So we have seen the ITC results from the first week but how about we get a Dakka results going? See if we can't compile our own data since the ITC results only covered 100 games.
Post the name of the armies that have played so far in your local group and how many games they have won so far, here is what we have so far:
It's back to the old grind for me unfortunately so I'm afraid I've been too busy to update the results for quite some time now and I doubt I'll be able to update them for some time to come. Feel free to continue posting results and discussing balance (and maybe even some kind semariton will continue to update the table in their own posts), however the OP will not be updated from now on. I'm terribly sorry to those of you who've been using these results.
Word of warning, unless you want to get this thread locked, this thread is here to report battle results and to discuss whether an army is balance, OP or weak. Any discussion about specific units of an army (i.e. talking about conscripts, stormravens, etc.) is to be taken to a different thread.
Please post your results and I'll add them to the running total and try to order them as they change.
Personally:
Imperial Guard vs. Space Marines
Imperial Guard vs. Orks
Sisters of Battle vs. Chaos Space Marines
Imperial Guard vs. Harlequins
Imperial Guard vs. Necrons
Sisters of Battle vs. Necrons
Imperial Guard vs. Renegade Guard
Sisters of Battle vs. Tyranids
Imperial Guard vs. Tyranids
I'm at 9 wins out of 9 games played, 3 with the Sisters and 6 with the Guard.
No small amount of being 9 for 9 is because I've been preparing and simulating list and developing counters and counter for the counters since the rules were leaked, while most of my friends are still trying to work out what's effective. I also brought a list with 2 tanks at 500 points to an opening-day event, which didn't make me friends.
Other games, mostly from the opening day event but a few from later: [Won vs. Lost]
Necrons vs. Orks
Chaos Space Marines vs. Space Marines
Orks vs. Space Marines
Imperial Guard vs. Space Marines
Imperial Guard vs. Imperial Guard
Renegade Guard vs. Necrons
Orks vs. Tau
Tau vs. Orks
Tyranids vs. Necrons
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Personally:
Imperial Guard vs. Space Marines
Imperial Guard vs. Orks
Sisters of Battle vs. Chaos Space Marines
Imperial Guard vs. Harlequins
Imperial Guard vs. Necrons
Sisters of Battle vs. Necrons
Imperial Guard vs. Renegade Guard
Sisters of Battle vs. Tyranids
Imperial Guard vs. Tyranids
I'm at 9 wins out of 9 games played, 3 with the Sisters and 6 with the Guard.
No small amount of being 9 for 9 is because I've been preparing and simulating list and developing counters and counter for the counters since the rules were leaked, while most of my friends are still trying to work out what's effective. I also brought a list with 2 tanks at 500 points to an opening-day event, which didn't make me friends.
Even if you did prepare, that's an impressive streak to start the edition with! New scores have been added.
Well I can say the exact opposite however Id say my results are a little skewed as well.
Imperial Guard vs Tyranids
winner: Tyranids
Imperial Guard and Ad Mech vs Space Wolves
Winner: Space Wolves
Though a lot of this is due to playing around with new units and general messing around, Im still not quite running the AM up to snuff.
SplinteredShield wrote: Well I can say the exact opposite however Id say my results are a little skewed as well.
Imperial Guard vs Tyranids
winner: Tyranids
Imperial Guard and Ad Mech vs Space Wolves
Winner: Space Wolves
Though a lot of this is due to playing around with new units and general messing around, Im still not quite running the AM up to snuff.
Dark Eldar wyches vs Imperial Guard tanks win
Dark Eldar wyches vs Ynnari win
Dark Eldar wyches vs Thousand Sons loss
Dark Eldar wyches vs Sisters of Battle win
Genestealer Cult vs Adeptus Mechanicus loss
Orks vs Space Marines win
Guard vs Guard win
Guard vs Space Wolves loss
And I have observed:
Ultramarines beat World Eaters
Eldar beat Admech
Guard beat Admech
Space Marines beat Guard
it's just a really random distribution. Things have been quite balanced so far.
Just got done with the Boise GT using 8th rules. I brought my Black Templars. My games were
vs. Khorne Bezerker army (win)
vs. Space wolves (win)
vs. Necrons (win)
vs. Blood Angels (loss)
vs. Ultramarines (loss)
The top 3 was Blood Angels, Ynnari, and Guilliman Marines. Not sure if there is any rhyme or reason to lists at the moment. Several factions with widely varying lists.
Here are the following games I have played/seen. Also added in some information about the games for more info.
I myself have played the following:
Daemons vs Nids - Winner Daemons
Daemons vs Dark Eldar - Winner Daemons
Thousand Sons vs Orks - Winner Orks
Thousand Sons vs Blood Angels - Winner Thousand Sons (Angel player just getting back into the game since 5th)
Tzeentch (just 1k sons and the changeling) vs Orks - Winner Chaos
I have seen the following:
Imperial Guard (Conscript spam) vs Orks - Winner Guard (barely, though the Conscripts did shoot a Battle Wagon off the board. They also had Yarick)
Death Watch vs Daemons - Winner Death Watch (really new Daemon player)
Chaos Soup (Typhus, poxwalkers, and Knights) vs Imperials (had Guilman and gold marines left when I saw the table, player normally plays Custodes so I'm assuming they were killed) - Winner Chaos
I am at a 50% win rate with my death guard, 50% loss where I didn't bring Spartan assault tank, and 50% win rate where I did take my Spartan assault tank
Death Guard really need a good fleshing out in their codex.
Some of these I've played in, some I've spectated. Personally I have done incredibly well in 8th edition, believe it or not. 4/4!
Blood Angels vs Orks; Blood Angels; BA went first Grey Knights vs Daemons; Grey Knights; GK went first Ultramarines vs Blood Angels; Ultramarines; BA went first Ultramarines vs Daemons; Ultramarines; UM went first Imperial Guard vs Imperial Guard; Imperial Guard; Winner went first Imperial Guard vs Orks; Imperial Guard; Guard went first Necrons vs Genestealers; Necrons; Necrons went first. Dark Angels vs Harlequins; Dark Angels; Dark Angels went first Dark Angels vs Orks; Orks; Dark Angels went first Eldar vs Ultramarines; Eldar; Don't know who went first. Ministorum vs Ultramarines; Ministorum; Don't know who went first.
I'm sure there are a couple i'm forgetting. I've watched quite a few.
There is a guard player at my shop who is just stomping all over people. I want to catch more of his games.
Rippy wrote: I am at a 50% win rate with my death guard, 50% loss where I didn't bring Spartan assault tank, and 50% win rate where I did take my Spartan assault tank
Death Guard really need a good fleshing out in their codex.
Yeah, hopefully Morty can give them a good boost along with some cult units.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have to head off to sleep now so probably won't be able to update the data table for a while, I'll see you in the morning. (If one of the American or night owl members of the forum could keep updating over night so that I can copy paste into the OP when I wake up you'd be a lofe saver)
I think Morty, a Terminator unit, and one tank of some kind/ maybe another drone of some kind with a bigger gun would fill them out. It would be roughly 1k sons equivalent.
Imperial Knights vs Orks - Loss
Imperial Knights vs Tyranids - Loss
Imperial Knights vs Deathguard -Win
Imperial Knights vs Deathguard -Win
Imperial Knights vs Deathguard -Win
Imperial Knights and Space Wolves vs Orks - Loss
Ad Mech vs Ultramarines - Win
Imperial Knights and Ad Mech vs Tyranids - Win
Imperial Knights and Ad Mech vs Black Legion - Win
Ad Mech vs Black Legion - Loss
Space Wolves vs Black Legion - Loss
Space Wolves vs Thousand Sons - Win
Imperial Knights vs Astra Militarum - Loss
Chaos vs Space Marines - Loss
Thousand Sons+Space Marines vs Imperial Guard+Genestealers - Win
Chaos vs Fallen - Win
Chaos vs Imperial Guard - Win
Chaos vs Imperial Guard - Win
Chaos vs Space Marines - Loss
"Chaos" meaning about a half/half mixture of Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons. Note that our Space Marine player is the best in the group and our Imperial Guard player is... not, so these results aren't exactly indicative of how good the armies themselves are.
All played with pure AdMech army, except the latest game where I added the Scions Start Collecting to try them out. If I recall correctly these are the results:
1000 pts vs Ynnari - Lost
1000 pts vs Imperium - Lost
1000 pts vs Primaris (Dark Imperium) - Won
1350 pts vs Aeldari - Lost
1000 pts vs Tyranids - Won
You have to know I'm limited in my army lists by the current models I own, and the Ynnari/Aeldari/Imperium player is one of the best players of my store, because he always write such powerful lists. The Imperium game was literally made of Guilliman, Cypher, Bjorn the Fell-Handed, Harald Deathwolf and some Tacticals, got obliterated (underestimated Guilliman). Now that I can add more variety in my army by the purchase of my Scions I may have more interesting results in the future.
Ultramarines vs Primaris Ultramarines - Ultramarines win
Death Guard vs Primaris - Death Guard win
Imperial Guard vs Space Wolves - IG win my loss
Sisters vs Tyrannids - Sisters win
Tyrannids vs Tau - Tyrannids win
GSC vs Primaris - GSC win
Primaris vs Death Guard - Primaris win
Necrons vs Craftworld Eldar - Necrons win
Tyrannids vs Craftworld Eldar - Tyrannids win
GSC/Tyrannids vs Space Wolves - GSC/Tyrannids win my loss
Deathwatch vs Tau - Deathwatch win my win
Dark Angels vs Tyrannids - Dark Angels win
Imperial Guard vs Tau - Imperial Guard win
Tyrannids vs Ultramarines - Tyrannids win
Space Wolves vs Imperial Guard - Space Wolves win my win
Tau vs Necrons - Tau win
Necrons vs Tau - Necrons win
Space Wolves vs Dark Angels - Space Wolves win
Space Wolves vs Ultramarines - Draw me
Necrons vs Deathwatch - Necrons win
Necrons vs Craftworld Eldar - Necrons win
Necrons vs Ultramarines - Necrons win
Necrons vs Sisters of Battle - Necrons win
Deathwatch vs Deathwatch - oddly enough Deathwatch win my win
Deathwatch vs Necrons - Deathwatch win my win
Ultramarines vs Deathwatch - Ultramarines win
Space Wolves vs Blood Angels - Space Wolves win
The other Space Wolves player is better than me, looking forward to a game against him on the weekend, he signed us to a grudge match in the first round of a 2000 point tournament.
200 pts Eldar vs Ultramarines = Eldar Win.
200 pts Eldar vs Ultramarines = Ultramarine Win (Same battle replayed).
500 pts Eldar vs Ultramarines = Eldar Win (By default after inappropriate behaviour by the other player, who could very easily have won).
Eldar vs. SOB vs. Imperial Knights: Loss
Eldar vs. Blood Angels: Win
Death Guard vs. Tyranids: Win
Death Guard vs Imperial Guard / SM : Win
Death Guard vs Orks: Loss
Six-man round-robin over four days at WHW last week.
Death Guard (Plague Marines, bits and bobs - old vectorium)
AdMech/Skitarii
Chaos (Noise) Marines
Ork Kan Wall/stormboyz blobs
Space Marines (stormraven/2 stormtalons+assault marines)
Necrons (Silver Tide + Destroyers)
I don't have all the results, but I do know the Necron and Admech lists turned out to be utter filth. Necron only lost to Admech, and Admech only lost to Orks (with accusations of dubious rules interpretations apparently!)
I played DG. Didn't win a single game. My army just felt hugely underpowered; couldn't quite bring home the relic against the Orks (he grabbed it with a very dubious 16" move turn 1 out of ruins - probably should have argued that one more - then proceeded to bounce round the table); the one game I was sure of winning was relic vs chaos with a huge ruin in the middle of the table - turn 1 I was going to bring in terminators, lord, oblits onto the top of the ruin and I can't see how he could ever have shifted me out of there, but of course he seized and my game just went t*ts up after that.
Necrons and AdMech just wasnt a fair fight. Destroyers coming back on full wounds, or shooting killing my Land Raider (only chance versus his knight) on turn 1... just felt like we were playing a different game.
I just hope Mortarion is fracking insane, and we can actually have T5 FNP terminators in the codex, or this army was a massive waste of time and money.
Ynnari vs Salamanders - Ynnari win
Greyknights vs Salamanders - Greyknights win
Ultra Marines vs Tau - Tau win
Ultra Marines vs Dark Eldar - Ultra Marines win
Greyknights vs Dark Eldar - Dark Eldar win.
4x Dark Eldar vs Tau: 3x Dark Eldar Win, 1x Tau win
4x Dark Eldar vs Tyranids: 2/2
Tyranids vs Tau: Tyranid Win
3x Dark Eldar vs Space Wolves: 3 Dark Eldar
Tyranids vs Space Wolves: Space Wolf victory.
I'му only played 3 games. 2 close wins with orks and one crushing defeat with marines. It just happens that orks are not as badly countered with scion comsquad spam.
80 PL - Thousand Sons vs Super Heavies (Scorp and 2 Knights) - loss
80 PL - Thousand Sons vs Harlies - win
2000 - Thousand Sons vs Orks - win
2000 - Thousand Sons vs Orks - win
2000 - Thousand Sons vs Orks - win
2000 - Thousand Sons vs Orks - loss
Black Legion vs Aeldari - win
Black Legion vs Orks - win
Black Legion vs Salamanders - win
Black Legion vs Craftworld Eldar - win
Black Legion vs Astra Militarum - loss
Black Legion vs Ultramarines - win
Is it just me or have Eldar been massively nerfed?
Black Legion vs Aeldari - win Black Legion vs Orks - win Black Legion vs Salamanders - win Black Legion vs Craftworld Eldar - win Black Legion vs Astra Militarum - loss Black Legion vs Ultramarines - win
Is it just me or have Eldar been massively nerfed?
It's just you. For most areas the Eldar are still auto win. The WK is comparable to a IK but is much cheaper, Scatter Lasers still mulch everything, and the Eldar are inexplicably both faster and more durable per point that everyone else.
BA vs imperial fists x2: BA wins handily x2
BA vs dark eldar: BA win
BA vs harlequins: BA win
BA vs chaos marines: BA win
BA vs GK: BA win
BA vs Raven guard: BA win
BA vs crons x2: crons win handily x2
I've been running a dual threat list with a bunch of tac and dev squads with heavy weapons, sitting around a reroll character, either Dante or a captain, and a jump pack assault force with sanguinor, lemartes, a priest, and a bunch of DC. Plus all 4 assassins.
So far I've been running over people...except for the damn necrons. I threw my entire 2000 point list at a warrior squad with 5++ from orikan behind them and a ghost ark starting turn 2 after some light long range peppering turn 1. I got the ark down t3 and the warriors on like turn 5. I literally never threw a shot at any other unit, and i just could not finish off the one unit and stop 15ish reanimations each turn. I killed like 60+ Warriors while trying to focus the unit down. And of course the other ~1600 points of his list was wrecking me.
Crons seem a bit over the top to me. It's the only match up so far where I feel like I don't have a reasonable chance. They outnumber me, and have better guns. It seems like the game is already in their favor even without RP. Once you add that in, it feels like I'm just splashing off them like water. Both games I've killed two units out of 10ish before getting obliterated.
They just feel statistically better than my dudes while being cheaper at the same time. \o.o/
Winning Army / Losing Army
Astra Militarum and Dark Angels vs. Necrons and Orks
Astra Militarum and Grey Knights vs. Necrons
Astra Militarum vs. Fallen
Astra Militarum and Orks vs. Dark Angels
Astra Militarum and Grey Knights vs. Death Guard and Dark Eldar
Astra Militarum vs. Orks
Chaos vs. Astra Militarum and Grey Knights
Astra Militarum and Grey Knights vs. Dark Angels and White Scars
Dark Angels and Assassins vs. World Eaters and Death Guard
Craftworld Eldar vs Dark Eldar ----> Craftworld Eldar wins
Craftworld Eldar vs Tau ----> Craftworld Eldar wins
Craftworld Eldar vs Dark Angels ----> Craftworld Eldar wins
Craftworld Eldar vs Space Marines ----> Craftworld Eldar wins
Craftworld Eldar vs Tau ----> Craftworld Eldar wins
Craftworld Eldar vs Tyranids ----> Craftworld Eldar wins
Craftworld Eldar vs Tyranids ----> Craftworld Eldar wins
Craftworld Eldar vs Craftworld Eldar ----> Craftworld Eldar wins
Games I've witnessed:
Tau vs Space Marines ----> Tau wins
Orks vs Chaos Space Marine ----> Orks win
Tyranids vs Chaos Space Marine ----> Tyranids win
Sisters of Battle vs Dark Eldar ----> Dark Eldar wins
Harlequins vs Tyranids ----> Tyranids win
White Scars vs Orks ---> White Scars win
Tyranids vs Tau ----> Tau win
Selym wrote: What sort of CWE army builds do you favour?
My favorite is Saim Hann, which varies between jetbike-heavy and mechanized, but I also enjoy Aspect Hosts, and I will occasionally switch things up with a Spirit Host.
My most recent 2000 point list is as follows:
-Outrider Detachment-
Farseer Skyrunner w/ singing spear
Autarch Skyrunner w/ fusion gun, laser lance
6x Windrunner w/ shuriken cannons
3x Shining Spears w/ Exarch, starlance
3x Shining Spears w/ Exarch, starlance
3x Hornet w/ hornet pulse lasers
Wave Serpent w/ shuriken cannons, spirit stones, vectored engines
5x Fire Dragon w/ Exarch, flamer
5x Fire Dragon w/ Exarch, flamer
Hemlock Wraithfighter
Crimson Hunter
Is it just me or have Eldar been massively nerfed?
Scatterbikes and Wraithknights were nerfed as they deserved, yes. The rest of the faction? Not so much. Wave Serpents were buffed for some incomprehensible reason, Dire Avengers got way worse and are hard to justify taking, but everything else is fine.
Tyranids loss to DA Tyranids beat DA Tyranids beat DA Tyranids beat DA Tyranids beat SW Tyranids beat DA Tyranids lose to SW Tyranids beat SW Tyranids beat Tau
Tyranids beat Tau
Tyranids lose to Drukhari
Tyranids beat Tau
Tyranids beat GK Tyranids beat CSM
Harlequins vs Nids
Harlequins vs Nids
Harlequins vs Dark Eldar
Craftworlds vs Daemons
Craftworlds vs Nids
Craftworlds vs Death Guard
Harlequins vs Space Marines
Harlequins vs Krieg
Wish I could've played more games... Local store has wonky hours and won't accept the community trying to organize a Warhammer day each week...
Imperial Guard vs. Emperors Children - Imperial Guard win. Music of the Apocalypse is rough to play around. Made my Suicide Scion squads 'suicide' portion happen... on my turn. Imperial Guard vs Emperors Children - Imperial Guard loss. Harder this time, my opponent learned the value of bubble wrapping.
Imperium (Mainly IG, with a Knight and Roboute. Had to fill points) vs Orks, 3000 points vs 3000 points. Imperial Guard win. A bunch of Deffdreds, 2 Gorkanauts and a Stompa vs a Baneblade, Knight Crusader and 3 Russes, with various filler infantry on both sides. Stompa felt real weak for it's points. Baneblade spiked and put 15 damage from it's cannon on to the Stompa in one turn
Ynnari vs Dark Angels, Deathwing flavour. Ynnari loss. My first match on 8e, and I learned just how hard to kill Terminators are.
Space Marines (Ultrasmarines) vs Chaos Marines/Demons. 2000 points. Space marines win (Go me!)
Space Marines (Ultrasmarines) vs Chaos Marines/Demons. 2000 points, same lists. Chaos win (Go me again! We switched armies and I beat my opponent with his own army)
Nids/Nids vs Tau/Blood Angels. 2v2, 1000 points per player. Nids win (go me again!)
Daemons Vs Necrons (some weird janky first turn in your face): win
Daemosn vs Dark angels (ravenwing): Win
Daemons Vs Csm( land raiders + zerkers): Win
Daemons vs Eldar (Solid list): Win
Daemons vs Deathwatch (TAC list): Win
Daemons vs Tau (Commander + cyclic spam): Win
Daemons Vs BA ( solid list): Win
Daemons Vs Necrons( weird list, again different player): Win
Daemons Vs Nids ( genestealer spam): Win
My list is just 9 DP's of nurgle, belakor, and 7 nurglings.
Discrepancies there will be from self-reports and non-competitive gaming, but these results surprise me. CWE was pegged early on as being the clear bottom-tier army, while horde armies looked set to dominate.
Hrmm...
W/L ratio: Eldar: 3/2 (thanks Melissa, I had a brain fart) Orks: 19/36 (damn 19 is a prime number), close to 1/2
andysonic1 wrote: What the hell are World Eaters players fielding that is netting them so many wins?
BERZERKERS! Haven't you tried them yet? Also, for my money, many of my games have been won because of Khorne Terminators (and a Khorne Lord): Deep Strike + Combi-Plasmas + re-rolls to charge + tying up dangerous units turn 1, seriously without those Terminators to tie up units while my Berzerkers move up I probably wouldn't have done so well.
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs IG: Eldar Win
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Tau: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Imperial Fists: Eldar Win
Knight vs Orks: Knight win
Knight vs Imperium (IG, Assassins, Guilliman): Knight Win
To date I've seen/played Knights 7 times, and they've lost twice. The opponent in both those games was another pure Knight army.
Black Legion vs Aeldari - win
Black Legion vs Orks - win
Black Legion vs Salamanders - win
Black Legion vs Craftworld Eldar - win
Black Legion vs Astra Militarum - loss
Black Legion vs Ultramarines - win
Is it just me or have Eldar been massively nerfed?
It's just you. For most areas the Eldar are still auto win. The WK is comparable to a IK but is much cheaper, Scatter Lasers still mulch everything, and the Eldar are inexplicably both faster and more durable per point that everyone else.
Also WS spam is back, and cheaper than ever!
...I'm reading the Wraithknight at 27PL vs. 23PL for an IK (about 50pts more expensive depending on loadout). It is a bit more durable (5++ all the time), but its damage output is comparable or worse. My play experience of Scatter Lasers is leaving me incredibly underwhelmed and the math says the shuriken cannon is superior against anything with an armour save. And I have no idea where you're getting "more durable per point" out of the army with 8pt Guardsmen (normally 4pts) and T4/4+ bikes for the price of T5/3+ Marine bikes.
(Wave Serpents are still good, but "cheaper than ever" is a bit of an exaggeration given that they're 140pts minimum now when they were 115pts minimum last edition.)
(Addendum: The Eldar are still totally functional, but "still auto-win" is a gross exaggeration.)
Black Legion vs Aeldari - win
Black Legion vs Orks - win
Black Legion vs Salamanders - win
Black Legion vs Craftworld Eldar - win
Black Legion vs Astra Militarum - loss
Black Legion vs Ultramarines - win
Is it just me or have Eldar been massively nerfed?
It's just you. For most areas the Eldar are still auto win. The WK is comparable to a IK but is much cheaper, Scatter Lasers still mulch everything, and the Eldar are inexplicably both faster and more durable per point that everyone else.
Also WS spam is back, and cheaper than ever!
...I'm reading the Wraithknight at 27PL vs. 23PL for an IK (about 50pts more expensive depending on loadout). It is a bit more durable (5++ all the time), but its damage output is comparable or worse. My play experience of Scatter Lasers is leaving me incredibly underwhelmed and the math says the shuriken cannon is superior against anything with an armour save. And I have no idea where you're getting "more durable per point" out of the army with 8pt Guardsmen (normally 4pts) and T4/4+ bikes for the price of T5/3+ Marine bikes.
(Wave Serpents are still good, but "cheaper than ever" is a bit of an exaggeration given that they're 140pts minimum now when they were 115pts minimum last edition.)
(Addendum: The Eldar are still totally functional, but "still auto-win" is a gross exaggeration.)
I was joking xD
Did my uncharacteristic ignorance of the facts not alert you to this? For shame!
Necrons vs. Fleshtearers, necron win
necrons vs. tau necron, win
necrons vs. renegade knights and magnus, Necron win
dark angels vs. IG, dark angels win (barely)
necrons vs many flavors of power armor, necrons win
necron vs primaris marines, primaris marines
necrons vs primaris marines, necron win
So, while straight win/loss is helpful, it would be more helpful to have four more pieces of information: 1) Mission, 2) Deployment Style, 3) Percentage and Type of Terrain Coverage, 4) Who went first....
Discrepancies there will be from self-reports and non-competitive gaming, but these results surprise me. CWE was pegged early on as being the clear bottom-tier army, while horde armies looked set to dominate.
Hrmm...
W/L ratio:
Eldar: 3/2 (thanks Melissa, I had a brain fart)
Orks: 19/36 (damn 19 is a prime number), close to 1/2
Obviously it's because we all assumed that Eldar players are just WAAC nerds when in reality they're WAAC nerds who are also really good at the game!
I only count 42 ork games total. What is up with your numbers? Are you listing other games?
Sorry, what? Could you explain what you mean?
DCannon4Life wrote:So, while straight win/loss is helpful, it would be more helpful to have four more pieces of information: 1) Mission, 2) Deployment Style, 3) Percentage and Type of Terrain Coverage, 4) Who went first....
With this many games being recorded it would be a bit much to ask for details of all the games, that's what bat reps are for.
DCannon4Life wrote: So, while straight win/loss is helpful, it would be more helpful to have four more pieces of information: 1) Mission, 2) Deployment Style, 3) Percentage and Type of Terrain Coverage, 4) Who went first....
Yes, but that isn't really data that can be easily analyzed here. This is a very rough indication since we don't know how good the opponents are either.
DCannon4Life wrote: So, while straight win/loss is helpful, it would be more helpful to have four more pieces of information: 1) Mission, 2) Deployment Style, 3) Percentage and Type of Terrain Coverage, 4) Who went first....
Yes, but that isn't really data that can be easily analyzed here. This is a very rough indication since we don't know how good the opponents are either.
If we got 100+ results for each faction, there's a modicum of reliability. Overarching trends would appear.
I only count 42 ork games total. What is up with your numbers? Are you listing other games?
Sorry, what? Could you explain what you mean?
DCannon4Life wrote:So, while straight win/loss is helpful, it would be more helpful to have four more pieces of information: 1) Mission, 2) Deployment Style, 3) Percentage and Type of Terrain Coverage, 4) Who went first....
With this many games being recorded it would be a bit much to ask for details of all the games, that's what bat reps are for.
just going through, i saw about 42 games total for orks. You have them winning 19 and losing 36, for a total 55 games.
JimOnMars wrote: just going through, i saw about 42 games total for orks. You have them winning 19 and losing 36, for a total 55 games.
I count at least 46 Ork games just skimming through (may have missed some, it's late) and I've also added a few to the OP myself, but your not wrong: I have probably added some games accidently or added a few games twice. (I'm not brilliant at data entry and it has been a tyring week without having to type up scores as well)
Tyranids vs Tau - Tyranid Win
Tyranids vs Necrons - Tyranid Win
Tyranids vs Dark Angels - Draw
Tyranids vs Necrons - Draw
Tyranids vs Death Guard - Tyranid Win
Tyranids vs Dark Angels - Tyranid Win
Tyranids vs Celestine, Imperial Knight & Skitari - Tyranid Loss
Its been a good run so far! Loving the bugs in 8th
djones520 wrote: Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs IG: Eldar Win
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Tau: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Imperial Fists: Eldar Win
Knight vs Orks: Knight win
Knight vs Imperium (IG, Assassins, Guilliman): Knight Win
To date I've seen/played Knights 7 times, and they've lost twice. The opponent in both those games was another pure Knight army.
djones520 wrote: Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs IG: Eldar Win
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Tau: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Imperial Fists: Eldar Win
Knight vs Orks: Knight win
Knight vs Imperium (IG, Assassins, Guilliman): Knight Win
To date I've seen/played Knights 7 times, and they've lost twice. The opponent in both those games was another pure Knight army.
What's so difficult about fighting Knights?
Take 3 big tank-like units, and place them in a game where you need over 3x the points cost of the target in AT firepower to cripple or destroy it, or equivalent points over three or four turns to do the same. One must possess an army dedicated almost entirely to armour destruction to render the Knights useless at some point in the game, or just have so many bodies that the dice just do it for you.
They always get to go first, and with knight shooting power the opponent simply has a much smaller army by the bottom of turn 1. It's like starting with a 300-500 point deficit. Plus the knights get to pick and choose any target they want, so naturally they kill the AT stuff leaving nothing left that can harm them. Its rock-paper-scissors on steroids.
Dark Eldar vs Blood Angels (the flyer spam list) Dark Eldar victory
Dark Eldar vs Guard. DE Victory
Eldar vs Guard. Guard Victory
Eldar vs Sisters: Sisters Victory
Dark Eldar vs Eldar. DE Victory.
mrhappyface wrote: So we have seen the ITC results from the first week but how about we get a Dakka results going? See if we can't compile our own data since the ITC results only covered 100 games.
Post the name of the armies that have played so far in your local group and how many games they have won so far, here are my additions:
So... Thus far AM and Nids have been kicking bubblegum and chewing ass (and they're all outta bubblegum), as we expected. Though, not as much as some of the hyperbole would have you believe (unless all the losses are just people who didn't use conscripts). Space Marines are... probably doing the "can't/won't adapt" to the new edition... Eldar are evening out a little more at a little over an 11/9 W/L ratio. Orks have been getting massacred, sadly. CSM are holding out with a 1/1 W/L, possibly because Khorne got gud this edition. He swole. And Necrons aren't yet the unbeatable mess people have been complaining about...
A quick bit of stats taking into account random variance. I'm assuming that if everything was balanced things would be evenly distriburted. Conclusion: We don't know anything yet, not enough data/trends not strong enough to make statements. I think the outcome is pretty interesting though take a look.
I excluded any armies with so littel data that they couldn't be analysed at all.
Calculated. It's just a standard deviation of the data at this point. It is actually 19.975%, but you can't quite see that cause of the rounding. Like I said I assumed normalcy for a perfectly balanced game. It's very rough stats, but good enough to give an indication that the ranges are pretty braod at the moment.
Here's a version using a 95% CI instead. for people not that into stats, a 95% C.I. indicates that the real value is somewhere within the range given to a 95% certainty.
95% certainty is pretty low so here is 99% as well.
zerosignal wrote: This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.
Yeah - realistically each army should be able to hide their most valueable stuff. If you can't you aren't playing 40k - you are playing who goes first wins.
Hmmm, I'm not sure if this set of data can evaluated using standard varience as it does not under go a normal distrabution. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I did statistics.
I assumed a normal distribution would be present if all armies were balanced. Is there a reason to think this is incorrect? The mean win% is 52.4% so this seemd more approriate than a T style analysis. There are other techniques I could use, but assumption of rough normalcy seems reasonable for a quick look.
That's the problem, this data is trying to give a rough idea of whether the armies are balanced or whether we'll be getting army tiers again. So assuming they are balanced is kind of jumping the gun.
So one assumes they would be normal if things were balanced, then you look at the deviation from that normal pattern. It's a pretty common technique. We certainly use it with biological populations, even when we know they are not perfectly normal. I'm a scientist, not a mathematician, so I don't require perfect mathematical data, as that generally doesn't exist. Essentially what the stats are saying is at this point we don;t have a high confidence of either none normalcy nor tiering.
That's cool. Hopefully, an actual statistician can do some stuff if they feel like it. I only had like 15 minutes so just threw this together, but I think it's important not to just take flat percentages into account as that is almost always quite misleading.
Well these results aren't going define the meta, that's for certain: there aren't enough values recorded, we don't know the specifics of each game (whether new players were playing, whether it was friendly or comp, etc.) and the data itself was entered by me which doesn't bode well for it's accuracy.
zerosignal wrote: This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.
Yeah - realistically each army should be able to hide their most valueable stuff. If you can't you aren't playing 40k - you are playing who goes first wins.
Welcome to my experience of 40k in the last 10 years. I don't think I have met a player who would let me use LOS-block unless I set up the table well in advance. And it's usually met with objection >.<
zerosignal wrote: This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.
Yeah - realistically each army should be able to hide their most valueable stuff. If you can't you aren't playing 40k - you are playing who goes first wins.
Welcome to my experience of 40k in the last 10 years. I don't think I have met a player who would let me use LOS-block unless I set up the table well in advance. And it's usually met with objection >.<
I for one love LoS blocking terrain, as do my Basilisks.
But yeah, I kind of wish one of the fortification options was just a cheap palisade. Nothing fancy, no weapons or special rules, just a cheap piece of terrain tall enough to hide something the size of a Leman Russ (not that I would actually put one of those behind it, just a size comparison) so that you can carry your own LoS blocking terrain with you. Something like 30 points for a 6" section, that'd be pretty nice.
Sorry guys, maybe a little out of topic but...i see The Fallen listed.. does it means that someone can play/ has played exclusively with cyper and fallen "chosen" units? or are there more "Fallen" units i have missed? i don't get this.
Neferhet wrote: Sorry guys, maybe a little out of topic but...i see The Fallen listed.. does it means that someone can play/ has played exclusively with cyper and fallen "chosen" units? or are there more "Fallen" units i have missed? i don't get this.
Probably meens they have played with Cypher, Fallen and filler units from either the Chaos Index or the Imperial Codex. Or maybe some mad man is running lists with nothing but Fallen and Cypher.
Marmatag wrote: Community on Space Marines players: "Mostly noobs, aren't skilled, that's why they lose."
The various Space Marine armies have a combined winrate of around 46% last I checked (sometime early yesterday; this may have changed of course as people add more results in), just shy of 50/50. Also, Space Marines placed 2 of the top 3, and 5 of the top 10, of the only major tournament so far, where Orks didn't even make one in the top ten-- one of them made 11, the rest were in the bottom five. So arguing Space Marines are weak is kinda silly, if anything, you can't really compare the strength/weakness of Marines vs the strength/weakness of Orks at all right now, they're in very very different situations.
One thing that does skew Space Marine results is that each named chapter is treated as its own separate army in the stats. So the only things left in the "generic Space Marines" bucket are "Space Marines, minus the cool chapter toys".
Space Marines have so much invested in their named chapters, especially the ones that have tons of exclusive units, that playing generic Space Marines instead of a named chapter is kind of handicapping yourself.
It would be like if the IG had almost all of its best toys locked to the Cadia keyword, and then the stats of IG and Cadia were tracked separately. Though of course, a certain Blood Angels list that nonetheless mostly used generic Space Marine units did recently do quite well, so perhaps the army is suffering from an identity crisis: the Space Marine units that are good are not the ones that the players picked up the army for.
Marmatag wrote: Community on Space Marines players: "Mostly noobs, aren't skilled, that's why they lose."
The various Space Marine armies have a winrate of around 46% last I checked (sometime early yesterday; this may have changed of course as people add more results in), just shy of 50/50. Also, Space Marines placed 2 of the top 3, and 5 of the top 10, of the only major tournament so far, where Orks didn't even make one in the top ten. So arguing Space Marines are weak is kinda silly.
1. I'm not making a statement that marines are weak, just remarking on the great comedy that is dakka dakka community analysis that i've seen. Generic space marines lost most of their quality. Do you play Iron Hands? If so you, you lost *everything.*
2. You can't lump all space marines together. You cannot play 'counts-as' in a tournament to get your white scars as grey knights, or your salamanders as blood angels. They are different armies from a competitive standpoint.
3. That tournament had 38 people, drawing a conclusion based on that data only adds to the silliness of this whole process.
Marmatag wrote: 2. You can't lump all space marines together.
Already did, and will continue to. I quote myself:
"They're still just marines. These ones are blood-flavored."
There's not really all that much of a difference between the various marine armies at the moment due to the nature of the Index books; as such, combining them for statistical purposes is no different than combining a Guardian-heavy Eldar army and an Aspect-heavy Eldar army, or an Infantry regiment IG force vs an Armored regiment IG force.
Marmatag wrote: Community on Space Marines players: "Mostly noobs, aren't skilled, that's why they lose."
The various Space Marine armies have a winrate of around 46% last I checked (sometime early yesterday; this may have changed of course as people add more results in), just shy of 50/50. Also, Space Marines placed 2 of the top 3, and 5 of the top 10, of the only major tournament so far, where Orks didn't even make one in the top ten. So arguing Space Marines are weak is kinda silly.
1. I'm not making a statement that marines are weak, just remarking on the great comedy that is dakka dakka community analysis that i've seen. Generic space marines lost most of their quality. Do you play Iron Hands? If so you, you lost *everything.*
2. You can't lump all space marines together. You cannot play 'counts-as' in a tournament to get your white scars as grey knights, or your salamanders as blood angels. They are different armies from a competitive standpoint.
3. That tournament had 38 people, drawing a conclusion based on that data only adds to the silliness of this whole process.
As I pointed out, that fragmentation is part of how Space Marines are able to have awesome units, yet a nominally low win rate. An Ultramarine list for example, can use all of the generic Space Marine models plus the Ultramarine exclusives like Reboot Girlyman. But any Ultramarine wins will be filed under Ultramarines, not Space Marines.
Same goes for most other named chapters. Taking a named chapter rarely puts generic models off limits, it only gives you more toys and often more sources of buff auras in particular. This means taking a named chapter is almost universally better than playing generic Space Marines. This is mostly a symptom of just how large a lot of named chapters have grown.
Funnily enough, AdMech has run into a similar problem with the introduction of Cawl. And he's just one model! But playing Mars AdMech is basically universally better than playing as any other Forge World, because Mars can take Cawl plus everything else, so playing non-Mars is only handicapping yourself by removing him as an option.
Marmatag wrote: 2. You can't lump all space marines together.
Already did, and will continue to. I quote myself:
"They're still just marines. These ones are blood-flavored."
There's not really all that much of a difference between the various marine armies at the moment due to the nature of the Index books; as such, combining them for statistical purposes is no different than combining a Guardian-heavy Eldar army and an Aspect-heavy Eldar army, or an Infantry regiment IG force vs an Armored regiment IG force.
That's your prerogative, but it's not accurate, and is a gross oversimplification. It also doesn't mirror the distinctions created by GW, ITC, present in any tournament, and it also doesn't mirror RAW.
You could also call Harlequins "Eldar," but that wouldn't be accurate either.
The point here is that the Space Marines' balance problems are internal, not external. They're not balanced against themselves, so it's easy to screw yourself over in list-building despite them having some very good options.
In the original post, all guard regiments are combined in to one group, Astra Militaritum. But he does not object to that. He only objects to someone doing the same thing to Space Marines.
Melissia wrote: In the original post, all guard regiments are combined in to one group, Astra Militaritum. But he does not object to that. He only objects to someone doing the same thing to Space Marines.
Marmatag wrote: Some of these I've played in, some I've spectated. Personally I have done incredibly well in 8th edition, believe it or not. 4/4!
Blood Angels vs Orks; Blood Angels; BA went first Grey Knights vs Daemons; Grey Knights; GK went first Ultramarines vs Blood Angels; Ultramarines; BA went first Ultramarines vs Daemons; Ultramarines; UM went first Imperial Guard vs Imperial Guard; Imperial Guard; Winner went first Imperial Guard vs Orks; Imperial Guard; Guard went first Necrons vs Genestealers; Necrons; Necrons went first. Dark Angels vs Harlequins; Dark Angels; Dark Angels went first Dark Angels vs Orks; Orks; Dark Angels went first Eldar vs Ultramarines; Eldar; Don't know who went first. Ministorum vs Ultramarines; Ministorum; Don't know who went first.
I'm sure there are a couple i'm forgetting. I've watched quite a few.
There is a guard player at my shop who is just stomping all over people. I want to catch more of his games.
This one?
EDIT: Nvm misread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But the random naming conventions for tourney results are annoying me slowly. I saw one where a guy was put down as Militarum Tempestus,, which we all know as IG now. There were a couple others which annoyed me as well.
Marmatag wrote: Some of these I've played in, some I've spectated. Personally I have done incredibly well in 8th edition, believe it or not. 4/4!
Blood Angels vs Orks; Blood Angels; BA went first
Grey Knights vs Daemons; Grey Knights; GK went first
Ultramarines vs Blood Angels; Ultramarines; BA went first
Ultramarines vs Daemons; Ultramarines; UM went first
Imperial Guard vs Imperial Guard; Imperial Guard; Winner went first
Imperial Guard vs Orks; Imperial Guard; Guard went first
Necrons vs Genestealers; Necrons; Necrons went first.
Dark Angels vs Harlequins; Dark Angels; Dark Angels went first
Dark Angels vs Orks; Orks; Dark Angels went first
Eldar vs Ultramarines; Eldar; Don't know who went first.
Ministorum vs Ultramarines; Ministorum; Don't know who went first.
I'm sure there are a couple i'm forgetting. I've watched quite a few.
There is a guard player at my shop who is just stomping all over people. I want to catch more of his games.
This one?
EDIT: Nvm misread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But the random naming conventions for tourney results are annoying me slowly. I saw one where a guy was put down as Militarum Tempestus,, which we all know as IG now. There were a couple others which annoyed me as well.
Yeah, last tournament we had a guy play an Ultramarine army, with the only Ultramarine in it being Guilliman. With the ability to include as many as 6-7 different factions in a single army (looking at you Imperium), it's going to be really hard to just call them a single name.
Marmatag wrote: When did it become my job to audit this data?
When did it become my job to agree with a Space Marine player claiming Space Marines deserve special treatment?
Because I don't. And I never will.
Melissa has a point - army names are best served either as catch-alls or as build-specifications.
The differences between SM, UM, SW, BA, DA, IF and BT is not as great as some of the build variances you can find in CWE.
Why should they have different categories, when CWE can do the following builds:
1) Wraithhost, using the Vanguard detachment
2) 3-5 Wraithknights, using the Super Heavy detachment
3) Skyrunner list with at least three units of Windriders and a Farseer Skyrunner, using the Outrider detachment
4) Guardian-heavy list, taking 6 units of Guardians in a Battalion detachment
5) Any build, but all the troop choices are Harlequin Troupes
6) Wave Serpent Spam
7) A list with 3 Fire Prisms and an Avatar of Khaine, using a Spearhead Detachment
8) A list with a minimum of three fliers, and no ground-based Heavy Support
None of these are even remotely the same, yet they all fall under "CWE".
Marmatag wrote: When did it become my job to audit this data?
When did it become my job to agree with a Space Marine player claiming Space Marines deserve special treatment?
Because I don't. And I never will.
I'm not asking you to agree. I think you're confusing this as a matter of opinion. They are different armies. That's a fact. You choosing to lump them together is a conscious decision that is demonstrably incorrect. As I said before, this is your prerogative.
The "aedeptus astartes" groups, like White Scars, Salamanders, Iron Hands, etc, are all basically equivalent. But when you start adding Grey Knights, BA, SW, etc, that's where it becomes incorrect.
In any case, I did specifically call out that I had seem matches of imperial guard.
Well from the looks of things, Space Marine players (and to some extent, GW themselves) seem to have some expectations for Space Marines that are... difficult to meet.
1: Named chapters are generally expected to be defined by advantages over generic Marines, disadvantages to offset these differences are... discouraged.
2: Space Marine players want generic Space Marines to be on the strong end of the power curve. Which would in some ways be understandable, everyone wants to be above average (the mathematics of that aside) except for how it conflicts with #1.
3: Space Marines fight other Space Marines more often than other factions, due to their large share of the player base. While you might expect this to push them toward a 50/50 win rate, this falls apart when you consider #1 and #2: generic Space Marines lose to named Space Marines.
4: Space Marine players are most attached to old, long-standing model lines that form the core identity of the faction. Tactical marines, devastators, terminators, Rhinos, Predators. This would be fine, except...
5: GW wants to constantly crank out new Marine models, and wants people to buy all the latest shiny stuff. So Space Marine power creep tends to be more concentrated in their newest models that the players are reluctant to field. Other factions power creep too, but their power creep is better distributed between old and new models, because new model releases for other factions are relatively rare.
#1-3 together means that generic Space Marine win rates will be suppressed no matter how good Space Marines as a whole become, because they will mostly be fighting either other generic Space Marines, or named Space Marines that are better than them.
#4-5 means that a tournament player willing to go for the newest models, and put victory before faction identity can reliably win tournaments by chasing the latest releases. Meanwhile, the more typical Marine player who is trying to field the archetypical Marine force is left behind as GW introduces new models instead of reworking old models. This results in the Space Marines being a strong faction... unless you play them the way most people expect Space Marines to play.
In a way, they're victims of their own posterboy status.
Marmatag wrote: I'm not asking you to agree. I think you're confusing this as a matter of opinion. They are different armies. That's a fact.
They're just different flavors of Space Marines in the end.
This is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion that red space marines and blue space marines are both just space marines.
Yes, that's true. But it's not a meaningful statement.
Yes, it is. Because, especially with the index as it is, there's really not that much difference. Or arey ou going to try to make me pass out laughing by saying the difference between blood angels and space wolves is as equally great as the difference between ultramarines and imperial guard?
Actualy, go ahead and try. I could use a good laugh Until then though, the fact remains-- and it is a fact, no matter how much you choose to ignore it-- that the various space marine flavors are, ultimately, just variants of space marines, with at best minor differences between them. Hell, there's a bigger difference between Eldar and Dark Eldar, than any two of the marine factions.
(And before the inevitable happens and someone tries to claim I'm arguing they should be removed, just shut up.)
Marmatag wrote: I'm not asking you to agree. I think you're confusing this as a matter of opinion. They are different armies. That's a fact.
They're just different flavors of Space Marines in the end.
This is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion that red space marines and blue space marines are both just space marines.
Yes, that's true. But it's not a meaningful statement.
Yes, it is. Because, especially with the index as it is, there's really not that much difference. Or arey ou going to try to make me pass out laughing by saying the difference between blood angels and space wolves is as equally great as the difference between ultramarines and imperial guard?
Actualy, go ahead and try. I could use a good laugh Until then though, the fact remains-- and it is a fact, no matter how much you choose to ignore it-- that the various space marine flavors are, ultimately, just variants of space marines, with at best minor differences between them.
Fact: Various space marine flavors are variants of space marines. Opinion: At best minor differences between them.
Marmatag wrote: I would argue there are major differences between Grey Knights and Space Wolves, for instance.
Compared to the difference between space wolves and imperial guard, or grey knights and Imperial Knights, or either one and Orks, and so on and so forth, your opinion would be quite wrong-- the difference between the two is minuscule at best relative to other armies.
And yes, before you try to claim otherwise, opinions can be wrong.
Marmatag wrote: I would argue there are major differences between Grey Knights and Space Wolves, for instance.
Compared to the difference between space wolves and imperial guard, or grey knights and Imperial Knights, or either one and Orks, and so on and so forth, your opinion would be quite wrong-- the difference between the two is minuscule at best relative to other armies.
And yes, before you try to claim otherwise, opinions can be wrong.
2 and 1 are the same number because the difference between 1 and 100 is much bigger. #Opinions
Your strawman argument is amusing, but still wrong, much like your opinions.
My argument was such:
Melissia wrote: There's not really all that much of a difference between the various marine armies at the moment due to the nature of the Index books; as such, combining them for statistical purposes is no different than combining a Guardian-heavy Eldar army and an Aspect-heavy Eldar army, or an Infantry regiment IG force vs an Armored regiment IG force.
And it still stands. I did not argue that all Space Marines are exactly the same. Just that they're so similar it's okay for the purposes of statistical analysis to combine them in order to measure the winrates of Space Marines overall. That this notion offends you really reflects more on you than me.
If there's a differentiation between Space Wolves and Blood Angels and Ultramarines, then there should be a differentiation between Catachans, Cadians, Elysians, and Krieg.
However, GW and the community has an undying love for genetically enhanced pretty-boys, and must ensure that there are more official differentiations that sum up to a total difference of 2 units and a few named characters to ensure that there are as many variants of Space Marines as there are other, infinitely more interesting and equally diverse in their own right, factions in the game.
But anyway, there are unique units available only to Cadian and Catachan armies, to make no mention of even more unique units available to Elysian or Death Korps armies. But, if the presence of Pask vs. Harker is deemed less significant than the presence of Guilliman vs. Grimnar, then so be it.
What even is this argument. The ITC and every single official organization observes a categorical distinction between CSM and the other chapters that have their own codices. It's organised BY CODEX.
"b-but I don't like that system"
No one cares. It's the system tournaments use, it's the system the OP seems to want to use. You don't have to like it, no one asked you to. You're entirely free to make your own thread or form your own system in which faction categories in tournaments are organized by fluff or whatever instead of something else.
Melissia wrote: Your strawman argument is amusing, but still wrong, much like your opinions.
My argument was such:
Melissia wrote: There's not really all that much of a difference between the various marine armies at the moment due to the nature of the Index books; as such, combining them for statistical purposes is no different than combining a Guardian-heavy Eldar army and an Aspect-heavy Eldar army, or an Infantry regiment IG force vs an Armored regiment IG force.
And it still stands. I did not argue that all Space Marines are exactly the same. Just that they're so similar it's okay for the purposes of statistical analysis to combine them in order to measure the winrates of Space Marines overall. That this notion offends you really reflects more on you than me.
It's not a strawman argument. Formalize a way for us to quantify the difference between two armies, or you have no point, other than "this is how I feel," which in and of itself is an argument, just not a valid one. You have no case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: How ITC itself measures it is irrelevant; they don't do that for the purposes of accurate statistical analysis.
Are you suggesting we have less granular data for statistical analysis? Which statistical methods would benefit, or be harmed by, separating marine armies, rather than lumping them together?
Yes, actually, it is. You argued that I claimed that all space marines are the exact same, that there's no difference between them, which is not only wrong, but you know it's wrong-- and you said it anyway as if that's what I had actually said. My argue was simple, that there's a small enough difference that they can be lumped together to get a clearer picture.
Amusingly, your previous post basically passive-aggressviely agreed with my argument.
Marmatag wrote: Are you suggesting we have less granular data for statistical analysis?
It is misleading to claim "Space Marines are doing terribly bad!" when, on the whole, they are not really doing that much worse than a 50/50 split than you'd expect from a normal distribution.
There is no mechanical reason for the gap between BA and other marines. There must BE a reason, however, and figuring that out is worth keeping them separated.
For my part, I don't even particularly care how they are organized on the list. What's important is recognizing the effect that the organization has on the resulting numbers.
If you have regular Space Marines, and then you have Ultramarines that are basically Space Marines plus Reboot as a general, the Ultramarines' presence will skew the stats. Just got to keep in mind that the nature of Space Marine subfactions means that the subfactions will siphon wins from the "main" faction.
If you have regular Space Marines, and then you have Ultramarines that are basically Space Marines plus Reboot as a general, the Ultramarines' presence will skew the stats.
Ultramarines should be separate because they have access to Roboute.
With a quick glance (pardon if I make a mistake here, the list is kinda long):
Space Wolves, 1k sons Grey Knights, Emperor's Children, and World Eaters have a better than 1:1 win-loss ratio.
Blood Angels and Chaos Marines have exactly a 1:1 win-loss ratio.
Generic Marines, Death Guard, Dark Angels, and Deathwatch have a less than 1:1 win-loss ratio.
However, the numbers are so small for a lot of these sub-factions (some of which have less than ten games total) that it is more useful to look at the 120-138 split we currently have, which results in a 46.5% win ratio. Not ideal (48-52% or so would be best), showing a lack of internal balance between Marine sub-factions, but overall it's not showing that marines are cripplingly bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: I'll wait for you to formalize how we can calculate the difference between two armies.
I don't like you enough to put that much effort in to something you're not going to respect anyway. So don't bother waiting.
If you have regular Space Marines, and then you have Ultramarines that are basically Space Marines plus Reboot as a general, the Ultramarines' presence will skew the stats.
Ultramarines should be separate because they have access to Roboute.
And that's fine if that's how you want to do it, but you then have to recognize that the Ultramarines' presence on the list will skew the Space Marines' stats because of the value that Reboot adds to their roster.
Yes, actually, it is. You argued that I claimed that all space marines are the exact same, that there's no difference between them, which is not only wrong, but you know it's wrong-- and you said it anyway as if that's what I had actually said.
Marmatag wrote: Are you suggesting we have less granular data for statistical analysis?
It is misleading to claim "Space Marines are doing terribly bad!" when, on the whole, they are not really doing that much worse than a 50/50 split than you'd expect from a normal distribution.
Well, it is useful to know that Space Marines with Guilliman are doing better/worse than Space Marines with Grimnar, or Space Marines without either.
Similarly, it is useful to know that Imperial Guard with Pask may or may not be doing better than Imperial Guard with Harker, or Imperial Guard with a special order to turn all their weapons into "Assault" weapons. It may also be useful to know if Orks with Ghazskull are doing better than Orks with Baddrukk, etc.
But, if it's not deemed useful to know if the Imperial Guard brought Pask or Harker, it's not any more useful to know if the Space Marines brought Guilliman or Grimnar. It's easy to see how the separation can skew the data.
Melissia wrote: Simple. Because of how similar they are, it's more useful to measure Space Marines as a whole than it is to measure them singly.
Sure, and it would also be fitting to categorize all Imperial armies under one banner now since they can freely borrow units from each other and essentially all count as one faction. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat.
How ITC itself measures it is irrelevant
It's entirely relevant because this thread is about the ITC results.
BlaxicanX wrote: Sure, and it would also be fitting to categorize all Imperial armies under one banner now since they can freely borrow units from each other and essentially all count as one faction. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat.
If an army uses multiple Imperial factions at once (such as one listed above that's AdMech and Knights), "Imperial" is the only useful way to define it, as listing the combination would provide for far too many smaller (and thus less useful) results.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's entirely relevant because this thread is about the ITC results.
Uh... no. No, it is not. It's about the wins and losses Dakka users themselves are reporting, not ITC's results, which would be unchanging until their next tournament where this list is continually changing.
BlaxicanX wrote: Sure, and it would also be fitting to categorize all Imperial armies under one banner now since they can freely borrow units from each other and essentially all count as one faction. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat.
If an army uses multiple Imperial factions at once, "Imperial" is the only useful way to define it, as listing the combination would provide for far too many smaller (and thus less useful) results.
Uh, yes?
Uh... no. No, it is not. It's about the wins and losses Dakka users themselves are reporting, not ITC's results, which would be unchanging until their next tournament where this list is continually changing.
Did you click on the wrong thread?
Sorry, I worded that in the absolute dumbest way possible.
The OP is using the ITC system to organize player results.
Agreed. I was hoping to see continued updates. All I've seen on the last three pages is a lot of bickering. It would be great if you guys could move it else where.
mrhappyface wrote: Astra Militarium - 38W 27L Tyranids - 35W 28L Space Marines - 35W 51L Eldar - 23W 21L Orks - 22W 39L Dark Eldar - 19W 13L Chaos Space Marines - 18W 19L Necrons - 17W 18L Space Wolves - 13W 11L Daemons - 12W 5L Ad mech - 11W 13L Imperial Knights - 11W 6L Thousand Sons - 10W 6L Grey Knights - 10W 7L Blood Angels - 10W 11L Tau - 10W 21L Dark Angels - 9W 14L Adeptus Sororitas - 7W 3L Harlequins - 6W 6L Deathwatch - 6W 9L Death Guard - 6W 12L
Right-ho! Now we're starting to see some real numbers of games, but I must wonder, is this including all X vs X games, or is it just the X vs Y games? Because including X vs X games is just adding 1 to each W/L stat every time it's done, and could skew some of the data. Recording the results of one army against itself tells us little about Codex vs Codex (Index vs Index, etc) balance.
It seems that several armies are seeing little use in this thread, but mostly the armies we wouldn't expect to have great proliferation.
Tau seem to be getting the gak kicked out of them, but whether this is because the army is weak or just because it changed so much that nobody has a viable list yet is uncertain. Blood Angels are getting close to a 1/1 win/loss rate here, which is vastly improved over Martel's constant bellyaching for the last few years. What this means is hard to determine, and whether it holds out in a month's time is, as with everything here, unpredictable. Sisters of Battle are doing okay, but 10 battles is hardly a trend-checker. Death Guard, for all of GW's work, are trailing behind with a 1/2 w/l rate. Imperial Knights are doing well with around a 2/1 rate, presumably because killing three superheavy vehicles in this edition is quite a feat of strength. Guardsmen are doing about as well as the nids, but how much of this is to do with Conscript-spam is unknowable... Necrons are still not being too curb-stomping... Harley-davidsons are beng murderclowns. Scary to contemplate, but ultimately vulnerable to being shot in the face. Tyranids are consuming several planet's worth of armies, this looks to be their edition. Eldar are evening out, possibly because they aren't all that hard to kill. Vanilla Marines are just getting punched in the face as one of the most popular armies. I'd put this down to them being extremely common. So common in fact, that my first question when making a list is "can it kill vanilla marines?" Orks... Bein' GREEN
So far, an interesting collection of unreliable data.
Imperial Knights are doing well with around a 2/1 rate, presumably because killing three superheavy vehicles in this edition is quite a feat of strength.
I think that's largely me inflating that.
of the 11 wins, I'm pretty sure I'm 6 of those reported (and 2 of the losses).
My local still suffers from 7th edition "don't bother with heavy weapons" syndrome. In 4-5 of those wins, I've had to kill maybe 2 units that have big damage guns, and the rest of the field is a mix of anti-infantry stuff that can still get the job done, but... not well. I alpha strike 6 damage guns off the table (often first turn thanks to long movement and gun range), and then just sort of clean up.
People are finally adapting to 8th edition "vehicles and multiwound models are more commonplace" and are starting to bring more than then 1-2 units to solve that problem (especially because infantry variations of that are so cheap). Games are getting closer and closer.
I've personally played BA since 8th dropped. I've won 3 games vs Orks, won 1 vs White Scars, lost 1 to Ultramarines (more like his stupid land raider exploding), and won 1 vs Guard. All of these were 2k points games.
Some of the things I've learned. Stormravens are pretty dang good vs Orks, as they have no reliable shooting that can deal with them. Melee dreads are pretty junk because of how much they cost and how hard it is to get them there (even on a stormraven). Melee consolidating into things to shut down shooting really helps the durability of CC units.
Mulletdude wrote: Stormravens are pretty dang good vs Orks, as they have no reliable shooting that can deal with them.
Anyone tried to assault them with stormboyz yet?
Dakkajets are pretty decent at shooting other flyers down. I've seen a few Kopters with Kill saws go nuts on some as well, but they mainly just weakened them down.
30 stormboyz should be lucky if they give 2-3 wounds to a single stormraven (usually a couple only), they hit on 4+ and wound on 6+, stormraven save at 3+ so the chance to really hurt it is very low. Orks have no really a viable way to deal with multiple stormravens or flyers like that. Dakkajet with 5+ to hit and wound? they do nothing serious.
blackmage wrote: 30 stormboyz should be lucky if they give 2-3 wounds to a single stormraven (usually a couple only), they hit on 4+ and wound on 6+, stormraven save at 3+ so the chance to really hurt it is very low. Orks have no really a viable way to deal with multiple stormravens or flyers like that. Dakkajet with 5+ to hit and wound? they do nothing serious.
Stormboy still can get a PK nob can't they? Also a 3+ hit, their hard to hit rule only affects the shooting phase.
blackmage wrote: 30 stormboyz should be lucky if they give 2-3 wounds to a single stormraven (usually a couple only), they hit on 4+ and wound on 6+, stormraven save at 3+ so the chance to really hurt it is very low. Orks have no really a viable way to deal with multiple stormravens or flyers like that. Dakkajet with 5+ to hit and wound? they do nothing serious.
Stormboy still can get a PK nob can't they? Also a 3+ hit, their hard to hit rule only affects the shooting phase.
Here's the maths:
1 Stormraven is equivilent to about 5 units of Stormboyz with a PK Nob, each unit of Stormboyz does about 2.5 wounds each so the 5 units together would do 12.5 wounds to the Stormraven. That isn't too bad but one must remember the Stormraven will be putting out a lot of shots on those Stormboyz before they can get close.
As cc units go, Stormboyz aren't a bad unit and they certainly aren't a bad cc unit for taking down flyers, but I would still think Stormravens would beat Stormboyz in a pure army fight.
My record for 8th so far is 2-2. All while playing my Dark Angels.
Game 1: DA vs. Aeldari Craftworlds: DA victory
Game 2: DA vs. DA: My DA loss
Game 3: DA vs. Tyranids: DA victory
Game 4: DA vs. Orks: DA loss
Game 3 hardly counts, as I only won due to a lucky Sieze the Initiative roll. I'd have been crushed very quickly otherwise.
Emperors children vs imperium= EC win
3 full kitted noise marine squads and a deredeo packs a lot of dakka. I went up against a vanilla marine with some primaris support. The plasma squad nearly one shot my contemptor with only 3 of their guns, Primaris lt got insta gibbed by chaos lord in combat. Game basically came down to if his deep striking terminators managed a charge or not on turn 3.
on the other table
Khorne (lead by angrath) vs eldar= eldar win
Well I finally played my first 8th edition games. Me and my opponent have Space Wolves and Tau. First 2 games I was space wolves. I won both games. Then the next 2 games I was tau and my opponent was space wolves. I lost both games
Marmatag wrote: Some of these I've played in, some I've spectated. Personally I have done incredibly well in 8th edition, believe it or not. 4/4!
Blood Angels vs Orks; Blood Angels; BA went first
Grey Knights vs Daemons; Grey Knights; GK went first
Ultramarines vs Blood Angels; Ultramarines; BA went first
Ultramarines vs Daemons; Ultramarines; UM went first
Imperial Guard vs Imperial Guard; Imperial Guard; Winner went first
Imperial Guard vs Orks; Imperial Guard; Guard went first
Necrons vs Genestealers; Necrons; Necrons went first.
Dark Angels vs Harlequins; Dark Angels; Dark Angels went first
Dark Angels vs Orks; Orks; Dark Angels went first
Eldar vs Ultramarines; Eldar; Don't know who went first.
Ministorum vs Ultramarines; Ministorum; Don't know who went first.
I'm sure there are a couple i'm forgetting. I've watched quite a few.
There is a guard player at my shop who is just stomping all over people. I want to catch more of his games.
This one?
EDIT: Nvm misread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But the random naming conventions for tourney results are annoying me slowly. I saw one where a guy was put down as Militarum Tempestus,, which we all know as IG now. There were a couple others which annoyed me as well.
Yeah, last tournament we had a guy play an Ultramarine army, with the only Ultramarine in it being Guilliman. With the ability to include as many as 6-7 different factions in a single army (looking at you Imperium), it's going to be really hard to just call them a single name.
I mean, the way I'd do it would be to classify them based on the main (ignoring Chaos, Imperium & Aeldari [& Tyranid on GSC units] unless that's the only keyword binding the force together) Faction Keyword shared across the whole army.
So if everyone is a Heretic Astarte, I'd use Heretic Astartes - unless they're one of the 4 subfactions with their own unique units or rules (same for Space Marines, except maybe for Salamanders, Raven Guard, White Scars and both the Imperial & Crimson Fists - or at least until they get their own special rules).
Really it'd be the best way to do it if people want to continue defining tournament results by faction.
Grey Knights vs. AdMech (W)
Grey Knights vs. Heretic Astartes (W)
Grey Knights vs. Crimson Fists (L)
Grey Knights vs. Thousand Sons (W)
Grey Knights vs. Death Guard (W)
So far these are my results (I play solely non-primaris SM's)
Winning army is in Bold.
Marines v Guard (tanks)
Marines v Tau
Marines v Guard (mixed tanks and infantry)
Marines v Demons
Marines v Chaos (Khorne)
Marines v Dark Eldar
Marines v Guard (tanks)
Marines v Primaris
So I'm 8-0 so far in 8th but a number of these were very close games
Of the games I have observed the results I can give you are
Death Guard v Primaris
Necrons v Primaris
Space Wolves v Primaris
Dark Eldar v Chaos (Nurgle)
Guard v Chaos
Chaos (Khorne) v Tau
Mechanicus v Guard (mixed tanks and infantry)
Orks v Chaos (unaligned)
(edit) almost forgot a game between a couple mates I watched the other day.
Death Guard v Dark Angels
This is just a fraction of what has been played in my local meta so far but these are what I have actually watched play out and know the results of.
Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a wholly or almost exclusively Primaris army actually do well?
I have seen them played a number of times now and I have yet to see them perform well as a force without some kind of large scale help from another faction.
I think this is a symptom of their lack of options as of right now but it occurred to me that I have yet to see a predominantly Primaris army win a game.
Melissia wrote: Nice winstreak. What's your marine army like?
Thanks,
I'm under no illusions though that it will soon be shattered. We have some very good players and strong armies in the group, I think I've just been lucky in a good 3 or 4 of those games.
I have played Guilliman once and what saved me that game was him getting up with 6 wounds, after being slain on turn 3.
I have moved to very aggressive lists in 8th and am mainly using it to play with a lot of stuff that never really saw much game time.
looking at things like Terminators and L/Rs in large numbers and vanguard vets, a number of times being led by Marneus Calgar.
Essentially using a single or 2 L/Rs to push up the field quickly and using the new ability to just chose when to bring in D/S Terminators or vanguard vets to get in and surround my opponent very quickly and pin them back in their half of the board asap while cheap tacticals jump onto objectives behind the main assaulting force. I think the main thing I have found is that if you can get your charges in first and make that multiple charges (ie. 4 or 5 minimum) you can really cripple your opponents ability to hit back in the following turn.
Even with this strategy though I have on a couple of occasions found myself clinging on to an objective with a handful of models to win me a game by a point or two (this was specifically the case against the Guard tank spam and the Khorne player). I will have another 4 games minimum played this week so we'll see how my record holds up.
(edit) Oh and Venerable Dreads with 2+ to hit for BS and WS have proven to be very good so far for me although you really have to make clever use of cover (especially LOS blocking terrain) to get them forward for max effect.
Played in a tournament. Undefeated lists were T'au, T'au, and AM.
These games are not all me - includes a couple friends.
Grey Knights vs AM - AM victory
Grey Knights vs AM - AM victory
Blood Angels vs AM - AM victory
Grey Knights vs T'au - T'au victory
Grey Knights vs T'au - Grey Knights victory
T'au vs Genestealers - T'au victory
T'au vs Dark Angels - T'au victory
Grey Knights vs Necrons - Grey Knights victory
Chaos Space Marines vs Necrons - Chaos Space Marines victory
The new Forgeworld riptide is the ultimate cheese. You don't need a riptide wing. Now you have 3 FA slots + 1 HQ, the new Riptide Wing.
Also added the 2 games I had today: 1500pts WE VS IG and 1000pts WE VS IG, first game was a draw (very close, I was 6" off of an objective D: ) and the second was a win for the WE. Still going strong.
Quickjager wrote: GK v. Imperial Knight - GK victory
GK v. Necrons - GK victory
GK v. IG - IG victory
GK v. Ultramrine - Draw
Curious about the lists and point value in your GK Knight battle.
2k - 2 stormravens, Draigo, 2++ Libby, Paladins w/ hammers and falchions, Dreadknight naked w/ teleporter. He had a melee knight whom I kept having the Libby screen, draigo soloed a knight and the stormravens killed 1 knight themselves. Dreadknight died superfast after the deepstrike.
2k - same list, Necrons had nothing but warriors with Tesla, and 2 combat lords. Was just a bad matchup for him.
I wasn't used to having so many units lost sight of the big picture that I normally have alpha striking. Killed all his transports of Scions, killed the scions within, but it was only like a sixth of his army, 3 Valkyrie were left and killed my ravens. Went downhill from there as the plasma squads left were able to hit WAAAAY above their points value.
By the end it was mostly his valks v. My paladins in cover with the Interceptors. Got tabled still eventually. I didn't have anything to kill those Valks even with Draigo rerolls.
Thousand sons vs Ynnari , TS victory by tabling on turn 3 (tough practically over by the end of turn 2).
I misdeployed my ravager and voidraven so Magnus charged and killed both turn 1 before I even got to act. I never recovered and was soundly defeated.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also 2 friends who were very new at the game played a game but this one is a little dodgy since they were both new so there was a lot of demonstating stuff going on.
Draigo hits on 2's and rerolls 1's, with 5 base attacks, at strength 9, -4AP. So, he's fairly reliably pumping out 10 wounds a round from melee. Then, if he's your warlord with +1 leadership, his purge soul comes in at 11 + D6 versus 9 + D6, for an expected 2 mortal wounds. He will also smite another wound off. So you should expect roughly 13 wounds from Draigo per round in that combat. If he spikes - for instance, he hits & wounds all rolls, and rolls a 6 on his purge soul and the Knight rolls a 1, you're looking at 22 wounds right there.
If there are multiple combats and the Knight player nominates a unit other than the one involved with Draigo, the Knight might only get 1 turn against Draigo, who would save the worst attacks on a 3+.
Draigo hits on 2's and rerolls 1's, with 5 base attacks, at strength 9, -4AP. So, he's fairly reliably pumping out 10 wounds a round from melee. Then, if he's your warlord with +1 leadership, his purge soul comes in at 11 + D6 versus 9 + D6, for an expected 2 mortal wounds. He will also smite another wound off. So you should expect roughly 13 wounds from Draigo per round in that combat. If he spikes - for instance, he hits & wounds all rolls, and rolls a 6 on his purge soul and the Knight rolls a 1, you're looking at 22 wounds right there.
If there are multiple combats and the Knight player nominates a unit other than the one involved with Draigo, the Knight might only get 1 turn against Draigo, who would save the worst attacks on a 3+.
In a 2k game, Draigo is an auto-include.
Aye but a Knight only needs to wound Draigo once in shooting then get one of it's attacks through on the charge and Draigo's dead.
Draigo hits on 2's and rerolls 1's, with 5 base attacks, at strength 9, -4AP. So, he's fairly reliably pumping out 10 wounds a round from melee. Then, if he's your warlord with +1 leadership, his purge soul comes in at 11 + D6 versus 9 + D6, for an expected 2 mortal wounds. He will also smite another wound off. So you should expect roughly 13 wounds from Draigo per round in that combat. If he spikes - for instance, he hits & wounds all rolls, and rolls a 6 on his purge soul and the Knight rolls a 1, you're looking at 22 wounds right there.
If there are multiple combats and the Knight player nominates a unit other than the one involved with Draigo, the Knight might only get 1 turn against Draigo, who would save the worst attacks on a 3+.
In a 2k game, Draigo is an auto-include.
Aye but a Knight only needs to wound Draigo once in shooting then get one of it's attacks through on the charge and Draigo's dead.
Done some more statistics for you. Actually bothered to be a little more rigorous this time. I've put the stats stuff in a spoiler. This ANOVA tells us that there is a difference in performance between the armies and I am in the process of performing further statistical tests to group them.
I will be grouping them such that there is no statistical difference within a group, comparing all the armies pairwise by T-test. Will be back with the results in a bit.
I've now done the above tests and, sadly, there is still not enough data for strong conclusions, what we can tell is the following:
Astra Militarum is statistically better than Orks and Tau, but statistically similar to all other armies.
Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar are all statistically better than Tau, but statistically similar to all other armies.
Orks are statistically worse than Astra Militarum but statistically similar to all other armies.
T'au are statistically worse than Astra Militarum, Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar but statistically similar to all other armies.
So we could say Guard are top tier as they are the only army statistically better than 2 other armies. Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar are Tier 2 as they are better than 1 other army. Imperial Knights, Thousand Sons, Daemons, Eldar, Tyranids, Necrons, Chaos Space Marines, Harlequins, Ad mech, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Death Guard and Deathwatch are middle tier (Tier 3) as they are statistically similar to all other armies. Orcs are Tier 4 as they are statistically worse than 1 other army and T'au are Tier 5 as they are statistically worse than 6 other Armies.
Overall I can conclude, genuinely, that T'au appear to be having a rough time of it. Everyone else seems balanced so a real analysis is more like:
Tier 1
Everyone Else
Tier 2
T'au
Spoiler:
I have performed an initial ANOVA, giving the following results:
SSW 205.15
MSW 0.25
SSB 8.33
MSB 0.40
F = 1.61
FCrit(0.05) = 1.57
This is for df1 21 and df2 832, the degrees of freedom as of the time of writing.
I performed my T-test with a generous 0.01 cutoff (giving a ~20% chance of false positives). I made this choice due to the current paucity of data.
Game 1: 1000 pts - IG vs Blood Angels - Guard Win Game 2: 1500 pts -IG vs Blood Angels - Guard Win Game 3: 2000 pts - IG vs Space Marines + Grey Knights - Guard Win Game 4: 2000 pts - IG vs Dark Eldar - Guard Win Game 5: 1500 pts - IG vs Dark Eldar - Guard Win Game 6: 1500 pts - IG vs Tau - Guard Win Game 7: 1500 pts - IG vs Orks - Guard Win Game 8: 1500 pts - IG vs Knights - Knights win Game 9: 1500 pts - IG vs Tyranids - Guard Win Game 10: 1500 pts - IG vs Space Marines - Guard Win Game 11: 2000 pts IG vs Eldar - Guard Win Game 12: 1500 pts -IG vs Blood Angels - Guard Win Game 13: 2000 pts IG vs Knights - Guard Win
Done some more statistics for you. Actually bothered to be a little more rigorous this time. I've put the stats stuff in a spoiler. This ANOVA tells us that there is a difference in performance between the armies and I am in the process of performing further statistical tests to group them.
I will be grouping them such that there is no statistical difference within a group, comparing all the armies pairwise by T-test. Will be back with the results in a bit.
I've now done the above tests and, sadly, there is still not enough data for strong conclusions, what we can tell is the following:
Astra Militarum is statistically better than Orks and Tau, but statistically similar to all other armies.
Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar are all statistically better than Tau, but statistically similar to all other armies.
Orks are statistically worse than Astra Militarum but statistically similar to all other armies.
T'au are statistically worse than Astra Militarum, Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar but statistically similar to all other armies.
So we could say Guard are top tier as they are the only army statistically better than 2 other armies. Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar are Tier 2 as they are better than 1 other army. Imperial Knights, Thousand Sons, Daemons, Eldar, Tyranids, Necrons, Chaos Space Marines, Harlequins, Ad mech, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Death Guard and Deathwatch are middle tier (Tier 3) as they are statistically similar to all other armies. Orcs are Tier 4 as they are statistically worse than 1 other army and T'au are Tier 5 as they are statistically worse than 6 other Armies.
Overall I can conclude, genuinely, that T'au appear to be having a rough time of it. Everyone else seems balanced so a real analysis is more like:
Tier 1
Everyone Else
Tier 2
T'au
Spoiler:
I have performed an initial ANOVA, giving the following results:
SSW 205.15
MSW 0.25
SSB 8.33
MSB 0.40
F = 1.61
FCrit(0.05) = 1.57
This is for df1 21 and df2 832, the degrees of freedom as of the time of writing.
I performed my T-test with a generous 0.01 cutoff (giving a ~20% chance of false positives). I made this choice due to the current paucity of data.
I have no understanding of what you did there. What is ANOVA?
Done some more statistics for you. Actually bothered to be a little more rigorous this time. I've put the stats stuff in a spoiler. This ANOVA tells us that there is a difference in performance between the armies and I am in the process of performing further statistical tests to group them.
I will be grouping them such that there is no statistical difference within a group, comparing all the armies pairwise by T-test. Will be back with the results in a bit.
I've now done the above tests and, sadly, there is still not enough data for strong conclusions, what we can tell is the following:
Astra Militarum is statistically better than Orks and Tau, but statistically similar to all other armies.
Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar are all statistically better than Tau, but statistically similar to all other armies.
Orks are statistically worse than Astra Militarum but statistically similar to all other armies.
T'au are statistically worse than Astra Militarum, Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar but statistically similar to all other armies.
So we could say Guard are top tier as they are the only army statistically better than 2 other armies. Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar are Tier 2 as they are better than 1 other army. Imperial Knights, Thousand Sons, Daemons, Eldar, Tyranids, Necrons, Chaos Space Marines, Harlequins, Ad mech, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Death Guard and Deathwatch are middle tier (Tier 3) as they are statistically similar to all other armies. Orcs are Tier 4 as they are statistically worse than 1 other army and T'au are Tier 5 as they are statistically worse than 6 other Armies.
Overall I can conclude, genuinely, that T'au appear to be having a rough time of it. Everyone else seems balanced so a real analysis is more like:
Tier 1
Everyone Else
Tier 2
T'au
Spoiler:
I have performed an initial ANOVA, giving the following results:
SSW 205.15
MSW 0.25
SSB 8.33
MSB 0.40
F = 1.61
FCrit(0.05) = 1.57
This is for df1 21 and df2 832, the degrees of freedom as of the time of writing.
I performed my T-test with a generous 0.01 cutoff (giving a ~20% chance of false positives). I made this choice due to the current paucity of data.
I have no understanding of what you did there. What is ANOVA?
Statistics jargon - stands for 'Analysis of Variance'.
That's pretty much the extend of my knowledge though lol.
Done some more statistics for you. Actually bothered to be a little more rigorous this time. I've put the stats stuff in a spoiler. This ANOVA tells us that there is a difference in performance between the armies and I am in the process of performing further statistical tests to group them.
I will be grouping them such that there is no statistical difference within a group, comparing all the armies pairwise by T-test. Will be back with the results in a bit.
I've now done the above tests and, sadly, there is still not enough data for strong conclusions, what we can tell is the following:
Astra Militarum is statistically better than Orks and Tau, but statistically similar to all other armies.
Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar are all statistically better than Tau, but statistically similar to all other armies.
Orks are statistically worse than Astra Militarum but statistically similar to all other armies.
T'au are statistically worse than Astra Militarum, Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar but statistically similar to all other armies.
So we could say Guard are top tier as they are the only army statistically better than 2 other armies. Adeptus Sororitas, World Eaters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar are Tier 2 as they are better than 1 other army. Imperial Knights, Thousand Sons, Daemons, Eldar, Tyranids, Necrons, Chaos Space Marines, Harlequins, Ad mech, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Death Guard and Deathwatch are middle tier (Tier 3) as they are statistically similar to all other armies. Orcs are Tier 4 as they are statistically worse than 1 other army and T'au are Tier 5 as they are statistically worse than 6 other Armies.
Overall I can conclude, genuinely, that T'au appear to be having a rough time of it. Everyone else seems balanced so a real analysis is more like:
Tier 1
Everyone Else
Tier 2
T'au
Spoiler:
I have performed an initial ANOVA, giving the following results:
SSW 205.15
MSW 0.25
SSB 8.33
MSB 0.40
F = 1.61
FCrit(0.05) = 1.57
This is for df1 21 and df2 832, the degrees of freedom as of the time of writing.
I performed my T-test with a generous 0.01 cutoff (giving a ~20% chance of false positives). I made this choice due to the current paucity of data.
I have no understanding of what you did there. What is ANOVA?
Magic. As Matt.Kingsley said it means Analysis of Variance. Essentially I asked is the difference between the armies bigger than the difference for any one army?
Essentially the answers just mean that T'au are doing a little worse than everyone else, but overall the edition is very balanced.
For example, from a statistical point of view, Adeptus Sororitas and Space Marines have the same win percentage (we can't tell the difference), the average win percentage for each is 72.7% for AS and 43.4% for SM, but because of the small number of AS games compared to SM games and the variance in the overall set we can say that they might be the same (and could both be 50/50) if we could check all the games in the world. that isn't true for Tau, they are worse than a whole bunch of factions.
At this stage I'm going to say this is the most balanced edition ever! More results will tell us more though.
Guard are better than Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Orks, Deathguard and Tau.
World Eaters are better than Orks and Tau.
Sisters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Thousand Sons are all better than Tau.
Everyone else is the same. I've ranked everyone below, but please note its an even fight unless you are fighting an army 5 or more ranks above you. So Tier 1 v Tier 4, perfectly even, anyone's game. This is probably the best thing about this edition the difference here is tiny. The best army vs the worst is still nowhere near a sure thing.
Rankings:
Top Tier
Guard
Tier 2
World Eaters
Tier 3
Sisters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Thousand Sons
Tier 4
Imperial Knights, Daemons, Eldar, Tyranids, Necrons, Chaos Space Marines, Harlequins, Ad Mech, Deathwatch
Tier 5
Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Death Guard
Drager wrote: Now we are seeing some more differentiation!
Guard are better than Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Orks, Deathguard and Tau.
World Eaters are better than Orks and Tau.
Sisters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Thousand Sons are all better than Tau.
Everyone else is the same. I've ranked everyone below, but please note its an even fight unless you are fighting an army 5 or more ranks above you. So Tier 1 v Tier 4, perfectly even, anyone's game. This is probably the best thing about this edition the difference here is tiny. The best army vs the worst is still nowhere near a sure thing.
Rankings:
Top Tier
Guard
Tier 2
World Eaters
Tier 3
Sisters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Thousand Sons
Tier 4
Imperial Knights, Daemons, Eldar, Tyranids, Necrons, Chaos Space Marines, Harlequins, Ad Mech, Deathwatch
Tier 5
Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Death Guard
Tier 6
Orks
Tier 7
Tau
And Tau Crush Orkz because they are the Ork hard counter So really Tier 6: Orkz and Tau
Drager wrote: Not really. Orks have an even performance against Sisters, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Thousand Sons, Tau do not.
I am still in the boat of giving tau a bit of time to recognize that they can't bring 3 Riptides and win every game now. once they figure out their new roles and how to use the rules they will be back up to at least mid tier. So many bad players bought tau as power armies so its time to start to separate the wheat from the Chaff.
Oh I agree. Like I said the difference is really really small. I don't think Tau are bad, even as the worst. I would still say they are different to Orks though.
More results if you wanted to add them in. Stopped by the store yesterday after work. Had to stay late so didn't get to play myself but some of the results from last night.
winners in bold
guard (infantry) v Daemons
Primaris v Khorne (predominantly Bezerkers) (first game I've seen a majority Primaris army win)
Chaos (Khorne - mixed marines and daemons) v Marines
Eldar v Tau
I'm getting games in tonight and tomorrow evening so I'll be popping back in with more results in the next couple days like this
My results from the first local tournament I played in 8th Edition:
*Dark Eldar vs. Chaos Space Marines - Dark Eldar victory.
*Dark Eldar vs. Craftworld Eldar - Craftworld Eldar victory (because they went first ).
*Dark Eldar vs. Blood Angels - Dark Eldar victory.
i haven't played or seen many games in 8-th as i don't have a lot of spare time now but 5 of 5 games whoever went first won the game eventually. What if we also add statistics on 1-st turn? It can be really important and it's not that hard to write down. Can even be the key to future victories if it's such a huge factor as it seems.
koooaei wrote: i haven't played or seen many games in 8-th as i don't have a lot of spare time now but 5 of 5 games whoever went first won the game eventually. What if we also add statistics on 1-st turn? It can be really important and it's not that hard to write down. Can even be the key to future victories if it's such a huge factor as it seems.
Well so far I've played 8 games, here's what I've got:
When I went 1st: W4 D1 L1
When I went 2nd: W2 D0 L0
Maybe going first having more wins is more to do with those who go first having fewer more elite units or fewer extremely large units.
Urien Rakarth is a DE special character. He's a super haemonculus, really tough, boosts the toughness of everyone around him, can reroll his invuln against attacks <S10. Wracks are DE troops. They are T5 (when near Urien) 5++ with 6+++. They can take Flamers, but are otherwise close combat only. That;s basically just a squad to fill out the remaining points and guard Urien. They are only 11 points each.
The list is pretty much 6 DE monsters and 5 CWE monsters. So do I record it as DE or CWE or what under the current way we are recording win/loss?
CWE vs Wolves - dice hate CWE:
Fire Dragons + Shining Spears both in 6" range can't pop a Rhino
5 Wraithcannons with Guide cant finish a half-dead Rhino
Guided Reapers (4+Exarch) kill 1 Devestator
Fortuned Reapers in cover fail 2 of 4 wounds on a 2+
And the kicker... Jain Zar plus Banshees and Exarch lose to a Tac squad...
CWE vs Wolves - dice hate CWE:
Fire Dragons + Shining Spears both in 6" range can't pop a Rhino
5 Wraithcannons with Guide cant finish a half-dead Rhino
Guided Reapers (4+Exarch) kill 1 Devestator
Fortuned Reapers in cover fail 2 of 4 wounds on a 2+
And the kicker... Jain Zar plus Banshees and Exarch lose to a Tac squad...
koooaei wrote: i haven't played or seen many games in 8-th as i don't have a lot of spare time now but 5 of 5 games whoever went first won the game eventually. What if we also add statistics on 1-st turn? It can be really important and it's not that hard to write down. Can even be the key to future victories if it's such a huge factor as it seems.
Well so far I've played 8 games, here's what I've got:
When I went 1st: W4 D1 L1
When I went 2nd: W2 D0 L0
Maybe going first having more wins is more to do with those who go first having fewer more elite units or fewer extremely large units.
We were playing maelstorm and the first turn was decided with a die roll. But yeah, it probably makes a huge difference for some armies and doesn't really matter all that much for the others. If you're playing something extremely shooty, you benefit from the first turn a lot as you can remove the key elements of the opponent's army before he can even do anything. That's especially problematic for tac lists with a range of models performing different jobs. And that's the reason why skew lists - especially shooty ones - are usually superior to tac lists. For example, you've got a list of, say, 10 basilisks and 100 conscripts - will easilly fit in a 1850 game. Your main threat are ranged anti-tank weapons that can wreck your basilisks from afar. So, you concentrate fire on the opponent's ranged a-t elements and destroy them. So now he can't really hurt your main damage dealers. Or the infamous knight issue.
And all this stuff is heavilly affected by 1-st turn.
Sister's of Battle are 3-0
Orks are 1-4
Blood Angels 3-1
Blood Angels w/ Primaris 0-1
Space Wolves 2-0
Chaos Marines 0-3
I haven't pulled out the IG or the Dark Angels yet, but I think the lists I have will do well. One of my friends went to a small tournament and Grey Knights cleaned house.
We tried the vanilla marines VS World eaters again ton9ght, with some list tweaks.
World eaters won but it was much closer than before. (i ended up winning only thanks to linebreaker and first blood)
Neferhet wrote: We tried the vanilla marines VS World eaters again ton9ght, with some list tweaks.
World eaters won but it was much closer than before. (i ended up winning only thanks to linebreaker and first blood)
Tau vs Dark Angels - Dark Angels won, though only by a hair.
Tau are playing quite differently now compared to previous editions. I definitely see us keeping that losing record we currently have going on until the Tau playerbase adapts to the changes in our army.
Srsly though, ouch. What's making them so bad this edition?
Cause orks don't work in non-maelstorm. So, half the games are out of the window allready. Oh, and you do need very specific lists and combinations to be effective.
Spoletta wrote: I really don't get this, on paper boyz are the most OP unit in the game. I should really follow some battle reports to understand what is going on.
Well, from my experience, Ork players I have played against haven't made the most tactically sound decisions. Yes Boyz hit like a trukk but I've always been able to avoid them and/or lure them into a trap.
Not trying to say anything about the Ork player community (saying more about my local Ork players), just reporting my findings.
Spoletta wrote: I really don't get this, on paper boyz are the most OP unit in the game. I should really follow some battle reports to understand what is going on.
decent - not op. Boyz chop better but the durability has gone down. And they no longer work with transports simply because transports are so expensive. At the same time boyz are a bit too slow to deal with shooty opponents and don't deal enough damage to kill tough stuff. Even rhinos are problematic. And at the same time it's not a good idea to mix your forces up cause boyz are mostly mellee oriented and they need redundancy to work.
So, best ork lists are a ton of boyz, stormboyz, buff characters and probably some tankbustas on the flanks hiding in trukks. But if there's not enough large los blocking terrain than simply more boyz.
And than you have decent odds at winning maelstorm on points. All the boyz still die but the first 3 turns should be enough to go ahead on vp.
Srsly though, ouch. What's making them so bad this edition?
The BS 5+ doesn't seem to be doing them any favours.
8th ed. has many -1 to hit modifiers - and the competitive meta is fielding units with those modifiers in ever higher numbers. For Orks, that takes it from a 5+ to a 6+ (a 50% drop in effectiveness), whereas Marines going from 3+ to 4+ isn't as dramatic a change.
Spoletta wrote: I really don't get this, on paper boyz are the most OP unit in the game. I should really follow some battle reports to understand what is going on.
Most people aren't running Things like
Weird Boy
Weird boy
3 x 30 Boyz
zagstruk
3 x 30 Storm Boyz
Warboss on bike
Banner Nob
Mad dok
Tank bustas
Trukk
It is effective, but I'm not sure it seems like a lot of fun.
Spoletta wrote: I really don't get this, on paper boyz are the most OP unit in the game. I should really follow some battle reports to understand what is going on.
As it is now, most (75% ?) of the ork units are situational or just crap, almost the only way to play them now is spamming ork boyz and buffing them. The situation will only get worse since people are learning how to counter the only ork build that works, another edition of being at the bottom.
i see the Tau are still getting stomped. As of the second big pro player scene the same thing. If not worse. Tau player got stomped and tabled in 3 turns and was using a drone heavy list to support the other "good" units in our codex.
Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
Spoletta wrote: I really don't get this, on paper boyz are the most OP unit in the game. I should really follow some battle reports to understand what is going on.
Well, from my experience, Ork players I have played against haven't made the most tactically sound decisions. Yes Boyz hit like a trukk but I've always been able to avoid them and/or lure them into a trap.
Not trying to say anything about the Ork player community (saying more about my local Ork players), just reporting my findings.
Yeah, we have one ork player in our area... and to say he's not the most tactically sound person would be giving him praise.
Had another game yesterday, Eldar V Death Guard. Ended up being a draw though, and it seems those aren't being tracked.
Spoletta wrote: I really don't get this, on paper boyz are the most OP unit in the game. I should really follow some battle reports to understand what is going on.
Well, from my experience, Ork players I have played against haven't made the most tactically sound decisions. Yes Boyz hit like a trukk but I've always been able to avoid them and/or lure them into a trap.
Not trying to say anything about the Ork player community (saying more about my local Ork players), just reporting my findings.
Yeah, we have one ork player in our area... and to say he's not the most tactically sound person would be giving him praise.
Had another game yesterday, Eldar V Death Guard. Ended up being a draw though, and it seems those aren't being tracked.
So Ork players are bad and AM players are good. Is that it?
Spoletta wrote: I really don't get this, on paper boyz are the most OP unit in the game. I should really follow some battle reports to understand what is going on.
Well, from my experience, Ork players I have played against haven't made the most tactically sound decisions. Yes Boyz hit like a trukk but I've always been able to avoid them and/or lure them into a trap.
Not trying to say anything about the Ork player community (saying more about my local Ork players), just reporting my findings.
Yeah, we have one ork player in our area... and to say he's not the most tactically sound person would be giving him praise.
Had another game yesterday, Eldar V Death Guard. Ended up being a draw though, and it seems those aren't being tracked.
So Ork players are bad and AM players are good. Is that it?
*shrugs* Don't know. Just stating my anecdotal evidence. We have one ork player in the area, he's not very good. I've played against one AM army so far, stomped it.
Spoletta wrote: I really don't get this, on paper boyz are the most OP unit in the game. I should really follow some battle reports to understand what is going on.
Well, from my experience, Ork players I have played against haven't made the most tactically sound decisions. Yes Boyz hit like a trukk but I've always been able to avoid them and/or lure them into a trap.
Not trying to say anything about the Ork player community (saying more about my local Ork players), just reporting my findings.
Yeah, we have one ork player in our area... and to say he's not the most tactically sound person would be giving him praise.
Had another game yesterday, Eldar V Death Guard. Ended up being a draw though, and it seems those aren't being tracked.
So Ork players are bad and AM players are good. Is that it?
Not just that but in my experience AM players have been far more tactical and generally more intelligent people. To put into context, the two people I play against the most are an AM player, who is currently studying Nuclear Engineering at a rather good university, and an Ork player, who made it into university but not to the level that the Guard player is at. I've seen this reflected a lot when I meet Ork or Guard players, maybe it's that AM attracts the more tactical, regimented intellectuals whilst Orks attract a more outgoing, 'lad' kind of character. Not all AM/Ork players I've met fall into these categories but enough to make me think there might be a correlation.
Gamgee wrote: Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
Haha "finally" as if these rules have been out forever. Where were your cries when Taudar was at the top of every tournament? Were you screaming for a rebalance then?
Of course they should get some buffs if they turn out to be really bad, but the way you make it sound is like they've been like this for years.
Gamgee wrote: Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
Haha "finally" as if these rules have been out forever. Where were your cries when Taudar was at the top of every tournament? Were you screaming for a rebalance then?
Of course they should get some buffs if they turn out to be really bad, but the way you make it sound is like they've been like this for years.
I was actually. You can check my post history. I was wanting Tau tonned own to equal levels as early in my history as just before 8th but far far before then when 7th was in full swing. I was also acutely aware that the Tau would be over nerfed and gutted months ago and have been trying to tone down the amount of over nerfing done to the Tau way in advance, but the hate seems to have gotten to those at the top. Check my post history and anyone here will tell you that. I wanted all the other factions too weak to be buffed up as well and am happy for them but now that the shoe is on the other foot no one else seems to want to buff the obviously too weak Tau up. Funny how that works. I also seen all of this months ago. I even knew people wouldn't want to buff the Tau up after their faction got buffed so that everyone was equal. I do get so bored sometimes. Yet I must have patience.
Gamgee wrote: no one else seems to want to buff the obviously too weak Tau up. Funny how that works.
Purifier wrote: Of course they should get some buffs if they turn out to be really bad
If you only read the parts of the forum that confirm your ideas, then your ideas will be confirmed. If you stop to actually look, you'll see that there is every side of the multi-faceted coin on here.
Gamgee wrote: no one else seems to want to buff the obviously too weak Tau up. Funny how that works.
Purifier wrote: Of course they should get some buffs if they turn out to be really bad
If you only read the parts of the forum that confirm your ideas, then your ideas will be confirmed. If you stop to actually look, you'll see that there is every side to the coin on here.
Whew thanks I didn't even see that. I'm so used to rage I didn't think anyone would actually want to buff Tau. When your mind moves as fast as mine it sometimes feels like eons when people are still trying to catch up to what seems obvious to me.
Gamgee wrote: i see the Tau are still getting stomped. As of the second big pro player scene the same thing. If not worse. Tau player got stomped and tabled in 3 turns and was using a drone heavy list to support the other "good" units in our codex.
Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
I agree. Tau needed the nerf bat, not the nerf nuke.
Gamgee wrote: i see the Tau are still getting stomped. As of the second big pro player scene the same thing. If not worse. Tau player got stomped and tabled in 3 turns and was using a drone heavy list to support the other "good" units in our codex.
Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
I agree. Tau needed the nerf bat, not the nerf nuke.
Eldar got hit hard, real hard, we're still floating. Adapt and overcome.
I've got to wonder, how many of those losses are Monster lists. I know a ton of people just bought Tau Monster lists, and nothing else, so it's all they have to use. Yes, those are useless now. Might be time to go back to investing in mass fire warrior armies, or the like.
Gamgee wrote: i see the Tau are still getting stomped. As of the second big pro player scene the same thing. If not worse. Tau player got stomped and tabled in 3 turns and was using a drone heavy list to support the other "good" units in our codex.
Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
I agree. Tau needed the nerf bat, not the nerf nuke.
Eldar got hit hard, real hard, we're still floating. Adapt and overcome.
I've got to wonder, how many of those losses are Monster lists. I know a ton of people just bought Tau Monster lists, and nothing else, so it's all they have to use. Yes, those are useless now. Might be time to go back to investing in mass fire warrior armies, or the like.
Did you not read the first post? Claiming that Eldar players are adapting and Tau players aren't is really insulting. It is also false. Eldar were hit hard, but that brought them down to the middle. Tau were never at eldar levels and now are basement. look at the numbers before you post.
Gamgee wrote: i see the Tau are still getting stomped. As of the second big pro player scene the same thing. If not worse. Tau player got stomped and tabled in 3 turns and was using a drone heavy list to support the other "good" units in our codex.
Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
I agree. Tau needed the nerf bat, not the nerf nuke.
Eldar got hit hard, real hard, we're still floating. Adapt and overcome.
I've got to wonder, how many of those losses are Monster lists. I know a ton of people just bought Tau Monster lists, and nothing else, so it's all they have to use. Yes, those are useless now. Might be time to go back to investing in mass fire warrior armies, or the like.
Did you not read the first post? Claiming that Eldar players are adapting and Tau players aren't is really insulting. It is also false. Eldar were hit hard, but that brought them down to the middle. Tau were never at eldar levels and now are basement. look at the numbers before you post.
Exactly. Also the only really good 8th units we have are drones which take like... 2 hours tops (usually less) to paint decently with minimum of 3 colours and lists running our cheeiest 8th stuff are getting crushed in European tournaments. So no monster mash ect. That and commander spam like 6 guys and maybe a few dozen drones. Not a hard list to paint up fast.
Gamgee wrote: i see the Tau are still getting stomped. As of the second big pro player scene the same thing. If not worse. Tau player got stomped and tabled in 3 turns and was using a drone heavy list to support the other "good" units in our codex.
Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
I agree. Tau needed the nerf bat, not the nerf nuke.
Eldar got hit hard, real hard, we're still floating. Adapt and overcome.
I've got to wonder, how many of those losses are Monster lists. I know a ton of people just bought Tau Monster lists, and nothing else, so it's all they have to use. Yes, those are useless now. Might be time to go back to investing in mass fire warrior armies, or the like.
Did you not read the first post? Claiming that Eldar players are adapting and Tau players aren't is really insulting. It is also false. Eldar were hit hard, but that brought them down to the middle. Tau were never at eldar levels and now are basement. look at the numbers before you post.
What I do know is that every Eldar player on this forum was screaming about how horrible the Eldar army was now, when things first dropped. What I do know is that of the Tau players in my area, the only ones who have habitually lost are those who ran riptide wings. The other tau players, who run other things, are doing just fine.
This edition is still brand new, and the meta is still shaking out of it. Every time a new edition/codex has dropped, everyone screams about how it all changed. Unless you're an Ork or Dark Eldar player (whose armies are just fundamentally flawed in this game), everyone has always found a way to stand it back up and make it work. This edition is no different. The only real insulting thing is just sitting here and having to sift through all of the people whining non-stop about how "weak" their army is.
Gamgee wrote: i see the Tau are still getting stomped. As of the second big pro player scene the same thing. If not worse. Tau player got stomped and tabled in 3 turns and was using a drone heavy list to support the other "good" units in our codex.
Can we finally start considering the Tau need to be rebalanced?
I agree. Tau needed the nerf bat, not the nerf nuke.
Eldar got hit hard, real hard, we're still floating. Adapt and overcome.
I've got to wonder, how many of those losses are Monster lists. I know a ton of people just bought Tau Monster lists, and nothing else, so it's all they have to use. Yes, those are useless now. Might be time to go back to investing in mass fire warrior armies, or the like.
Did you not read the first post? Claiming that Eldar players are adapting and Tau players aren't is really insulting. It is also false. Eldar were hit hard, but that brought them down to the middle. Tau were never at eldar levels and now are basement. look at the numbers before you post.
What I do know is that every Eldar player on this forum was screaming about how horrible the Eldar army was now, when things first dropped. What I do know is that of the Tau players in my area, the only ones who have habitually lost are those who ran riptide wings. The other tau players, who run other things, are doing just fine.
This edition is still brand new, and the meta is still shaking out of it. Every time a new edition/codex has dropped, everyone screams about how it all changed. Unless you're an Ork or Dark Eldar player (whose armies are just fundamentally flawed in this game), everyone has always found a way to stand it back up and make it work. This edition is no different. The only real insulting thing is just sitting here and having to sift through all of the people whining non-stop about how "weak" their army is.
).
