Day is over and I’m quickly posting via phone before heading home. No I didn’t win. I lost to footdar :O by 100ish VP (seriously. I beat the good armies and lose to the less competitive ones…go figure) in Game 4 so I was knocked out pretty early. Funnily enough, he went on to win the tournament. Won Games 5 & 6 (WH/IG and Daemons) to finish 4-2, 5th in battle and 11th overall (having a roughly 50% paint score will do that but I knew that heading in).
Game lost to Footdar wasn’t a stupid mistake like Game 3 (seriously, was I on drugs?) and dice were pretty poor on both sides. It did come down to some very close rolls in the last turn though such as Yriel exploding a tank with his spear, my Strike squad which had been in combat for 6-7 phases not being able to kill an Avenger, Banshees making it into combat with that same squad, etc. Was a great game though (except for that Strike squad :P) and Michael played really well.
Vince went 2-4 and got 1st painted (7th overall) though apparently it was very close. Kyle ended up 3-3, Jason C went 3-3 I think? and Ben (Rawrtime) finished 4-2.
Overall it was a great tournament and Dennis deserves some massive props (but fester, your program has issues it seems :O. Like putting me on the same table. Again) and I hope more tournaments like this pop up. I think I played the army too aggressively with the last game really highlighting what I should have attempted to do more against the Footdar (i.e. keep at 24” for as long as possible then move forward).
Will put batreps, etc. up later and hopefully Dennis will allow me to post the data for mining purposes here =D. Had a great time and now it’s time for some food!
Logging you in...
Ajax · 727 weeks ago
Marshal_Wilhelm 71p · 727 weeks ago
abusepuppy 121p · 727 weeks ago
People have won tournaments with the current Necron codex. Does that make that book good? No, it doesn't. People have won tournaments with literal battleforce armies. Does that make those armies good? Again, no.
Not knowing what happened, how the game played out, what the mission/deployment/terrain was, etc, I really can't give any kind of judgement on why Kirby lost.
Comrade · 727 weeks ago
So Orks are the most competative army.
Marshal_Wilhelm 71p · 727 weeks ago
This time Footdar.
Maybe I should be listening to Sir Prom then?
:D - Welcome home ^^,
Vinsanity · 727 weeks ago
fester40k 73p · 727 weeks ago
Messanger of Death · 727 weeks ago
Loriness · 727 weeks ago
I will send you a full run down of what happened and see why the program did thing it did. I might not have all the things on hand as I have to manually run a round and then on 3rd round re-enter all previous rounds to see if I can get it working (which it still did not fully 100%)
It still better then nothing and a real run helps a lot. There will need to be some features available (like print, lol, as my laptop only had HDMI output not the pin output).
Loriness · 727 weeks ago
I loved the program and I can see so much potentials. I would like to give you my thanks and say how much I appreciated you help. If you every need a beta tester, give me a call. I will give you all the data files for analysis, and a list of potential improvements.
Thanks again fester for all your help.
Zjoekov 74p · 727 weeks ago
On a more serious note, I question the competitiveness of the tourney when Footdar won it lol.
Anyhow, looking forward to some battle reports (:
Auretious Taak. · 727 weeks ago
Furthermore, from what jasonc has told me, the terrain made up 40-60% of each board as opposed to the 25% or so that most tournament boards make up, so foot lists suddenly gain advantages where mech don't, especially in ability to hide from LoS and to not be restricted as much by terrain and other vehicles as a whole because they don't really have them to worry about?
Throw in the nature of the missions and victory within those missions and one has to bring into question your objectivity when addressing the competitiveness of the event as a whole. Maybe, just maybe, it was quite a balanced tournament that didn't favour any particular style of play as many non-comp tourney's in 5th appear to do and therefore allowed supposedly 'crap' army types to do just as well as the so called 'best' army types. In that case, wouldn't you agree it was a superior tournament and that the player with the footdar list played exceptionally well within the context of the tournament?
Zjoekov 74p · 727 weeks ago
But in any case, I don't believe in a metagame ;)
And I'm sure the Footdar player played well, doesn't mean Footdar is not all that hot to say the least.
It's just that this is the 2nd Australian tourney which gets kinda hyped a bit on here (Centurion was the other and that was kinda not so interesting for people not-Australian or a mad Scotsman going there), while there was no coverage on Adepticon for example. I understand very well that this a bit of an Australian oriëntated blog, but then I expect it to be somewhat relevant for non-Aussies too. When it's a non-competitive tourney which Footdar wins... dunno man =P
Loriness · 727 weeks ago
I lay out 25% of terrain in each table (lump terrains of all variaty [area, LOS, etc] into a quarter and spread them out when I set up each table) to ensure there is exacty 25% terrain. There might be more or less in each table, but no way 40%!!!!!. The finals table are hand picked the night before to ensure most competitive play.
But here is the KEY. Just because the tournament is competitive and competitively evaluated does not mean you will get an expected type of winners/list. It is the Organiser's job to give the players a balance and open platform to perform, how they perform depends on the players.
For all who like to comment on the competitiveness of Event Horizon, please click on the EH logo on the left, read the players pack and give me feedback. I would like to know what they think where I can improve.
Zjoekov 74p · 727 weeks ago
MarshalLaeroth 52p · 727 weeks ago
HurricaneGirl · 727 weeks ago
Anonannoyed · 727 weeks ago
FIFY
Auretious Taak. · 727 weeks ago
Furthermore, from what jasonc has told me, the terrain made up 40-60% of each board as opposed to the 25% or so that most tournament boards make up, so foot lists suddenly gain advantages where mech don't, especially in ability to hide from LoS and to not be restricted as much by terrain and other vehicles as a whole because they don't really have them to worry about?
Throw in the nature of the missions and victory within those missions and one has to bring into question your objectivity when addressing the competitiveness of the event as a whole. Maybe, just maybe, it was quite a balanced tournament that didn't favour any particular style of play as many non-comp tourney's in 5th appear to do and therefore allowed supposedly 'crap' army types to do just as well as the so called 'best' army types. In that case, wouldn't you agree it was a superior tournament and that the player with the footdar list played exceptionally well within the context of the tournament?
jasonc · 727 weeks ago
Vinsanity · 727 weeks ago
I'm unfortunately capped but I will do a post about EH on tuesday and how I fail at orks (2-4) Not quite a Bryce fail but close :P
On a highlight, I tied with Shane for best painted so we both got a trophy :D Got a box of kabalite warriors too so now I guess I know what my next army will be (:
Auretious Taak. · 727 weeks ago
Nikephoros · 727 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 727 weeks ago
Loriness · 727 weeks ago
Kirby only got 50% of the painting score. :)
Kirby 118p · 727 weeks ago
Echoing what the majority opinion is here, just because a less competitve list won doesn't make it competitive but rather the general piloted it well. Michael played very well and I have no idea what the rest of his games were like but ours came to down to the wire. Draw-Draw-Draw-107 VP to him.
Put simply if he hadn't destroyed that contesting Rhino, I'd of won. If my Strike squad could have killed an Avenger squad over several rounds of combat (and specifically one guy in that last combat phase), I'd of won. At the same time, if one of his Avenger squads hadn't failed an Ld from a tank shock two turns previously, different kettle of fish. If that Rhino had immobilised itself whilst attempting to contest final objective, different kettle of fish. If he hadn't failed 3/6 Wraithlord saves in Turn 4, different kettle of fish. Basically it came down to the wire with a roll here or there changing it; sounds like a good game to me.
I'll look the game over and learn from it (looking back now, less agressive) and go from there. I'm disappointed I lost the game but happy to have lost it to a guy like Michael who knew his army and had a good time. As has been said many times: you learn more from your losses more than you wins and I will certainly learn from this. So shame on all of you for questioning the competitiveness of the event (especially since we pour it onto NOVA when this is using the same format). MoD where the hell is that post already?
List was something like:
Eldrad
Yriel
7x Dragons + Exarch in Wave Serpent
9x Banshees + Exarch
2x10x Avengers + Exarch
8x Avengers
6x Avengers
6x Pathfinders
2x WL (1 sword & 1 EML/BL)
3x WW w/scatter lasers
Bat reps should start tomorrow.
Auretious Taak. · 727 weeks ago
In any case, I am looking forwards to pictures overall and bat reps. :)
Zjoekov 74p · 727 weeks ago
Archnomad 70p · 727 weeks ago
First, first-
BAHAHAHAHAHAH. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
First, oh Jesus, first orks. Then Footdar.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There goes your integrity. All of it. xD
Jasonc · 727 weeks ago
Loriness · 727 weeks ago
You lost to Simon twice now on different tables against his daemons ;)
jasonc · 727 weeks ago
Jackwraith · 727 weeks ago
Perhaps more Eldar players should abandon mech and try it the old-fashioned way. Enough of them winning games might start a schism.
Comrade · 727 weeks ago
I think you're onto something here, J-dubb-ya.
Daybreak · 727 weeks ago
What is going on here is that the claim that "Footdar (or Orks or whatever) are uncompetitive" has been made unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless. If a Footdar list loses, then it's because it is uncompetitive. If it wins, then it's because it's uncompetitive AND there was some confounding variable (terrain, play skill, etc.) that let it win, against the 'obvious' fact that it is uncompetitive.
It seems that nothing could ever make such armies competitive, certainly no amount of tournament wins would ever do so. Such wins can retroactively label the tournament as uncompetitive (whatever that means), and save the hypothesis from falsification. These armies become uncompetitive almost by definition.
Expanding on that last point, there's a list of requirements that any 'right-thinking' (love it) 40k player can 'clearly see' that a 5th edition list must have, and that any list that doesn't have these things is by definition uncompetitive. This is judged completely independently of how well they perform, given the confirmation bias above.
What this leads to is that "competitiveness" becomes a useless, Platonic ideal. Those of us down here in the dirty, dirty world have to make due with a different notion, one that seems to be more and more detached from internet wisdom
SneakyDan · 727 weeks ago
Katie Drake · 727 weeks ago
*moves to YTTH*