Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?

Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

Give players like that a basic list and they would probably make it work better than you would. Skill matters.

DontEatRawHagis wrote:
I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?

Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

Most of them (not all) would still place well. Player skill (regardless of the inevitable howling that this will generate) is still tremendously important in 40k. Understanding where your opponent will screen, how he will do it, what objectives benefit him, all these things matter and a better more experienced player will come out on top most of the time.

How about a 40k tournament where you build the worst list possible, and then swap armies with your opponent?

 infinite_array wrote:
How about a 40k tournament where you build the worst list possible, and then swap armies with your opponent?

We run an event like this in my club. You write the worst possible 1,000 point list, swap with your opponent and go.

 infinite_array wrote:
How about a 40k tournament where you build the worst list possible, and then swap armies with your opponent?

Just like a normal tournament - it'd sound like a wonderful idea with players using the maximum strategy possible, but someone would find a stupid combo to create units that just couldn't fight at all, and everyone would bring pretty much the same list featuring some unarmed tau drone, or armless weaponless tyranid groobly or something.

the_scotsman wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
How about a 40k tournament where you build the worst list possible, and then swap armies with your opponent?

Just like a normal tournament - it'd sound like a wonderful idea with players using the maximum strategy possible, but someone would find a stupid combo to create units that just couldn't fight at all, and everyone would bring pretty much the same list featuring some unarmed tau drone, or armless weaponless tyranid groobly or something.

Nah, you just have to restrict purchased terrain or else someone will just bring that. As long as you restrict fortifications and require players to field legal lists in legal detachments its actually pretty fun. It wouldn't work for like a 400 person event but for a club level thing? Its a blast.

Reminds me of an idea I had that gained no traction in our group.

I was thinking about an army draft. A bunch of equally priced units are placed on the table - you roll off to see who picks first. Then each side takes turns picking.

Kind of like a magic draft - which almost always produces a better game than pro deck vs pro deck. Skill and game knowledge matters more here.

 infinite_array wrote:
How about a 40k tournament where you build the worst list possible, and then swap armies with your opponent?

I’d rather see a tournament filled with mediocre armies than “worst possible”. I think that would be a HUGE shakeup to the meta.

Also, for as much moaning people have done about the game being about listbuilding, it’s somewhat amusing to see comments about skill having a whole lot of influnece (though I do believe its true - I do believe many of the top players could still place/win tournaments with “joe average” lists against a lot of other people’s optimized net list lists, it just would be an uphill battle).

There have been mirror match tournaments before (WargamesCon in Texas ran one once, at 1850 1500, I think in 6th or 7th? I remember it because the list was pretty pedestrian) where players were required to bring a pre-built list proscribed by the tournament organizer.

The usual suspects still trounced everyone iirc.

EDIT:
Here's a blog post of battle reports from said mirror match tournament in 2011. It's actually a good read, and there's plenty of "tactical positioning" and using units as bait and whatever whatever that shows up, so it kinda puts paid to the idea that 40k didn't have that:
http://rumorsofheresy.blogspot.com/2011/07/bolsgamescon-mirror-match-tournament.html

 Xenomancers wrote:
Reminds me of an idea I had that gained no traction in our group.

I was thinking about an army draft. A bunch of equally priced units are placed on the table - you roll off to see who picks first. Then each side takes turns picking.

Kind of like a magic draft - which almost always produces a better game than pro deck vs pro deck. Skill and game knowledge matters more here.

That sounds like it would be a lot of fun to try. Maybe shift it to an apocalypse/team game even?

 Stormonu wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
How about a 40k tournament where you build the worst list possible, and then swap armies with your opponent?

I’d rather see a tournament filled with mediocre armies than “worst possible”. I think that would be a HUGE shakeup to the meta.

Also, for as much moaning people have done about the game being about listbuilding, it’s somewhat amusing to see comments about skill having a whole lot of influnece (though I do believe its true - I do believe many of the top players could still place/win tournaments with “joe average” lists against a lot of other people’s optimized net list lists, it just would be an uphill battle).

This very much depends. Skill can't overcome a gun line that you'd can't penetrate nor can it deal with deepstrike alpha damage that a lot of net lists put out. It's just can't. However - if your lists has a bunch of 2nd best options instead of first best options. Those kinds of lists have a chance and in certain circumstances - an advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Reminds me of an idea I had that gained no traction in our group.

I was thinking about an army draft. A bunch of equally priced units are placed on the table - you roll off to see who picks first. Then each side takes turns picking.

Kind of like a magic draft - which almost always produces a better game than pro deck vs pro deck. Skill and game knowledge matters more here.

That sounds like it would be a lot of fun to try. Maybe shift it to an apocalypse/team game even?

It would work way better in teams I think. We play a lot of 2v2 in my area anyways. I just don't think people typically like people using their models.

The top tournament players aren't a special breed, they're just better at 40k. If you forced the best players to play bottom-tier armies, you'd see the players just below them in skill level winning with the top-tier armies. A really good player with a mediocre list may be able to outperform a mediocre player with a really good list, but there aren't just those two kinds of players.

Skill matters but its only part of the equation. The best player with the worst list isn't going to win a big tournament but he will do better then others would have done with the same list.

And the armies we see at top are unlikely to change if you remove the 'best' players. The lists are not 'great unknowns' that no one else has figured out (sometimes it happens but rarely).
You would still see Ynarri or Tyranids ect at the top.

 Ordana wrote:
Skill matters but its only part of the equation. The best player with the worst list isn't going to win a big tournament but he will do better then others would have done with the same list.

And the armies we see at top are unlikely to change if you remove the 'best' players. The lists are not 'great unknowns' that no one else has figured out (sometimes it happens but rarely).
You would still see Ynarri or Tyranids ect at the top.

Depends on the lists in question some of them are actually pretty easy to counter if you don't know how to make them function.

The gap between them and tier 2 players is not large enough to expect them to win at major events. That said they would still perform well. They would figure out the best list available to them and play it.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Skill matters but its only part of the equation. The best player with the worst list isn't going to win a big tournament but he will do better then others would have done with the same list.

And the armies we see at top are unlikely to change if you remove the 'best' players. The lists are not 'great unknowns' that no one else has figured out (sometimes it happens but rarely).
You would still see Ynarri or Tyranids ect at the top.

Depends on the lists in question some of them are actually pretty easy to counter if you don't know how to make them function.

I was thinking this as well. One of the lists I played at NOVA, for example, was played by Fennel, who is a fantastic player. I was running a superheavy tank company supported by deep-striking scions in the Index days, back before they were nerfed. His list was definitely at a crippling disadvantage against mine - trying to spam mortal wounds at short range doesn't really work when I have 78 wounds on the board and you have to get through 26 of them to really put the pressure on my list. But he was clever, used terrain to his advantage ("BUT TERRAIN DOESN'T BLOCK LOS IN 8TH" - yes thank you peanut gallery. Now back to the real world...), and was able to come out victorious. My army was not meaningfully harmed by his, but with very very careful positioning and prioritizing the objectives over doing damage, he used his numerical superiority to score objectives over my big scary tanks, without actually killing a single one.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I was thinking about an army draft. A bunch of equally priced units are placed on the table - you roll off to see who picks first. Then each side takes turns picking.

That's a nice idea !

I remember doing something similar with some friends, where we would bring 2500pts to a 2000pts game, and each player would "BAN" 500pts from the opponent's army. It was really fun and always ended up making balanced games.

If you really wanted to see skill then have the event organizer make up lists for each army type (codex and/or soup) and restrict players to those lists. The player still chooses which list he wants to play but that's all he chooses. Assuming you could even get people to attend it would probably be a showcase for skill vs list building but there's no way to discount luck.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you really wanted to see skill then have the event organizer make up lists for each army type (codex and/or soup) and restrict players to those lists. The player still chooses which list he wants to play but that's all he chooses. Assuming you could even get people to attend it would probably be a showcase for skill vs list building but there's no way to discount luck.

I don't dislike that idea at all. I do think though most players wouldn't enjoy it as it discounts the whole 'my guys' concept of 40k.

DontEatRawHagis wrote:
I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?

Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

I suspect that few to none would make it anywhere near where they would have otherwise placed. Listbuilding is by far the single most important factor to victory. Good generals with bad lists can defeat bad generals with good lists, but a good general with a bad list is usually going lose to a mediocre player with a good list and will get demolished by a mediocre player with a great list.

Sometimes great players dont take the strongest list to a tournament, and they dont tend to place highly when they do, theres a reason the top lists tend to be what they are.

 Vaktathi wrote:

DontEatRawHagis wrote:
I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?

Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

I suspect that few to none would make it anywhere near where they would have otherwise placed. Listbuilding is by far the single most important factor to victory. Good generals with bad lists can defeat bad generals with good lists, but a good general with a bad list is usually going lose to a mediocre player with a good list and will get demolished by a mediocre player with a great list.

Sometimes great players dont take the strongest list to a tournament, and they dont tend to place highly when they do, theres a reason the top lists tend to be what they are.

No there's a reason the same players tend to show up time after time at the top of events regardless of which army they bring. List building matters in 40k but I'd put my money on Nick Nanivanti with an average list to still take a podium spot regardless of what other people are playing.

Back in 7th the german tournaments set a money price for the first top player who takes a low tier army to a big tournament and make it top 5
this was a direct reaction to a podcast were those players argued that low tier armies can change the meta if played right and unusual builds can take the top armies by surprise and of course that skill matters much more than having the perfect army list
none of them took the challenge and tried it


of course 40k needs skill
but there is also a huge amount of "know your enemy"
and skill alone does not compensate the gab between top and low tier armies
balance is better than in 6th or 7th, but were are still far away

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

DontEatRawHagis wrote:
I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?

Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

I suspect that few to none would make it anywhere near where they would have otherwise placed. Listbuilding is by far the single most important factor to victory. Good generals with bad lists can defeat bad generals with good lists, but a good general with a bad list is usually going lose to a mediocre player with a good list and will get demolished by a mediocre player with a great list.

Sometimes great players dont take the strongest list to a tournament, and they dont tend to place highly when they do, theres a reason the top lists tend to be what they are.

No there's a reason the same players tend to show up time after time at the top of events regardless of which army they bring. List building matters in 40k but I'd put my money on Nick Nanivanti with an average list to still take a podium spot regardless of what other people are playing.

When such happens, especially more than once, let me know.

Otherwise what we see is such players tend to move from army to army or list to list over time, constantly optimizing armies and catering them to each event and major meta change, not running 2nd rate lists or armies and placing, especiay not anything near consistently.

Theres a reason we look at army and faction placement, not individual players, when judging army power. When you show up at a 200 person event, and none of the 20 players running army X make it into even the top 50, thats a mathematically strong argument that tactical command skill is a distinctly secondary factor next to faction power and list construction.

40k doesn't require skill at all, it requires you get first turn and have some common sense with target priority.

In a game so ruled by random dice skill is meaningless for the most part.

hobojebus wrote:
40k doesn't require skill at all, it requires you get first turn and have some common sense with target priority.

In a game so ruled by random dice skill is meaningless for the most part.

Again if that's the case then why do the same group of people consistently win events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
When such happens, especially more than once, let me know.

Otherwise what we see is such players tend to move from army to army or list to list over time, constantly optimizing armies and catering them to each event and major meta change, not running 2nd rate lists or armies and placing, especiay not anything near consistently.

Theres a reason we look at army and faction placement, not individual players, when judging army power. When you show up at a 200 person event, and none of the 20 players running army X make it into even the top 50, thats a mathematically strong argument that tactical command skill is a distinctly secondary factor next to faction power and list construction.

There's also a reason that the same names consistently show up regardless of the army they're playing. That's a mathematically strong argument that tactical command skill is an important factor in overall placement.

 Nym wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I was thinking about an army draft. A bunch of equally priced units are placed on the table - you roll off to see who picks first. Then each side takes turns picking.

That's a nice idea !

I remember doing something similar with some friends, where we would bring 2500pts to a 2000pts game, and each player would "BAN" 500pts from the opponent's army. It was really fun and always ended up making balanced games.

Another cool idea.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

DontEatRawHagis wrote:
I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?

Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

Most of them (not all) would still place well. Player skill (regardless of the inevitable howling that this will generate) is still tremendously important in 40k. Understanding where your opponent will screen, how he will do it, what objectives benefit him, all these things matter and a better more experienced player will come out on top most of the time.

It's not really howling, it's just wrong. Skill does matter, but army selection and list matter a lot more.

Give the Adepticon champ an Adepta Sororitas army and make him fight a midling player with Ynnari/Dark Reapers. He's gonna get wrecked.

it probably wouldn't end well, whilst I'm not belittling any of the players who consistently place in events I think part of that is making informed meta choices along with looking at a tournaments scoring system and tweaking an army to maximise 'scoring' potential, so some factions naturally struggle in 2-3 turn environment whilst being reasonably playable in full 5-6 turn games

Audustum wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

DontEatRawHagis wrote:
I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?

Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

Most of them (not all) would still place well. Player skill (regardless of the inevitable howling that this will generate) is still tremendously important in 40k. Understanding where your opponent will screen, how he will do it, what objectives benefit him, all these things matter and a better more experienced player will come out on top most of the time.

It's not really howling, it's just wrong. Skill does matter, but army selection and list matter a lot more.

Give the Adepticon champ an Adepta Sororitas army and make him fight a midling player with Ynnari/Dark Reapers. He's gonna get wrecked.

So let's disregard that a pure Sisters list is A) a fairly good list even by codex standards and that B) a pure sisters list hurts reaper spam due to access to strong indirect fire and move on to the core issue which is your overall lack of understanding of what is and isn't competitive. How can you judge the impact of player skill vs. list when you don't understand either? You've instead spouted a buzzword and then selected an army you presumably think is bad to illustrate a point. To talk to the point, Matt Root took a War Convocation to the 2017 LVO and made the top 8 with it despite at that point it being non viable against the top of the meta (and went on to win the overall ITC as a result).

I apologize for being rude but ultimately I don't see how your opinion is worthwhile given a lack of understanding of what is actually driving success in those environments. Part of the nature of these events and why they shift the meta is that the best players are making lists that take the most advantage of the tournaments individual rule sets. Its relatively provable (by looking at the final standings of Adepticon) that 'top tier netlists' don't raise poor players up to the top of the event.