Battlecry 2011 Warhammer 40k Results

[Vaul]

Well from what i'm hearing, comp probably DOES have a place in 40k at the moment.  Especially here in NZ, where most people do want to bring along their non spacewolf or guard armies.  I think that metagame considerations are probably not for the average 40k tournamentgoer, although having not been to one in seven odd years I couldn't say for sure.  In a no-comp environment, how are you rewarded for taking say, necrons?  I think at least some sort of comp is worth having.  Surely panel comp is preferable to TO comp though.

[richardbarby]

Well from what i'm hearing, comp probably DOES have a place in 40k at the moment.  Especially here in NZ, where most people do want to bring along their non spacewolf or guard armies.  I think that metagame considerations are probably not for the average 40k tournamentgoer, although having not been to one in seven odd years I couldn't say for sure.  In a no-comp environment, how are you rewarded for taking say, necrons?  I think at least some sort of comp is worth having.  Surely panel comp is preferable to TO comp though.

how about hardest cheesiest army has to play charlie round one

[NeckFace]

what i would like to see is a someone stick up charlie's list, cross-reference with the people he's played to see if there's a sequence of moves he uses (usually deathkoptas up in your grill followed by the bigmek, meganobs in a battlewagon, and foot sloggers and dreads in tow, right?)  and then see people's ideas as to what would be the perfect army to take him down and gauge how the 'charlie-killer' list fairs on people's comp-ratings.

because beating charlie is the mt everest of 40k in nz it seems hilarious that his army ISN'T loaded with the 'cheesy' options. 

despite what some grumpy people from OTT might say

[blood_god]

My feel of the scene in NZ is that most people will bring along what they feel like playing to tournies regardless or comp/no comp restrictions. As much as anything this is because there isn't a vast amount of players who are tourney fanatics. For the majority of players its a rare, once or twice a year occurance. Whereas in US or UK there is a lot of players building armies purely for tournaments, who would then take the hardest builds from the hardest codexes. While there is some players out there who do this in NZ (and I'll admit to being one of them, and even then I take what I like) , I don't expect the scene to become flooded with a vast amount of the same lists.

@ Pete
Haydn is running Nicon with no comp, so it will be interesting to see how the armies and the placings fall with that element removed

[DevlanMiracle]

well you could say i fall under this in a way. but you have to be dumb if you though i used the BA codex for my army.

Main issue with 40k comp is its all personal preference of the guy marking the lists. And what he thinks is a bad comp list may be false. what i see with comp is if you get a 1 your amy is cheese and build for killing you get a 5 its soft and you should get someone to right a new list for you.

Quite interested in the sentiment being talked about here, the idea of painted Marine armies essentially swapping codexii. How do you guys feel? Not to derail thread too much (I have other stuff to say) but I have a Blood Angels army painted Grey and Purple - the Death company aren't DC models (I used marine models with Chaos pistol/sword arms) but of course the Baals are Baals. Do people around here look down on this type of behaviour?

Regarding comp I reckon we should remove it from 40K tournaments, or at least 1 particular tournament. This gives people a chance to play out what they reckon is the nastiest list they can (or the internet can) think of. Participants will just have to accept that and be prepared to face armies that would traditionally be vetoed from the event. I still reckon there should be a comp'd tournament so some people aren't scared off by the cut throat non comp tournaments, however.

[proximity]

Right. Feedback for battlecry, hmm - where to start.

The first thing I ever won at a tourney was a painting award at the Wellington GT back in 2006. It felt like all that effort, including my first, and last, triple all nighter before the event, had paid off. More than just a congratulation s and a handshake, this inexpensive piece of wood and metal sitting in my hands actually became a focal point for the feeling of accomplishment I felt at that moment.
Later, when I would see it, it would remind me of that achievement, and urge me to push myself again in the future. I decided upon receiving that trophy that I would do my best to achieve more. It had hooked me into the hobby, and the tournament scene, in a way I never could have predicted.

Here is that trophy, which still has a place of prominence in my cabinet today:


Why do I mention this? Well, here's what Doug received for winning first prize at what will probably wind up being the biggest event in the country this year:

While im sure Douggie is still fired up and feels like he's achieved something, I don't think this helps it at all

I've run events, so I know cost is not prohibitive. I've seen tourneys that are tight for money do it with a nicely printed certificate that frames up very well and looks classy, again next to nothing. The hands down coolest trophies I've seen were made in a few hours out of some cleverly connected bits and bobs from a hardware store last year for a warmachine event.
To not do anything is.......... a bit stink.

As someone who normally wins a bit of stuff here and there, I would much rather the acknowledgemen t that comes with a trophy, and see the prizes go out as spot prizes, so that everyone has a shot at them.






As for the comp discussion going on; I'd love to see some no comp events. I think its important to not focus too much on what you hear on the internet about the USA scene, before judging the entire concept with that in mind though. If you're going to follow the USA scene, you need to follow it in its entirety. You'll notice something quite different about their games compared to the events over here and in Europe. Namely, they play on 'planet bowling ball' game after game after game. It's embarrassing how little terrain they play with, and then they wonder why the most resilient gun lines win?
This is why so many of them think orks are completely non-viable and one of the worst codices in the game, when in Europe you can quite clearly see that that is just not the case.
The UKGT would be a better one to look at, except that its not really run anymore, not like it used to be anyway. Also, the dynamics of a 150 person 5 game tournament are vastly different to a 30-60 person 6 game tournament. There is much less taking each other out going on in events that large, and it focuses much more on those that can VP harvest, which just isnt a requirement in events the size of ours, so perhaps an unfair comparison.
In saying that, you usually see quite a bit of variation in that final top 10 still. You'll often see, in no particular order, eldar, orks, BA, Guard, Marines, witch hunters, and im sure there are more. I even remember people being very shocked to see Tau and Dark Angels (pre 'omg youre gods now!' FAQ) in there, but sure enough, there they were.

I look forward to seeing how our own no comp environment slowly develops, but it will take a lot of evolving and developing over time before it matures. How it starts wont necessarily be how it finishes, and the way it gets there will be very interesting.

In saying all of the above, the USA scene is actually developing reasonably well if you push past the hyperbole of the internet. Don't put too much stock in some words you read on the yesmybutthurts .com blog. You hear about SW and IG being everywhere, but remember these are 1 day tournaments almost all the time, which consist of 3 games, and the winners are the 3 guys who won all their games without having to play each other. Push that out to 2 days, and stuff begins to change. Then you go and read battle reports from an apparently SW/IG heavy event, and they wind up playing 4 or 5 different armies. The problem is that a few people shout their opinion a lot louder than those going along and having fun.

[proximity]

what i would like to see is a someone stick up charlie's list, cross-reference with the people he's played to see if there's a sequence of moves he uses (usually deathkoptas up in your grill followed by the bigmek, meganobs in a battlewagon, and foot sloggers and dreads in tow, right?)  and then see people's ideas as to what would be the perfect army to take him down and gauge how the 'charlie-killer' list fairs on people's comp-ratings.

because beating charlie is the mt everest of 40k in nz it seems hilarious that his army ISN'T loaded with the 'cheesy' options.  

despite what some grumpy people from OTT might say

The problem with cross referencing how I play, is it forgets that I have played so many games with these guys, that I mix it up quite a bit just to keep it interesting I will have games where the meganobs go and collect 800 points worth of heads, and then in the next game they will never leave their battlewagon, instead being content to create a "keep away" bubble. In one game I will all out aggression someone, force them into a corner hit the right multi assaults, and then the next time I'll be content to mill in the midfield, whittling away units with supporting fire before launching the mother of all counter attacks once they make the aggressive move. I'll push to table someone, then just aim to tie them up away form the objectives and steal it the next time I play them.

I don't do this to toy with people, or spread confusion or anything tricksy like that, I just know I would get bored if i did the same thing all the time, and this way its like playing 3 different armies at once Im lucky that because its such a balance between mech and foot, elite and horde, that I can mix it up like that, despite that being a weakness in the eyes of netlisters and unit spammers. It does make it hard to play against though.

The biggest thing I find, is that in every tournament I play, there is at least one or two games where the opponent has all the right tools to tear me limb from limb. They will even play most of the game right to achieve this, but when push comes to shove, they either under commit, over commit on the wrong unit, or any other brainfart they can think of. I have honestly lost count of the number of games I should have lost if they only did one single decision differently.

If people can forget the "grass is always greener" mentality, and focus on improving their play with the tools that they have, you will be amazed at what you can achieve. Work out what your biggest weakness is, and turn that into your strength!

[Vaul]

I have to agree with most of that, as a fantasy diehard 6 games into 40k with a fairly well-rounded list, for some reason I expected to see a similar level of 'bigger picture' decision making when it came down to pure strategy and tactics.  I haven't been!  I'm 5wins to 1loss with my silly old CSM boys.  There's often a 'think one turn ahead' mentality in these sorts of scenes.  Great people though, and great times (and probably great dice too).

[NeckFace]

what i would like to see is a someone stick up charlie's list, cross-reference with the people he's played to see if there's a sequence of moves he uses (usually deathkoptas up in your grill followed by the bigmek, meganobs in a battlewagon, and foot sloggers and dreads in tow, right?)  and then see people's ideas as to what would be the perfect army to take him down and gauge how the 'charlie-killer' list fairs on people's comp-ratings.

because beating charlie is the mt everest of 40k in nz it seems hilarious that his army ISN'T loaded with the 'cheesy' options. 

despite what some grumpy people from OTT might say

The problem with cross referencing how I play, is it forgets that I have played so many games with these guys, that I mix it up quite a bit just to keep it interesting I will have games where the meganobs go and collect 800 points worth of heads, and then in the next game they will never leave their battlewagon, instead being content to create a "keep away" bubble. In one game I will all out aggression someone, force them into a corner hit the right multi assaults, and then the next time I'll be content to mill in the midfield, whittling away units with supporting fire before launching the mother of all counter attacks once they make the aggressive move. I'll push to table someone, then just aim to tie them up away form the objectives and steal it the next time I play them.

I don't do this to toy with people, or spread confusion or anything tricksy like that, I just know I would get bored if i did the same thing all the time, and this way its like playing 3 different armies at once Im lucky that because its such a balance between mech and foot, elite and horde, that I can mix it up like that, despite that being a weakness in the eyes of netlisters and unit spammers. It does make it hard to play against though.

The biggest thing I find, is that in every tournament I play, there is at least one or two games where the opponent has all the right tools to tear me limb from limb. They will even play most of the game right to achieve this, but when push comes to shove, they either under commit, over commit on the wrong unit, or any other brainfart they can think of. I have honestly lost count of the number of games I should have lost if they only did one single decision differently.

The best, and most dissapointing example I can think of going out of someones way to build an "Anti Charlie" list is Kevin Shen. Kevin is/was a good player, reasonably new and fresh to the game, but very hungry and ambitious, which is good if you want competition. Kevins list absolutely always had the tools to demolish me, but he would always make serious blunders, from go to woah. He would shoot units in the wrong order, or at the wrong target. He would take every piece of bait I fed him (seriously, when a unit of orks lines up in front of your land raider redeemer in perfect come flame me formation, you don't need Admiral Akbar to jump out onto the screen yelling 'It's a Trap!'), and if he ever got the upper hand, would not ramp up the pressure, but rather let off and let you back into the game.
Instead of looking back on things he could have done differently, and coming to the right conclusions, apparently he built an 'anti charlie nid list' that he hated to play, and doesn't want to play anymore, as he loves his marines and the nids just arent his cup of tea.

If people can forget the "grass is always greener" mentality, and focus on improving their play with the tools that they have, you will be amazed at what you can achieve. Work out what your biggest weakness is, and turn that into your strength!

what i was getting at, albeit a little too subtly perhaps, is that its not so much what you use but how you use it.  in the face of what you've written, that's exactly what happens, and in the end what is the point of any sort of comp system if the ability of the person using the army shows it isn't as 'hard' as was once thought?

[NeckFace]

well you could say i fall under this in a way. but you have to be dumb if you though i used the BA codex for my army.

Main issue with 40k comp is its all personal preference of the guy marking the lists. And what he thinks is a bad comp list may be false. what i see with comp is if you get a 1 your amy is cheese and build for killing you get a 5 its soft and you should get someone to right a new list for you.

Quite interested in the sentiment being talked about here, the idea of painted Marine armies essentially swapping codexii. How do you guys feel? Not to derail thread too much (I have other stuff to say) but I have a Blood Angels army painted Grey and Purple - the Death company aren't DC models (I used marine models with Chaos pistol/sword arms) but of course the Baals are Baals. Do people around here look down on this type of behaviour?

its not an issue at all man, but generally i don't see people who attend the tournies in auckland make their own divergent counts-as armies.  even their own successor chapters, which is exactly what you could say your guys are. the closest i guess would be edmund's pre-heresy emperor's children counting as crimson fists.

generally, if its easy to see that your assault marines are assault marines and its clear what counts as what, no one bats an eyelid

[Hunter_Flood]

its not an issue at all man, but generally i don't see people who attend the tournies in auckland make their own divergent counts-as armies.  even their own successor chapters, which is exactly what you could say your guys are. the closest i guess would be edmund's pre-heresy emperor's children counting as crimson fists.

Question with that is that Edmund was using the regular space marine codex but using Pedro Kantor's rule set for his own commander. A better example would be Laz's Blood Angel terminator army that was using the Deathwing rules.

[blood_god]

what i was getting at, albeit a little too subtly perhaps, is that its not so much what you use but how you use it.  in the face of what you've written, that's exactly what happens, and in the end what is the point of any sort of comp system if the ability of the person using the army shows it isn't as 'hard' as was once thought?

In the end it is going to come down to the player using the army. As Charlie said there are plenty of times that he has played against armies that have the tools to deal with him and still come away with the win. i know I'm the same (though prob not as much!   ). The comp seems to just be adding in an extra layer of difficulty which doesn't seem to add anything but just annoys people more often than not.

I definatly agree about the certificates/trophies. prizes are well and good, but after you spend the money you have nothing to show for it.

[wouster7]

I would much rather the acknowledgemen t that comes with a trophy

It's also the sense of achievement trophies and medals promote after the sweat and tears of preparation.
I'm in total agreement here.

I'd love to see some no comp events.

If a no comp system can be used for 40K it would by pass any bias that peer/panel comp seems to suffer inherently from (TO comp falls into rather biased panel).

in the end what is the point of any sort of comp system if the ability of the person using the army shows it isn't as 'hard' as was once thought?

Should we comp someone because they are good with their chosen army or should we comp due to the perceived hardness of their list? It's great that 40K seems to favour the later than the former but it's easy to fall into a misperception.

[NeckFace]

well that's why i'm in favour of losing comp components in judging, or at least down-playing their performance.  you wouldn't penalize a player for having good ability, and why penalize a 'hard' army when in the hands of someone who can't play it performs horribly?  i think people under-estimate the complexity of the game, and how you can use the mechanics to work for you; sure, its an awkward system that has holes in it, but i'm shown time and again that someone who's aware of their army and can think a turn or two ahead consistently wins, despite the amount of players who just throw their units willy nilly at one another trusting the amount of dice they're rolling is more than their opponent.

I have to agree with most of that, as a fantasy diehard 6 games into 40k with a fairly well-rounded list, for some reason I expected to see a similar level of 'bigger picture' decision making when it came down to pure strategy and tactics.  I haven't been!  I'm 5wins to 1loss with my silly old CSM boys.  There's often a 'think one turn ahead' mentality in these sorts of scenes.  Great people though, and great times (and probably great dice too).

this is an example of what i'm talking about.  you're paying attention to the game mechanics and using what tools you have to mitigate the short comings of your list.  you're actually playing the game, not just building 'point-and-click' units.

my problem has always been my inability to think properly ahead, and the nid list i ran was constructed to get around this.  even then, my first game against Damian Avery went balls-up because one of the primary factors my list required to work totally blew up in my face and i failed to adapt appropriately.

[Big D]

Insert voiceover guy voice here:

"For alll your high quality trophy and award needs at a reasonable price, contact Wayne at Apex Trophies on 4104715."

[wouster7]

"For alll your high quality trophy and award needs at a reasonable price, contact Wayne at Apex Trophies on 4104715."

Thanks to Apex Trophies for the awesome shiny prizes you see at the up coming tournament!
They are the shizzle.

[Vaul]

Blood god, I used my moderator powers to edit your post but only to fix your quote, you missed out a 'quote' bit in there so it was hard to read your post.

[blood_god]

Haha cheers. I pushed quote and it gave me way to much and in the wrong places!

[Nikolectric]

Easiest way to rile up a community = comp.
To be honest, people take what lists they want. the comp moderates the lists to hopefully make them more interesting by taking not so obvious choices.
Perhaps it is not doing this, but creating the opposite, by restricting fun choices which are hard.
It all comes down to the reason that comp exists is to give everybody a chance to win. Regardless of army strength.
Although i agree about no comp tournies in nz and am looking forward to having some on the scene, its probably a hit harsh to get rid of it from all events.
Variety si the spice of life after all.

Needless to say, the comp system i used for equinox ( just rolling a dice and writing down the score) seems to be balanced and unbiased and will no doubt provide an interesting field.

[Tuatara]

Needless to say, the comp system i used for equinox ( just rolling a dice and writing down the score) seems to be balanced and unbiased and will no doubt provide an interesting field.

Before you roll mine, can you use my D20? 

[wouster7]

Needless to say, the comp system i used for equinox ( just rolling a dice and writing down the score) seems to be balanced and unbiased and will no doubt provide an interesting field.

In no way were senseless Trolls or under aged dice hurt in anyway in the making of this story.
The use of D20's and other dice in the scenario was greatly exaggerated

[Simon]

As someone who normally wins a bit of stuff here and there, I would much rather the acknowledgemen t that comes with a trophy, and see the prizes go out as spot prizes, so that everyone has a shot at them.

totally agree, I still remember my first trophy is Conflict 2006 best presentation for my 40k Ork army. it is one of the nicest trophy I have.

In addition, it would be nice to have medals engraved as well, so when you look back in 6 months time at a bunch of medals, you know which tournaments your got them from.

I would also like to see prizes go out as spot prizes as well, for a more experienced player, it is much more rewarding to get a trophy (or even nicely printed certificate as Charlie mentioned) then gift vouchers because more experienced players usually have most of the models they need anyway.
 
 

[Menolly]

Are these feedback comments just generic event comments or specific to the BattleCry that's just past? I'm collecting specific BattleCry 2011 feedback so I can pass them onto the organisers. You can message me instead of posting if you have specific feedback too.

[proximity]

Are these feedback comments just generic event comments or specific to the BattleCry that's just past? I'm collecting specific BattleCry 2011 feedback so I can pass them onto the organisers. You can message me instead of posting if you have specific feedback too.

The comp discussion is generic, though something ALL TO's should probably keep an eye on. Of more relevance would be quietly watching the events coming up that go with no comp, and seeing how it goes, how it can be tweaked, etc. The luxury of learning from others experiments is always one that is worth using to its full potential.

the trophy/prize comments are battlecry specific, as I was linked here from someone else and they said it was the battlecry feedback thread - i never checked the title before I replied, otherwise I would have put it in the relevant thread

[bartosh]

i would agree that comp has seen its day. at a tournament the best player deserves to win, not the guy who brought the fluffiest army, it is compeditve play after all.

BUT........... ....there needs to be somthing to stop certain types of people taking the old 3 x 10 man hammernators or the duel lash/9 x oblits lists. it is compeditve but if the young fullas just getting into the scene are getting absolutly fist f$#^ed by these armys all the time they are less likely to come back, as it sucks the fun out of it.

i dont know what the alternitive is, maybe a good old fashioned carparking after the game?


my 2 pence anyway

[xyphoid]

I kind of prefer panel / TO comp to peer comp, but I'd love to get some feedback on why the number was picked - I'm pretty sure I got comp 1 due to large boyz squads with battlewagons, despite the squad sizes not actually fitting in the wagons.

A straight number doesn't really give you an idea of how to improve it.