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.

So at adepticon did you have to turn in a list at the beginning of the 40k championship tournament?

I for one think it would be cool if they would post up the top 20-30 or so (in terms of battle points) in order for the community to get an idea of what is doing well.

Lets be honest, seeing the top 1-2 lists doesn't really do anything at all to give a statistical summary of what is doing well.

Hasn't Adepticon always tried to be an innovator? Well here is your change, be the first to start posting tournament lists (if you still have them) and I am sure many others will follow suite.

Having a summary of the top 20+ lists at every major tournament would be great for the competitive side of the hobby and could push list building ideas forward.

Any thoughts on this?

I would not want my list to be published. I do not want to have people copy other peoples lists, they do not get better at 40k doing this. You need to make your own lists, play the game and tweek your list after seeing what works and what doesn't work.

Play what you want. These guys put in alot of time and energy (more than I ever would) on preparing a list that fits their style and their likes/dislikes. You wil not be as successful with someone elses list unless you play it as much as they have. It all comes from the same codex. If I won anything I would not want my list plastered all over the internet so thousands of people could comment on how crap that is or how cool this other thing was. Nor would I want to show up at a tourney and play 5 guys with my exact army build out.

That is just me dude. To me its the player not the list.

This is the tournament forum, it should be about advancing the competitiveness and tournament prowess of players.

Every other competitive game posts lists. So people see whats winning and what they need to deal with.

Their are already plenty of places to copy netlists off the internets. This isn't about that, this is about showing what is actually doing well in tournaments, what kind of lists.

It's a data entry problem, and I doubt one that any of the organizers are in a mood to solve right now. Just from the Championships alone, 220 lists in a variety of paper formats: find the top X players' lists, digitize them, and post them? Probably not.

I finished 10th overall out of 240, 7th in blue heat ... list is on my blog, timmah.

As a top-ten finisher in yellow heat, I have posted my lists, and my opponent's lists over in the battle report section, along with my thoughts on the games (some more detailed than others).

I don't agree with Darth, that by seeing other lists, you don't learn the game. But, my theory on army lists is that it is more important how you play, than what you play. (This is a large part of the reason that I never bring the same list to anything twice). Over the weekend, there were several games that I probably should have lost based on list analysis, but ended up winning by outplaying my opponent.

Certainly, a list is a vital component to the game, and I don't mean to say that they're unimportant. If you don't have the tools to do the jobs that need doing, you will lose. But, having those tools (having a copy of a list), and knowing how to use those tools are completely different things. There were over 30 mech-guard team armies at the con. Some placed well, and some placed poorly. Some of that is matchups, but much of it is knowing how to use what you have.


I guess I see army lists as being the least interesting part of the game. It's like the most basic level of strategy. You need to bring anti-tank, and anti-troop, in some balance that you believe the metagame will be composed of. You need to bring some movey stuff and some survivey stuff. Sure...

The far more interesting part of the game's strategy, in my mind, is how do you get the tabletop mismatches that favour you? Your opponent is going to have stuff that hurts your army, just as you are going to have stuff that hurts their army. What lets you get the upperhand? What is it that allows you to defeat their anti-tank, before their anti-tank defeats your tanks?

Once we all get past the basic-level strategy that is army list discussion, I think the level of discourse about the game will be much more interesting. And I think that's why I dislike spam-lists so much, and like the approach that Darth and Blackmoor's (among others) marines and eldar take - having a variety of tools, rather than lots of the same thing that leads to only one tabletop play.

I do understand the data entry problem. I do however think if you could pull out the top 20 or so lists and scan them in, there would be people willing to do the data entry for you.

Heck if they sent me scans of the top 20 lists or even all the lists, I would be more than willing to sort out the top 20 (based on battle points) and type them up.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Redbeard: I pretty much agree with everything you said.
I do disagree that list building is the easiest and part of being competitive and that it doesn't really need to be discussed in depth.

However, what if at every tournament there was a complete breakdown of lists all categorized.


Like:
30 mech IG showed up, 3 finished in the top 20 in battle points
5 mech dark eldar showed up, 1 finished top 20

It would lead to a lot of thoughtful discussion I believe. And while being a better player still matters a lot. Taking the correct list is important too.

If you saw the variation in how lists are turned you - you would realize this is next to impossible. 240 40K lists for Sunday alone...another 440 from Saturday and still another 140 from Friday...and then we'd have to do Fantasy too which is another 400+ lists...not happening.

If people what to post their lists - they should, but AdeptiCon is not going to do this. Most of us just spent 6 months of our lives planning/running this convention. It's time for a break.

I didn't say list building was easy... I just said I find it the least interesting.

In the realm of things that would never happen, I'd like to see tournaments that had everyone play the same list, and see what happens.

The later idea - types of armies associated with placing might be possible. We have most of that data from registration - however people change the army they are bringing when they can't finish painting and all that...we are seeing what data is in the software and what is reliable/worth posting.

Like I said, I would be perfectly willing to do the typing/analysis myself if anyone is willing to scan in the 240 lists and the final scores/results.

As I am sure the TO's are pretty beat by now and prolly want a vacation from 40k.

I agreed with Redbeard.

I posted my lists in the Results thread. I top-tenned in the Championship again.

Redbeard wrote:Once we all get past the basic-level strategy that is army list discussion, I think the level of discourse about the game will be much more interesting. And I think that's why I dislike spam-lists so much, and like the approach that Darth and Blackmoor's (among others) marines and eldar take - having a variety of tools, rather than lots of the same thing that leads to only one tabletop play.

I agree.