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.

 Horst wrote:
Looking at the ITC missions vs the Adepticon missions, I really don't see why Knights / Eldar would do worse in ITC than Adepticon. Can someone explain this to me, what exactly makes it worse for them? Otherwise, I think this is kind of a mark in favor of balance of the game, that a tournament has as much chance for Orks / GSC to do well as Knights / Eldar.

Knights I get, with very low placing.. but top 25 had 3 Aeldari listings, 2 of which were in top 5. You consider this poor placement? I’m just confused is all. Anyway, a lot has to do with the fact in ITC there are primary and secondary missions. Players have higher chances of scoring points, even if they are being blown away models wise. Play to the objectives you have chosen/mission you rolled and you will go far in ITC. The only thing I can think of is with missions have far less objectives in adepticon format, mass hordes of let’s say orks or gsc are able to hold the table better, if that makes sense

Though the ITC secondaries could probably use a little re-balancing. At times it feels fairly easy for imperial lists that abuse some of the missions which other armies just can't quite do. Or perhaps it's just knights soaking up so many army list points but yielding comparatively few mission points for your enemy vs the effort they have to expend to earn those points.

Wayniac wrote:
The real diversity here shows the problem is the ITC Missions. Every event that doesn't use them has very different army spreads than the ones that do, indicating that they are the main contributing factor.

edited by ingtaer.

The dynamic is not that different.

Primaries - up to 30 points for these. This is not very different from hold and hold more.

• Worth 2 Victory Points to the player that controls it at the start of their turn. No VPs may be scored in this
manner during Battle Round 1. Contested Objectives score no points for either player.

• Worth 1 Victory Point to a player if, by the end of their turn, they take control of an Objective that was
controlled by their opponent at its beginning. VPs may be scored in this manner from Battle Round 1 forward

Secondaries - up to 12 points. This is not horribly different from kill & kill more.

Every 100 points worth of enemy units destroyed by the end of the game (rounded to the nearest 100) is worth 1
Victory Point.
 Example A: 4 units worth 495 points rounds to 500/100 = 5 Victory Points
 Example B: 4 units worth 650 points rounds to 700/100 = 7 Victory Points
 Example C: 8 units worth 320 points rounds to 300/100 = 3 Victory Points
 Example D: 1 unit worth 385 points rounds to 400/100 = 4 Victory Points
 Example E: 1 unit worth 40 points rounds to 0/100 = 0 Victory Points

Tertiaries - 2 points each

Line Breaker: At the end of the game, have one or more of your units entirely within your opponent’s
Deployment Zone. Flyers count for this Tertiary and do not have to be in Hover mode.
• Solo Blood: During the game, in the same Battle Round, destroy an enemy unit without your opponent
destroying any of your units.
• Vanguard: At the beginning of any of your turns after the first Battle Round, have more than one of your units
entirely within your opponent's deployment zone.

Additionally, Adepticon gives you 4 points wipeout bonus of 4 points and uses differential scoring.

You also place all the terrain and objectives meaning if you're not careful you can really screw yourself over on primaries and firing lanes.

So it boils down to - hold a bunch of gak and kill a bunch of gak. With 6 bonus points for tertiaries. That's it. No variety for any mission beyond the deployment zone.

To get max primary you have to hold 3 objectives for 5 rounds, which can be hard to do with IS if you've gone first. The get max secondary vs a Castellan you just have to kill everything except the Castellan. So, if you can kill a bunch of IS and hide enough guys - you win.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Horst wrote:
Looking at the ITC missions vs the Adepticon missions, I really don't see why Knights / Eldar would do worse in ITC than Adepticon. Can someone explain this to me, what exactly makes it worse for them? Otherwise, I think this is kind of a mark in favor of balance of the game, that a tournament has as much chance for Orks / GSC to do well as Knights / Eldar.

Knights I get, with very low placing.. but top 25 had 3 Aeldari listings, 2 of which were in top 5. You consider this poor placement? I’m just confused is all. Anyway, a lot has to do with the fact in ITC there are primary and secondary missions. Players have higher chances of scoring points, even if they are being blown away models wise. Play to the objectives you have chosen/mission you rolled and you will go far in ITC. The only thing I can think of is with missions have far less objectives in adepticon format, mass hordes of let’s say orks or gsc are able to hold the table better, if that makes sense

There is no such think like top 24, only top 16 played extra rounds. The Adepticon point rules are strange, if the losing opponent want to be kind to you, he can concede and give you full 40 pts and pump your ranking. Sadly in BCP they completely removed round 5 bracket losers, but as far as i can remember there were 4 orc players and 1 mirror orc match up, 2 tao players, 2 or maybe 3 chaos players, SM player, IK player, GSC player. Can`t believe they just deleted the bracket just because the losing player conceded to give his opponent full 40 pts.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The real diversity here shows the problem is the ITC Missions. Every event that doesn't use them has very different army spreads than the ones that do, indicating that they are the main contributing factor.

edited by ingtaer.

The dynamic is not that different.

Primaries - up to 30 points for these. This is not very different from hold and hold more.

• Worth 2 Victory Points to the player that controls it at the start of their turn. No VPs may be scored in this
manner during Battle Round 1. Contested Objectives score no points for either player.

• Worth 1 Victory Point to a player if, by the end of their turn, they take control of an Objective that was
controlled by their opponent at its beginning. VPs may be scored in this manner from Battle Round 1 forward

Secondaries - up to 12 points. This is not horribly different from kill & kill more.

Every 100 points worth of enemy units destroyed by the end of the game (rounded to the nearest 100) is worth 1
Victory Point.
 Example A: 4 units worth 495 points rounds to 500/100 = 5 Victory Points
 Example B: 4 units worth 650 points rounds to 700/100 = 7 Victory Points
 Example C: 8 units worth 320 points rounds to 300/100 = 3 Victory Points
 Example D: 1 unit worth 385 points rounds to 400/100 = 4 Victory Points
 Example E: 1 unit worth 40 points rounds to 0/100 = 0 Victory Points

Tertiaries - 2 points each

Line Breaker: At the end of the game, have one or more of your units entirely within your opponent’s
Deployment Zone. Flyers count for this Tertiary and do not have to be in Hover mode.
• Solo Blood: During the game, in the same Battle Round, destroy an enemy unit without your opponent
destroying any of your units.
• Vanguard: At the beginning of any of your turns after the first Battle Round, have more than one of your units
entirely within your opponent's deployment zone.

Additionally, Adepticon gives you 4 points wipeout bonus of 4 points and uses differential scoring.

You also place all the terrain and objectives meaning if you're not careful you can really screw yourself over on primaries and firing lanes.

So it boils down to - hold a bunch of gak and kill a bunch of gak. With 6 bonus points for tertiaries. That's it. No variety for any mission beyond the deployment zone.

To get max primary you have to hold 3 objectives for 5 rounds, which can be hard to do with IS if you've gone first. The get max secondary vs a Castellan you just have to kill everything except the Castellan. So, if you can kill a bunch of IS and hide enough guys - you win.

The balance between objectives and kill points is very different at Adepticon. With so many more points available for objectives than for kill points you really can't go into it with a "just kill stuff while holding one objective" strategy and hope to go all the way. That does force some different list design decisions. Also the kill points are for points value of units killed rather than a count of units, that really lets the MSU armies run without too much penalty unlike ITC where they get hit hard.

The lack of variety is similar to ITC and if the Adepticon format was widely and frequently used I suspect it would quite quickly end up with a "solved" meta as a result. As it is only one tournament per year there are enough new releases between events that it never really hits that problem.

So what does the adepticon meta end up as in the end? Swarm objectives with enough stuff for them to not be killed, and have some super killy unit of your own to plink the opposing army here and there? With eldar playing the flyer base stand game ?

Still hoping someone else (laziness...) will do a proper faction breakdown. Much like FLG show here for the LVO: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/03/02/lvo-stats-part-1-lvo-faction-breakdowns-and-overall-analysis/

I feel any statistical analysis can be questioned "but what showed up" tends to indicate what people think is good right now.

This is interesting to me, because how a tournament's rules function matters, but the actual meta of armies you meet matters too. If 25% of lists are IG+Knights, some of them are likely to go through. If at say Adepticon that number was far lower, thats interesting in itself even before you speculate on why.

In the same way Orks did really well here. Was that just good play that saw them scoop 4 in the top 10, 7 in the top 24 (I accept there are arguments that outside top 16 is meaningless) - or was the tournament flooded with Orks? So instead of representing 8% of lists they were up at 20%. In which case a better performance isn't surprising, because if the game is vaguely balanced, and player skill isn't hugely determining, more players of a faction should equal higher placings.

There are also meta impacts of the armies that show up. I feel the Guard+Castellan is a gatekeeper list. If 25% of lists in a 6 game tournament are such a list, the odds of not facing such a list are 0.75^6=18%. I think you have about a 35% chance of facing them once, and therefore a 47% of facing them twice or more. Therefore if you can't deal with them you are probably not going to go 6-0.

If however they are not 25% of lists, their gate keeping impact is much reduced. If only 10% of players play IG+Castellan then you have a 53% chance not to see one in 6 games.

(The percentages are probably higher if we think IG+Castellan has an above average win percentage, and so the chances of running into it increase over a tournament, but calculating that would require more data - hopefully the point is clear regardless.)

 Smirrors wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Diversity in the ITC is terrible.
Diversity outside of the ITC has been healthy for a while.

Maybe someday they will see the connection, but I wouldn't bet on it.

What makes the Castellan so good in ITC but hardly at all in the top 24 at Adepticon (14th and 24th).

I think its less the Castellan itself and more the army around it and how it interacts with the mission.

ITC lets you castle up very hard because objectives are meaningless. You only need to sit on one, maybe 2. This lets Guard + Knight armies keep very compact and static, just pumping out raw firepower with nothing else to worry about.
Non-ITC missions tend to force armies to spread out more, by having all objectives give points every turn, or through Maelstrom making you go from objective to objective.

More spread out means more openings for something to deal with a Knight, plus without secondaries heavily influencing armylists you get different lists that have answers to Knights that would not be viable in an ITC enviroment.

Take for example the Tau list that won the GW finals. It was a load of small drone units with whole bunch of Piranha's chuck full of seeker missiles. It gives alpha strike with the missiles to kill a knight while the small drone units make it much harder to remove them, forcing you to split fire more and more instead of focusing on just 2 big units with little fear of overkill. All while Piranha's have the speed to roam around and claim objectives.

In ITC such a list would be horrible because your giving up Kill More, Butchers Bill and probably Gangbuster every turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The real diversity here shows the problem is the ITC Missions. Every event that doesn't use them has very different army spreads than the ones that do, indicating that they are the main contributing factor.

edited by ingtaer.

The dynamic is not that different.

Primaries - up to 30 points for these. This is not very different from hold and hold more.

• Worth 2 Victory Points to the player that controls it at the start of their turn. No VPs may be scored in this
manner during Battle Round 1. Contested Objectives score no points for either player.

• Worth 1 Victory Point to a player if, by the end of their turn, they take control of an Objective that was
controlled by their opponent at its beginning. VPs may be scored in this manner from Battle Round 1 forward

Secondaries - up to 12 points. This is not horribly different from kill & kill more.

Every 100 points worth of enemy units destroyed by the end of the game (rounded to the nearest 100) is worth 1
Victory Point.
 Example A: 4 units worth 495 points rounds to 500/100 = 5 Victory Points
 Example B: 4 units worth 650 points rounds to 700/100 = 7 Victory Points
 Example C: 8 units worth 320 points rounds to 300/100 = 3 Victory Points
 Example D: 1 unit worth 385 points rounds to 400/100 = 4 Victory Points
 Example E: 1 unit worth 40 points rounds to 0/100 = 0 Victory Points

Tertiaries - 2 points each

Line Breaker: At the end of the game, have one or more of your units entirely within your opponent’s
Deployment Zone. Flyers count for this Tertiary and do not have to be in Hover mode.
• Solo Blood: During the game, in the same Battle Round, destroy an enemy unit without your opponent
destroying any of your units.
• Vanguard: At the beginning of any of your turns after the first Battle Round, have more than one of your units
entirely within your opponent's deployment zone.

Additionally, Adepticon gives you 4 points wipeout bonus of 4 points and uses differential scoring.

You also place all the terrain and objectives meaning if you're not careful you can really screw yourself over on primaries and firing lanes.

So it boils down to - hold a bunch of gak and kill a bunch of gak. With 6 bonus points for tertiaries. That's it. No variety for any mission beyond the deployment zone.

To get max primary you have to hold 3 objectives for 5 rounds, which can be hard to do with IS if you've gone first. The get max secondary vs a Castellan you just have to kill everything except the Castellan. So, if you can kill a bunch of IS and hide enough guys - you win.

I would say the Primary is massively different from ITC's Hold / Hold more.

ITC you only care about 1/2 objectives. by giving points for every single objective your forcing armies to spread out much more instead of castling up and instead of getting 1/2 points per turn your more likely to get 4 to 7 (2-3 objectives held, 1 taken from the enemy)
Weighting Objectives over killing goes directly opposed to ITC which is killing over holding by a huge margin.

I'm glad the ITC crown has meet my expectations. Now we just need those Ork's players that should be playing SoB with that martyr complex they carry on their backs.

happy_inquisitor wrote:


The balance between objectives and kill points is very different at Adepticon. With so many more points available for objectives than for kill points you really can't go into it with a "just kill stuff while holding one objective" strategy and hope to go all the way. That does force some different list design decisions. Also the kill points are for points value of units killed rather than a count of units, that really lets the MSU armies run without too much penalty unlike ITC where they get hit hard.

The lack of variety is similar to ITC and if the Adepticon format was widely and frequently used I suspect it would quite quickly end up with a "solved" meta as a result. As it is only one tournament per year there are enough new releases between events that it never really hits that problem.

Which begs the question - do Castellan IS armies have a hard time killing and do they have a hard time holding objectives?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
I would say the Primary is massively different from ITC's Hold / Hold more.

ITC you only care about 1/2 objectives. by giving points for every single objective your forcing armies to spread out much more instead of castling up and instead of getting 1/2 points per turn your more likely to get 4 to 7 (2-3 objectives held, 1 taken from the enemy)
Weighting Objectives over killing goes directly opposed to ITC which is killing over holding by a huge margin.

Adepticon earns max points for holding 3 objectives over 5 turns. If you won the long straw then you have a terribly easy time doing that. Any minor deficiencies you can push relatively easily.

Half of Adepticon missions have 5 objectives which causes conflict, but ultimately one army will be better at keeping the opponent off.

Don't confuse "Skill" with almost machine like lack of imagination.

Nick N talked in a recent youtube video themed on beating the meta, about how lack of imagination is killing a lot of knight players.

He was talking about how his recent list basically made the Castellan lists useless because they were spending the entire game hitting on 5s, and thus basically useless. The opponents never expected to face off against someone who didn't attack their knight, but still shut it down for 3-4 turns.

Others in the youtube verse have made the same observation, devotion to "meta" is really killing and stifling original thought and interesting play. I'd rather see two fresh armies play like crap but try new things then watch another Knight vs. Eldar match.

Tyel wrote:

I feel any statistical analysis can be questioned "but what showed up" tends to indicate what people think is good right now.

This is interesting to me, because how a tournament's rules function matters, but the actual meta of armies you meet matters too. If 25% of lists are IG+Knights, some of them are likely to go through. If at say Adepticon that number was far lower, thats interesting in itself even before you speculate on why.

Exactly my thoughts. These tournaments are majority populated by local players. LVO is the exception to the rule where more people fly in.

The lists we're seeing may be a result of a geographic meta where people simply don't own as many knights in the mid-west.

So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state if you're not using ITC Champions missions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

Haven't seen tyranid lists perform well the whole last year. Or Necrons or Ad Mech for that matter.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

Wasn't the fourth list an eldar flyer spam list though?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Don't confuse "Skill" with almost machine like lack of imagination.

Nick N talked in a recent youtube video themed on beating the meta, about how lack of imagination is killing a lot of knight players.

He was talking about how his recent list basically made the Castellan lists useless because they were spending the entire game hitting on 5s, and thus basically useless. The opponents never expected to face off against someone who didn't attack their knight, but still shut it down for 3-4 turns.

Others in the youtube verse have made the same observation, devotion to "meta" is really killing and stifling original thought and interesting play. I'd rather see two fresh armies play like crap but try new things then watch another Knight vs. Eldar match.

The lack of imagination killing Knight players make sense. I've been to two ITC events so far, at both I fought maybe 3 lists so far out of my 7 games against lists containing Castellans. I've beaten two, and lost vs one by a single point because 6 mortar teams couldn't kill a single officer. But they had their Castellan in the back, and each game vs one, I had an outflanking House Terryn Gallant with a Paragon Gauntlet and Landstrider come in from reserve off a board edge and punch it in the dick to kill it. I'm really digging the idea of 2 Gallants instead of a Castellan, because it lets you be way more aggressive since you don't have to castle around a Castellan, and if the opponent is playing with just the Loyal 32, Mortars can clear enough screens to let you get that T2 charge into his Castellan with a Gallant, and that's all she wrote.

I think a lot of Knight players are trapped in the "This is how you play Knights" mentality without trying other builds. Not every list has to include a Raven Castellan in a super heavy aux detachment.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

Wasn't the fourth list an eldar flyer spam list though?

The top 16 lists of the tournament contained sizable detachments of:

-Daemons
-Orks
-Guard
-CW Eldar
-Thousand Sons
-GSC
-Space Marines
-Drukhari
-Ynnari
-Tau
-Knights
-Blood Angels
-Guard
-Tyranids

That's not even counting tiny detachments like "Yvraine solitaire 2 death jesters" or "techpriest techpriest 3 5-man skitarii squads" - only ~600 point detachments or larger. My count might be off, but I think there's 24 "codex-sized" factions in the game, having 14 of them represented in a top 16 for a tournament is...pretty fething impressive.

You can wave your hand and say "soup" all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of the soup is pretty atypical stuff, like a nearly pure Knights list with just a tiny skitarii force for CPs, or a big tzaangor horde, bloodletter bomb and R+H CP detachment.

No one strategy seems to be dominant here. I see gunlines, melee hordes, melee alpha strikes, mid-range aura lists, single superheavy lists, flier lists, armor heavy lists...

The two biggest things you can say are trends are "people seem to have maximised their CPs" which is kind of an obvious thing to do in the age of soup, and "people left the transports at home". Even the factions where you tend to see transports, like Drukhari, didn't really go for that strategy at least in the top tables.

Tyel wrote:
Still hoping someone else (laziness...) will do a proper faction breakdown. Much like FLG show here for the LVO: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/03/02/lvo-stats-part-1-lvo-faction-breakdowns-and-overall-analysis/

I feel any statistical analysis can be questioned "but what showed up" tends to indicate what people think is good right now.

This is interesting to me, because how a tournament's rules function matters, but the actual meta of armies you meet matters too. If 25% of lists are IG+Knights, some of them are likely to go through. If at say Adepticon that number was far lower, thats interesting in itself even before you speculate on why.

In the same way Orks did really well here. Was that just good play that saw them scoop 4 in the top 10, 7 in the top 24 (I accept there are arguments that outside top 16 is meaningless) - or was the tournament flooded with Orks? So instead of representing 8% of lists they were up at 20%. In which case a better performance isn't surprising, because if the game is vaguely balanced, and player skill isn't hugely determining, more players of a faction should equal higher placings.

There are also meta impacts of the armies that show up. I feel the Guard+Castellan is a gatekeeper list. If 25% of lists in a 6 game tournament are such a list, the odds of not facing such a list are 0.75^6=18%. I think you have about a 35% chance of facing them once, and therefore a 47% of facing them twice or more. Therefore if you can't deal with them you are probably not going to go 6-0.

If however they are not 25% of lists, their gate keeping impact is much reduced. If only 10% of players play IG+Castellan then you have a 53% chance not to see one in 6 games.

(The percentages are probably higher if we think IG+Castellan has an above average win percentage, and so the chances of running into it increase over a tournament, but calculating that would require more data - hopefully the point is clear regardless.)

Don`t hope to much Adepticon list are a mess. Some pictures are clearly unreadable, some have cut pieces, i saw one list that is written in play text(you can`t see where the unit or equipment start its all a mix text), there is empty list.
BCP guys deleted bracket losers from round 5, so you can`t see the match ups. Getting the data will be hard, someone have to contact all players with poorly submitted list. Every list have to be checked manually its like 200 players, the amount of work is insane.
Have in mind that BCP don`t allow you to download the list so you can properly look at them at your PC, terrible piece of paid software.

Having to exit at the start of the turn means your sitting vulnerably infront of the enemy for a turn and makes transports a lot more worthless.

the techpriest 3xskittari was in the knight lists right, for the CP and tech priest utility with multiple knights. Interesting choice for sure. Can the tech priests repair the knights or something? Or what is the trick with taking them over IG, cheaper cost>?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

I feel any statistical analysis can be questioned "but what showed up" tends to indicate what people think is good right now.

This is interesting to me, because how a tournament's rules function matters, but the actual meta of armies you meet matters too. If 25% of lists are IG+Knights, some of them are likely to go through. If at say Adepticon that number was far lower, thats interesting in itself even before you speculate on why.

Exactly my thoughts. These tournaments are majority populated by local players. LVO is the exception to the rule where more people fly in.

The lists we're seeing may be a result of a geographic meta where people simply don't own as many knights in the mid-west.

No, i went, there were LOADS of players from all over the place, from London, Aussie, many different states, Canada, etc.. players were flying in.

Karol wrote:
the techpriest 3xskittari was in the knight lists right, for the CP and tech priest utility with multiple knights. Interesting choice for sure. Can the tech priests repair the knights or something? Or what is the trick with taking them over IG, cheaper cost>?

So the primary benefit of it is that it is cheaper than taking the Imperial Guard Battalion. The Tech-Priests also can repair a Knight at a rate of 1 wound per turn, which isn't huge but it is something if you're sitting back anyway.

It would be interesting if someone were to post the lists from the event into one handy thread.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It would be interesting if someone were to post the lists from the event into one handy thread.

Battle-Report has you covered!

https://www.battle-report.com/2019/03/30/2019-adepticon-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

EDIT: Battle-report deserves credit for this so I won't repost it all, but here is the winning list:

++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Chaos – Daemons) [34PL, 654pts] ++
Chao Allegiance: Nurgle
HQ: Poxbringer [4PL, 70pts]: Miasma of Pestilence
HQ: Sloppity Bilepiper [3PL, 60pts]
Troops: 3x Nurglings [3PL, 54pts]
Troops: 30x Plaguebearers [12PL, 235pts]: Daemonic Icon (15), Instrument of Chaos (10)
Troops: 30x Plaguebearers [12PL, 235pts]: Daemonic Icon (15), Instrument of Chaos (10)

++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Chaos – Daemons) [37PL, 580pts] ++
Chaos Allegiance: Chaos Undivided
HQ: Changecaster [4PL, 65pts]: Flickering Flames, Gaze of Fate
HQ: Daemon Prince of Chaos [9PL, 180pts]: Daemonic Axe (10), Khorne, Skullreaver (-1CP), Wings [1PL, 24pts]
Troops: 15x Bloodletters [8PL, 130pts]: Daemonic Icon (15), Instrument of Chaos (10), Banner of Blood (-1CP)
Troops: 25x Pink Horrors [12PL, 175pts]
Troops: 10x Brimstone Horrors [4PL, 30pts]

++ Supreme Command Detachment +1CP (Chaos – Thousand Sons) [43PL, 761pts] ++
HQ: Ahriman [7PL, 131pts]: Death Hex, Doombolt, Tzeentch’s Firestorm
HQ: Daemon Prince of Tzeentch [9PL, 180pts]: Infernal Gaze, Warptime, Malfic Talon (10), Wings [1PL, 24pts]
HQ: Daemon Prince of Tzeentch [9PL, 180pts]: Bolt of Change, Gaze of Fate, Malefic Talon (10), Warlord: High Magister, Wings [1PL, 24pts], Helm of the Third Eye
HQ: Sorcerer in Terminator Armour [8PL, 122pts]: Familiar (9), Force Sword (8), Inferno Combi-bolter (3), Temporal Manupulation, Weaver of Fates
Elites: Hellforged Contemptor Dreadnought [10PL, 148pts]: 2x C-Beam Cannon (60)
Reinforcement Points: 5

A friend of mine played against that list round 3. He said it was a great game that was very close. Jim(the winner) also won a big Major we were at last October, where my friend played him the first time. He's got some awesome looking models, conversion and paint wise. I've got some pics around here somewhere....

 Amishprn86 wrote:


No, i went, there were LOADS of players from all over the place, from London, Aussie, many different states, Canada, etc.. players were flying in.

I'm sure that's true. I'm not sure they were proportionally more than LVO might see.

In any case we'll never really know the how all these things shook out without the Adepticon team releasing data.

So players attending Adepticon stated there were plenty of Castellans, they just didnt place very well. And then you have players like Nick N who has a strategy to counter it. I know of even Ultramarine style lists that basically try to nerf Castellans in game.

Is this really just a matter of people complaining of the Castellan without figuring ways to counter it and only now are we seeing it become less competitive.

That said GW is in a hard place as there are so many variations to the way people play 40k that they cannot balance a unit just for ITC.

Hi All

Jim Here.

For those comparing itc vs adepticon, I won a really hard ITC GT 3 weeks ago (Dicehammer GT) with a super tough field using the exact same list I won adepticon with. So just thought i'd throw fuel onto the debate.