Las Vegas Open 2017 Results + Lists

[Requizen]

Well, it sounds like there will be a lot of converts from hardcore 40k players at Adepticon this year, as well as a lot of big-name AoS players from the UK and Euroland, so we'll see something different in a month I'm sure.

Not to mention dat Stormcast book.

[Rimio]

I was in this tournament, and A lot of the people in the tournament were old fantasy players just coming back to AoS. Yes there were some "filth" lists, but most people who used them apologized in advance. The atmosphere was rather relaxed, and most people just were there to have fun. 

 

[Gauche]

4 minutes ago, Rimio said:

I was in this tournament, and A lot of the people in the tournament were old fantasy players just coming back to AoS. Yes there were some "filth" lists, but most people who used them apologized in advance. The atmosphere was rather relaxed, and most people just were there to have fun. 

 

Always been against apologizing for bringing razor sharp armies. It's a tournament, if you're the kind of player who wants to maximize their chances then just own it. Always felt like a ploy to get some comp/sportsmanship points out of the arrangement but that's only my perspective.

[Rhellion]

16 minutes ago, Requizen said:

Well, it sounds like there will be a lot of converts from hardcore 40k players at Adepticon this year, as well as a lot of big-name AoS players from the UK and Euroland, so we'll see something different in a month I'm sure.

Not to mention dat Stormcast book.

Adepticon will definitely be a different story... list-wise.

[Bradifer]

27 minutes ago, Gauche said:

I prefer the filth lists as they shine more of a spotlight on things that may need to be changed. Also it feels extremely unlikely that the entire event decided to take softer lists for the fun of it, and as someone who plays in the US I can confirm that the harder stuff is known to us.

Nothing against any of the competitors, the games I watched were played well and had abundant sportsmanship. Well played to all and if everyone is having fun, hey that's why you play at the end of the day.

As somebody coming from MTG, Hearthstone, WoW Cards, LoL, DOTA2, OverWatch etc.... That is one of the most confusing things about the warhammer community.

The fact that "filth" refers to lists that are good, and if your list is good, you have to apologize for it..?

Like..what's the deal...is this a game for whiners?

I've never heard of a game where bringing a well thought out army list (decklist, team comp, item build etc..) is a bad thing, and secondary to bringing a bunch of random stuff.

 

I get the perspective that it's a hobby first, and a competitive game second, but it seems so odd that you get shunned to play good lists. It almosts rewards you to bring a worse list.

Am I nuts or is the community really split on this?

How do you guys that play more often then me deal with this? Do you ask a question before the game (Hey are we playing competitive lists or bad lists?)

Honestly curious how this is handled on a day-to-day basis.

[Mohojoe]

Just now, Bradifer said:

As somebody coming from MTG, Hearthstone, WoW Cards, LoL, DOTA2, OverWatch etc.... That is one of hte most confusing things about the warhammer community.

The fact that "filth" refers to lists that are good, and if your list is good, you have to apologize for it..?

Like..what's the deal...is this a game for babies?

I've never heard of a game where bringing a well thought out army list (decklist, team comp, item build etc..) is a bad thing, and secondary to brining a bunch of random stuff.

 

I get the perspective that it's a hobby first, and a competitive game second, but it seems so odd that you get shunned to play good lists. It almosts rewards you to bring a worse list.

Am I nuts or is the community really split on this?

How do you guys that play more often then me deal with this? Do you ask a question before the game (Hey are we playing competitive lists or bad lists?)

Honestly curious how this is handled on a day-to-day basis.

This is a really common term across all competitive games, its not exclusive to AoS.

 

The big difference in AoS to other games that you mentioned is that this is more of a social game. Unless you are playing at a competitive level, you want your opponent to also have fun. Choosing lists that are super powerful against your mate who just got a starter set is a dick move as you know that you are likely to win without him having much fun. At a competition it is negligible as everyone should be bringing the filthiest lists.

Filth is more often than not a term of endearment in these games. It is a cheeky way of expressing respect for someone finding a great set of synergies that lets them create a powerful list. I recently commented on one of @Terry Pike lists calling him the king of filth. There was no insult meant, I was showing my respect for his list building. 

 

Take the term with a pinch of salt and don't get caught up on the little things. 

[Gauche]

5 minutes ago, Bradifer said:

As somebody coming from MTG, Hearthstone, WoW Cards, LoL, DOTA2, OverWatch etc.... That is one of the most confusing things about the warhammer community.

The fact that "filth" refers to lists that are good, and if your list is good, you have to apologize for it..?

Like..what's the deal...is this a game for whiners?

I've never heard of a game where bringing a well thought out army list (decklist, team comp, item build etc..) is a bad thing, and secondary to bringing a bunch of random stuff.

 

I get the perspective that it's a hobby first, and a competitive game second, but it seems so odd that you get shunned to play good lists. It almosts rewards you to bring a worse list.

Am I nuts or is the community really split on this?

How do you guys that play more often then me deal with this? Do you ask a question before the game (Hey are we playing competitive lists or bad lists?)

Honestly curious how this is handled on a day-to-day basis.

We're cut from similar cloth but most players do see this as a casual hobby, which is totally fine and valid. That thought process should never, ever bleed over to competitive play though. If you want a tournament with softer lists, that needs to be codified into the rules. If it isn't and you bring a bad list, or come as an inexperienced player, you should expect to lose as you would in any other game. Competitive Players shouldn't demand the game revolve around them, but tournaments should imho. AoS has the framework for this with Narrative vs. Matched Play and hopefully the larger community recognizes that as we move forward. Brilliant inclusion by GW to include those alternative modes.

[Requizen]

7 minutes ago, Bradifer said:

As somebody coming from MTG, Hearthstone, WoW Cards, LoL, DOTA2, OverWatch etc.... That is one of the most confusing things about the warhammer community.

The fact that "filth" refers to lists that are good, and if your list is good, you have to apologize for it..?

Like..what's the deal...is this a game for whiners?

I've never heard of a game where bringing a well thought out army list (decklist, team comp, item build etc..) is a bad thing, and secondary to bringing a bunch of random stuff.

 

I get the perspective that it's a hobby first, and a competitive game second, but it seems so odd that you get shunned to play good lists. It almosts rewards you to bring a worse list.

Am I nuts or is the community really split on this?

How do you guys that play more often then me deal with this? Do you ask a question before the game (Hey are we playing competitive lists or bad lists?)

Honestly curious how this is handled on a day-to-day basis.

Hm, it's a bit complicated. I think "filth" gets thrown around a lot, when it doesn't need to. I honestly don't think there are any "filth" lists in AoS other than maybe someone bringing two Thundertusks in 1000 points. 

To me, "filth" means "an army that is designed to make your gaming experience unfun or pointless". You play Hearthstone - remember Patron Warrior? Where one player could pretty easily get a near-infinite damage turn in a remarkably high percentage of games while preventing their opponent from even doing anything?

Even the most hardcore AoS lists never make me feel like I shouldn't have even shown up to the table. I feel like that when I play 40k and go up against invincible Deathstars and summoning lists that end up with double the points they started with. 

I think there is (and understandably) a stigma against those type of lists. Especially in a game like AoS or 40k. Unlike video games or MtG, where a single match can only take ~30 minute or an hour at most, a tournament level Warhammer game is expected to go 2 hours at a minimum barring a one-sided game.

When you spend the time and effort on the hobby side and travel a long way to play a game, only to essentially waste two and a half hours playing something that you have no chance of interacting with or winning against, that's filth. But again, I personally don't feel that AoS has any of that, but it sure as heck is what made me put a hold on 40k competitions.

[Gauche]

1 minute ago, Requizen said:

Hm, it's a bit complicated. I think "filth" gets thrown around a lot, when it doesn't need to. I honestly don't think there are any "filth" lists in AoS other than maybe someone bringing two Thundertusks in 1000 points. 

To me, "filth" means "an army that is designed to make your gaming experience unfun or pointless". You play Hearthstone - remember Patron Warrior? Where one player could pretty easily get a near-infinite damage turn in a remarkably high percentage of games while preventing their opponent from even doing anything?

Even the most hardcore AoS lists never make me feel like I shouldn't have even shown up to the table. I feel like that when I play 40k and go up against invincible Deathstars and summoning lists that end up with double the points they started with. 

I think there is (and understandably) a stigma against those type of lists. Especially in a game like AoS or 40k. Unlike video games or MtG, where a single match can only take ~30 minute or an hour at most, a tournament level Warhammer game is expected to go 2 hours at a minimum barring a one-sided game.

When you spend the time and effort on the hobby side and travel a long way to play a game, only to essentially waste two and a half hours playing something that you have no chance of interacting with or winning against, that's filth. But again, I personally don't feel that AoS has any of that, but it sure as heck is what made me put a hold on 40k competitions.

I like the latter portions of this argument. I come from Warmachine, anyone familiar with that knows that there are multiple event types at all the nationals and conventions. You have the typical competitive event (Masters) but you also have open, fun tournaments, events where your list design is altered (Iron Gauntlet, Champions), and even team events. AoS and 40K would gain so much from this model. Don't like "filth" lists? Don't play in Masters! Want a competitive experience? Don't play in the casual formats. Plenty of room for everyone, no fitting round pegs into square holes.

[Requizen]

8 minutes ago, Gauche said:

I like the latter portions of this argument. I come from Warmachine, anyone familiar with that knows that there are multiple event types at all the nationals and conventions. You have the typical competitive event (Masters) but you also have open, fun tournaments, events where your list design is altered (Iron Gauntlet, Champions), and even team events. AoS and 40K would gain so much from this model. Don't like "filth" lists? Don't play in Masters! Want a competitive experience? Don't play in the casual formats. Plenty of room for everyone, no fitting round pegs into square holes.

I agree, which is why I love the fact that Narrative events are pretty big in AoS right now and the GH is pushing that format as well. It's essentially dead in 40k, you see one here and there at big cons but for the most part nobody participates in narratives.

But I don't exactly hold with the mindset of "if you don't like it, don't come". I mean yes, if you're just in it for fun, casual, narrative play, don't sign up for championships, but there are plenty of people that like competing that don't enjoy playing against non-interactive armies. It's entirely possible for a game to be technically competitive but also stupid because of mechanics like, for example... Invisibility, Stomp, D-weapons, etc. And it's also possible for players to enjoy razor-edge competition without enjoying stupid mechanics that make the game unfun.

AoS doesn't seem to have any of that yet, in my experience. The most non-interactive army I can think of is Skryre with tunneling MW shooting, but even that is somewhat limited and only "hard-counters" a handful of lists. 

[shinros]

I hope people saw the part where the knight haraldor inflicted 19 mortal wounds on the sylvaneth army that was great. 

[Gauche]

Just now, Requizen said:

I agree, which is why I love the fact that Narrative events are pretty big in AoS right now and the GH is pushing that format as well. It's essentially dead in 40k, you see one here and there at big cons but for the most part nobody participates in narratives.

But I don't exactly with the mindset of "if you don't like it, don't come". I mean yes, if you're just in it for fun, casual, narrative play, don't sign up for championships, but there are plenty of people that like competing that don't enjoy playing against non-interactive armies. It's entirely possible for a game to be technically competitive but also stupid because of mechanics like, for example... Invisibility, Stomp, D-weapons, etc. And it's also possible for players to enjoy razor-edge competition without enjoying stupid mechanics that make the game unfun.

AoS doesn't seem to have any of that yet, in my experience. The most non-interactive army I can think of is Skryre with tunneling MW shooting, but even that is somewhat limited and only "hard-counters" a handful of lists. 

I agree that non-interaction is bad, it's bad in any game. But unless you have events being won by the "big lists" that are maybe over-tuned, or uninteractive, then the developer cannot learn from these mistakes and improve the game. Now whether you think GW can do this given their past is up to the individual but if you don't give a company the chance, there is no chance. Wizards of the Coast would not be the company they are if it wasn't for the pro scene trying to break everything and keeping development honest, Hearthstone as a comparison is failing miserably to do this and are losing players because of it. I'm in favor of events where players are encouraged to go as hard as they can but not forcing players who don't want that experience to be the guinea pigs.

[Requizen]

1 minute ago, Gauche said:

I agree that non-interaction is bad, it's bad in any game. But unless you have events being won by the "big lists" that are maybe over-tuned, or uninteractive, then the developer cannot learn from these mistakes and improve the game. Now whether you think GW can do this given their past is up to the individual but if you don't give a company the chance, there is no chance. Wizards of the Coast would not be the company they are if it wasn't for the pro scene trying to break everything and keeping development honest, Hearthstone as a comparison is failing miserably to do this and are losing players because of it. I'm in favor of events where players are encouraged to go as hard as they can but not forcing players who don't want that experience to be the guinea pigs.

That's totally something I can understand! I agree that GW won't change anything unless they're slapped in the face with it, and the first time their Twitch channel streams a game that's a one-sided blow out from a filth list with no hope of a game, they'll be forced to respond or be humiliated (though idk how much they care about that).

[Dez]

I think it's part of the social contract, shaking hands and wishing someone luck before a game should be in every sport/game. Good sportsmanship for sportsmanship's sake, Good Game after every game. I'll tell people how my army works before hand too. I always try to do this, even if I'm lined up to destroy. I do deztroy

[Andreas]

12 minutes ago, Requizen said:

That's totally something I can understand! I agree that GW won't change anything unless they're slapped in the face with it, and the first time their Twitch channel streams a game that's a one-sided blow out from a filth list with no hope of a game, they'll be forced to respond or be humiliated (though idk how much they care about that).

I thought this was the norm. I have seen more thundertusks and kurnoth hunters on their twitch stream already than I would like. ☺️ They get the information no problem.

On the other part of the discusion. There are different types of players. The casual one, the WAAC that looks for net list on internet to copy etc.. But one other common one is the one who really wants to win but also greatly values how they do it. The want to do it with something original or left field or something people havnt seen. They want to win the GT with pestilence or fyreslayers for example. A Setra netlist win (for example) would in their mind mean nothing. Even if it takes a huge amount of skill with the Setra list to pull it off, it has already been done.

That being said I dont think all people in this tournament was that type and I think the lists in general was a little bit weaker than what you normaly see posted from the UK sceen.

[Gauche]

15 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I thought this was the norm. I have seen more thundertusks and kurnoth hunters on their twitch stream already than I would like. ☺️ They get the information no problem.

On the other part of the discusion. There are different types of players. The casual one, the WAAC that looks for net list on internet to copy etc.. But one other common one is the one who really wants to win but also greatly values how they do it. The want to do it with something original or left field or something people havnt seen. They want to win the GT with pestilence or fyreslayers for example. A Setra netlist win (for example) would in their mind mean nothing. Even if it takes a huge amount of skill with the Setra list to pull it off, it has already been done.

That being said I dont think all people in this tournament was that type and I think the lists in general was a little bit weaker than what you normaly see posted from the UK sceen.

Those types of people are called Johnny in the MTG community (and others) and they tend to ride the line like you said. I think part of that mindset is knowing you're unlikely to win and event with your own creation unless you have a great run or outplay everyone since it's highly unlikely that your concoction is better than the battle-tested, crowd sourced version. But sometimes it happens, and those are stories that last for a long time. :]

[wayniac]

I think you see more talk about "filth" in Warhammer as opposed to, say Warmachine, because Warhammer has basically stated it's not meant to be a competitive game beyond the sense that two people are playing against each other.  So you see a lot of lists that don't care one lick for the fluff or background (40k is more egregious in this case, with allies so you see like 3-4 armies smushed together for nothing other than power), which then sours the people who care about the background.  I also play Warmachine (although not at any serious competitive level) )and in that game, you kind of expect people to bring their A-game at all times, because the rules are more focused on having a competitive game (and, although there are outliers especially now, tend to be a lot closer in balance than any Warhammer game was or ever will be), while Warhammer the competitive mindset is more the outlier because it essentially works contradictory to the fluff/narrative aspect which GW pushes.

It's a weird dichotomy, for me especially because I have no problem with power lists or even playing the same faction vs. same faction in Warmachine, but in Warhammer I consider that a cardinal sin and it influences a lot of things (for example, I refuse to play an Imperium army in 40k even if I wanted to, because there are so many Imperium players it flies in the face of the background).  I am having a similar problem now with AOS where I am considering playing Stormcast, but there's a good number of Order players; this sort of thing would never happen in Warmachine, because I don't care as much about the background but the competitive nature of the game, while for Warhammer it's the opposite.

[GRex]

I was at the tournament.

Nobody has mentioned that GW wrote the rules pack and in order to place in the event you had to receive a favourite opponent vote. So out of 6 games one of your opponent's had to vote you as their favorite.

The top 3 finishers all received at least one vote.

[Gauche]

6 minutes ago, GRex said:

I was at the tournament.

Nobody has mentioned that GW wrote the rules pack and in order to place in the event you had to receive a favourite opponent vote. So out of 6 games one of your opponent's had to vote you as their favorite.

The top 3 finishers all revieved at least one vote.

Disappointed to hear that.

[scrubyandwells]

9 minutes ago, GRex said:

I was at the tournament.

Nobody has mentioned that GW wrote the rules pack and in order to place in the event you had to receive a favourite opponent vote. So out of 6 games one of your opponent's had to vote you as their favorite.

The top 3 finishers all revieved at least one vote.

I know some dislike this component but FWIW personally I'm a fan. I do agree not all events should have that "soft score" element. 

Well, more specifically, I'm a fan of the spirit, but the implementation seems potentially too random and varied. Not sure a better solution..

[GRex]

6 minutes ago, scrubyandwells said:

I know some dislike this component but FWIW personally I'm a fan. I do agree not all events should have that "soft score" element. 

Well, more specifically, I'm a fan of the spirit, but the implementation seems potentially too random and varied. Not sure a better solution..

I believe the vote greatly influenced the list building. There definitely could have been a top 3 finisher without a vote.

[wayniac]

So I guess it means we need to have the old Sportsmanship score back, and have it weigh heavily on the results to get better list building than min/maxed filth lists.  A little sad, but not unexpected in Warhammer.

[Thostos]

5 hours ago, Gauche said:

Glad someone else thought this. These all looked like lists that need some tuning, most of the high placing ones seem based around popular ideas but just weakened. Was there comp or something? I'm not aware of the rules for the event.

  I brought this very subject up when we were discussing the new point values for the Balewind and Sylvan Woods,,,someone had supposedly asked the question the GW AOS facebook page and the responce was that its fine as the points are considered part of the battalion cost.

 

[Denneysman]

5 hours ago, PJetski said:

I'll be honest... those are some pretty terrible lists. Really seems like a beginners tournament and not a real competitive event.

Why was somebody allowed to bring a battalion that includes a Realmgate?

Wow someone need to do a little research. Then they would know "wardens of the gate" stormcast battalion comes with a realmgate and it's 80pts in the GHB so it's legal.

[Thostos]

1 hour ago, GRex said:

I was at the tournament.

Nobody has mentioned that GW wrote the rules pack and in order to place in the event you had to receive a favourite opponent vote. So out of 6 games one of your opponent's had to vote you as their favorite.

The top 3 finishers all received at least one vote.

  Excellent addition to the finals qualification rules:)