Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Makumba wrote:
books like GK , where the army is technicly good, but made out of 4 unit types.

What's the 4-th?..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, purifiers, right.

Akiasura wrote:

And I am coming from an opposite direction. I find the details are usually the most important part of any argument, but that could be because my profession details with about the smallest details that exist, so that could be coloring it.

Personally, I've found terminators are pretty bad, which is a shame. They were the unit that got me into the game originally, them and warp spiders. Terminators need...something, I don't know. They have twice the ability to survive for over two times the price. They are either mediocre at shooting or pretty good at CC with no ability to shoot at all. I wish they were good, but they don't feel that way when I play.
Reserving rerolls is okay, not crazy good. In an army that wasn't marines, sure. For marines? Its okay.
Flamers are okay but assume you'll be assaulting or someone is assaulting you. Not bad but not the greatest thing either. Its very nice they can take them, though I'm surprised this sin't for salamanders instead.

If you don't want to discuss the details of BA then that is fine.

However, if you do not wish to discuss any of the details of the new dexes, or any of the points I brought up, I am somewhat forced to think we have come to an agreement.

The external balance of the codexes have gotten better, at the cost of more options and weaker internal balance.

Which...is sad. But I do not play 40k as much. I like Warmahordes for gaming more, and play necromunda for the narrative play and modeling.

EDIT: I too am on my phone, usually while waiting for a sample to run. The magnets can mess with my phone as well so...yeah, I understand.
I'll have to check that show out, appreciate the tip.

The only reason I didn't want to do a point-by-point of BA is that it's already pretty well analyzed in this forum, as well as in tactics/army lists forums. A lot of it isn't my direct observation (and I don't even have a BA army.. painted.. yet, much less played one), so I'd hate to take credit for it. I guess that I'm one of the guys who thinks theorycrafting is very nice and all, but until you put models on a table and win or lose in different situations, you just don't know.

I don't think it's the *best* chapter, but changes like the formation with priest on charge and Karlaen with reserve units lead to interesting combos. The codex lends itself to a different flavor of play to, say, ultramarines, and honestly, I think I like it better than GK, or SW, though time, and some painted armies will tell. I definitely think it will lead to more varied possibilities within the chapter than GK and SW.

 koooaei wrote:

Makumba wrote:
books like GK , where the army is technicly good, but made out of 4 unit types.

What's the 4-th?..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, purifiers, right.

yeah because of the pods. termis , libbies, ndks always and purfires if there are pods. That is why I said technicly.

Makumba wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Makumba wrote:
books like GK , where the army is technicly good, but made out of 4 unit types.

What's the 4-th?..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, purifiers, right.

yeah because of the pods. termis , libbies, ndks always and purfires if there are pods. That is why I said technicly.

I was hoping for more formations that emphasized the underutilized units of the codex.

I can imagine it now, a Purifier formation
* Castellan Crowe
* Three squads of Purifiers
* Two Purgation Squads

Crowe must always challege, enemy model automatically accepts.
Crowe projects a 12 inch fearless bubble.
So long as Crowe remains alive Purgation Squads have relentless and Purifiers reroll ones on their 2D6 Hits for Cleansing Flame.

Yep, the idea of formations is awesome. They add a lot. Especially to units that happened to be a bit underpowered. A helpful rule here and there and you're good to go! But...nope, not yet for some reason.

I'm really afraid that all the cries of "OH NOEZ my rules are everywhere, i hate GW!11" might eventually put them off from this awesome idea at some point.

Speaking of formations... I just saw a Blood Angel formation that gives SIXTEEN ELITE SLOTS?!?

DC fest

 RunicFIN wrote:
The only issue with the new codices being a bit more tame is that Eldar and Tau are still in the old "spectrum" -and they will be allround better until they receive an update to bring them in line with the others.

Yes Eldar is great, yes Tau is great.

But why do people explicitly avoid talking about Imperial Knights, Space Marines, Necrons and Chaos Daemons at the same time ?

There is statistical evidence that those 5 factions (except IK) were tied between themselves in v6, and they're still very close to each other in v7, so why pretend that there are only two black sheep ?

It really sounds as if people are still going on about some v6 Taudar thing which has been dead for almost a year now.

That's nothing new. Tau still got hate well into 5th edition because people were still sore about the "Fish of Fury", despite the fact that FoF wasn't even a thing anymore and Tau were struggling to stay relevant. It'll be years before people finally get over Taudar.

 koooaei wrote:
DC fest

Can't. DC are not on the list of models you can choose.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Makumba wrote:

yes or simple GK builds that take 3 NDKS instead of 2 and ally. and 2 GK libbies instead of tigurius.

So yeah, I have no idea why you are bringing up a fairly balanced codex going against another fairly balanced codex that is utilizing units from 2 other different codices as allies to create one of the most broken combos in the game. You can take those same allies with IG all the same. You can take them with any army in the game ( altough only Armies of The Imperium will benefit from Battle Brothers. )

Doesn´t affect GK and IG codices being balanced with eachother in any way if you can create a broken combination out of 2 completely different codices to ally with.

Fauk wrote:
To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.

Same, seen 0 Unbound armies brought to the table and 0 Unbound tournaments being held. No one has even suggested playing it to me or my mates. I think this, like many other "issues", are a meaningful/real only in some peoples minds and they basically never/very rarely actually come to light when playing. Problems that bother some at a principal level, not in practice.

Unbound and "sitting down before a game to have a long talk to be on the same page about what is allowed" -are both like this. Lots of talk about them on the internets, never faced either issue myself in practice. Again, 71 games this year. Seems to me these issues seem to be impactful mostly to people who don´t play actively or at all, further enforcing the vibe that it´s basically just presuming. I don´t know anyone who has had either of these issues, and I know quite a few wargamers.

Not to say it´s not possible, I´ve just never experienced neither of these issues when actually playing instead of just talking about it.

Regarding Blood Angels, no one on the planet has enough ingame experience to dictate their new Codex being weak nor overpowered at this time. There´s only presumptions and possible kneejerking. Just like with every release, it´ll even out after a while when people play the army in practice instead of armchair theorycrafting. To me their Codex seems in line with the other new codices, including power level. And that is a good thing afaic.

You can theory craft a game like this quite easily. It's not exactly a deep complicated game. Heck, I "theory craft" reaction mechanisms at work. Trust me, THAT is a challenge.

Instead of making sweeping generalizations about the codex, why don't you try addressing my points about it directly? Saying "I think it's fine" without reasons is like me saying "Well, I think you're wrong on every level" without reasons. It doesn't get us anywhere, and the guy who posts the most wins because he/she is the loudest, not because they are right. Which, if that was your goal, by all means, continue.

As for your "as with every release..." line, yeah. Totally. That's why you don't see Chaos marine players still complaining about their army at all, right? Or DA totally fine with their relative power level, or DE completely okay with having wych cults removed as a viable option, right? I mean, it's been a while since they were released, surely all those issues were resolved!

Some of the codex releases have been fine, to be fair. I like the SM codex quite a bit, its easily my favorite dex that GW has produced in quite a while. I use it to field my alpha legion army using Ravenguard rules with IG allies. The new SW dex looks awesome if rumors are true (I haven't researched it for a while so who knows, but lately rumors have been doing pretty well, but I'm happy its not long fang spam, the codex). Necron I am hoping turn out well, as I'd like to collect them if they end up being at a good power level (which I consider SM to be without allies) with varied units that remain viable.

But the BA codex isn't great. The GK codex tore out a lot of what I was interested in, and then put it back in if I was willing to pay more. The DE codex headshot a viable army build from the previous edition. Up until formations, the Nid codex was viewed as one of the worst as well by Nid players. It became "spam FMC or go home". In fact, this, more than anything else, seems to be the trend of the new codexes.
"Sure, you can play your old army list, but you'll have to buy the new codex and a dataslate or two".

As for the whole unbound thing, I don't really care about it and it isn't the topic at all. If it's not a problem in your meta, great. If it is, I'm sorry.
Don't really know how else to handle it other than that. It's obviously broken and a useless thing to include in the rulebook.

Akiasura wrote:

You can theory craft a game like this quite easily. It's not exactly a deep complicated game. Heck, I "theory craft" reaction mechanisms at work. Trust me, THAT is a challenge.

Yet countless times when a Codex has been deemed useless in the past people have come up with tournament level builds given time. My point about this still stands, no one has enough experience ingame of the new Blood Angels to make any credible statements. I know a few gamers myself who think they have it all figured out on paper, yet you can often see it very clearly they are thinking about things in a complete or partial vacuum, not accounting everything into their presumptions. I have learned ages ago that you will only know for sure after you´ve played something for quite a while. Theorycrafting can give you ideas, sure.

Akiasura wrote:

As for your "as with every release..." line, yeah. Totally. That's why you don't see Chaos marine players still complaining about their army at all, right? Or DA totally fine with their relative power level, or DE completely okay with having wych cults removed as a viable option, right? I mean, it's been a while since they were released, surely all those issues were resolved!

I don´t understand this reply, it doesn´t seem to make sense regarding my original point. With every new codex some people are doomsaying and kneejerking. Personally I happen to play CSM and DA like I mention in the original post, so I´m quite aware of their shortcomings. Somehow I have no issues playing any army with either DA or CSM on a competitive level, but I can understand that some do as they might be limited with models or the will/ability to make their armies competitive. Interestingly DA had a winrate of 52% in a Torrent of Fire article that included the data from all tournament events that had taken place from the launch of 7th till August. I´d say that´s pretty good, and not the "my codex can do nothing mew mew" that you occasionally see on the forums.

Akiasura wrote:
The new SW dex looks awesome if rumors are true (I haven't researched it for a while so who knows, but lately rumors have been doing pretty well, but I'm happy its not long fang spam, the codex).

Now I´m a bit confused again, the SW codex is already out. Or is there another supplement coming I´ve missed? Talking about rumours gives me the impression of something upcoming.

Akiasura wrote:
Don't really know how else to handle it other than that. It's obviously broken and a useless thing to include in the rulebook.

Well, couldn´t agree more.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

You can theory craft a game like this quite easily. It's not exactly a deep complicated game. Heck, I "theory craft" reaction mechanisms at work. Trust me, THAT is a challenge.

Yet countless times when a Codex has been deemed useless in the past people have come up with tournament level builds given time. My point about this still stands, no one has enough experience ingame of the new Blood Angels to make any credible statements. I know a few gamers myself who think they have it all figured out in paper, yet you can often see it very clearly they are thinking about things in a complete or partial vacuum, not accounting everything into their presumptions. I have learned ages ago that you will only know for sure after you´ve played something for quite a while. Theorycrafting can give you ideas, sure.

Theory crafting gives you remarkably good ideas. Play can be often lead to false assumptions. Example, I am infamous at my local hobby shop for missing 5/6 to hit rolls with my long fangs when I used them. Pretty much every time. This got to the point where people often remarked that my wolves brewed the best beer, because these guys must be wasted. I also typically rolled way over average for a 'to hit' roll on the scatter marker, making my frag weapons very deadly. My noise marines were feared since I usually scored 3 hits every time I fired, while my long fangs were viewed as a joke. This doesn't mean one unit is better than the other (math will show the other unit is better for the points), it's just how dice tend to behave for me leading me to a false assumption.

Akiasura wrote:

As for your "as with every release..." line, yeah. Totally. That's why you don't see Chaos marine players still complaining about their army at all, right? Or DA totally fine with their relative power level, or DE completely okay with having wych cults removed as a viable option, right? I mean, it's been a while since they were released, surely all those issues were resolved!

I don´t understand this reply, it doesn´t seem to make sense regarding my original point. With every new codex people are doomsaying and kneejerking. Personally I happen to play CSM and DA like I mention in the original post, so I´m quite aware of their shortcomings. In August the Dark Angels had a winrate of 52% when the data of a few events was combined in a Torrent of Fire -article. Someone will soon bust in to completely dismiss that somehow because ofcourse they will, but anyway, I´d say 52% in a tournament enviroment is better than "my codex can do nothing to anyone" -which is pretty much what you can occasionally read on the forums. Ofcourse the data is now months old, but people were saying you can´t compete with DA in August all the same. Somehow I have no issues playing any army with either DA or CSM on a competitive level, but I can understand that some do as they might be limited with models or the will/ability to make their armies competitive.

I am basically saying that, at release, these dexes were viewed as awful dexes that were capable of only mono builds. Several months later, the same thing is being said, suggesting that the theorycrafter were quite right. For the record, your chart doesn't prove anything because I am not arguing about the external balance of the dex. The external balance doesn't matter, because allies and most dexes have a monobuild at least. The issue is when I have 20-30 unit entries, but I find myself using somewhere between 10-13, or even worse, 1 per slot. This is internal balance. I've already said that the new codexes do fine against each other, I am saying that they are very boring because many unit entries are terrible. I would love it if most, if not all, units were viable as long as I changed my overall list, rather then genestealers being crap all the time, for example.
If you thought I was arguing external balance, then that is my fault. I am only arguing internal.

Akiasura wrote:
The new SW dex looks awesome if rumors are true (I haven't researched it for a while so who knows, but lately rumors have been doing pretty well, but I'm happy its not long fang spam, the codex).

Now I´m a bit confused again, the SW codex is already out. Or is there another supplement coming I´ve missed? Talking about rumours gives me the impression of something upcoming.
I wasn't aware. No one plays SW except me on a occasion and a world eaters player, who has been missing due to issues at work.

Akiasura wrote:
Don't really know how else to handle it other than that. It's obviously broken and a useless thing to include in the rulebook.

Well, couldn´t agree more.

Why would iyanden wraith as troops be disallowed by a new codex? That rule is in the supplement, which isn't invalidated just because a new codex comes out. Unless a new iyanden supplement comes out, or they FAQ it, you will still be allowed to take wraith troops. I'm not overly concerned as I only take 1 unit of wraithguard and the only benefit I get from them being troops is having 1 more objective secured wave serpent. My list won't change.

The rule is in the codex.

And slot shifting seems to be going away.

Someone in a proposed rules thread brought up an old Windrider set up that was like 2-6 FA, 0-3 Troops. We don't seem to see a lot of those.

(Shining Spears will probably get cut, and Harlies will probably get dataslated.)

Slot shifting does seem to be going away from codeces, however the new campaign FOCs seem to suggest that manipulation of slots might be staying in certain forms in supplements an campaign books.

To me, what makes a codex good or bad stems from how many choices within that codex I can use to make an army and have that army be as competitive as any other list I draw from the same codex.

For my money, that's what makes the Eldar, Tau, and Necron codicies so good. Sure, Wave Serpents are OP, Riptides are really good, Night Scythes and ABs are really good. But look at the rest of the codex. Eldar have good, usable units spread evenly across all FOC. The only real lemons are Banshees and Harlies. Crons have Flayed ones and beyond that nothing that really screams unusable. Tau have Vespids.

I would argue that while the newer codex have been themselves balanced to eachother (external) the internal balance is really lacking leading to monobuilds and spamming (internal).

I see codicies like Tyranids and Chaos Marines and I just feel like there is so much missing. Nids have a stellar HQ, which precludes the use of any other HQ in the book. Troops wise there are dirt cheap minimum take to make room for . . . more HQs. Fast attack is basically a wasteland aside from Skyblight (which as a Formation that wasn't in the codex can't be considered in the original conversation). Chaos is in a worse boat. Horribly overcosted in most aspects with serious head scratching units (Mutilators anyone?).

Having 11 elite choices in one book is just mindboggling. Give an army 6 units for each force org slot, including troops. Make those units equally balanced internally so that each is competitive in it's own right, but can be employed in very different ways. Raveners and Shrikes are a good example of two units in the same FOC that have two equally competent roles (they aren't competitive mind you, but share the same spot and fill different uses).

I agree with what was mentioned earlier about a tighter release schedule. If the basic rules were released every 5 years with yearly updates for armies (either as massed Imperium and Xenos or on a per codex basis) then I think balance issues could be nipped in the bud pretty easily.

Finally, fluff needs to return to armies. This can be done by making each army entry viable and by giving armies unique, non-overpowered fluffy things (i.e. the Ramshackle table).

Cheers!

 RunicFIN wrote:
Interestingly DA had a winrate of 52% in a Torrent of Fire article that included the data from all tournament events that had taken place from the launch of 7th till August. I´d say that´s pretty good, and not the "my codex can do nothing mew mew" that you occasionally see on the forums.

No, that's a terrible win rate, because it essentially means "if you bring DA to a tournament you aren't going to win". To win a tournament you need a 100% win rate for your own games, and that means a codex that is as close to 100% as possible so that your own skill isn't hindered by the weak rules you're using. If your army wins an average of 50% of its games you're at a huge disadvantage and have to compensate by playing significantly better than your opponents with "easier" armies. If you don't have that skill advantage you're going to lose games and take yourself out of the competition.

Also, win rate is a rather useless stat because it doesn't give any information on which games the codex is winning. If a DA player in the losers' bracket wins some meaningless games and finishes in the bottom 50% of the overall event those wins still count towards the DA win rate, and that's just ridiculous. Similarly, the win rate of a codex can be lowered significantly if a lot of weak players bring it and lose frequently, even if the codex is virtually unbeatable in the hands of the best players. If you want information on codex power you need to look at the top finishes in each event and see which armies are consistently winning tournaments or at least coming close.

Akiasura wrote:

So, what's your idea on stormboyz? Is there any reason to take them over bikes or they're just an obsolete unit?

Bikes get:
t5 up from t4
4+ up from 6+
3+ cover up from no cover
flat-out up from a run move or 2d6 run move that kills 1/7 the squad on dangerous terrains and can force you a morale check
constant HoW up from potential HoW that's never gona be used
immunity to pinning up from no immunity
3 s5 ap5 tl shots at 18' with relentless up from 1 s4 ap6 12' shot

And all that goodness for just 9 pts?

Stormboys are more fun. That's all I got though.

Oooh! Oooh! I got one! Stormboys benefit from the Waaagh! So if you're willing to take some dangerous terrain tests you can have a 6" + 4D6" threat range with them from the second turn onwards.

 Peregrine wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Interestingly DA had a winrate of 52% in a Torrent of Fire article that included the data from all tournament events that had taken place from the launch of 7th till August. I´d say that´s pretty good, and not the "my codex can do nothing mew mew" that you occasionally see on the forums.

No, that's a terrible win rate, because it essentially means "if you bring DA to a tournament you aren't going to win". To win a tournament you need a 100% win rate for your own games, and that means a codex that is as close to 100% as possible so that your own skill isn't hindered by the weak rules you're using. If your army wins an average of 50% of its games you're at a huge disadvantage and have to compensate by playing significantly better than your opponents with "easier" armies. If you don't have that skill advantage you're going to lose games and take yourself out of the competition.

Also, win rate is a rather useless stat because it doesn't give any information on which games the codex is winning. If a DA player in the losers' bracket wins some meaningless games and finishes in the bottom 50% of the overall event those wins still count towards the DA win rate, and that's just ridiculous. Similarly, the win rate of a codex can be lowered significantly if a lot of weak players bring it and lose frequently, even if the codex is virtually unbeatable in the hands of the best players. If you want information on codex power you need to look at the top finishes in each event and see which armies are consistently winning tournaments or at least coming close.

Peregrine, if you have a 100% winrate amongst your play group, you need different opponents >.< I mean, how is that even fun? Who would want to play against you, knowing that you have a hundred game winning streak? I would be embarrassed if I won every game (not that I have the capability of doing so; my friends, thankfully, are at least as skilled as I )

To the point, though, RunicFIN said the article included data from all tournament events, and (not that I've read the article) it seemed to be about a faction, not about a specific list within a faction. If an analysis of Dark Angels (or Eldar, or whatever) indicated a winrate of 90% there would have to be a problem, because some lists would are inherently weaker than other lists. Therefore, on average, accounting for both weak and strong lists, a win rate of 52% seems quite high.

I think for an average player, winning every other game, or slightly better, would be okay.

Peregrine means that if you go to tournament you should take the most broken thing ever to negate your mistakes and also include a gun to threaten the opponent you'd shoot him in the leg if he wins this matchup somehow. That'd be a good tourney army.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, that's a terrible win rate, because it essentially means "if you bring DA to a tournament you aren't going to win". To win a tournament you need a 100% win rate for your own games, and that means a codex that is as close to 100% as possible so that your own skill isn't hindered by the weak rules you're using.

52% is not "terrible" by any means. The only codices to have a winrate above 60% were Imperial Knights and Eldar, and in the case of IK it was for the first month of their launch, after that their winrate started plummeting as people learned how to deal with them. For a bottom tier Codex it´s actually a very good winrate. Yet another argument completely besides the point, which was that DA and CSM aren´t 100% unable to win games or unable to be played competitively, which is how somet make it seem. Never said they are top tier or close to it, never said the best way to go about winning a tournament is to go with a bottom tier Codex. It would appear you are just looking for an argument, so muted.

In any case, seeing a new statistic from the biggest tournamets from august till present would be interesting. I guess it´s coming at some point.

Talys wrote:
Peregrine, if you have a 100% winrate amongst your play group, you need different opponents >.< I mean, how is that even fun? Who would want to play against you, knowing that you have a hundred game winning streak? I would be embarrassed if I won every game (not that I have the capability of doing so; my friends, thankfully, are at least as skilled as I )

We're talking about tournaments, not everyday "casual" games. The goal of a tournament is to win, and the only way to win a tournament is to get a 100% win rate.

Therefore, on average, accounting for both weak and strong lists, a win rate of 52% seems quite high.

How can it possibly be "quite high" when 50% would be the expected win rate if every list was exactly the same strength? A 52% win rate means that it's average at best, and average lists are terrible in tournaments. If you show up with an expected 50% win rate all you're doing is giving your entry fee to the guy who brought a list with an expected win rate of 75%.

Plus, as I pointed out, win rate doesn't say anything about which games the codex wins. If you play a 6-round tournament and go 0-3 against good lists then 3-0 in the losers' bracket against three newbies with battleforce armies your codex still gets a 50% win rate. But that's not really a 50% win rate, that's a 0% win rate where it matters and some pointless clubbing of baby seals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RunicFIN wrote:
For a bottom tier Codex it´s actually a very good winrate.

Again, you're neglecting the matchup factor. If you go 0-2 to start a 5-round tournament you're going to play your remaining three games against the weakest opponents. This gives even bottom-tier armies a decent amount of wins, simply because they're paired up against other bottom-tier armies/players.

I get the distinct impression that GW is in damage control mode after the insanity that hit mid-late 6e. They're trying to bring everything back in line so the game starts working again, but since they can't admit they did something wrong and their schedule is the way it is it's taking a while.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I get the distinct impression that GW is in damage control mode after the insanity that hit mid-late 6e. They're trying to bring everything back in line so the game starts working again, but since they can't admit they did something wrong and their schedule is the way it is it's taking a while.

It started late 5th, mate. Blood Angels, Necrons, Space Wolfs, Kaldor Draigo Grey Knights.

Talys wrote:

To the point, though, RunicFIN said the article included data from all tournament events, and (not that I've read the article) it seemed to be about a faction, not about a specific list within a faction. If an analysis of Dark Angels (or Eldar, or whatever) indicated a winrate of 90% there would have to be a problem, because some lists would are inherently weaker than other lists. Therefore, on average, accounting for both weak and strong lists, a win rate of 52% seems quite high.

I think for an average player, winning every other game, or slightly better, would be okay.

52% is extremely balanced. I have an extensive experience of balance across strategy games, RTS's and other games that are far easier to balance than 40K, and 52% is considered excellent in those games.

Don't forget that powergamers always migrate to the highest percentage and skew the statistics.

There were more powergamers playing Eldar in v6, there are more powergamers playing IK in v7, etc. And those people never play a slightly weaker list like Tony Kopach did at Nova (where he was really lucky to even make it to the finals, even more to win).

morgoth wrote:

52% is extremely balanced. I have an extensive experience of balance across strategy games, RTS's and other games that are far easier to balance than 40K, and 52% is considered excellent in those games.

Don't forget that powergamers always migrate to the highest percentage and skew the statistics.

There were more powergamers playing Eldar in v6, there are more powergamers playing IK in v7, etc. And those people never play a slightly weaker list like Tony Kopach did at Nova (where he was really lucky to even make it to the finals, even more to win).

I agree. On the PC, I am definitely a top-of-the-ladder style powergamer, and in the context of competitive PC games, any rate over 55% is pretty extraordinary once you're playing with similarly skilled players. Partly, though, this is because with matchmaking, good players are matched with good players, so if you can maintain > 50%, you will eventually be the top ladder player, period. When it comes down to the two best players, all you need is a hair over 50%, and by definition, you are the victor, hehehe

My point was really, how can 100% even exist in a large sample size.. because what people would want to play with you so much that you could establish that 100% LOL LOL.

As the game is more balanced, *all* army winrates tend toward 50%. Any army with a winrate above 50% is in the top half. If there were an army with a 75% win rate, it would win almost every tournament. 60℅ is where Eldar got to at their worst, iirc. And that was terrible.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

No, that's a terrible win rate, because it essentially means "if you bring DA to a tournament you aren't going to win". To win a tournament you need a 100% win rate for your own games, and that means a codex that is as close to 100% as possible so that your own skill isn't hindered by the weak rules you're using.

52% is not "terrible" by any means. The only codices to have a winrate above 60% were Imperial Knights and Eldar, and in the case of IK it was for the first month of their launch, after that their winrate started plummeting as people learned how to deal with them. For a bottom tier Codex it´s actually a very good winrate. Yet another argument completely besides the point, which was that DA and CSM aren´t 100% unable to win games or unable to be played competitively, which is how somet make it seem. Never said they are top tier or close to it, never said the best way to go about winning a tournament is to go with a bottom tier Codex. It would appear you are just looking for an argument, so muted.

In any case, seeing a new statistic from the biggest tournamets from august till present would be interesting. I guess it´s coming at some point.

Personally, when I consider a codex a bottom tier, I take it to mean that most of the entries are terrible.
Chaos has very few units that are worth taking. I'd be curious to see how many guys weren't mono nurgle heldrake demon allies who played chaos.
Most armies, through allies, can just cherry pick pretty good units from various armies until they come up with a pretty broken combo and just win, so no codex is truly triforce tier (for you smash players)