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.

Faker isn't even that good...gets carried by Huni

Anyways sure. If you want to continue to think GW events is a big deal then fair enough. I won't stop you. Just trying to give out some serious advice!

As a regular weekend casual player, but one who does a lot of stats-related stuff for a living, I think the GW event has good data, it just needs to be viewed through a different lens to other data sets in a different format.

To me, LVO and similar events are good indicators of what happens when the game is played at the high end, because even with the wrinkles that a custom mission/scoring set bring, the rules that get exploited are often some of the worst edge cases or exceptions that need rebalancing.

The GW tournament events to e represent a nice condensed look at "How healthy is the game in it's intended role as a fun weekend game?" By that I mean the missions in play are not or very little difference from what weekenders might use, and reflect the performance of armies in that kind of environment. While competitive has a place and should be balanced for, GW ultimately wants to sell its model range and one of the better ways to maximize that is to make all factions relevant in this kind of format.

To that end I'm more concerned with what DIDN'T show up above the top X guys than what did

Audustum wrote:

KillswitchUK wrote:
Hahaha. Harsh but fair

As for what I said about heat 3 full of players that arnt good....well....to put it another way.....they arnt what you'd see a top end tournament to contain. If anyone thinks otherwise then fair enough. I'm just being brutally honest and sometimes the truth hurts. Damn I sound like Stelek

Well, it's your opinion of the truth. To 99% of us you're just some guy who also plays Warhammer posting on the internet (much like us). All I can gather is you and some other heavy hitter tournament player from the same region are disagreeing on how big a deal to make of this tournament.

40k doesn't have Fakers, Day9's, Idras and Bjergsons yet.

Ha ha I’m no heavy hitter. I’m a guy who enjoys playing with toy soldiers and results would suggest I’m not bad at it.
As far as disagreeing on what to make of t I just don’t think it’s fair to disregard it because it’s not the format you prefer and your buddies were not there with the lists you like.
Every major event has value and shows skill to compete in it and do well. That includes events where sportsmanship and painting are a factor. It’s not always just about beating face with the latest mathematically advantageous list.

Worth mentioning that the guy who won the event was the only guy who went undefeated, so in this case at least the hobby points didn't factor in at all.

 WindstormSCR wrote:


To that end I'm more concerned with what DIDN'T show up above the top X guys than what did

This i kinda agree with, as it has (from 8th ed history so far) an impact on what gets altered and nerfed - in addition to community outcry.

I've got a ticket for the LGT this year, but, as usual i'm leaving everything last minute to get everything sorted - especially due to the FAQ coming in March.

KillswitchUK wrote:
Faker isn't even that good...gets carried by Huni

Anyways sure. If you want to continue to think GW events is a big deal then fair enough. I won't stop you. Just trying to give out some serious advice!

If you want to continue to think you aren't biased in viewing the events you attend yourself/enjoy yourself as the "better/more competitive" side of things, I won't stop you. Just trying to show how you're falling for a self-serving bias.

So with the consensus being that the WHW tourneys aren't competitive and seemingly don't attract any of the "cool guys"...

How fast do the tickets sell out for these events? we talking minutes or days etc?
Sounds like a pretty awesome weekend especially with facilities on site.

Process wrote:
So with the consensus being that the WHW tourneys aren't competitive and seemingly don't attract any of the "cool guys"...

How fast do the tickets sell out for these events? we talking minutes or days etc?
Sounds like a pretty awesome weekend especially with facilities on site.

Not long at all, from what i remember - but we also have to remember that there was a lot of hype going into the ticket sales this time, due to it being "the return of GW GTs".

Not quite as fast as some of the "top" ITC events (the LCO in January sold something like 90% of it's tickets in 12 minutes, and the rest got picked up within 2 hours or so). I'm pretty sure Cale sells out quick as well.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

KillswitchUK wrote:
Faker isn't even that good...gets carried by Huni

Anyways sure. If you want to continue to think GW events is a big deal then fair enough. I won't stop you. Just trying to give out some serious advice!

If you want to continue to think you aren't biased in viewing the events you attend yourself/enjoy yourself as the "better/more competitive" side of things, I won't stop you. Just trying to show how you're falling for a self-serving bias.

I mean which events are ''better'' is obviously subjective. But I would have to agree with Killswitches points regarding competitive. An event with 25+ ETC players and the next row down a chunk of people trying to break into that bracket is going to be much more competitive than an event devoid of nearly all the Uk's proven big event top players.

Process wrote:
So with the consensus being that the WHW tourneys aren't competitive and seemingly don't attract any of the "cool guys"...

How fast do the tickets sell out for these events? we talking minutes or days etc?
Sounds like a pretty awesome weekend especially with facilities on site.

You can never compare the marketing of a GW event to a Indy event.

Kdash wrote:

Process wrote:
So with the consensus being that the WHW tourneys aren't competitive and seemingly don't attract any of the "cool guys"...

How fast do the tickets sell out for these events? we talking minutes or days etc?
Sounds like a pretty awesome weekend especially with facilities on site.

Not long at all, from what i remember - but we also have to remember that there was a lot of hype going into the ticket sales this time, due to it being "the return of GW GTs".

Not quite as fast as some of the "top" ITC events (the LCO in January sold something like 90% of it's tickets in 12 minutes, and the rest got picked up within 2 hours or so). I'm pretty sure Cale sells out quick as well.

That doesn't sound so bad.

Not gonna lie, for a person who is relatively new and has only played in a few small flgs tourneys, the comments in this thread would put me off any of the "top" tourneys you're on about.

The strange elitism regarding tourney type etc is really interesting, as if there's only one level to play at and if you're not at that level then you can't take it or the lists used "seriously".

It's not elitism, its an assessment of the fact that the lists used at the GW Heats were not optimal. If you want to enjoy a competitive, friendly and upto date with meta gaming then indy events are for you. Not a bad thing at all.

KillswitchUK wrote:
It's not elitism, its an assessment of the fact that the lists used at the GW Heats were not optimal. If you want to enjoy a competitive, friendly and upto date with meta gaming then indy events are for you. Not a bad thing at all.

Optimal for ETC/ITC or just not optimal in general? Surely for 3 eternal war missions the optimal list wouldn't be the same as for the ITC mission types?

It doesnt matter which. Eternal war missions are used in ETC missions. An optimal list run by a solid player can work in any mission type. You just need to adapt to the mission. Its a big misconception that you need to specify your list to certain missions. Perhaps making small minor changes yes, but an entirely new list design, no not at all.

One example is Nicks LVO Eldar list. The list is almost identical to my own Eldar list, apart from a few choices because our meta is different here in the UK (I take fire dragons, he takes deep striking guardians).

My points are because this thread has discussed about the GW Heats lists. I.e. "Im surprised to not see Eldar in the top 10). That could be because there wasnt many "Optimal" Eldar lists because thats not the type of tournament to see many "Optimal" lists. Eldar won Heat 2 because it was run by a good player with an "Optimal" list, it makes a big difference, nothing to do with the missions.

Now not retracting players who attend, you will find some of them are very good players, the majority however are there for a good time and some top class games which is perfectly understandable and I hope anyone who attended had a great time! It is a well run event and at the end of the day, you get to play some 40k, whats not to love?

However, don't expect to take the results of this event back to studying the "meta" or expecting a meta breaking list. That's all I'm coming at!

Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.


The Warhammer World event on the other hand plays 40K.


I still wouldn't draw too many conclusions for 40K in general from it, largely because it is still a self-selected sample and not representative of the full breath and spectrum of the game. Drawing game-design/balancing conclusions from a self-selected sample of lists inevitably leads to errors and even the bottom 10,000 list of any given tourney circuit is probably still in the top 1% of the game as a whole. But at least the Heat tournaments offer a self-selected and biased sample that is based on 40K rules, not a houseruled-variant standing apart from 40K like LVO & co.

There is at least some grounds for arguing it might be worthwhile too look at for game-design/balancing "pointers" .

Only real point from this is that you can take ork boyz, complete games and do ok - despite plenty of naysayers in other threads!

I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.

Ix_Tab wrote:
I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.

Putting aside all the talk of what constitutes "real" 40k, this above is pretty worrying on a number of levels. Firstly the idea that good tactical play is somehow bad for the game. Movement and positioning, beyond the rudimentary requirement to get LoS, is becoming less and less important so one of the designers calling a tactic that relies on that positioning bad form isn't the sort of thing I want to hear. Also, it seems the designers are pretty clueless about fairly basic tactics. We always suspected this but having it confirmed in this context just goes to show how little the designers seem to know their own game. Saying a fairly basic tactic that is about the only advantage close combat armies can leverage is somehow gamey doesn't exactly inspire a huge amount of confidence in the direction the game is heading.

None of the GW staff on the stream have a clue about 40k tactics. It's why they get play testers (number of ETC& ITC players) to test the game for them.

Slipspace wrote:

Ix_Tab wrote:
I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.

Putting aside all the talk of what constitutes "real" 40k, this above is pretty worrying on a number of levels. Firstly the idea that good tactical play is somehow bad for the game. Movement and positioning, beyond the rudimentary requirement to get LoS, is becoming less and less important so one of the designers calling a tactic that relies on that positioning bad form isn't the sort of thing I want to hear. Also, it seems the designers are pretty clueless about fairly basic tactics. We always suspected this but having it confirmed in this context just goes to show how little the designers seem to know their own game. Saying a fairly basic tactic that is about the only advantage close combat armies can leverage is somehow gamey doesn't exactly inspire a huge amount of confidence in the direction the game is heading.

I mean I see the point though. Daisy-chaining, bubble-wrapping et all are really foreign concepts to 40k. They certainly never existed in the "olden days". I am only familiar with daisy-chaining because you did it in Warmahordes to spread a unit out while keeping a model (usually the standard bearer, who often had no weapon) back to still put buffs on the unit.

It's no surprise GW does not like that kind of "tactic" because it exists 100% as a metagame concept. It is never something you would actually see in a battle, it's only because of game mechanics. GW designers, even the new ones, seem to be of the old guard as far as game philosophy. I don't find it that worrisome because I in a way agree with the designers in that such tactics stink of playing the rules versus playing the game, regardless of how effective they might be.

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Ix_Tab wrote:
I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.

Putting aside all the talk of what constitutes "real" 40k, this above is pretty worrying on a number of levels. Firstly the idea that good tactical play is somehow bad for the game. Movement and positioning, beyond the rudimentary requirement to get LoS, is becoming less and less important so one of the designers calling a tactic that relies on that positioning bad form isn't the sort of thing I want to hear. Also, it seems the designers are pretty clueless about fairly basic tactics. We always suspected this but having it confirmed in this context just goes to show how little the designers seem to know their own game. Saying a fairly basic tactic that is about the only advantage close combat armies can leverage is somehow gamey doesn't exactly inspire a huge amount of confidence in the direction the game is heading.

I mean I see the point though. Daisy-chaining, bubble-wrapping et all are really foreign concepts to 40k. They certainly never existed in the "olden days". I am only familiar with daisy-chaining because you did it in Warmahordes to spread a unit out while keeping a model (usually the standard bearer, who often had no weapon) back to still put buffs on the unit.

It's no surprise GW does not like that kind of "tactic" because it exists 100% as a metagame concept. It is never something you would actually see in a battle, it's only because of game mechanics. GW designers, even the new ones, seem to be of the old guard as far as game philosophy. I don't find it that worrisome because I in a way agree with the designers in that such tactics stink of playing the rules versus playing the game, regardless of how effective they might be.

If GW wants to fix it they can easily do so by adding the stipulation that charging models must move into contact if they are able and must otherwise move as close to their charge target as able.

Ix_Tab wrote:
I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.

It should be noted, Simon Grant spent the last 5 or so years roleplaying/pretending to be a real-life Space Wolf, pointing to pretty much everything and anything a not-a-Space-Wolf is doing as cowardly/not honourable/etc.. It's his personal schtick/sense of humour.

Trying to fill several hours of screen time sitting in front of a camera with talk and "good humoured chatter" isn't easy. Try it if you must. I wouldn't necessarily dissect throwaway comments from the stream as deeply philosophical coming-outs about the nature of the game.

Given that Dakka Dakka has a bent towards the US and that the US tournaments to be honest have been a lot better at marketing, many Dakka-ites hold LVO or Nova as the pinnacle of no holds barrred 40k competitive gaming.

The UK no holds barred indy scene has not been as visible because I dont think that the organisers have NEEDED to be as there has always been a strong core of attendees to help fill Indy events.

I am going to make a controversial statement and some of you may violently disagree The only real barometer of international competitiveness in 40k has been the ETC. America has done well in the past but England has consistently done better. The winners in the competition have been Poland / Germany. Someone must remind me which country won the last ETC. I find that the Home Nations generally use the indy circuit as practice for the ETC and in fact have some events in the calendar whose express purpose is to help prepare for the event.

If you truly want to know what is strongest meta-wise, chances are its being played on the indy circuit where ideas are being tested / weeded out by guys who are our closest equivalent to professionals in the 40k game. I do use the word professionals in the loosest way possible as even the ETC teams clearly are NOT and is still operates on effectively a volunteer basis.

I would never equate a Josh / Alex H / etc. to Faker etc. because we dont have such an operating environment and honestly dont think we need such a culture in 40k. However, given the number of competitive events that they do, they are a good barometer of where the game is going within the niche of no holds barred 40k . Games workshop events have evolved into a hybrid Renaissance Man Tournament and I do think that's a good/great thing.

I will say, I think an "official" GW grand tournament should hold more weight than an independent one, however major it might be. IIRC this was an actual GW-sponsored grand tournament, at Warhammer World itself, not something run by a third party. That should, by all rights, give it more credibility due to being the official GT.

It's funny you should say that Wayniac. I agree!

I think the winner of THE 40k GT run by GW should be someone that represents that best in the hobby. i.e. a great general, a great painter and a great sportsman. The scoring at the GW GT tries to reflect this.

However, if you are looking for the latest and greatest in 40k list tech the GW GT CAN be helpful but more likely you will find your answer at the indy GTs in the UK because of how they are scored (which is very GAME SCORE heavy). I would caveat that the STYLE of indy events should also be considered (ITC vs ETC) as the format will also determine competitiveness.

The UK and European GT scene is just a lot more darwinian than the US. Many have made the observation that there is just a lot less space in between gamers and events in Europe and as a result there can be more testing and we are by nature "up the curve". If ITC events do take off in the UK, I suspect that because we can hold so many more of these events with a core group of attendees compared to the US, the UK may end up dictating the meta. Who knows? Tournament subculture in the UK has been fragmented for a number of years when the original GW GTs got stopped - I certainly find myself chuckling when nascent tournament winners find out that there is a sea out there besides the pond they had been swimming in before...

In fact because of the way the marketing has panned out, even some UK players think that GW tournaments and LVO/Nova are the pinnacle of competitive gaming. Sorry I have massively digressed...

Nidzrule! wrote:
Given that etc

You know what the ETC is gak at compared to ITC?

Marketing and PR.

The ETC barely has a web presence. It's virtually invisible. I think there was a forum once but it's dead, isn't it?

Find me the official and up to date ETC rulespack. I fething challenge you! Now compare that experience to finding the ITC champions missions.

I know loads of the top players and TO's talk on FB and WhatsApp and stuff but compare it to FLG's efforts:
- a fugly but passable website
- a weekly live twitch stream discussion with news and event info
- An online scoreboard to see where you stand
- Weekly batreps with their mission packs being played and compared

It's night and day.

There's also the aspect of public ability to qualify for the teams and take part in the ETC. On a podcast the other day someone (Andrew Gonyo???) said there used to be a qualifying process for team americal (world police) but now he just picks the players.

The ETC is fabled as being the most competitive and I am pretty sure it is. But its branding is that of a secret society closed shop gentleman's club where you need to know the right guy who knows the right guy to get in.

Compare that to the LVO where little old me could show up with Codex: My Dudes and be slowplaying Tony Grippando by the middle of round 1.




I feel like the UK/Euro scene badly needs a Reece Robbins, frankly.

But that's just... like... my opinion, dude.

 Silentz wrote:

Nidzrule! wrote:
Given that etc

You know what the ETC is gak at compared to ITC?
Marketing and PR.

The ETC barely has a web presence. It's virtually invisible. I think there was a forum once but it's dead, isn't it?

Find me the official and up to date ETC rulespack. I fething challenge you! Now compare that experience to finding the ITC champions missions.

I know loads of the top players and TO's talk on FB and WhatsApp and stuff but compare it to FLG's efforts:
- a fugly but passable website
- a weekly live twitch stream discussion with news and event info
- An online scoreboard to see where you stand
- Weekly batreps with their mission packs being played and compared

It's night and day.

There's also the aspect of public ability to qualify for the teams and take part in the ETC. On a podcast the other day someone (Andrew Gonyo???) said there used to be a qualifying process for team americal (world police) but now he just picks the players.

The ETC is fabled as being the most competitive and I am pretty sure it is. But its branding is that of a secret society closed shop gentleman's club where you need to know the right guy who knows the right guy to get in.

Compare that to the LVO where little old me could show up with Codex: My Dudes and be slowplaying Tony Grippando by the middle of round 1.

I feel like the UK/Euro scene badly needs a Reece Robbins, frankly.

But that's just... like... my opinion, dude.

Lol, I have a feeling you’re trolling good sir but I will bite anyways:

1) The ETC does not need marketing. It is well known and every team in the world is aware of the rulespack. The missions are available via Facebook groups or Emailed to team captains. It is a TEAM event which countries can utilise for their own tournaments to practice in preparation for the event.

2) I can send you the rulespack if you’d like, but a prime example is Caledonian Uprising utilises the majority of the rules including a 30 page FAQ which is regularly updated.

3) The scoreboard is great but in the past we used something called Rankings HQ. A lot of players (including on that ITC rankings board) just attend small tourneys to get more points and whoever attend the most of these unheard of tourneys in the middle of nowhere will end up topping the charts. It doesn't work. The only way a rankings table works is if it is regulated by a certain number of tourneys and by that those tourneys must be registered and proven to contain players that exist and the tourney should have a minimum of…say 60 players. It is a nightmare to create something like that, and the UK scene has never been bothered about it.

4) As for the batreps and live twitch streaming, that is because FLG/ITC is run by a company. No one in the UK has that capacity at the moment, however if someone steps up, I’m sure it will work! One lad is attemtping to start something similar, Dan Bates from Spartan Wargames (New company with his own Twitch Stream)

5) Want to know how to apply to the ETC? ASK!!!!! I am a member and we have been publicly announcing events which we attend on the facebook page “Team England 40k Community”… Search it on Facebook, ANYONE can gain access to it and see where and when we will be there. Come up to us, introduce yourself. We are a group of FRIENDS. What is the use in making a “table” to see if you are good enough by attending all these events we have never heard of when the basics of a TEAM is to know each other? Come chat, play some games at our numerous practice weekends and lets see if you really are any good. If we use a scoring system, we end up with 2 or 3 guys whom aren’t actually up to standards, never even played with before and don’t hav the time to practice with us? Yes that comes across as a secret club, but we take it very serious and if some random guy takes up one of our positions (which is more than welcome to if proven worthwhile) then we’d like to at least know them and get on with them. It’s a huge social week of drinking, laughing and gaming, it’s a good start to know us?

6) As for the Scene needing more access to knowledge on gameplay, its not cheap to setup a rig like the LVO. The London GT comes close but we are getting there. Problem is the 40k scene diminished in 6th and 7th and is only just picking back up, and GW streaming just wont work (poor effort to promote competitive play/lists and no knowledge of tactical commentary).

If you are genuinely interested in competitive play and want to get involved with the ETC or would like to know more about which tourneys to attend, get on facebook and find “Team England 40k Community” and get on there. Or simply message me and I am more than happy to answer any questions.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.

That's incorrect. The ITC has very few rules changes this season. The main difference is their custom missions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.xdqssu9alogj

Uuh that was kind of his point. "Ask". "Email" "facebook". Needed for etc, less so for itc. People curious about it and who might be interested about it can easily find all the info right away. Is email address of person whom to send at least easily found? And even then extra step compared to itc.


As is i have zero idea about etc rules. Could play with itc rules any day despite never having attended one(not much of that around here)

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.

That's incorrect. The ITC has very few rules changes this season. The main difference is their custom missions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.xdqssu9alogj

I think ITC missions, especially the use of secondaries, can significantly shift a meta compared to the 'base' game.