of the team tourny ?

 RabbitMaster wrote:
Yeah, when he explain this strange rule to me i was like "Wut ?", then he said he clarified it with the TOs and FW so in the end it was ok. Plus he explained it thoroughly to each of our opponents so there was no bad surprises for them.

Hey Adrien! Nice to meet you at the LVO. At the time of our game, I really didn't know how well you did at the Championships. Congrats on a job well done!

Thanks ! But at that time i didn't knew either =) They made a small mistake and gave the best daemon title to Goatboy during the "closing ceremony" even if I ended up right before him on overall ranking. Well.. in fact not by much, we were only separated by 3 or 4pts on the Strengh of Schedule (I was 3 ahead on battlepoints, but he had 3 more in painting) so we could say that we both ruled \o/

Yeah, despite playing as Desperate Allies and with only 1 scoring unit, I think you guys surprised a lot of people (well, your 1st 2 opponents, at least) with how dangerous and how well your armies actually worked together. Honestly, I was actually sweating a little after seeing what you got for your psychic powers.

Yep, 3 FMC + 2 SR is still pretty nasty whatsoever ! Plus those lucius pods are making dreads worth something (which is good given the BA current lack of cheesiness).

Once again, congrats on the Main Event and also for the success at the Teams Tournament.

Well you kicked our asses, so congrats to you =) It really was a good game. Plus you made what, 1st or 2nd of the team tourny ?

Pascal's playing Blood Angels. That means....you've got to give them the benefit of the doubt.

No wonder I didn't know how well you did. Yeah, it was Goatboy who got the award for Best Daemons.

The combination of your army and Pascal's can hit like a ton of bricks. That's why you shouldn't really ever judge your opponents by just their lists. The synergies of the armies and player skill is much more important IMO and that's just what you guys had. Of course, our armies probably had a little more synergy.

We got Best Generals (most battle points). The other team that also went 3-0 get Best Overall due to better paint scores (and a nice display board).

Are the results for the tourny out yet? My google-fu is too weak to find them.

Here you go, buddy.


http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/02/12/lvo-results-and-pics/


Alex Fennell won the whole tournament (Warhammer 40K) with Seer Council Deldar and my round #5 opponent, Eric Hoerger, was Runner-up with White Scars.