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.

Any idea where I can find GT top 5 (or even 10) placement Army Lists?

Tried all the different terms I could think of in google, and I tried navigating several of the official sites to no avail. I can find names of players and the races they used, but never specific LISTS of PRECISELY what was in the list. The best luck I've had is in forums like Dakka where people say something like "Mekdar" or "Fatecrusher" and sometimes even go so far as to say "he had some obliterators and 2 las princes" which is great for getting an idea... but the specifics often make or break a list/game.

I ask because I have read several articles lately saying that what is commonly known as the "god lists" aren't all the godlike and have been often placed below other lists at tournaments... I would like to see both the "god lists" and the ones that beat them to see what what actually might have went down. Bat reps are also pretty cool, but usually even more vague than the army lists ie: "Turn 1, he moved his bikes to my troops and shot. Turn 2, I assaulted him and won the assault."

Lots of Love,

humans.

I think Hulksmash posted his tournament winning Space Wolves list up a little while ago, try searching through his threads for a copy.

I'd also be interested in seeing some other tournament winning lists, maybe some more experienced players can fill us in?

Are you talking about hobbyist tournaments in the U.S. or non-softscoring competitive tournaments elsewhere? The top armies in the latter events are CSM (dual lash or lash/abaddon), Orks, Space wolves, and IG.

Your best bets are to search the big forums for battle reports or tournament reports by the winners or other high-placing players. Those are the most likely places for people to give those kind of details.

Olympia, our soft-score including tournaments are still competitive. The games are paired based on battle points, and players who do well here have on occasion traveled to Europe and demonstrated that they can do well over there too. Alex Fennell and Greg Sparks are two examples.

Mannahnin:

Those are not tournaments. Call them hobby fun days instead please.

My advice:

Head over to Battle Reports. You can find my Ork lists posted (along with complete battle reports and pictures, as well as the armies I played against). I've only been to one "official GT" so far this year, but I've been to several large scale RTTs.

Dual lash regularly places up top, leafblower variant IG, mechanized orks, kan wall orks, foot slogging IG (huge platoons of IG) believe it or not....

Fearspect wrote:Mannahnin:

Those are not tournaments. Call them hobby fun days instead please.

They are tournaments. Your desire to redefine “tournament” and restrict its use only to events which meet your personal criteria, disregarding the existing usage standard within the context of 40k and Warhammer, is your own, and I am not an adherent.

Fearspect wrote:Mannahnin:

Those are not tournaments. Call them hobby fun days instead please.

I thought tournaments in the UK was something you just did while getting drunk.


And the best place to find the lists is to check out the battle reports that come out immediately after the tournament. They will either have the top players posting their lists, or they will have players that have crossed paths with the eventual winners.

Mannahnin wrote:

Fearspect wrote:Mannahnin:

Those are not tournaments. Call them hobby fun days instead please.

They are tournaments. Your desire to redefine “tournament” and restrict its use only to events which meet your personal criteria, disregarding the existing usage standard within the context of 40k and Warhammer, is your own, and I am not an adherent.

There's a problem with your logic mannahnin. The OP specifically doubts the efficacy of so-called 'god lists' (by which I assume he means the most competitive builds in a given codex). Now then, if you cite a GT in the U.S. that was heavily comped--virtually any--he will conclude that he is right and that the 'god lists' are not that strong. This is an erroneous conclusion. In fact, the strongest builds probably were not even present because they would have been so severely penalized.

Not true. I brought a very nasty Space Wolf list and did just fine. I also only took a 3 point hit out of a possible 30 for my comp. The idea that you can't bring a tough army to a tourney because you will get severely penalized is an overdramatization (sp?). I plan on bringing a list that takes care of a few of the minor issues I had with my list to the next GT I attend.

I also saw quite a few good examples of Mech Guard there though they didn't do as well as certain people claim they will. Of course I subscribe to the idea that there are several good builds in each codex (excluding necrons and DE who either don't have one or only have one).

Let's be honest. Battlepoints are still the determiner of actual games played. Worst case scenario in a 5 game tourney is that your last 3 games are against tougher lists and opponents. Saying it's not competitive is a little silly since they have the same record you do. By the last game your normally 4-0 against another 4-0 person. Match-ups matter but saying it's soft scores that make an event uncompetitive is ridiculous.

Also, in the reports for comped events, there are usually still awards for Best General (based purely off of battlepoints) and you can find lists from the winners of that category.

I would try trawling through BOLS, they frequently post stuff up after tournaments, with the winner's list.

I remember that Leafblower IG won 'Ard Boyz last year.


Oh, also, if you're looking for lists that are fairly hard but untested and purely theoretical, you could head over to YTTH, but sometimes it can be a bit of a circle jerk.

olympia wrote:There's a problem with your logic mannahnin. The OP specifically doubts the efficacy of so-called 'god lists' (by which I assume he means the most competitive builds in a given codex). Now then, if you cite a GT in the U.S. that was heavily comped--virtually any--he will conclude that he is right and that the 'god lists' are not that strong. This is an erroneous conclusion. In fact, the strongest builds probably were not even present because they would have been so severely penalized.

No, I'm sorry, you're speaking in error out of lack of knowledge of the US GTs and other big events.

Even with soft scores in an event, many players use strong lists (and some used maxed-out lists), since comp scoring is a fairly minor part of the overall scoring, and battles is almost always the lion's share of the points. Some playerd tone down their lists a little / work in less-seen units so as to attempt to play the metagame for comp scoring as well, while still going for good battle scores. Of course, Adepticon has almost no comp, and the last couple years of US GW GTs had no comp, so people use/were using mostly the hardest lists they could at those events anyway.

Even when comp’s in play, since the points for it are a relatively small fraction of the total points, and since pairings are generally done based only on battle scores (though I’ve seen a few events with comp-pairings in the first round or two), there is still a winnowing process with the “winningest” lists & players going up against one another in the late rounds.

The facts disagree. The IG lists at the saint valentine's day " tournament" were uniformly weak from what I can glean. No one brought a strong mech/vendetta because, we can assume, they knew they would take a significant comp hit (although evidently six dreads was considered 'fluffy').

SVDM is the exception to the rule. They are the only tournament so far this year that includes judge comp in the total scores. The other 3 this year so far don't. The next 2 don't. Your taking all in context of a single event not the events as a whole.

olympia wrote:The facts disagree. The IG lists at the saint valentine's day " tournament" were uniformly weak from what I can glean. No one brought a strong mech/vendetta because, we can assume, they knew they would take a significant comp hit (although evidently six dreads was considered 'fluffy').

A) You don’t know what all the IG lists were.
B) The fact that you regard all the IG lists which were there, of which we have knowledge here on Dakka, as being weak means that either you haven’t read all the available info, or you’re not a good judge of a strong IG list.

You seem to have a habit of leaping to mistaken conclusions based on a lack of knowledge or from misreading the data available.

How many dual lash or lash/abaddon lists were at that philadelphia event?

As for adepticon. It's 39% softscores, correct? Comp., painting, and sports--all subjective and making up 39%.

And once again, your lack of experience leads you to draw inaccurate conclusions from faulty analysis of incomplete data.

Mannahnin wrote:And once again, we see the voice of inexperience drawing inaccurate conclusions from faulty analysis of incomplete data.

Answer the question. Silence is acquiescence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, Adepticon is only 59% battlepoints. This question from the sportsmanship checklist is a gem: • Do you think your opponent built an army based on the theme of the relevant gaming universe and supplied background for that army (as opposed to a force built purely for winning with little or no regard to that army's established background)? Yes/No Diversified nobz and lash need not apply? The painting is another significant component. Going back to the OP's question, it is quite conceivable that a strong list--let's say mecheldar with a jetseer council--will be knocked down in the placings by poor sports and paintings score. Thus, the OP could conclude that mechdar/jetseer council are "in fact" not that strong a list.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, and as should be obvious to anyone taking the time to do any kind of analysis, the percentages of total points that each category can potentially score have very little meaning. What matters is the real points spread within each category. If Sports has a nine-point checklist, but 95% of the players score a 7-9, then over a three round event, sports actually only gives a functional spread of 9pts out of the total. In Battles, OTOH, in the Adepticon Championship (for example), the possible spread of points is 135pts. Each game can realistically earn you between 0 and 45pts.

The sportsmanship scoring system and minimalist composition scoring system in use at Adepticon mean that the actual points spread between a poor-scoring army/player and a perfect-scoring army/player is minimal. And in practice, any serious tournament player will get their paint up to at least a certain minimum standard.

I like how olympia only looks at facts that support his pre-conceived conclusions, then disregards anything that doesn't support his way of thinking.

It's simply fascinating to see in action over and over and over and over...

Ozymandias wrote:I like how olympia only looks at facts that support his pre-conceived conclusions, then disregards anything that doesn't support his way of thinking.

It's simply fascinating to see in action over and over and over and over...

What facts am I disregarding? Which of my assertions do you dispute on factual grounds?

That Adepticon is 41% soft-scores?
That there were no dual lash or lash/abaddon lists at the Philadelphia so-called GT?
That comp/soft-scores affect what armies people bring?

Read the post right above mine. It's ok, I'll wait.






Get it now?

Ozymandias wrote:Read the post right above mine. It's ok, I'll wait.






Get it now?

The part where mannahnin says just ignore softscores because although they make up 41% of your score (in the case of Adepticon), they don't really matter? Yes I ignored that because it is trite nonsense.

No, you ignored the part where they don't determine who wins. You ignored the part where the spread of points between the highest soft score and the lowest soft score is negligible compared to the spread with regards to Battle points.

Those are just some of the facts that you seem to be routinely ignoring. And they aren't "trite nonsense", they are important to the discussion. In fact the only part of this discussion that has been both trite and nonsense is anything you posted.

Mannahnin wrote:

battles is almost always the lion's share of the points.

I'm not trying to jump into the argument here, but its worth noting that the broadside bash was less than 50% battlepoints, and that the SoCal Slaughter in Space is only 50% battlepoints. A tournament having the lion's share of points in battle points should be 51% or more by definition....while that would only actually make it a majority. I think Lion's share falls within the 75%+ category.

Which most events in the U.S. unfortunately seem to shy away from, despite the prevalence of polls and opinions asking for the opposite.

I think you missed the point a little bit as well Dash. Even though the pre-set amount of total points has Battle Points at 50% how much battle points actually matter is a far higher percentage. This is based on the spread of points in the soft scores. If every one scores 10/12 or higher then over 5 games there is only a spread of 10 points. So the impact of battle points is far higher than it at first appears.

Now you can have an extreme soft score event ::cough::Broadside Bash::cough:: but even there the 1st, 3rd, and 4th highest battle points were the top 3 overall players as well. The exception being me who got slammed on his painting score which knocked me to 8th

Now I would prefer a no soft score tournament overall but if people want to sell out an event then they need to appeal to the less hardcore of us. I realize that people like Dash, me, Dave, and others would prefer no soft scores but we're not the majority of players that pay to attend these events. I'm hoping someone will host one in the US and show people through numbers that it's a more popular event. But until that happens we've got soft scores.

Ozymandias wrote:No, you ignored the part where they don't determine who wins. You ignored the part where the spread of points between the highest soft score and the lowest soft score is negligible compared to the spread with regards to Battle points.

Those are just some of the facts that you seem to be routinely ignoring. And they aren't "trite nonsense", they are important to the discussion. In fact the only part of this discussion that has been both trite and nonsense is anything you posted.

You've failed to notice that what Mannahnin has repeatedly ignored in these threads is that the winners of hobby events also have a very small spread of points. When the players are all within 5 or 6 points of each other in the overall scoring that 9 point spread for sportsmanship or comp scoring is pretty huge. And once you start considering paint scores that spread only gets bigger.

Now I would prefer a no soft score tournament overall but if people want to sell out an event then they need to appeal to the less hardcore of us.

What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Last I checked 'Ard Boyz was very popular and it makes no such appeal.

olympia wrote:The part where mannahnin says just ignore softscores because although they make up 41% of your score (in the case of Adepticon), they don't really matter? Yes I ignored that because it is trite nonsense.

If you're incapable of basic math, or unwilling to do it, I can't help you.

Dash, I know you're capable of math, and willing to think about something you don't immediately understand. Look a little harder, please.

@Danny

Ardboyz is free. Even 1 of the 2 Semi Events in SoCal only had 36 people at it. I'm pretty sure the other didn't have as (smaller game space). I base what I said off a geographic area. And how many people win the semi's and just don't go to Chicago when suddenly there is a cost involved? Ard Boyz is actually a horrible comparison model vs. standard large scale tournaments.

And yet there were a ton of people who traveled extremely long distances (I read of some who drove over 6 hours) just to attend the semifinals, nevermind the finals. My point was that the interest in events without soft scores certainly exists, but no one seems willing to test the waters by hosting an indy GT in this fashion.

Anyways, I'll ask again. What evidence do you have to support your argument that an event must have soft scores to fill up?