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.

Here you go:

Game 1
http://synaps3.blogspot.com/2011/04/1850pt-rtt-with-hard-comp-game-1.html

Game 2
http://synaps3.blogspot.com/2011/04/1850-rtt-game-2.html

Game 3
http://synaps3.blogspot.com/2011/04/1850-rtt-game-3.html

Thanks for reading~

good reps! tough luck vs that GK guy

Thank you for more excellent reports.

I don't get the Nid hate. I think they're a perfectly effective and competitive codex when played well.

The thing I love most about Tyranids is that their competitive lists aren't very spammy and can have a wide variety of units.

They also require a large amount of synergy in the list, I really really like how it plays. It's the most tactically challenging and rewarding army I've ever played.

I was about to bring my daemonhunters for a "last hurrah" at my local tournament about a month ago before the new GK's came out. But just before, I couldn't make it due to work reasons.

Daemonhunters really have it tough against most armies. Only 3 armies do they seem to do better against - tyranids, orks and necrons. He really got a lucky break against you. Neither army has any mobility, though yours is slightly better with infiltrating genestealers. His terminators are actually good against anything but the toxic genes. You've got no low-AP shooting against him, though your volume of fire would hurt if you were able to get in range. And he's got less kill points than you. All those combined with clever use of terrain made his army more competitive than it actually is (not counting the generalship, of course).

But probably the thing that hurts you the most is your unfamiliarity with them. Well, that and bad rolling.

Looking forward to the rest of your battles.

lol at the format

I've been dying for some games so I called in some favors, got the day off work, and threw together a list. To recap, the format was:
- No special characters or named upgrades
- No modifying the force org
- No more than one av14 vehicle per army
- No more than 2 dedicated transports
- HQ, Elite, Fast, and Heavy units are 0-1 so no dupes

How is this even 40k? So if you don't have great horde troops you get your gak pushed in? Great format

If you do not like the format you do not have to play. Also, recognize the fact that it was meant to be different and to provide interesting games with units that you never see on the field.

I think it is a bit short sighted to comment 'if you do not have great horde troops,' since the winner was a CSM player who used standard CSM troop choices with some Raptors chosen and other less seen units.

I would also argue that Tyranids have some pretty good troop choices. Go to the DaBoyz website if you want to look at the philosophy of the gaming community, I know it doesn't match the die hard opinion often held in this forum that all lists need to be optimized and tuned to only crush opponents...but some people play the game with from a more holistic perspective.

There might just maybe be a possibility too that being forced to adapt to unique circumstances makes you, gasp, a better general. Not to mention the fact that the idea that one codex might benefit from a particular format is no different than how much better SW or BA are than many other armies in the standard format...

If you do not like the format you do not have to play.

Would have never guessed.

Not to mention the fact that the idea that one codex might benefit from a particular format is no different than how much better SW or BA are than many other armies in the standard format.

Some random unbalanced format doesn't make you any better general than playing something like city fight or planet strike. Clearly the game wasn't even remotely balanced around these rules so these drastic changes don't prove anything. And I highly doubt this saw any true playtesting, which is saying a lot for 40k, In addition I don't see what's so 'interesting' about units that are just bad or at most mediocre. If they were' interesting you'd see them all the time. There are no 'interesting' units that are suboptimal they are just bad or another unit doesn't the same thing better. Oh well this is probably going to be flagged as trolling or whatever because my comments didn't agree with a comped format and were more than "good report +1"

The store that hosted this event alternates monthly events between open format and comp'd events. They also host 40k lock-ins every 3 months. Last year every event was comp so us competitive players are making progress.

I try to go to every event to support the store and build the community. They typically draw from 18 to 32 players monthly which is huge.

Events like these allow us to use units that have been sitting on the shelf and promote atypical thinking and tactics like calypso says.

Theduke07 wrote:
Would have never guessed.

Glad to have enlightened you in that case.

Theduke07 wrote:
Some random unbalanced format doesn't make you any better general than playing something like city fight or planet strike.

Go check the DaBoyz site, this format is not random it is based on the same definition used for Comp in their GT, that is 'Armies that are representative of their codex.' I am unsure how playing a game in challenging conditions, being forced out of your comfort zone and being required to implement and execute new strategies while confronting opponents whose units have varied and unfamiliar capabilities FAILS to make you a better general.

I must have the mistaken impression a better general possesses a superior ability to stretch themselves to deeper thinking and strategic/tactical insight. It may be a surprise to you, but research in engineering has demonstrated that placing extreme constraints on a problem actually promotes creative thought - see Apollo 13 for the typical example.

Theduke07 wrote:
Clearly the game wasn't even remotely balanced around these rules so these drastic changes don't prove anything.

I did not know the tournament was trying to prove anything? I thought it was supposed to be fun. Also, if we presume the game is balanced around a particular point level and force organization chart then another way to unbalance the game is to change the points. I guess this means that any deviation from the suggested points unbalances it. How much though? If 40k is balanced at 1500 and I play at 2000 it must be 30% unbalanced! This assertion is ridiculous, not to mention the reality that these codices are not balanced anyway.

Theduke07 wrote:
And I highly doubt this saw any true playtesting, which is saying a lot for 40k,

It is best to put this as an assertion, not as a question or an inquiry that would provide useful insight to anyone. The format was discussed and vetted for several months before it was implemented. I am not sure how you playtest an entire format for every possibility though. If you know how maybe you should talk to GW.

Theduke07 wrote:
In addition I don't see what's so 'interesting' about units that are just bad or at most mediocre. If they were' interesting you'd see them all the time. There are no 'interesting' units that are suboptimal they are just bad or another unit doesn't the same thing better

I forgot units that are interesting must be inherently point efficient and powerful. Also, there are numerous examples of units that take the same force org slot and are debated or that are interesting but just less efficient than another option. Being less good than another does not make you bad. Example: Fiends, Blood Crushers, Flamers - which is better?

Theduke07 wrote:
Oh well this is probably going to be flagged as trolling or whatever because my comments didn't agree with a comped format and were more than "good report +1"

I don't see why it would be flagged, but it would be nice if there was more substance for discussion. What I do not see the point of is to criticize a format (I see you abandoned your 'it favors hordes argument') without anything to back it up or a meaningful contribution to make to its improvement. For the record, 'How is this 40k?' is not a meaingful contribution to improve the game play.

The format is more then a little odd. For a change of pace it might be interesting, but i really hope this isn't something you have to suffer through regularly. Overall, giving people fewer options doesn't really promote competitive gaming, but i assume that wasn't the goal here.

There's entire armies that aren't playable with this format though which would bother me to say the least. Drop-pod lists, Dark Eldar, Space marine bike list to name a few. It breaks down into "Who has the best/most non-dedicated transports or footsloggers?"

As with any rule, this COULD be abused horribly.

Fun fact though, my nid tourny list actually meets the criteria for this tourny.

I think people are focusing too much on the format applied to each codex and forgetting the general behind the army.

Our local club (DaBoyz) has a host of extremely talented generals including two members of this year's American ETC team.

18 players attended this tournament including:
3 IG
2 BA
1 SW

The top 9 (top 50%) in finishing order:
Chaos Space Marines
Daemon Hunters (yup, GK too early for tournaments yet)
Necrons (uh-huh)
Dark Eldar/Eldar (tied for 4th)
Chaos Space Marines
Orks
Tyranids (me)
Blood Angels

Strong game knowledge and general talent will trump a strong codex and poor general. 6 of 18 were the "Big 3" (SW/IG/BA) all with great troops, spammable in this format. 5 of 6 finished in the bottom 50%.

@Carnage~ Yes, some armies that rely on modifying the force org are unplayable. This was the first time this format was used in the 14 months I've been attending the store's tournaments. Pertaining to Dark Eldar, the dude who took 4th used 1 raider, 1 ravager, 1 venom, and a variety of troops and fast attack units coming out of a WWP.

The daemon hunter player that took 2nd was my 2nd batrep opponent.

The necron player that took 3rd was on the top table game 3, and would have taken 1st had the dice roll for final turn come up differently. Chris "one of everything" Courtney is well known and doesn't play duplicate units for any tournament except Ard Boyz. He places in the top 3 in nearly every tournament I've attended and has fully painted Dark Eldar, Eldar, and Tyranid armies as well. He is a true hobbyist and one of the best generals I've ever met.

So, in a format that pushes us away from the spam prevelant in 5th ed, maybe it actually promoted strong tactics instead of "Who has the best/most non-dedicated transports or footsloggers?".

Game #3 is up.

That format is so helpful for nids though taking away armor that they struggle It's kind of stupid.

I feel the format actually hurts Nids. My 3rd round opponent had 9 vehicles and I could only bring 1 unit of hive guard and 1 tyrannofex.

Most armies can take heavy weapons apread around, like lances on eldar guardians, wraithlords, wave serpents, war walkers, etc. In the Nids army, only hive guard can have impaler cannons. Only tfexes can have rupture cannons. There's ways for people to game the vehicle restrictions, but not for Nids to game ranged anti-tank in that format.

Yeah but they couldnt keep their squishes in metal boxes so what is a hive guard for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you need less as less vehicles will be their.

I wouldn't mind playing a tourney with that format. I'd have run Ymargls, Zoans (probably in a pod) and hive guard for the elites.

In theory there will be fewer vehicles to worry about across the board, but unless I missed something in the rules Guard could still take squadrons of russes.

Awesome posts Hivemind and nicely painted models! I am listening through the 11th company podcast with you on it. Can't wait to hear your comments.

calypso2ts wrote:Go check the DaBoyz site, this format is not random it is based on the same definition used for Comp in their GT, that is 'Armies that are representative of their codex.' I am unsure how playing a game in challenging conditions, being forced out of your comfort zone and being required to implement and execute new strategies while confronting opponents whose units have varied and unfamiliar capabilities FAILS to make you a better general.

I hate seeing "fluffy" events that actually prevent people from making fluffy, themed armies. For instance, let's say I want a Hellion-themed Dark Eldar force. I can't take the Baron, so that's out. Since that means Hellions aren't troops anymore, they're 0-1, and I can only take one squad of what's supposed to be my core unit! That said, I liked your batreps a lot-- they had good explanations of several key concepts in the tactical situation.