Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jack Armstrong

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Jack Armstrong last won the day on June 23

Jack Armstrong had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

116 Celestant-Prime

About Jack Armstrong

  • Rank
    Judicator

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hopefully if you go back to my post I think that's exactly what I wrote/did! (I don't think you were talking about me to this point)
  2. I might be missing some events but I think it's pretty standard in the UK now to have 100% painted and based armies at all events. There might be the odd one dayer where people can bring unpainted armies but that's the exception. Definitely something that's massively improved since old Warhammer days.
  3. I should have guessed from the avatar. Yeah no problem, I thought you had some good points. Would definitely be keen to see more data on it JP/LLV!
  4. Some interesting points Mr Charisma (sorry not sure of your name). The point about prior knowledge is only an applicable advantage if you can act on it. I think your point about having models ready is probably very valid as we could anticipate the strong build painted and ready for release. Then it becomes more of an advantage based on how similar the 'new build' is to the old book one. For example Tz new Changehost is very similar model set to previous book one, any new releases we only access at the same time. Trying to think of a book where something new became good, maybe Cities is best example (I had 18 Demi's painted and ready!!). I was using the example of winning a tournament as it was the easiest 'stat' I could get without any specific knowledge or tool (or time) to trawl through results. The best data would be if we could find out average game performance variance over books with prior knowledge of with the variable of how long the books been out. If anyone could run that data it would be great and I would be really interested to see.
  5. So with some chat recently about playtester advantage I wanted to do a bit more analysis. I personally think it's a disadvantage (take LRL, I playtested them a long time ago and not against anything in the current 'meta' and had to get the book back out last week to remember what any of the scrolls/combos are). I also don’t play many practice games in the current ‘meta’ as lots of my theory and actual games are in a meta 6-12 months forward from now. I appreciate that some people think that it’s an advantage though and without breaking NDA’s it’s hard to have a full and open discussion about it. Instead I thought I would have a look at statistics. Personally, the first book I tested was Blades of Khorne and pre that in AoS I had attended 18 events with an average placing of 2.77 (including Masters/6N which isn’t on Bad Dice). Post Blades (March 2019) I have attended 7 events with an average placing of 3 – so technically I have got worse although I am not sure it would be viewed as statistically significant. (I attended one team tournament in March 2019 with a placing of 53rd which would have skewed either stat so hugely I just discounted it) Hopefully from that data you can see that my own performance hasn’t statistically changed with Playtesting. I’ve then pulled a list from Bad Dice Rankings of the last 49 tournaments. Of them the following Playtesters won: Ben Curry – DoK (March 2020) - released Feb 2018 Tom Mawdsley – Cities (Nov 2019) - released Oct 2019 James Tinsdale – Slannesh (Sept 2019) released April 2018 Tom Mawdsley – LoG (Aug 2019) released May 2019 James Tinsdale – Deepkin (Aug 2019) released April 2018 James Tinsdale – Deepkin (June 2019) released April 2018 Les Martin – Deepkin (May 2019) released April 2018 Jack Armstrong – DoK (May 2019) released Feb 2018 Jack Armstrong – DoK (April 2019) released Feb 2018 James Tinsdale – Nighthaunt (April 2019) released June 2018 James Tinsdale – Deepkin (March 2019) released April 2018 James Tinsdale – Deepkin (Feb 2019) released April 2018 If someone wants to go back further you’re more than welcome, I ran out of energy. If we look at what people have won with they are all books that have been out for a long time before the event. The only one that was relatively new was Tom with Cities (released 5th October). Tom was however very new to the playtesting team and hadn’t had anything to do with that book. I'm not trying to discount a statistic that goes counter to my narrative, I'm just trying to add some context that people may not appreciate. The other data we could run is looking at top 3 placings but anecdotally I can’t think of any events where someone who playtested a book has taken it in the first couple of months and rinsed the tournament scene. If anyone else wants to I would be interested to see it. Any reasoned debate / analysis appreciated! Jack
  6. This sounds awesome. Not sure which team I'm going to support! Should definitely be a Chaos v Order classic I think. Maybe 3k or something as well for some different lists.
  7. I hadn't actually played with the list and when i did I found myself agreeing with quite a few of Frowny's points! I like a unit of Chameleons to sit off the board and threaten for objective play. I also found the sweet spot for Knights to be 10's for mainline buffable units and 5's for quite good flanking units or objective holders. Adding in some Saurus also help, specially in the Sunclaw Starhost for 4 r1 attacks a model. The latest version of the list is: Carno Oldblood Starpriest x 2 40/20/20 Saurus Warriors 10/10/5/5 Knights 5 Chameleons Sunclaw Temple Host
  8. Sounds awesome. I'll be there!
  9. Theory of this list is the volume of attacks that Saurus Knights get (7 per model) which aren't particularly good, but when combined with the Starpriest's 6's to wound are a MW means they can put out a good amount of damage. So you deploy and send in the Cav in waves, also giving them exploding hits on 6's, plus 1 to hit and the natural plus 1 to hit from Koatl Claw mean they are hitting on 2/3's for all their statline. Then you have spells, either rr hits of 1's, immune to battle shock and +1 armour save and you have a really nasty unit. With the +1 to run and charge constellation they can move up 8" and then charge up to 18" away and get +4 to the roll of 3D6. The salamanders give you some shooting threat and also very good combat damage and then the two mounted characters for follow up. As Ben says it can also play well in Starborne. The Cav lose two attacks a model but can be deployed and teleported or 'remembered' by the Slann (you would probably go Draco tail sub-faction). Here they would get the natural 6's are MW from the Firelance formation along with the ability from the Starpriest. The starseer again is really important to make sure you're getting those 9" charges off. Have some games and let me know what you think. Jack
  10. IF you're playing a friendly game and you're using wanderers you're not exactly gaming for advantage. Just use the models you want and most opponents shouldn't have a problem with it!
  11. Very amusing thread - yes I think I need comping! Sleboda - you touch on some interesting points. I think both of the things you say are true to an extent but the way in which they manifest is slightly different. I find lots of the time people think they have lost before we even start playing and play differently because of it. My advice to anyone is don't play any different no matter who is across the table from you as if you start the game thinking you've lost, most likely you will.
  12. Great post Marc thanks for your considered input. Agree it’s probably more about evolution than revolution!
  13. LHW (Laurie?). It's a really hard thing to explain (and I've done it many times over the 5 ETC's I've been to, well done to me first year and then done to others!). They just built these really bizarre army lists that you would never see in the UK scene at all, or lists that looked similar that they would then play completely differently. People would be used to taking their UK list to tournaments and smashing people 20-0 and not be prepared for the negative play (I don't mean that in a person way but in a 'I'm going to force you to come to me to eek out every point and then smash you when you do'). Which just meant that lists had to be built in different ways to compete. Sometimes we did have lists that forced the meta a bit (Nick Pyms 90 blood letters is an example I remember) but we often made the mistake of trialing them in Denmark and then they were copied and/or countered before we got there. Next time your at an event ask an ETC Vet (old boy) and they will explain better.
×
×
  • Create New...