NOVA Open Results

[Elrahir]

Even balance things out more regularly (ala patch notes, we see in various online games). Yeah i see what you mean.

[Smurfalypse]

 

 

What do you call a player who didn't care for Tau or Eldar allies in the beginning of 6th, and now all of a sudden uses them?

A human.

 

 

> 

 What changed for them in loving the game in the begining of 6th editon

to all of a sudden love Tau and Eldar Allies now? Maybe because they can

win more easilynow?

wining bad. losing good. yeah we are getting that.

 

If you do it for money, yeah go for it!

Play whatever is broken and auto-wins competition, sadly jeske there are not careers built on competitive wargaming (as far as i know, correct me if i am wrong), it's not bad to lose from time to time. Learn to accept defeat sometimes.

As for the auto-win lists, cover removal (tau) and high strength shooting (eldar), those pros did not invent the wheel, the game is broken and i can hardly see if there were any winning tactics or strategies icluded on a game that is based on chess moves and tactical thinking, odd? Yeah, it must be fixed. 

 

 

There are no "auto-win" lists at tourneys as large as NOVA Open, there are lists that are stronger than others and the top 30 might be playing mostly the same four codexs but the lists are all different to a certain degree (sometimes minor changes, sometimes fairly large changes). Proof is in the pudding as a DA player placed 7th overall, fairly frigging impressive IMO.

[HsojVvad]

See this is why I didn't use the term pro . Aside for a few people working for gaming companies , it is impossible to live out of gaming. There is no table top pro tour[wish there was would help the hobby grow]. 

 

Well the Obama Administration has made or legalized professional video gamers as Professional Athletes now. So who knows what will happen for 40K gamers. Maybe finally we can actually become jocks. :P

Ate my edit. Since when is good list building/picking the sign of A not loving the game B lack of tactical thinking. Even if everyone played tau/eldar[what clearly didn't happen at nova] , they would still need to learn tactics for mirror matchs.

 

When people drop them and go onto the next more powerful army. I guess that is called Flavour of the Month. 

 

For the few people who actually love to make good list building or tactical thinking, there are 1000's more who don't do this and make those that do look bad. 

 

You telling me that everyone at the Nova tournament do this because the love good list building or tactical thinking? I think picking a weaker codex would prove this more without having the "easy button". 

 

So what do you call a person who uses a codex, then drops it for the next big thing, then drops that and goes onto the other new big thing? I can see reading from your posts I have made the mistake of labelling people as well. Like to hear more from you. :)

[Retaliation]

 

 

 

What do you call a player who didn't care for Tau or Eldar allies in the beginning of 6th, and now all of a sudden uses them?

A human.

 

 

<

blockquote>

> 

 What changed for them in loving the game in the begining of 6th editon

to all of a sudden love Tau and Eldar Allies now? Maybe because they can

win more easilynow?

wining bad. losing good. yeah we are getting that.

 

If you do it for money, yeah go for it!

Play whatever is broken and auto-wins competition, sadly jeske there are not careers built on competitive wargaming (as far as i know, correct me if i am wrong), it's not bad to lose from time to time. Learn to accept defeat sometimes.

As for the auto-win lists, cover removal (tau) and high strength shooting (eldar), those pros did not invent the wheel, the game is broken and i can hardly see if there were any winning tactics or strategies icluded on a game that is based on chess moves and tactical thinking, odd? Yeah, it must be fixed. 

 

There are no "auto-win" lists at tourneys as large as NOVA Open, there are lists that are stronger than others and the top 30 might be playing mostly the same four codexs but the lists are all different to a certain degree (sometimes minor changes, sometimes fairly large changes). Proof is in the pudding as a DA player placed 7th overall, fairly frigging impressive IMO.

 

 

What kind of list was he running? All this talk from you spikey chaos boyz is making me curious.

[the jeske]

Well the Obama Administration has made or legalized professional video

gamers as Professional Athletes now. So who knows what will happen for

40K gamers. Maybe finally we can actually become jocks.

As I said before , it is not possible to live out of table top gaming . The prizes are too low for that. Even MtG is not what it used to be .

 

 

When people drop them and go onto the next more powerful army.

Why do you think that people play good armies , care about the game less then those who don't?

 

 

 

 

You telling me that everyone at the Nova tournament do this because the

love good list building or tactical thinking? I think picking a weaker

codex would prove this more without having the "easy button".

Yes they picked any army that works better , that is tactical. And if you think that playing at top table with any list is "easy" you don't know much about much tournaments .

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you call a person who uses a codex, then drops it for the

next big thing, then drops that and goes onto the other new big thing?

A human . I played chaos as my only tournament lists in 5th [nids sucked hard in europe in 5th, it is hard to describe how bad they were] . I even picked up EC to be "different" to not play the same oblits+pms+DPs like everyone. Was the biggest mistake I ever made . Wasted 5 years of game time . I actualy had more fun testing lists from other dex for others , then playing my own chaos . It didn't make me a better gamer , nor did it make me a better person . It was foolish . People should play what they want and in general codex , that are more effective with many different builds are more fun to play. Who had more fun a casual/tournament/fluff player using his SW dex or me with chaos ? Would I have had more fun , If I played something else then chaos ? of course.

[Elrahir]

The game and the rules generally for every codex, are made by play-testing various scenarios and various combinations, the most important though is that the game is made by people, not by some big AI computer (imho, it might be the other way around). So it has to has bugs, which they try to fix in the errata and faqs after. What I see is players always look for ways to exploit those before fixed.

So, you want to tell me that around 50 or more dudes just wanted to play tau/mech-dar lists because of the fluff or whatever. It's only natural, we always try to find the best combo and the easiest way around things, just to be more competitive and reach the top which all boiled down to that hilarious outcome of fighting each other with kind of the same lists, out of 20 different codices and their combinations with the allies matrix.

Well that kind of ruins the game's essence for those who want to compete, but in different terms, more decent actually. Also it ruins variety, which is one of the strongest assets of 40k.

That's why i think that more like those tournaments should ring a bell to gw and start balancing those bugs out more frequently.

[Zhukov]

Pointing out fallacies is a thing not unknown to me on the internet. Usually it comes forth from ignorance, or being short-sighted, or sometimes simply not being able to comprehense a certain concept. Let me try and enlighten some people here:

 

"Loving" or being "loyal" to a certain army does not make you morally superior to somebody who doesn't value those concepts. They are just that: Traits certain persons value. Some people simply love the entire background of warhammer 40k and that's the reason they play. Now let's take this a step further and for a change, try to see how wrong it is to act like it is wrong that certain people jump armies just to play the strongest thing possible, try to see how incredibly arrogant it makes you to even hint at that:

 

Some people like competing on the higest level more than anything. They like playing their strongest game, trying to see how far they can get with that. You see the word "like" twice in this?

 

I am baffled each time by people who even dare to comment negatively on people who spend their time and money in the way they want, without them hurting anybody else with it.

 

Can you imagine these kind of tournament players acting in the same kind of way to people who don't play the game like them? Acting like it's patethic that people like an army so much, that it makes them "loyal" to them, even though the rules for that army are subpar? I mean, it's a game isn't it?

 

It is so easy to act disrespectful towards other people their preferences, it's way harder to respect that not everybody is the same and that not everybody enjoys the same things in life the same.

 

And no, picking weaker armies doesn't show of more tactical prowess. People who bring their strongest army can't hide behind having taken a weak army on purpose. Imagine the following situation, which occurs probably quite a lot: Player A bringst a list which he deems really strong and beats player B at a tournament who took a weak list on purpose. (Because he's loyal to his weak codex or some other reason). Did player B play well? Enter a world of a lot of subjectiveness ladies and gentlemen. In the end there is only 1 objective way to Judge whether one did well or not: You won? You performed well. Competing is way more than winning or losing, playing to win is merely the boundary which holds the thing together, a way of meassurement as you want.

 

I don't know, I'm rambling and running out of time, maybe this post is full of :cuss, I'll review it tomorrow.

[Elrahir]

Yep, why need the other forums and army list sections on those 'weak' codices, I don't get it. Shut them down, let all players play whatever is the strongest alone all the time. Or maybe better, just throw dices at each other, see which one hurts the most. Trying or not to face the facts, power-gaming is still gaming yeah, but it's not done to support the game, it is done to support personal egos.

Just for once, how about there were no weaker codices? That's all i am talking about, not weaker army lists, anyone can build whatever he wants, doesn't make him a genius.

[Scribe]

Again, you are the one making a claim on why people play certain armies. Its an excuse as old as gaming and crosses all boundaries "They only win because....". 

[Agent Purple]

Yep, why need the other forums and army list sections on those 'weak' codices, I don't get it. Shut them down, let all players play whatever is the strongest alone all the time. Or maybe better, just throw dices at each other, see which one hurts the most. Trying or not to face the facts, power-gaming is still gaming yeah, but it's not done to support the game, it is done to support personal egos.

Just for once, how about there were no weaker codices? That's all i am talking about, not weaker army lists, anyone can build whatever he wants, doesn't make him a genius.

 

Keeping up the expressions of whining and negativity is important so that no one forgets how crappy the codex is and geedubb doesn't mistake silence as an indicator for them having actually produced an acceptable product.  Negativity and toxicity towards the current situation must be kept up to increase the chance that GW will not screw us over again when it comes to 7th ed.

 

Its like politics. We can't forget the wrongs done to us now even though the next election is a few years off.

 

Also, if no one voices their discontent online, then, some more casual players who experience success in a non-competitive setting might not even ever actually know that their codex sucks. New players will not be able to take a quick look online and become discouraged at starting a chaos army.  Without a toxic and negative atmosphere on line, these players will be more likely to buy GW's chaos products allowing GW to "make a quick buck off this *&%$load of $*&%" (to quote the AVGN theme).

 

Of course, in an ideal world one's choice of faction should be on preference only without impacting your chances of winning. But that would require good, balanced rules, which GW has (i believe) publicly stated that they aren't even interested in attempting.  Extreme discontent for crappy armies again sends a message to GW that their fanbase expects them to be more than just a 'pretty model' company. 

 

We shouldn't be taking out 'powergaming' vs 'fluff gaming' on each other. In the majority of cases, the difference between the two only exists because GW is unwilling (or unable) to write a decent rules set. Real enemy of the hobby state is GW, and in the case of chaos, Phil Kelly, who's lacklustre codex devoid of any passion should be taken as an attack on chaos players personally. Apparently we aren't even worth a 'new' codex, just a quick dusting off of Gav's previous work.

[minionboy]

Honestly all this complaining is really formed out of ignorant conclusions based on the number of people showing up to a tournament that used non-standard scenarios and a non-standard amount of terrain...

 

Every scenario had table quarter objectives, which could be claimed by MC's but not by vehicles... That in itself is a huge advantage for Daemons, Eldar and Tau, who can claim with princes, lord/knights, and Riptides, while maulerfiends, and any other vehicle are left out to dry. You have to remember in a big tournament, if there is an army that will have an intrinsic advantage, people will gravitate towards it. The low amount of terrain that tournaments typically have is also advantageous for shooting armies.

 

All that said, if you actually look at the numbers, CSM as a whole did the 5th best of any army in the tournament with a win rate of 66.6%. So please, before you complain about how awful the book is, learn the facts first.

 

All the stats for NOVA armies are here:

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/stats/armies

[daboarder]

Honestly all this complaining is really formed out of ignorant conclusions based on the number of people showing up to a tournament that used non-standard scenarios and a non-standard amount of terrain...

 

Every scenario had table quarter objectives, which could be claimed by MC's but not by vehicles... That in itself is a huge advantage for Daemons, Eldar and Tau, who can claim with princes, lord/knights, and Riptides, while maulerfiends, and any other vehicle are left out to dry. You have to remember in a big tournament, if there is an army that will have an intrinsic advantage, people will gravitate towards it. The low amount of terrain that tournaments typically have is also advantageous for shooting armies.

 

All that said, if you actually look at the numbers, CSM as a whole did the 5th best of any army in the tournament with a win rate of 66.6%. So please, before you complain about how awful the book is, learn the facts first.

 

All the stats for NOVA armies are here:

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/stats/armies

 

 

Interesting, wish that had been made clearer earlier in the discussion. MC scoring? out side of troops? what was the rational for that I wonder?

[Smurfalypse]

Honestly all this complaining is really formed out of ignorant conclusions based on the number of people showing up to a tournament that used non-standard scenarios and a non-standard amount of terrain...

 

Every scenario had table quarter objectives, which could be claimed by MC's but not by vehicles... That in itself is a huge advantage for Daemons, Eldar and Tau, who can claim with princes, lord/knights, and Riptides, while maulerfiends, and any other vehicle are left out to dry. You have to remember in a big tournament, if there is an army that will have an intrinsic advantage, people will gravitate towards it. The low amount of terrain that tournaments typically have is also advantageous for shooting armies.

 

All that said, if you actually look at the numbers, CSM as a whole did the 5th best of any army in the tournament with a win rate of 66.6%. So please, before you complain about how awful the book is, learn the facts first.

 

All the stats for NOVA armies are here:

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/stats/armies

 

Actually you are wrong about the vehicles not scoring, the base rulebook specifically says that in missions with Heavy Metal and Fast Recon that vehicles in those slots are indeed scoring (unless immobilized). 

 

This is NOVA Opens exact wording on the subject as well.

3.3 General Mission Rules and Terminology

3.3.1 Mission Special Rules

Mysterious Objectives, Game Length, Night Fight,

Reserves, Heavy Metal (p128), Fast Recon (p129),

and The Relic (p131) should be played exactly as

described in the 6th Edition Rulebook.

 

This is what Torrent of Fire has for stats on the CSM as a primary detachment for NOVA Open 2013.

WON - 54

LOST - 81

I am no math wizzzarrdd (ATHF reference) but that is certainly NOT a 66% win ratio. . .

 

So I am either misunderstanding what you meant or your facts are incorrect (not trying to be rude, I am being honest). 

 

[Smurfalypse]

 

Honestly all this complaining is really formed out of ignorant conclusions based on the number of people showing up to a tournament that used non-standard scenarios and a non-standard amount of terrain...

Every scenario had table quarter objectives, which could be claimed by MC's but not by vehicles... That in itself is a huge advantage for Daemons, Eldar and Tau, who can claim with princes, lord/knights, and Riptides, while maulerfiends, and any other vehicle are left out to dry. You have to remember in a big tournament, if there is an army that will have an intrinsic advantage, people will gravitate towards it. The low amount of terrain that tournaments typically have is also advantageous for shooting armies.

All that said, if you actually look at the numbers, CSM as a whole did the 5th best of any army in the tournament with a win rate of 66.6%. So please, before you complain about how awful the book is, learn the facts first.

All the stats for NOVA armies are here:
http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/stats/armies

Interesting, wish that had been made clearer earlier in the discussion. MC scoring? out side of troops? what was the rational for that I wonder?

If the MC were a heavy support choice (Daemons) then in a mission where Heavy Metal rule applies, they would be scoring (so would a Land Raider or any vehicle taken as a heavy support choice). If the MC were a fast attack choice, in a mission where we had the Fast Recon rule, then it would count as scoring as well (as would a Heldrake or any other vehicle taken as a fast attack choice)

 

Just to clarify, the Heavy Metal and Fast Recon rules are in the base rulebook and explain everything there.

[daboarder]

Right so then its bussiness as usual.....sigh wish people would give the right information.

[Elrahir]

Again, I'm not complaining for those dudes that went there and won. As I said it's only natural to exploit, and yeah I remember when the CSM 5th ed codex was exploited in an early 6th ed tourney in U.S. . I am complaining about game mechanics, that take too long to be fixed. I am pointing at gw, not any player. A game that has a competitive scene in any material, not only wargaming, updates its mechanics regularly, to balance them out and provide the players equal chances to prove their worth.

So, if i buy and play Nids, or Orks, or any codex that hasn't been balanced out to the current meta, should i not go to these events because i don't stand a chance for a decent battle against more imbalanced codices?

[the jeske]

Playing a good army with a proper build is not exploiting. If that is exploiting you would have to ban all sportsman who have better then avarge lung capacity , better muscle/bone structure , higher pain treshhold etc

 

 

 

So, if i buy and play Nids, or Orks, or any codex that hasn't been
balanced out to the current meta, should i not go to these events
because i don't stand a chance for a decent battle against more
imbalanced codices?

 

You don't understand how tournament gaming seems to work . You either pick an easy to play[where easy is not realy easy, it is mostly less random] list or a black horse list . Which either is ok ,but has one ultrabad match up and you hope to not play against it or you hope that people don't know how your army list/they didn't play test against it enough etc.

Ah and if you realy think that there are armies which have 0 chance to win a tournament , then yes it is probably better for you to take a top tier army . You will probably still get wooped , but to a lesser degree.

[hornywingythingy]

Again, I'm not complaining for those dudes that went there and won. As I said it's only natural to exploit,

Its not exploiting to use the most powerful army at a tournament, these aren't people using an illegal glitch on a game or some other piece of bs (for example, the "my eldar jetbike is wargear, rulebook says you can only target the rider not wargear, vis a vis, unless you can see the rider, you can't shoot the model" seriously someone tried this, and got politely told to shove it)

 

Otherwise, yeah, I agree gw have and are dropping the ball, 5 months without faq is pretty major, and gw playtesting is laughable, I have heard discussions of it from ex playtesters, 9/10 times they are just ignored by gw.

 

And as always, Zhukov is the voice of reason, I agree 100% with your statement.

[Zhukov]

Elrahir, on 03 Sept 2013 - 01:03, said:

Elrahir, on 03 Sept 2013 - 01:03, said:

Yep, why need the other forums and army list sections on those 'weak' codices, I don't get it. Shut them down, let all players play whatever is the strongest alone all the time. Or maybe better, just throw dices at each other, see which one hurts the most. Trying or not to face the facts, power-gaming is still gaming yeah, but it's not done to support the game, it is done to support personal egos.

Just for once, how about there were no weaker codices? That's all i am talking about, not weaker army lists, anyone can build whatever he wants, doesn't make him a genius.

I wish all you were talking about is balance, but you're not. You're having one big whinefest with multiple negative statements about other players. Have you even thought about what you're asking though? "No weaker codices"?

 

GW is not capable, nor interested enough (which probably comes forth from the issue of money) in trying to make this game really balanced. Balanced in the sense that all codices would be more or less evenly strong, most units being usefull and no units extremely strong etc etc.

 

Most RTS games featured somewhere between 2 and 5 factions. Almost no RTS was ever balanced. And this is a computer game we're speaking about, where data is easily collected, where luck does't play a role (or very minor at least) and where they can rather easily test the impact of certain changes they'll make. Most importantly: A computer game is all that, a game.

 

Now try to compare this with Warhammer 40k. 15 factions. Data is way harder to collect, there is the role of luck, impact of mission rules, tables etc. On top of that, warhammer 40k is a hobby, where rules merely permit you to use your models, it's a small part of the hobby.

 

 

GW probably has chosen the wiser path (keep in mind they are a company). The path of perfect imbalance.

 

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

[Elrahir]

Count it as bad wording, but you get what I mean at least, i thought that the whole response was sarcasm and not actual reading about what i am saying.  As a customer and a hobbyist, i have a right to be frustrated that the game is broken and nothing is done to fix it. The most ridiculous fact, is that the company itself, does not try at least to fix this, but releases an even more powerful codex after that to bring balance to the game. Which is rather irritating to the casual gamer like most of us, who do not want to throw a fortune to buy the next imbalanced army that shows up and counter/erases the previous competition. But yeah, more profit for the profit god.

[Zhukov]

Elrahir, on 03 Sept 2013 - 09:32, said:

Elrahir, on 03 Sept 2013 - 09:32, said:

-Which is rather irritating to the casual gamer like most of us, who do not want to throw a fortune to buy the next imbalanced army that shows up and counter/erases the previous competition. But yeah, more profit for the profit god.

Why do you care about balance if you're a casual player? Balance is different on a non-competitive level. On a casual level one can win consistently with every codex.

 

I now notice I've skipped over another one of your extreme statements: That the game is broken. How is the game broken exactly? What defines 'broken'? I'd define broken as 1 army winning everything over the course of multiple years. What's your definition?

[Elrahir]

Zhukov, perefect imbalance would be in 5th or in an edition that is not allowing different codices to ally. Each codex has strengths and weaknesses, combining the 2 most recent and most imbalanced codices, erase their weaknesses or at least diminishes them. Do you say that this cannot be fixed at all? OH OKAY, fine. We'll talk about sm/eldar in a few months in an another big tourney.

And by casual, i mean not filthy rich. Bad wording again, sorry.

 

 Edit:

 

Same defintion, without the longetivity issue, as it still grows.

 

Plus, it's not only the money, it is also stupid to throw money at an army that you know it will be out of use in some time.

 

Balance, a vague expression, maybe just stabilizing then so you know that your time and effort on the hobby are taken into consideration.

[Zhukov]

Elrahir, on 03 Sept 2013 - 09:45, said:

Zhukov, perefect imbalance would be in 5th or in an edition that is not allowing different codices to ally. Each codex has strengths and weaknesses, combining the 2 most recent and most imbalanced codices, erase their weaknesses or at least diminishes them. Do you say that this cannot be fixed at all? OH OKAY, fine. We'll talk about sm/eldar in a few months in an another big tourney.

And by casual, i mean not filthy rich. Bad wording again, sorry.

So are you frustrated by how the game (GW) works, or frustrated that you don't have enough money? In which case you basicly say "If I had a lot of money I would have had no issues with the game". But so, you are a competitive player then? Then why don't you play warhammer 40k for fun and play something else, something cheaper and less broken as a competitive game? And no, Games Workshop does not owe you anything apart from the models being good quality. That's what you pay for, you do not pay for good rules I'm afraid.

 

You also realise that Tau + Tau placed really well right? That doesn't hold up with your ally theory. Tau + Tau makes their strenghts bigger, not diminishing their weaknesses.

You also realise that weaker codices benefit more relatively than strong codices from allying right? Strong codices have to give up relatively more valuable points compared to weak codices. (More valuable because their units are better)

 

I think it's too early to speak about armies being broken, when some major 6th edition releases have not yet found place. It's not fair to comment on the game it's balance, when it's simply to soon to comment on that. The release this saturday, Space Marines, is incredibly important. So are IG and to a lesser extent Orks and Tyranids (who perform mostly an important role as wildcard usually).

 

If it turns out that next year summer, Tau and Eldar still dominate, or some other army, above all others, then I'd say it's time to speak about the game being broken. But not at this point, the game is basicly in an alpha state. Yes, you can find this annoying, that it takes half an edition to have a somewhat judgeable game. Well, what's stops you from quitting it? It wont change, I'll tell you that. The only way it might change if everybody quitted it, so I'd seriously suggest it if I were you. Set an example?

[Elrahir]

If i wanted to quit, i wouldn't be having this conversation. Am i mad to think, there should be more frequent patches and faqs in the game, point cost ballances, game mechanics fixes and all that kind of stuff. They will still earn profit, but make the game more enjoyable too. Is it really that extreme of an idea to talk about?  Hating codices that doesn't work is not going to fix anything, just make the game more elitist to those dedicated to WAAC.

[Zhukov]

No, that's not too extreme of an idea to talk about, go ahead I'd say, you have my all important approval.

 

Nah but seriously, maybe I'd be for more FAQ's and maybe even point cost changes, but not now. Not now that a few really important codices simply aren't there yet. Before a new 'meta'/balance has been settled, it wil be irrelevant already when a next important codex comes out. Armies all have the potential of influencing eachother after all (and they usually do).

 

Mind you, FAQ's etc have their own problems. It might suddenly mean that GW made your army list just irrelevant in a different kind of way, 'forcing' you to buy the units they made better to compete etc. In short: I don't think it will necessarily change things for the better (and seeing what they did to the Heldrake in the FAQ, it rather scares me). Personally I'm glad I only have to really take new codex releases in mind regarding my lists and if I have to change them or not (or if I have to change armies) to compete. Also being dependant on FAQ's and other changes all the time? I might have to change my lists every month in order to compete, no thanks.