So, here's a heck of an intro:
I've never lost a singles tournament game, anywhere, ever.
It's true. SARCASM WARNING - By my stupendous awesomeness at 40k I've never lost a tournament game against another player. At AdeptiCon Team 2010 my partner and I lost my 4th round team game. That's my only loss of any sort at a tournament.
What does this mean?
Nothing. I'm just lucky. The law of averages says there are plenty of players out there as good as me, or better than me, and they all will beat me a good # of the times we play together. WE haven't even all played together.
At the Battle for Salvation GT last year, I played Simon Leen, Jeff Frederickson, Bill McFadden, Alex Fennell, and Andrew Sutton (among others). All of these players would independently qualify for the NOVA Invitational. I beat them all. Many of them I beat on lucky dice rolls or things going my way. They were all my peers or perhaps better.
You will NEVER hear me EVER claim to be a SUPERLATIVE at anything, b/c I'd be flat out wrong. I'm a very good 40k player, I'm comfortable with that, and I don't really wish to be anything else. I feel NO ONE ELSE should seek to be, either.
I see a constantly increasing occurrence of a strange internet phenomenon ... or maybe not so strange ... of people propping themselves up as skilled / elite 40k players, sharing oodles of advice on how to play and what to do and what lists to bring ... and then when they lose, blowing up with excuses and perhaps less than cordial reasons why on the internet.
Here is all I kinda want to add as a thought ...
While Warhammer 40k does involve rolling dice to determine many of the outcomes, there are significant components of the game that are either not dice based, or involve mechanics that can mitigate the impact of dice. If you choose to play a list that does not account for the mitigation of "bad luck," or that does not focus on components of the game OUTSIDE of the dice (i.e. using clever movement and pacing, avoiding overcommittal early on, taking advantage of LOS blockage with "survivors" or entire units, etc.), you are periodically going to face games against your peers where your dice absolutely blow.
Please, for the love of mary, stop blaming the dice. We've all had crappy dice games aplenty, many of them playing the "usual suspects" at our local gaming stores or in our house-bound gaming groups. The people we typically beat that lead to us having a "firm" self-opinion and posting on blogs about how great we are or trying to teach people ... well, we beat them with or without bad dice b/c they often aren't as good as us. If they were, and beat you all the time, you'd think you weren't so hot comparatively.
Either way, the point here is - when you lose to bad dice, it is almost always still your fault, and your opponent's fault. It's not the fault of Lady Luck. Your opponent was in a position to beat you if your dice weren't "to the odds," or you took a list and/or played in a way that left you extremely vulnerable to poor odds, etc.
This also has relevance to HOW to build a list for tournament play ... taking a pure MSU list that presumes it will get even marginal odds over the course of a game is all well and good, but it is often the type of list that will win "unless my dice suck." Well, that's a bad list in a lot of senses, for tournament play ... b/c in a longer-game-set tournament, chances are your luck is going to suck at some points and be great at some points (and thus we get the averages). If your list can't survive through the crappy luck games ... well, that's not really luck's fault.
I know I'm rambling some here, but to bring it all home ... I'll be attending and competing at the Battle for Salvation GT again this year. I think I'm bringing Grey Knights this time around, and my list will be or be based off one of the lists that follows. Because this is a great, tough event ... I'm sure I'll face some peers while I'm there, and it's going to be anybody's game. Best believe if I DO lose, even if it's to "a single roll of the dice," it's going to e credited to my opponent being a peer, or being superior. I'll analyze any mistakes I make (And will do my best not to make any), I'll be sad for any bad dice rolls, but if a bad dice roll is all it takes to screw me, it's b/c my opponent was right there with me every step of the way. If I'm counting on a single roll of a 3+ to let me win by going to Turn 6 ... he's just as much counting on a single roll of a 1-2 to let him win by stopping at 5.
Be magnanimous in defeat, build your lists to be less susceptible to odds, and when you lose ... and you WILL lose ... for WHATEVER reason ... give credit for it where due, befriend your opponent (because that's all either of you will really deeply remember about the game), and try not to be a douchecanoe starting internet flamewars across the web over it after the fact.
Great example, btw, is Sandwyrm from The Back 40k. He was caught off guard by the height and quantity of LOS blocking terrain at the NOVA, and had some games that came down to very close calls as he fought his way to 4-4. That said, here's a perfect quote in light of all that from him:
"So all I did was trade a good list that I knew well for a mediocre one that I didn't because I was insecure. My fault."
His recent post with the Gonzo journalist image topper is full of a lot of commentary that acknowledges some of the WHY behind losses (i.e. terrain, self, dice, whatever), but doesn't take credit away from his opponents in the process, and doesn't defend inappropriate choices or actions as being flawless and only upended by bad dice or bad opponents. Hell of a good man for the approach, and everyone still knows he's a well above competent gamer.
When some of the guys out there promote themselves too much, the ego burst on loss is catastrophic and visible ... and you can't deal with it but to make up excuses, insult people, etc., and everyone ELSE is ready to jump on you for being imperfect.
This is how you can see some people go like 10-3 over a weekend, yet still be "upset." What the heck?
Can we point at Blackmoor as a paragon of bright here also? I think 10-3 is precisely what he went at the NOVA this year over the Invitational and GT, losing in the final round of the GT, and you know - he seems by all accounts to be quite happy about what he did, as he should be. Mad props.
Anyway, here are some list variants and rationales I'm looking at for BFS:
1. Purifier Spam + My Standard Coteaz Core
Grand Master w/ Psycannon - 220
Inquisitor Coteaz - 100
(1/3) Venerable Dreadnaught w/ Multi-Melta, Twin-Linked Autocannon w/ Psybolt Ammo - 185
(2/3) 10 Purifiers w/ 2 Psycannons, 2 Incinerators, Hammer - 265
Rhino w/ Psybolt Ammo - 40
(3/3) 10 Purifiers w/ 2 Psycannons, 2 Incinerators, Hammer - 265
Rhino w/ Psybolt Ammo - 40
(1/6) 3 Acolytes w/ LP, CCW - 12
Razorback w/ Psybolt Ammo - 50
(2/6) 3 Acolytes w/ LP, CCW - 12
Razorback w/ Psybolt Ammo - 50
(3/6) 3 Acolytes w/ LP, CCW - 12
Razorback w/ Psybolt Ammo - 50
(4/6) 3 Acolytes w/ LP, CCW - 12
Razorback w/ Psybolt Ammo - 50
(5/6) 3 Acolytes w/ LP, CCW - 12
Razorback w/ Psybolt Ammo - 50
(6/6) 8 Acolytes w/ LP, CCW; 2 Acolytes w/ Meltagun, CCW; Death Cult Assassin - 75
Razorback w/ Psybolt Ammo - 50
(1/3) 5 Purgators w/ 2 Incinerators, 2 Psycannons - 140
Rhino w/ Psybolt Ammo - 40
(2/3) Dreadnaught w/ 2 Twin-Linked Autocannons, Psybolt Ammo - 135
(3/3) Dreadnaught w/ 2 Twin-Linked Autocannons, Psybolt Ammo - 135
In Kill Point missions, the Purifiers are going to probably stay together, and scout / outflank (optional)
In Objective Missions, they'll probably combat squad into 2 cannons / 3 swords in Rhino + 2 Incinerators / Hammer that can walk behind LOS terrain or hiijack a Psyback.
The Purgators are just an extra gunboat, and yet another unit that Coteaz or the Grand Master can "hop" to in order to give it just enough combat and LD boost to deal with any sort of MSU unit that gets close enough to eat up in combat.
Nominally, Coteaz and the Grand Master will deploy on foot with the 11 model Henchman squad of 8 acos, 2 acos with meltagun, and a death cult. Together, this unit can expertly dissect most things for a couple of reasons; 1) the model count permits - even when charged - applying the independent characters to the enemy models I want to fight, instead of getting them based by high strength power weapons (though S7 and lower can be semi-tanked by the 3++ GM); 2) inherent casualties on the acos in combat + stubborn 10 leadership + ATKSNF will very often let me intentionally "draw" a combat on the turn I charge something scarier, and thus hide in combat until 2 full rounds are done; 3) double hammerhand turns S3 acos into S5 acos with 28 attacks on the charge, turns the deathcult into WS6 I6 S6, turns the GM into WS6 S6 I5, and turns Coteaz's hammer into master-crafted S10.
The Grand Master has a psycannon so that most/all of my units are still pumping out mobile firepower to help demech/mess with opponents.
The 3man acolyte squads are almost always going to be reserved and walking on ... their psybacks are there to provide fire support, and help move combat squadded purifiers around, and provide movement blocking against land raider lists, etc. etc. They aren't there to explode with 3 hapless T3 5+ saving bodies inside. I'm quite happy to Communion acos off the board even longer too.
Finally, the Psybolt Rhinos ... I could turn a couple of them into Psybacks, but this is bad for a couple of reasons. First of all, I can't outflank 10 purifiers in a psyback ... but I can outflank them in a Rhino, and put 2 S5 shots into the side armor of chimeras, or into DE vehicles, or into trukks, or just into infantry ... and can also fire 4 psycannon shots out upon arrival (or fire 2 incinrators into a vehicle flank, or whatever).
The point of the Psybolt rhinos is to let me stay bunkered and firing as long as possible, and to scout or outflank full purifier squads, and keep them bunkered in KP missions ... these are all relevant, and it's trading a little bit of on-paper-optimization for a wider and more reliable series of choices in practice.
Ugh, this is a long post ... so more to come in time re: BFS list development.
Tasty is one of the largest fools on the planet, because he is incapable of admitting he was wrong, or is wrong.
The NOVA specifically caters to the “average” gamer … the format is designed for it, which is why our strongest responses came from our most average or below average players in the overall competitive/skill front.
You’re embarrassing yourself, Nick. The vast preponderance of facts all stand in stark contrast to your statements, and you’re not even good at spin. Constructive criticism arose, and a TINY fraction of attendees flat out didn’t enjoy themselves … better believe I’ll be spending a good portion of my life this year on addressing even those concerns, for nothing but the betterment of attendees … certainly not for profit or personal glory.
Brandon Vallee, of the White Scars blog, was one of only two people to give a below average rating to the NOVA on our survey, out of every single player surveyed. His close compatriot, blog-mate and co-attendee Eric (who Brandon stayed with in the DC area) had naught but fantastic things to say. That’s also where the strength of it all comes in – while you have a handful of bloggers to point at, or commiserates … I have a detailed survey done of the ENTIRE ATTENDEE BASE, to include now over 180 responses (204 40k GT players, to show you how comprehensive a response it is) and rising. You are a complete failure, while the NOVA will continue to succeed.
Why? Everything we do is geared, planned, constructed and driven toward the constant goal of improving the experience of *every single attendee,* while providing a FAIR environment in which competitors, hobbyists and simple attendees alike can win prizes, fun, and friendships. This is why people who went 0-4 on Day 1 won prizes for generalship. This is why a random attendee got lucky and won $1,000 cash. This is why attendees have said things about the NOVA such as:
“NOVA has set a new standard for the social aspect of the tabletop wargaming hobby.”
AND this is why the NOVA will continue to be a success, and leverage facts and a staff comprised of fundamentally good human beings toward the betterment of our hobby as a whole.
To those who would listen to Nick without investigating the facts or sharing your concerns with the actual organizers, feel free to post here or send me an e-mail – I’m happy to correct any misconceptions, and will use only facts and data to do it … to show you a format designed better than almost any to reward and encourage participation in ALL style of hobbyist, and to show you a budget and plan oriented entirely around the joy and satisfaction of those people who bless us by attending. Do not buy lies, deception, and outright slander. For instance: his statement above that people left on Sunday after losing a game, b/c they had nothing left to play for. Nick has NO IDEA what our format is, our bracketing system on day 2, etc., and thus is completely unaware of the fact that everyone’s records were wiped clean on the 2nd day, and even the 0-4′s competed only against their peers for generalship prizes on Day 2, as well as constant raffles, etc.
Of our $30,000 in prize support (almost exclusively from sponsors), $2,500 went to the Invitational Tournament Champ (5-0), Invitational Renaissance Man (50% appearance, 50% competitive), GT Tournament Champ (8-0), and GT Renaissance Man (50% appearance, 50% competitive). The remaining prize support went exclusively to raffles (tickets awarded by LOSING games, presubmitting lists), cash raffle (tickets awarded by staying at the Hyatt), and all of the other events, including bracket winners within the 0-4, 1-3, 2-2, and 3-1 record sets on Day 2. The Invitational had 32 attendees, out of 400 total at the event. That’s 8%. It received 8% of the prize support. Tasty is a liar, or simply ignorant.
I care little for Nick, who I have e-mailed in the past to ask for a more positive relationship (to no reply). I do care greatly for those of you who read his posts and simply do not know any better … take a path of positivity and openness, and of connection in our hobby … not one of divisiveness and shitting upon the hard work of others.