For the most part, as mono-factions, most armies are pretty close. The exception is really Grey Knights, which was kind of weak to begin with and has recieved the short end of a stick as collateral from multiple repeated nerfs.
That said, "soup" armies, which contain up to three aligned factions, are generally considerably better than mono-faction armies [for obvious reasons].
S Tier - Soups of various flavors, usually including a knight castellan or blood angels smash captains.
A Tier - Eldar, DE, Imperial Guard.
B Tier - Tau, Tyranids, Death Guard.
C Tier - Orks, Daemons, Mechanicus, Thousand Sons.
D Tier - Space Marines, Necrons.
F Tier - Grey Knights.
Yeah, at this point the biggest balance problems in the game are caused by combos of out-of-codex units.
As an example, one single imperial Knight can have a very powerful limit-1 relic and a very powerful warlord trait, giving it huge damage and durability. then, you combine with an infantry heavy guard army to give it tons of command points (something an all-superheavy Knight army would not have in nearly the same quantities) and have it use a huge number of powerful Knights stratagems to put out crazy firepower while also being nigh on impossible to remove.
Also, you have Haywire weapons out of the Harlequin codex, which are low-strength weapons but if they roll high to wound they cause a single unsaveable wound on a vehicle (even if they'd be wounding it only on a 5 or a 6). however, combine with the "Doom" psychic power from the Craftworlds codex, which debuffs a unit to make everyone in your army reroll wounds against it, and those Haywire weapons suddenly cause almost double the damage, blowing away vehicles.
The ally system is causing pretty much all the imbalance in the game at present, and armies without allies struggle to keep up. Others like the aforementioned Grey Knights and vanilla marines struggle to compete against factions that are almost exactly the same, but do the job better, as has pretty much always been the case (there's usually been one "best marine in show" in every 40k meta I've ever seen.)
w1zard wrote: S Tier - Soups of various flavors, usually including a knight castellan or blood angels smash captains.
A Tier - Eldar, DE, Imperial Guard.
B Tier - Tau, Tyranids, Death Guard.
C Tier - Orks, Daemons, Mechanicus, Thousand Sons.
D Tier - Space Marines, Necrons.
F Tier - Grey Knights.
Maybe add Imperial Knight and Harlequin to A Tier, Deathwatch maybe at B Tier, Blood Angel, Dark Angel to C Tier. Space Wolves to D Tier.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, at this point the biggest balance problems in the game are caused by combos of out-of-codex units.
As an example, one single imperial Knight can have a very powerful limit-1 relic and a very powerful warlord trait, giving it huge damage and durability. then, you combine with an infantry heavy guard army to give it tons of command points (something an all-superheavy Knight army would not have in nearly the same quantities) and have it use a huge number of powerful Knights stratagems to put out crazy firepower while also being nigh on impossible to remove.
Also, you have Haywire weapons out of the Harlequin codex, which are low-strength weapons but if they roll high to wound they cause a single unsaveable wound on a vehicle (even if they'd be wounding it only on a 5 or a 6). however, combine with the "Doom" psychic power from the Craftworlds codex, which debuffs a unit to make everyone in your army reroll wounds against it, and those Haywire weapons suddenly cause almost double the damage, blowing away vehicles.
The ally system is causing pretty much all the imbalance in the game at present, and armies without allies struggle to keep up. Others like the aforementioned Grey Knights and vanilla marines struggle to compete against factions that are almost exactly the same, but do the job better, as has pretty much always been the case (there's usually been one "best marine in show" in every 40k meta I've ever seen.)
The faction system boosts the power of already powerful armies, but it isn't the cause of all the imbalance. Grey Knights will always lose to Mono-Codex Eldar (Dark Eldar, Craftworlds, and Harlequins). They will always lose to Mono-Codex Guard. They will always lose to Thousand Sons. They're just bad. Same with Necrons and Space Wolves. The game has imbalance issues that are deeper than simply allies. That said, there are a LOT of viable armies that can hold their own, I guess its' fortunate only 3-4 of them are pure bottom tier.
There's definitely some "haves" and "have nots". Generally speaking, the following codexes are great for playing as a solo force with anything you own, and still feeling really in control of a fun game.
(no particular order)
- Craftworld Eldar
- Dark Eldar
- Imperial Guard
- Imperial Knights
The following factions are okay if you play them by themselves. They do have some top-tier units or lists, but generally those are very specific builds. These forces play best by bringing in allies. They generally they have a lot of lackluster units that you might take for fun and then feel really sad with how poorly they perform:
- Space Marines of all kinds
- Chaos Space Marines of all kinds
- Chaos Daemons
- Harlequins
- T'au
- Necrons
- Tyranids
- Orks
Lastly, there are some factions that are almost all around garbage. They have some units that are good that make their way into soup builds for tournament play, but just can't seem to work on their own.
- Adeptus Mechanicus
- Genestealer Cult
- Grey Knights
- Adeptus Custodes
What's awesome though is just how few there are in that bottom list, and how many there are in the higher lists. Also, with the way things are, you really do see almost all of the "worst" factions still make their way to the tabletop because they do have units that break the mold enough to see competitive play! Genestealer Cults have (for now) Genestealers and Primus', Adeptus Mechanicus has Robots, Adeptus Custodes have Dawneagle Jetbikes, and Grey Knights have Nemesis Dreadknights. These are all totally great units!
As such, while this above list might draw you to the armies that can have something good out of using anything, there really has never been a better time that I can remember when the armies were so generally well balanced between each other!
I would echo previous comments and say that for the most part, mono-codex vs. mono-codex tends to be an enjoyable or at least workable experience, even for a Necron player like myself.
Individual model issues aside, the only codex armies I think need an overall nerf in power are IG, D-Eldar, Ynnari and IK, and the only army I would outright warn a newbie off from playing are GKs.
Considering the variety available, that's not terrible (nor is it an excuse not to do better).
There are still tiers between codici, and soups tend to be better than mono codex, but things in general are much closer than other editions.
For example, even while necrons are considered to be a D tier codex, you still see them taking top places here and there, even after the nerf to theyr cheese vault.
Custodes below Marines? I find Custodes do decently as a mono army to be honest. Probably below Nids and Orks, but I'd say they belong in that mid tier with what else you've put there.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the top mono builds are certainly CW, Drukhari and AM, while IK mono builds are a bit questionable as they are too light on models.
Yeah, if this is a mono tier list I'm not convinced IK are top tier either. Depends on the mission, but a lot of armies should be able to run rings around them on objectives.
Stux wrote: Custodes below Marines? I find Custodes do decently as a mono army to be honest. Probably below Nids and Orks, but I'd say they belong in that mid tier with what else you've put there.
Yeah, you've got mono-custodes making appearances at tournaments fairly frequently compared to other factions.
Given that we've just had some major changes in CA, it's hard to say.
For example, most people are ranking Necrons as ass tier, but we haven't seen what they can do with the recent points drops. I think they're back up in the mix with the other good mono-faction codexes.
Soup will always be at the top of the rankings though, the only thing that changes is which flavour of soup.
But yeah, this is the rankings:
1. Soup
2. Most mono-factions
3. Weaker sub-codexes like Space Wolves.
4. a herd of piglets
5. Grey Knights
Zande4 wrote: Any armies excel at certain missions or rule sets while falling flat in others?
Many sub-factions (inquisition, sisters of silence, legion of the damned, starstriders, etc) don't work as stand-alone armies. Some don't particularly work as allies either...
A few factions (such as beta sisters) have a glass ceiling in competitive play where no amount of preparation will make much difference to unfavourable match-ups, while others (such as Imperial Knights) have quite a drastic leap in power with a few allies providing screening/cps or other buffs.
ids and Tau would place far better if not for soups. Guard, Eldar, and Chaos have had a fairly long run of strong showings. People are still getting the hang of the new orks, chapter approved costs, and marine buff.
Guard are so far and above everything else just because of the loyal 32, they slot into every imperial list and make it better, the 5 CP is what your after and the cheap screens are just icing on the cake.
If you are going mono Eldar are pretty much top tier, dark eldar and guard are up there too, all marine flavours suffer from being too many points and having no efficient way of dealing with the cheap troops or speed of the top factions, although Deathwatch with the new change are likely to become part of the top tier meta.
I'd second Yarium's list, with the exception that I'd put Custodes as mid-tier. Primarily because Dawneagle Jetbike beatsticks, although those are mostly outdone by BA SmashCaptains.
On a pure mono playground, Marines go from lower-midtier to upper-midtier.
Not listing Sisters and GSC because people are waiting for codexes at this point. Also trying to focus on actual lists rather than factions, because that's how it actually works.
Tier 1 - Top Tier #1. Imperial Guard + One Castellan. This is the top list in the game right now and has no natural counters. Imperial Guard without a castellan is also still in Tier 1, but there's no point listing it because there is no reason not to bring a castellan. You can staple it on, it may as well be a part of codex AM. This list could also easily have a BA smash captain.
#2. Ynnari + CWE. Ynnari have been performing incredibly well since the start of 8th edition really. Being able to get extra shooting phases in a game where you should have max of 6 is bonkers. Also Hemlocks. CWE is very strong in the first place. When you add in the ability to act a few times, goodness. CWE can stand on their own as well, but why, and if you are, just drop down to tier 2 below Orks with DE, since most CWE players would add DE if they aren't adding Ynnari.
Tier 2 - Very Strong Tier
#3. Orks. Orks are incredibly strong and a meta breaker in a lot of ways. Very few lists can reliably deal with these guys, and some recognizable pro-names are taking them to LVO. Boyz + dakka + characters. It's no mystery how they will beat you.
#4. Dark Eldar + CWE. Dark Eldar are very strong but have shifted down as they don't have a great answer for lists 1, 2, and 3. Poison spam, blaster spam, grotesques, etc. It's well known how this army functions at this point.
#5. Tau. Tau have always been strong, and continuously show well in major events. They are kept down by Castellans and knights. Riptides and drones though will always be good. A good Tau player who understands how to use his drones will ruin your day.
Tier 3 - Opportunistic Middle Tier
#6. Tyranids - Tyranids are a strong overall army, and received some nice points adjustments. They can't deal with knights so that puts them down. Kraken genestealers are still the best option.
#7. Thousand Sons/ TS+SuperFriends / Death Guard. Morty Mag bomb is still good, but the nerf to the DMC makes this list a lot less flexible. As a result Morty has been phased out a bit. I put all of these armies together because there is just a lot of overlap, although there really doesn't have to be. DG + Renegate Knights is also viable. There are so many ways to soup the fancy CSM that it's just really hard to spell them all out. Short answer: They're good.
#8. Deathwatch. Poisoned 2+ ammo and spammable storm bolters / intercessors, will be made much better if the new bolter rules become a reality. The only thing keeping DW down is the fact that they can't deal with vehicles, and they still operate on the same core marine statline. Their offense power is more overall efficient than Bobby G if you're using the right stuff. You can also soup in a castellan and guard, because, why not.
Tier 4 - Not Great, but can win inconsistently
#9. Necrons. Received some price cuts and weren't very good prior, but can do a little bit of damage. They have volume dakka, which can never really be counted out.
#10. Ultramarines. If you build a BobbyG gunline and go first on a table with no terrain, you'll probably win. Since that happens about half the time, expecting a 500 winrate is not entirely unreasonable. Could also have BA.
Tier 5 - Complete Awful Tier
#11. AdMech. One gimmick, not great at it.
#doesn't matter. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Codex Marines. These guys have no presence in a soup list, because when you're adding to your imperial guard, deathwatch are the best play. And, since they don't benefit from bobby G's rerolls, they have no place in a UM list. A supreme command with a rune priest, dark angels librarian, and another librarian is still a thing, but that doesn't really count as running these armies. that's the actual definition of soup, which people conflate with allies all the time on here.
I am surprised to see Admech listed so low in all these tier lists. They just got a huge point cut, and are one of the better imperium factions at dealing with mass infantry and minus to hit.
Valentine009 wrote: I am surprised to see Admech listed so low in all these tier lists. They just got a huge point cut, and are one of the better imperium factions at dealing with mass infantry and minus to hit.
Marmatag wrote: If you go by ITC, it really looks like this:
Not listing Sisters and GSC because people are waiting for codexes at this point. Also trying to focus on actual lists rather than factions, because that's how it actually works.
Tier 1 - Top Tier #1. Imperial Guard + One Castellan. This is the top list in the game right now and has no natural counters. Imperial Guard without a castellan is also still in Tier 1, but there's no point listing it because there is no reason not to bring a castellan. You can staple it on, it may as well be a part of codex AM. This list could also easily have a BA smash captain.
#2. Ynnari + CWE. Ynnari have been performing incredibly well since the start of 8th edition really. Being able to get extra shooting phases in a game where you should have max of 6 is bonkers. Also Hemlocks. CWE is very strong in the first place. When you add in the ability to act a few times, goodness. CWE can stand on their own as well, but why, and if you are, just drop down to tier 2 below Orks with DE, since most CWE players would add DE if they aren't adding Ynnari.
Tier 2 - Very Strong Tier
#3. Orks. Orks are incredibly strong and a meta breaker in a lot of ways. Very few lists can reliably deal with these guys, and some recognizable pro-names are taking them to LVO. Boyz + dakka + characters. It's no mystery how they will beat you.
#4. Dark Eldar + CWE. Dark Eldar are very strong but have shifted down as they don't have a great answer for lists 1, 2, and 3. Poison spam, blaster spam, grotesques, etc. It's well known how this army functions at this point.
#5. Tau. Tau have always been strong, and continuously show well in major events. They are kept down by Castellans and knights. Riptides and drones though will always be good. A good Tau player who understands how to use his drones will ruin your day.
Tier 3 - Opportunistic Middle Tier
#6. Tyranids - Tyranids are a strong overall army, and received some nice points adjustments. They can't deal with knights so that puts them down. Kraken genestealers are still the best option.
#7. Thousand Sons/ TS+SuperFriends / Death Guard. Morty Mag bomb is still good, but the nerf to the DMC makes this list a lot less flexible. As a result Morty has been phased out a bit. I put all of these armies together because there is just a lot of overlap, although there really doesn't have to be. DG + Renegate Knights is also viable. There are so many ways to soup the fancy CSM that it's just really hard to spell them all out. Short answer: They're good.
#8. Deathwatch. Poisoned 2+ ammo and spammable storm bolters / intercessors, will be made much better if the new bolter rules become a reality. The only thing keeping DW down is the fact that they can't deal with vehicles, and they still operate on the same core marine statline. Their offense power is more overall efficient than Bobby G if you're using the right stuff. You can also soup in a castellan and guard, because, why not.
Tier 4 - Not Great, but can win inconsistently
#9. Necrons. Received some price cuts and weren't very good prior, but can do a little bit of damage. They have volume dakka, which can never really be counted out.
#10. Ultramarines. If you build a BobbyG gunline and go first on a table with no terrain, you'll probably win. Since that happens about half the time, expecting a 500 winrate is not entirely unreasonable. Could also have BA.
Tier 5 - Complete Awful Tier
#11. AdMech. One gimmick, not great at it.
#doesn't matter. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Codex Marines. These guys have no presence in a soup list, because when you're adding to your imperial guard, deathwatch are the best play. And, since they don't benefit from bobby G's rerolls, they have no place in a UM list. A supreme command with a rune priest, dark angels librarian, and another librarian is still a thing, but that doesn't really count as running these armies. that's the actual definition of soup, which people conflate with allies all the time on here.
Really Solid break down - with my only disagreement probably is Admech which is probably more in the opportunistic range simply because they can whip a Castellan off the face of the Earth quite easily. Probably better than any other army. With that being a top meta element - it's got to place them higher. Plus they have insane chaff clearing with castellan robots. Knight killing = tops chaff killing = tops. The only place they are weak is mobility I suppose.
Happy to be told ITC results show it differently - but I'd be surprised if Necron players were doing better than Ad Mech players. I mean I can't see why you'd run a mono Ad Mech army beyond the lols - Souped in Knights are just that good - but its still got more to it than Necrons imo. Happy to be shown I am wrong.
Also feel Chaos Soup places better than opportunistic mid tier - but that might have changed with CA too.
Zande4 wrote: Have been out of the hobby pretty much since 8th dropped.
I've heard good things and that the game is a lot more balanced thab 7th.
Is a tier list still relevant? Are certain armies still well above others or is everything that's had a standalone coded somewhat close.
Any armies excel at certain missions or rule sets while falling flat in others?
Ynarri wasn't fixed. So we're still stuck with that. Eldar Altaioc are top tier, with orks now being also top tier and winning many events (perhaps a breathe of fresh air there).
Knights are very often accompanying top lists, although i still think over committing to them is not working out as well because objectives are still a thing. Even the Faithful 32 IG can't change that. In particular Knight synergy with Adeptas Mechanicus makes that combination one of the sneakiest scary armies you might run into, as Kastellans are as crazy as lootaz, as firebases go. Kill em quick, but they wont make that easy.
LOTS of data will be out following the LVO. That's for sure.
Horst wrote: How does Admech deal with Knights easily?
Well - a 6 man Kastellan robot unit shooting twice with wrath of mars and +2 to hit from stratagems and rerolling all hits does 29 wounds to a knight with a 3++ - 24 if the knight has 5++ fnp for 4 total CP points spent in defense. That is REALLY good. Can the rest of the army do 4 wounds? Most likely. Roll a little high and it dies just from that salvo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Valentine009 wrote: 6 Ryza Kataphrons 1 shot a 4++ knight on average but they are fragile. At least they are troops and can hide in buildings though.*
It's actually 24w vs a 5++ and 20w vs a 4++ knight.
They aren't that fragile - if they use 5++ invo from vigilis and are on an objective and use the +1 to save strat they have a 4++ - that is pretty good. Granted it's expensive - but it is a death star strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I think BA are definitely decent, and there's no way that Marines are in the same category as GK.
Like Marines aren't actually that bad, they're just not top tier.
GKare bad.
Wrong - they are bottom tier. GK being worse than them does not change that.
Also depends on where your playing and the talent of said players.
In Australia for example the meta and tier list is probably different. The largest ITC tournament with 140 people over the last weekend had the following results:
1 Nid/GSC (150 termagants)
2 Deathwatch/IK (3 10man utility vet squad)
3 Daemons (120 plagues and 500 summon points)
3 Ork (no boyz, lotsa meganobz and gretchin)
5 IK/DA/AM (triple Dark Talons)
6 TS/Daemons
7 CE/HQ 8 Admech/IK
8 Daemons (180 plagues)
10 Daemons (110 plagues)
As a guard player myself, mono guard feels like Tier 2 and maybe even the bottom of Tier 2 after all updates.
With Castellan, AM soup highest was 29th whereas highest mono was 97th.
Smirrors wrote: Also depends on where your playing and the talent of said players.
In Australia for example the meta and tier list is probably different. The largest ITC tournament with 140 people over the last weekend had the following results:
1 Nid/GSC (150 termagants)
2 Deathwatch/IK (3 10man utility vet squad)
3 Daemons (120 plagues and 500 summon points)
3 Ork (no boyz, lotsa meganobz and gretchin)
5 IK/DA/AM (triple Dark Talons)
6 TS/Daemons
7 CE/HQ 8 Admech/IK
8 Daemons (180 plagues)
10 Daemons (110 plagues)
As a guard player myself, mono guard feels like Tier 2 and maybe even the bottom of Tier 2 after all updates.
With Castellan, AM soup highest was 29th whereas highest mono was 97th.
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Heh. Guard is a very good army, but what exactly makes you think they're the top army?
Going by purely win % when it's the primary faction, Guard are 5th.
All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
I dunno bout that man... I mean I sure dont mind seeing guard across the table from me. Even when the faithful 32 show up to annoy me its like "sure, okay have your fun". I am really surprised that Guard would be so highly regarded. I scoff at no faction because that's not what I'm about and I know a good general will take you behind the woodshed and beat you like a red headed stepshild with nothing more than a wet noodle with alittle luck. But Guard have been sporadic in the top levels of tournaments. they are always in there somewhere in the top 8 and that makes them good for sure but top army?
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the top mono builds are certainly CW, Drukhari and AM, while IK mono builds are a bit questionable as they are too light on models.
In LVO the most spammed fraction is IK and IK mono is also spammed. It`s normal IK are the best fraction and IK + AM is considered to be the list to win the tournament.
Thousand sons and chaos demons mix is also super strong. I guess you can win with everything if you are good enough and don`t make mistakes.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the top mono builds are certainly CW, Drukhari and AM, while IK mono builds are a bit questionable as they are too light on models.
In LVO the most spammed fraction is IK and IK mono is also spammed. It`s normal IK are the best fraction and IK + AM is considered to be the list to win the tournament.
Thousand sons and chaos demons mix is also super strong. I guess you can win with everything if you are good enough and don`t make mistakes.
This.
In general tiers matter much less than in previous edition. In 7th you would look at the lists and already know who was going to win. In 8th that happens only between tier S and tier E. You are not going to win with mono grey knights against imp soup, but with a B tier against an S tier? Tyranids eating imperail soups happens all the time, and between A tier codici and S tier soups there is the largest gap. Among mono codex games, you can play almost everything against everything and the list will matter less than the player, a good necron player will trample a less skilled AM player.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the top mono builds are certainly CW, Drukhari and AM, while IK mono builds are a bit questionable as they are too light on models.
In LVO the most spammed fraction is IK and IK mono is also spammed. It`s normal IK are the best fraction and IK + AM is considered to be the list to win the tournament.
Thousand sons and chaos demons mix is also super strong. I guess you can win with everything if you are good enough and don`t make mistakes.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the top mono builds are certainly CW, Drukhari and AM, while IK mono builds are a bit questionable as they are too light on models.
In LVO the most spammed fraction is IK and IK mono is also spammed. It`s normal IK are the best fraction and IK + AM is considered to be the list to win the tournament.
Thousand sons and chaos demons mix is also super strong. I guess you can win with everything if you are good enough and don`t make mistakes.
Huhh? Last I heard Orks are going to win the LVO.
The best and luckiest player will win the tournament. I mean in HEAT one of the eldar player cease the initiative like 3 from his 4 games vs knights and he lost the 4 game.
Orc have couple of very good players and they are strong, but the stats are showing they have problems dealing with IK and in LVO like 10% of the players are bringing knight.
Horst wrote: All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
How far armies get into the top 8/16 places of the bigger tournaments is arguably more important than their win %.
After all a guard army getting knocked out by another guard army returns a 50% win ratio for the guard, and the strongest armies (and marines) tend to have the most representation.
Marmatag - how do you figure Orks are above CWE and DE soup when DE outperform them as a mono army without doombot CWE? What stats are you using to place Orks 3rd since their faction ranking is much, much lower according to BCP?
Pretty good breakdown from Marmatag IMO, I'd throw custodes in there somewhere in the middle tier with the all-bike list though they definitely have been dethroned by the knights. Orks would indeed much rather we be in a Deldar light vehicle spam meta than a superheavy meta. Prognostication from my tournament-hopping buddies is that Orks Deathwatch and Admech will surprise, Chaos and Deldar will disappoint, and Castellan soup will remain top dog in LVO.
SHUPPET wrote: marmatags is actually pretty good other than the Ultramarine downplay.
Yeah I generally agree with it. Missing Custodes, and also while I appreciate Marines are all low tier it would still be good to see them broken down.
Personally I feel Dangles with Azrael Gunline are probably as good or better than AdMech. Possibly with Necrons even.
Though I take the point that the bottom of the table is not massively relevant. Not enough high skill players running those armies in a competitive setting to get an accurate reading.
Horst wrote: All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
How far armies get into the top 8/16 places of the bigger tournaments is arguably more important than their win %. After all a guard army getting knocked out by another guard army returns a 50% win ratio for the guard, and the strongest armies (and marines) tend to have the most representation.
Depends on what you are looking for.
If what you are interested in is the strenght and quality of a codex, top places in big tournaments will not tell you anything. A codex can have one busted model which propels it to big results, but the codex sucks.
Big tournament results tell you how strong is a faction when put in the hands of a really good player whith an extremely optimized list. Doesn't tell you anything about the average results you can expect from that codex.
Marmatag tiers are top level tournament tiers, and tell you how likely you are to meet that faction is said tournaments. That's not what i would define as a "faction tier list". If you are part of that 99% of players that doesn't care about high level competition, and are never going to compete in anything bigger than the event at the store, that list isn't really accurate.
Depending on what is the game environment of the OP, the answer could be "Look at marmatag list and go from there" or "Don't play GK against soups, everything else is fair game".
The problem with both Kastellans and Kataphrons is that they are hard countered by Helvarins. As a result I'm not sure the knight match is as good as it seems.
I put all the marines in the same bucket because functionally it doesn't matter if one is slightly better than the other, because they fundamentally have the same problems.
GK have the highest win percentage amongst marines, but that is also because up until DW they were the defacto combination with AM.
Knights phased on GMNDK.
DW phased on GKSS.
But until DW and Knights GK had their place in the pale sun.
As it stands, AdMech can pump out damage. This is not questioned. However, we have to remember that math hammer helps understand efficiency, but it doesn't tell you how feasible it is to get that setup to actually function on the table.
For example, Space Wolves can have 6 attack base Wolf Guards by stacking Arjac + Wulfen Stone + Attack Saga + Vigilus Attack Saga. But come on. It's hard enough to activate one saga, let alone get veterans into melee with anything substantial. And logistically having 3 characters grouped up within 6" of your Wolf Guards is patently absurd. But you could math all of this out against a Gallant and conclude some nonsense.
Necrons can win games in similar ways to bobby g. Go first and move your dudes within range of key stuff, my will be done, and go ham. Against admech you will vaporize those robots turn 1, and the game is over.
Valentine009 wrote: The problem with both Kastellans and Kataphrons is that they are hard countered by Helvarins. As a result I'm not sure the knight match is as good as it seems.
Hellverines hardly ever show up in competitive play. I'm bringing some to LVO though
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Heh. Guard is a very good army, but what exactly makes you think they're the top army?
Going by purely win % when it's the primary faction, Guard are 5th.
All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
Using this logic all a codex needs to be "good" is one unit that fits into soup. So BA is top of the power tier because a smash captain can fit into soup. Mono viability has no bearing on this edition so should in no way affect discussions of balance. On top of that, we should really only look at soup with any balance. So any imperium codex on its own does not need fixing because there is an imperium soup that is strong thus how that individual piece is unimportant. Grey knights power is pointless to discuss because "imperium soup" is strong and the idea is allies for the meta so the answer to how to fix grey knights is "who cares".
Using this metric all we really need to do is fix ncrons and we are good to go. Silly dakka worrying about individual codexes over faction balance
Valentine009 wrote: The problem with both Kastellans and Kataphrons is that they are hard countered by Helvarins. As a result I'm not sure the knight match is as good as it seems.
Hellverines hardly ever show up in competitive play. I'm bringing some to LVO though
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Heh. Guard is a very good army, but what exactly makes you think they're the top army?
Going by purely win % when it's the primary faction, Guard are 5th.
All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
Actually Xenomancers, that makes your argument flawed. Your tier list of armies only exists in a world where all codexes are played mono, and thats not a practical measure of anything at all. 40k is played by building lists from multiple dexes, the only sensible way to tier each dex is by the strongest list they can possibly contribute to.
Not that I think that data there is a very good measure of it either, I think it's a bad idea to take that at face value with zero nuance, it's guaranteed to be wrong.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
One must ask then, by this logic, why are we ranking armies by codex, instead factions of by allies pool? We should just be looking at "Imperial" armies and "Eldar" armies, and individual standout units, as opposed to being concerned about how individual codex books like GK or DE play.
Ultimately however, a lot of the playerbase, probably the majority, still does play mono armies. That concept and concern over how they play in such a state is relevant. Some do it for fluff or because only one faction interests them, others because they have no allies options, but it is a thing. Yes the rules make it easy to use allies, but most of the game is still structured around individual books with allies being afterthought, supported by functionality almost nowhere outside the detachment rules, largely just a couple of wargear items.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
I fundamentally disagree with your premise here.
Many MANY people choose to play mono codex. So it is relevant to people how mono codex factions compare.
Yes, soup is best. Power gamers should and will soup. But some people want to just play their codex, but play it to its best potential. In fact I'd say a majority of people play that way.
Of we were purely looking for what was best to take in a tournament - yeah, you'd be right. But a tier list can be so much more, and rating mono lists is a useful and important part of that.
There absolutely is a mono meta, people play it every day in their thousands.
Having two separate tier lists would be useful. One for tournament play (where we have good data) and one for mono codex play which is common in non-tournament style games (which likely account for the overwhelming majority of games played). I don't know anyone who plays with PL but most average 40k players at the store play non-ITC/ETC missions and more frequently with mono codexes than soup. A separate mono codex tier list would be great to have.
Stux is right, there is definitely a mono meta. Competitive 40k is only a small fraction of the total number of games being played out there, right now, at this very moment.
It would be interesting to take tournament data and compare mono faction lists against each other while excluding any lists that soup. Sure, this kind of tier list won't help you win a tournament, but it will tell you how your mono faction army is likely to perform in a random pick up game at your FLGS. Anyone want to take a stab at it?
Valentine009 wrote: The problem with both Kastellans and Kataphrons is that they are hard countered by Helvarins. As a result I'm not sure the knight match is as good as it seems.
Hellverines hardly ever show up in competitive play. I'm bringing some to LVO though
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Heh. Guard is a very good army, but what exactly makes you think they're the top army?
Going by purely win % when it's the primary faction, Guard are 5th.
All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
Actually Xenomancers, that makes your argument flawed. Your tier list of armies only exists in a world where all codexes are played mono, and thats not a practical measure of anything at all. 40k is played by building lists from multiple dexes, the only sensible way to tier each dex is by the strongest list they can possibly contribute to.
Not that I think that data there is a very good measure of it either, I think it's a bad idea to take that at face value with zero nuance, it's guaranteed to be wrong.
I think I just stated it wrongly in the context of this game. It's true to say that Guard being the best army in the game has no real meaning because everyone takes allies in competitive if they can. I just think the codex on it's own would probably top any other codex - that comes from a lot of experience playing with it and against it in mono scenarios. I also think they are the best detachment for an allied force too - the data on 40kstats might not indicate guard primaries as having the highest winrate in the game but I believe that is quite watered down.
For example - if you take IG and space marines or IG and admech allies - that is not nearly as strong as IG and knights but it all shows up as guard primary. My statement that guard is the best army in the game right now is really more in the context of soup. IG with a single knight detachment is still undoubtedly the best army in the game right now. It is a list that everyone expect they are going to run into and they are taking account for it but they still likely wont be able to beat it. Me personally that is what I am brining to LVO. I think it gives me the best chance to win.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
I fundamentally disagree with your premise here.
Many MANY people choose to play mono codex. So it is relevant to people how mono codex factions compare.
Yes, soup is best. Power gamers should and will soup. But some people want to just play their codex, but play it to its best potential. In fact I'd say a majority of people play that way.
Of we were purely looking for what was best to take in a tournament - yeah, you'd be right. But a tier list can be so much more, and rating mono lists is a useful and important part of that.
There absolutely is a mono meta, people play it every day in their thousands.
Really this is true - and the majority of matches are played mono vs mono. We can only rely on our experience here because there is no Data to support it. IMO for mono play it would look like this.
TOP
IG DE IK
Orks
Middle
CWE TS Nids
Tau
DW DG Harliequens
Bottom
CSM Custodes
Space marines (all factions minus DW)
Necrons
My opinion ofc. Might even be missing some and the order isn't really that important - these are the teirs IMO though.
Valentine009 wrote: The problem with both Kastellans and Kataphrons is that they are hard countered by Helvarins. As a result I'm not sure the knight match is as good as it seems.
Hellverines hardly ever show up in competitive play. I'm bringing some to LVO though
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Heh. Guard is a very good army, but what exactly makes you think they're the top army?
Going by purely win % when it's the primary faction, Guard are 5th.
All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
Actually Xenomancers, that makes your argument flawed. Your tier list of armies only exists in a world where all codexes are played mono, and thats not a practical measure of anything at all. 40k is played by building lists from multiple dexes, the only sensible way to tier each dex is by the strongest list they can possibly contribute to.
Not that I think that data there is a very good measure of it either, I think it's a bad idea to take that at face value with zero nuance, it's guaranteed to be wrong.
I think I just stated it wrongly in the context of this game. It's true to say that Guard being the best army in the game has no real meaning because everyone takes allies in competitive if they can. I just think the codex on it's own would probably top any other codex - that comes from a lot of experience playing with it and against it in mono scenarios. I also think they are the best detachment for an allied force too - the data on 40kstats might not indicate guard primaries as having the highest winrate in the game but I believe that is quite watered down.
For example - if you take IG and space marines or IG and admech allies - that is not nearly as strong as IG and knights but it all shows up as guard primary. My statement that guard is the best army in the game right now is really more in the context of soup. IG with a single knight detachment is still undoubtedly the best army in the game right now. It is a list that everyone expect they are going to run into and they are taking account for it but they still likely wont be able to beat it. Me personally that is what I am brining to LVO. I think it gives me the best chance to win.
That's a much fairer statement. I semi-agree, though I think there is some close competition for strongest solo dex (Drukhari). Not that I think it matters at all, because best "solo" codex is simply not reflective of top tier.
Which is something that really should be looked at. I am cool with soup in and of itself, but every codex should be able to stand on its own two legs.
Soup should be an option to vary your builds and playstyles, not a necessity to compete.
Just my opinion though. Could be done by nerfing particularly offending units, adding drawbacks or whatever.
In the situation at hand codices should absolutely be rated with soup in mind, because that is what competitive is. Casual players won't need a tierlist.
Would be nice to have though. Xenomancers' take on it above looks pretty solid for anyone who's looking to play some games at their FLGS. If you're new to the game a regularly updated casual tier list would be a great way to avoid choosing any bottom tier factions while still giving you a lot more hobby options than a pure competitive tier list.
Just finished up our local mon-faction league. Came second with Deathwatch, to Alpha Legion. I guess it counts as a meta? It was a lot of fun and I recommend it. But I wouldn't, in a month of Sundays, try and derive any conclusions from it concerning competitive lists and win rate. Soup is king in 8th.
Nice dude. Actually there's another case for having a regularly updated mono faction tier list. I've been seeing lots of more casual local tourneys use the mono codex restriction specifically to shake up the ITC soup netlist meta.
Which is something that really should be looked at. I am cool with soup in and of itself, but every codex should be able to stand on its own two legs.
Soup should be an option to vary your builds and playstyles, not a necessity to compete.
Just my opinion though. Could be done by nerfing particularly offending units, adding drawbacks or whatever.
In the situation at hand codices should absolutely be rated with soup in mind, because that is what competitive is. Casual players won't need a tierlist.
Eh, no one NEEDS to play at all. Lots of casual players want a tier list though. Knowing where you stand is useful and interesting.
Xenomancers wrote: Me personally that is what I am brining to LVO. I think it gives me the best chance to win.
A Guard/Knight list? Thats what I did. Having attended a high level event as a noob, my experience is that the Castellan is the only thing keeping my list and the enemy at bay. I took the triple tank commander list and while the firepower was nice, it really struggled to gain objectives. It certainly is good but by no means top. Its too easy to drop a game or two along the way against some match ups.
I was unlucky to draw a triple shadowsword list first round and it went first, lost the Castellan to the third shadowsword and it was downhill from there. Ended up 4/1/3 (should have been 5/3!)
When you talk mono-list I do agree that Guard is very good. Heck the Shadowsword itself becomes a bit of a beast.
Horst wrote: Man, the triple Shadowsword list looks fun, but it has so many weaknesses...
Yes the guy was just having fun. My mate tabled him in 2 or 3 turns with Harlequins. But it shows that you can't bring a single Shadowsword and expect much.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
I fundamentally disagree with your premise here.
Many MANY people choose to play mono codex. So it is relevant to people how mono codex factions compare.
Yes, soup is best. Power gamers should and will soup. But some people want to just play their codex, but play it to its best potential. In fact I'd say a majority of people play that way.
Of we were purely looking for what was best to take in a tournament - yeah, you'd be right. But a tier list can be so much more, and rating mono lists is a useful and important part of that.
There absolutely is a mono meta, people play it every day in their thousands.
Indeed. In my gaming group we usually only play soup because the new allied army is not yet large enough to be played mono in 2000points.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
Actually Xenomancers, that makes your argument flawed. Your tier list of armies only exists in a world where all codexes are played mono, and thats not a practical measure of anything at all. 40k is played by building lists from multiple dexes, the only sensible way to tier each dex is by the strongest list they can possibly contribute to.
Not that I think that data there is a very good measure of it either, I think it's a bad idea to take that at face value with zero nuance, it's guaranteed to be wrong.
Maybe a stupid question, but much of a discrepancy is there between good and bad armies, what ever they are played as soup or not? It seems to me, that armies that are good do ok as mono, and of course as soups too. It doesn't really matter if someone compares GK as mono codex or as part of a soup, to other mono books or soups. They are always worse. At the same time something like IG or Inari does well as mono army and as soup. It seems like the only promblematic armies, at least as tier lists goes, are armies that do not soup, because they can't. But if one looks as orcs for example they kind of a soup too, they just soup with their own codex. Different units go in to different kulture detachments.
It doesn't make Xeno's argument flawed. It means it's answering a different question.
Question 1: "What is the tier list for typical play?"
Question 2: "What is the tier list for mono-codex play?"
Both are valid questions.
For Mono, I'm close to Xeno's list, but with a few changes:
-IK at the bottom end of Middle
-CWE between DE and Orks
-Marines right above Harlies in Middle
-GK are different enough to rank seperately - at the very bottom
I see what you're saying, but I think you got the labels wrong. Mono codex IS typical play for the majority of people.
The lists would be, in my opinion:
Tiers for organised play.
Tiers for casual play.
Some people will snort and scoff at the second one I'm sure, but I feel it's important. Because it's what most people actually play, and because it is useful to know if you bring say pure Raven Guard how screwed you are in a Pick Up Game!
You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
8th edition was designed to allow allies. That doesn't mean we cannot evaluate the strength of the codexes individually, they just have to be viewed in a broader context.
Of course none of this changes that the Imperial Guard crew here use "mono" as a distraction carnifex when attempting to create smoke & mirrors to suggest that IG isn't blatantly OP. Something like 25% of the lists in LVO will feature Imperial Guard. If they continue to get better, and Ynnari get nerfed, we'll see ourselves in a scenario where tournaments will be an IG vs IG fest.
Marmatag wrote: You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
Disagree. You can compare Codex A to Codex B, without involving soup, easily.
You not wanting to for whatever reason has no bearing on that.
'"Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction.'
It's not as simple as "Casual = mono". But you do see a lot more mono is casual games.
My meta is very casual. But Dark Angels fronted by 6 squads of Skittari troops doesn't bother anyone. If I run a Harlequin Troupe + Master instead of Banshees in my CWE list, nobody minds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You absolutely can compare Codex A to Codex B.
If they added Codex Cadia, which was identical to the IG codex except Guardsmen were 3ppm, we absolutely could compare Codex A to Codex B.
More concretely, we can compare the SM book to the CWE book, and come away with a fairly solid understanding of which is better.
Marmatag wrote: You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
Disagree. You can compare Codex A to Codex B, without involving soup, easily.
You not wanting to for whatever reason has no bearing on that.
Because the game is fundamentally designed to to include soup. There is no reason to make a comparison when it carries 0 weight.
I can compare a codex to Pickle Pea. Will he give me the Pump-A-Rum? Who knows. But it's not a good comparison.
That's the point.
Some comparisons are better than others.
Balance should be viewed as what it is in practice, not a dakkadakka pipe dream that goes against the core structure of the game itself.
A mono restriction is entirely casual. Can you point me to a major tournament circuit that uses mono restrictions? ETC, ITC, NOVA, etc?
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately however, a lot of the playerbase, probably the majority, still does play mono armies. That concept and concern over how they play in such a state is relevant. Some do it for fluff or because only one faction interests them, others because they have no allies options, but it is a thing. Yes the rules make it easy to use allies, but most of the game is still structured around individual books with allies being afterthought, supported by functionality almost nowhere outside the detachment rules, largely just a couple of wargear items.
+1 to this. I play mono armies for flavor purposes. It's hard to make allied armies look like a coherent force instead of a hodgepodge of whatever units I could grab on the way out.
Asmodios wrote: Using this logic all a codex needs to be "good" is one unit that fits into soup. So BA is top of the power tier because a smash captain can fit into soup. Mono viability has no bearing on this edition so should in no way affect discussions of balance. On top of that, we should really only look at soup with any balance. So any imperium codex on its own does not need fixing because there is an imperium soup that is strong thus how that individual piece is unimportant. Grey knights power is pointless to discuss because "imperium soup" is strong and the idea is allies for the meta so the answer to how to fix grey knights is "who cares".
Using this metric all we really need to do is fix ncrons and we are good to go. Silly dakka worrying about individual codexes over faction balance
Fething thank you. Exalted.
Sorry Marmatag, you are just wrong. There is something to the idea that soup needs to be balanced, but nerfing a unit because it could possibly be used in an overpowered synergistic combo with another unit from a whole different codex is not the way to do it. It makes it so those units are useless outside of that specific overpowered synergistic combo.
Imagine balancing space marines assuming a knight castellan were always present. You wouldn't because it would make space marines too weak if that were not the case. The solution is to nerf the knight castellan, or somehow nerf the ability for a knight castellan to be taken outside of a mono-IK force.
Balance in practice suggests that blood angels have problems because only one of their models - the Smash Captain - is seeing any play. One single thing, out of a fairly large range. Just because balance is viewed in a broader sense doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the viability of units in a codex. Assault marines are not viable. Smash Captains having use doesn't change that assault marines don't.
This is actually a pretty easy to navigate if you aren't being intentionally obtuse.
Marmatag wrote: You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
Disagree. You can compare Codex A to Codex B, without involving soup, easily.
You not wanting to for whatever reason has no bearing on that.
Because the game is fundamentally designed to to include soup. There is no reason to make a comparison when it carries 0 weight.
I can compare a codex to Pickle Pea. Will he give me the Pump-A-Rum? Who knows. But it's not a good comparison.
That's the point.
Some comparisons are better than others.
Balance should be viewed as what it is in practice, not a dakkadakka pipe dream that goes against the core structure of the game itself.
A mono restriction is entirely casual. Can you point me to a major tournament circuit that uses mono restrictions? ETC, ITC, NOVA, etc?
I don't care about tournaments, not really. I care about whether my Dark Angels stand a chance against Dave's Harlequins.
This is REAL. These games happen way more than optimised Imperial Soup Vs optimised Eldar soup.
Marmatag wrote: You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
Disagree. You can compare Codex A to Codex B, without involving soup, easily.
You not wanting to for whatever reason has no bearing on that.
Because the game is fundamentally designed to to include soup. There is no reason to make a comparison when it carries 0 weight.
I can compare a codex to Pickle Pea. Will he give me the Pump-A-Rum? Who knows. But it's not a good comparison.
That's the point.
Some comparisons are better than others.
Balance should be viewed as what it is in practice, not a dakkadakka pipe dream that goes against the core structure of the game itself.
A mono restriction is entirely casual. Can you point me to a major tournament circuit that uses mono restrictions? ETC, ITC, NOVA, etc?
I don't care about tournaments, not really. I care about whether my Dark Angels stand a chance against Dave's Harlequins.
This is REAL. These games happen way more than optimised Imperial Soup Vs optimised Eldar soup.
Let me pause for a moment: I don't disagree with you.
I fully agree that codexes should be viable on their own.
HOWEVER, balance should consider the full scope of the rules. Codex to codex balance is NOT ENOUGH.
Are we on the same page?
And FWIW, if i was going to rank mono-only codexes, it'd go like this:
Imperial Guard Orks Eldar Drukhari Tau Tyranids Knights Deathwatch Death Guard Thousand Sons Ultramarines Custodes Necrons Admech Harlequins Generic CSM Dark Angels Blood Angels Grey Knights Space Wolves Generic Space Marines
I'm probably missing a codex or two but this was off of the top of my head. Because it's weird to me to rate codexes with monofaction as a requirement.
If we're talking about fundamental design as it relates to 40k, while the rules for army construction allow for allies, the armies and codex books are not designed with this in mind. They are designed and portrayed to players as self contained forces ostensibly able to function on their own in most cases. Actual mechanics for interaction between forces are basically nonexistent beyond a couple of wargear items and characters. Many armies have no other factions/books they can ally with at all. The core game army construction rules allow for forces composed from multiple books quite easily, but the actual armies are still overwhelmingly self contained things. The allies stuff we see generally works by either picking and choosing units from disparate books that happen to work well together, and unintended synergy with stuff like CP batteries, but not through intentional mechanics within these armies to work with each other.
Ultimately, the vast majority of the playerbase still runs mono armies and individual codex books matter to the bulk of the players.
There is a point to be made that allies/soup allows many different books to be treated as one single faction, and that in practice at the top competitive level this is ubiquitous and mono armies the exception. That is valid to a point. But then, at that point, what are we doing talking about tiers? At that point the Imperium faction is so big and vague and dominant that it comes down to "Imperials...and everyone else", by simple dint of the fact that the Imperium has so much stuff to choose from.
Of course none of this changes that the Imperial Guard crew here use "mono" as a distraction carnifex when attempting to create smoke & mirrors to suggest that IG isn't blatantly OP. Something like 25% of the lists in LVO will feature Imperial Guard. If they continue to get better, and Ynnari get nerfed, we'll see ourselves in a scenario where tournaments will be an IG vs IG fest.
and until they remove the ability of the IG to act as an unintended source of regenerating CP, that will probably remain the case. Cut the CP battery and half the lists including Guard drop them overnight....
If we want to use simple frequency of appearance at events as an indicator of balance, Space Marines must have been the rulers of every previous meta
Melissia wrote: +1 to this. I play mono armies for flavor purposes. It's hard to make allied armies look like a coherent force instead of a hodgepodge of whatever units I could grab on the way out.
Aye, most allies armies look painfully incoherent and gamey, and I can count on one hand the number of well thought out and coherent allies armies I have seen in the last six or seven years since Allies were reintroduced.
House Terryn Knights + some Cadians in a similar color scheme. I think it looks like a coherent army, and from a fluff perspective it works too since it makes a lot of sense for House Terryn to have a PDF to accompany the Nobles into battle, instead of just sending out their Nobles alone.
Some soups don't make thematic sense, I'll grant you. Like a Supreme Command of Space Marine Smashcaptains doesn't make sense at all. But it's not hard to make allies look like a coherent army either if you model them as such.
I disagree marm. Codex to codex balance would be a lot better than what we have now. ESP if special rules were tailored to benefit codex units more than external allied choices.
If essentially half of the codexes available are space marines in some form or another, shouldn't they be represented?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree marm. Codex to codex balance would be a lot better than what we have now. ESP if special rules were tailored to benefit codex units more than external allied choices.
I don't disagree that mono as a requirement would produce more balanced games.
I also think that banning superheavies and forgeworld from matched play would improve balance, too.
And even in a "mono only" environment, all SM except DW and Ultramarines would be absolute trash tier, Necrons would be a bit better but still struggling, Admech same boat.
The Catachan IG list with a Shadowsword instead of a Castellan would actually be better because lethality drops in everyone else's army if mono is a requirement. Orks would be dominant obviously. If you dont' have to worry about losing your shadowsword to a castellan it becomes badass bonkers good. IG would be soooo much better than they are now.
And yet another thread devolves into whining about IG. I mean, it's a little perplexing considering that eldar and DE are arguably even stronger than IG this edition. Add onto the fact that the majority of IG detachments taken to tournaments are listed as "secondary detachments" (IE CP batteries and meatshields for units that do the real work) really makes you wonder why certain users are so focused on IG as the culprit of bad balance in 8th.
If I had to guess I would say it was down to the sheer cognitive dissonance and rage of space marine players having their faction of supersoldiers be worse than bog standard army dudes. How dare they! That isn't how it is supposed to be in the lore.
Sorry, a knight castellan with a loyal 32 CP battery is not an "IG army" in any way shape or form.
w1zard wrote: And yet another thread devolves into whining about IG. I mean, it's a little perplexing considering that eldar and DE are arguably even stronger than IG this edition. Add onto the fact that the majority of IG detachments taken to tournaments are listed as "secondary detachments" (IE CP batteries and meatshields for units that do the real work) really makes you wonder why certain users are so focused on IG as the culprit of bad balance in 8th.
Eldar and DE, without allies, pale in comparison to IG.
And in practice, IG + Castellan beats Eldar. Top table at So-Cal saw Guard crush Ynnari. For example.
Of all the Vigilus factions, IG got the best stuff. You'll see it at LVO, if you go.
Why not just keep the whole soup thing, so people can have all their crazy armies, but put the rules for it and maybe the titan class stuff in to open? soup players they claim they soup, because of fluff. So narrative games should be right up their alley. At the same time people that play normal matched play games would have their pre dominantly mono armies, and this way GW would be forced to make valid books instead of making books wiht 2-3 units and expecting to make the rest of the army out of 2-3 other books.
Focusing on balance in regards to the soup factions makes a lot more sense than a tier list that ignores it. The thing is, within each flavor of soup exists its own tier list of which codexes are your best choices to fill one of your 3 detachment slots. Going further, each codex has a tier list of which units are worth taking in a detachment of that codex.
Generally speaking, its healthy to prioritize this stuff from the top down, because for the most part, you can usually get away with some suboptimal choices as long as you don't go crazy. It's more important that the Imperium be competitive than Space Marines, its more important that Space Marines are competitive than it is that a Land Speeder is top tier. You might not be able to run a Land Speeder army, but a Land Speeder in a Space Marine detachment in an Imperium army isn't going to cripple an otherwise competitive list.
Some armies will just not have the full range of tools available to counter every threat. That said, if an army is deserving of a codex, it should be able to stand mostly on its own, without depending on allies to function at a basic level. Because then it becomes a game of "what does this faction do better than Imperial Guard?" Because Guard is the baseline for anything imperium. If you can't outperform guard you have no place in IG +Castellan.
This is how you end up with Imperium codexes that were dead on arrival, like Space Wolves.
Blood Of Kittens does the same thing really as 40k stats, they've just been doing it longer and restrict their focus to GTs, majors.
If you want this kind of data, BoK is more complete.
Edit - and we've discussed this before. It doesn't make sense to look at the bottom of tournaments because balance is a measure of how well a list can perform, not how poorly it can be piloted by scrubs.
Blood Of Kittens does the same thing really as 40k stats, they've just been doing it longer and restrict their focus to GTs, majors.
If you want this kind of data, BoK is more complete.
Edit - and we've discussed this before. It doesn't make sense to look at the bottom of tournaments because balance is a measure of how well a list can perform, not how poorly it can be piloted by scrubs.
Yeah, we discussed this before and what you are doing by looking at only "winning" lists is called survivorship bias and is how you fail out of stats 101.
If we are going to ignore stats and just look at winning stats/players why not bring up that the only top 10 ITC player playing a mono list is playing DE
both ways you are wrong so I guess just pick your poison?
Again, I never really got the irrational hatred towards guard. Yes, it is undoubtedly the best mono imperial codex by far. But that is more because Space Marines of all flavor SUCK this edition rather than guard being "overpowered". When you compare guard to xenos codices like Aeldari, DE, and even tyranids or Tau, guard looks way more tame by comparison.
If you look on 40K stats guard are taken almost 3 times more often as a "secondary" detachment rather than a "primary" detachment. It bears repeating that being the best CP battery or meatshield to standout units from other codices does not an overpowered faction make.
Asmodios wrote: Yeah, we discussed this before and what you are doing by looking at only "winning" lists is called survivorship bias and is how you fail out of stats 101.
Careful, he probably already knows this, he has a math degree after all. /s
w1zard wrote: Again, I never really got the irrational hatred towards guard. Yes, it is undoubtedly the best mono imperial codex by far. But that is more because Space Marines of all flavor SUCK this edition rather than guard being "overpowered". When you compare guard to xenos codices like Aeldari, DE, and even tyranids or Tau, guard looks way more tame by comparison.
If you look on 40K stats guard are taken almost 3 times more often as a "secondary" detachment rather than a "primary" detachment. It bears repeating that being the best CP battery or meatshield to standout units from other codices does not an overpowered faction make.
Asmodios wrote: Yeah, we discussed this before and what you are doing by looking at only "winning" lists is called survivorship bias and is how you fail out of stats 101.
Careful, he probably already knows this, he has a math degree after all. /s
We have had this whole discussion before and im seriously perplexed how he doesn't realize that only looking at winning list wouldn't skew data. I mean this isn't something that like obscure high level statistics they literally cover it in stats 101 if not highschool level math
It's not survivorship bias, because the question is fundamentally different than "how well is a faction performing," it's "how good is a faction."
Win loss across all players doesn't really answer the question. You call it survivorship bias because you can't separate yourself from your bias and honestly answer the question.
Astra Militarum as a primary faction have far and away the best representation in the top 3 of major events since the start of 8th edition. That is data. It is a fact. Yet it doesn't match what you're showing here. Because you're selecting a view of the data that is different to fit your narrative.
Marmatag wrote: It's not survivorship bias, because the question is fundamentally different than "how well is a faction performing," it's "how good is a faction."
Win loss across all players doesn't really answer the question. You call it survivorship bias because you can't separate yourself from your bias and honestly answer the question.
no this is textbook survivorship bias (looking at only the survivors will ignoring the rest of your data set). You want to skew that data purposely to fit a narrative because the statistics don't align with your preconceived notion. The most ironic part about this is using your own method of "lulz ignore all the data" we still end up with an ITC top 10 with a single player that's been playing a single mono codex which is DE. showing that even by your own very poor calculation DE would be the best mono codex not guard.
Marmatag wrote: It's not survivorship bias, because the question is fundamentally different than "how well is a faction performing," it's "how good is a faction."
Win loss across all players doesn't really answer the question. You call it survivorship bias because you can't separate yourself from your bias and honestly answer the question.
Nah, Asmodios is right. Looking at only winning lists not only lowers your sample size and inherently makes your data less accurate, it also eliminates data points based on criteria that may not have anything to do with balance.
If 40kstats.com only showed numbers relating to primary and secondary detachments with no further data I might agree with you Marmatag because the most popular faction is not necessarily the best. However, they show win percentages of all games of a primary faction and their sample sizes are huge, which tends to indicate that conclusions drawn from the resulting data are pretty accurate. I get that you only want to look at the data from "competitive" lists because purposely including non-competative lists in your sample may skew the results. But, it is more useful to look at performance across all levels of tournament play as a whole rather than ONLY the winners because that is a better reflection of ACTUAL tournament performance.
Marmatag wrote: It's not survivorship bias, because the question is fundamentally different than "how well is a faction performing," it's "how good is a faction."
Win loss across all players doesn't really answer the question. You call it survivorship bias because you can't separate yourself from your bias and honestly answer the question.
Astra Militarum as a primary faction have far and away the best representation in the top 3 of major events since the start of 8th edition. That is data. It is a fact. Yet it doesn't match what you're showing here. Because you're selecting a view of the data that is different to fit your narrative.
It looks like that's also from the start of 8th edition, and 40kstats.com seems to only have data from July of 2018 onwards, so it's more recent data. The blood of kittens site doesn't take into account representation at the tournament either. It looks like Imperial Knights and Astra Militarum are some of the most common armies. I'd expect to see them winning a large number of games, because they have more chances to win because they have more players.
Asmodios wrote: If we are going to ignore stats and just look at winning stats/players why not bring up that the only top 10 ITC player playing a mono list is playing DE
It looks like that's also from the start of 8th edition, and 40kstats.com seems to only have data from July of 2018 onwards, so it's more recent data. The blood of kittens site doesn't take into account representation at the tournament either. It looks like Imperial Knights and Astra Militarum are some of the most common armies. I'd expect to see them winning a large number of games, because they have more chances to win because they have more players.
Don't army stats in w40k get more flat the more an army is played? Factions that have few players and generate a lot less data can have huge spikes in win %. If 20 people play a faction and one goes to the top, or very bottom, table the avarge will get skewed a lot more then a faction which is played by 200 dudes. Even a proper median is hard to achive with so little data. What we can say is stuff like marines are underperforming, IG are are in most imperial armies in some sort, eldar are doing ok etc I think people still need to wait for ork data, but it seems to be shaping up good.
Maybe a stupid question, but much of a discrepancy is there between good and bad armies, what ever they are played as soup or not? It seems to me, that armies that are good do ok as mono, and of course as soups too. It doesn't really matter if someone compares GK as mono codex or as part of a soup, to other mono books or soups. They are always worse. At the same time something like IG or Inari does well as mono army and as soup. It seems like the only promblematic armies, at least as tier lists goes, are armies that do not soup, because they can't. But if one looks as orcs for example they kind of a soup too, they just soup with their own codex. Different units go in to different kulture detachments.
Blood Angels is one of the lowest tier armys in the game outside of soup. But because this isn't a soup game, they can contribute one of the core units to one of the strongest lists in the game. They are a top tier codex soup wise, trash tier solo.
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree marm. Codex to codex balance would be a lot better than what we have now. ESP if special rules were tailored to benefit codex units more than external allied choices.
The last part is the key though. Coded to coded balance is a terrible idea if soup is still a thing with really no downside. So mono-Orks is balanced against mono-IG. Cool until IG go out and sure up their weaknesses with stuff from other imperial armies at really no cost. Or Mono-Tau vs mono-Knights is balanced until Knights get a ton of extra CP through allies, and screens etc. you cannot balance both mono-books and allies without some bonus to mono armies or negative to allies. Unless all possible allies share the same basic strengths and weaknesses.
Agree with Marm on tournament meta. Don't see why you should consider how badly a list can do at a tournament. On that basis Eldar were consistently amongst the worst performing factions in the 7th edition tournament setting - because when 1/3rd of all players bring Eldar, they lose a lot of games. It didn't mean they were worse than whoever else occasionally won a tournament.
The issue is that the mono-codex meta matters to the overwhelming majority of players. If I want to play with my friends, or start a slow grow/tale of X gamers league, but not play someone whose awful, I might want to know that GK are struggling. I don't need to know that if I don't play Imperial/Eldar Soup I am being irrational.
Agree with Marm on tournament meta. Don't see why you should consider how badly a list can do at a tournament. On that basis Eldar were consistently amongst the worst performing factions in the 7th edition tournament setting - because when 1/3rd of all players bring Eldar, they lose a lot of games. It didn't mean they were worse than whoever else occasionally won a tournament.
The issue is that the mono-codex meta matters to the overwhelming majority of players. If I want to play with my friends, or start a slow grow/tale of X gamers league, but not play someone whose awful, I might want to know that GK are struggling. I don't need to know that if I don't play Imperial/Eldar Soup I am being irrational.
You don't do it because its something called survivorship bias in statistics and is a truly terrible way to analyze data.
Say for example you are creating a new drug to cure a cold. There are 100 trials and in 57% of the time the cold is cured in the other 43% the patient dies. Saying "well looking at the top 57% of the trials this new drug is amazing.... I mean why even pay attention to the ones that didn't make it". Purposely skewing your data to remove failures is going to obviously give a skewed result to what you are looking at.
The funniest thing as I stated before is that there is one player in the top 10 of the ITC using a mono army (they talk about him every week on signals from the front line) and he is using a pure DE army. So even ignoring the very good statistical data we have and looking at an incredibly small elite data set like suggested (literally the top 10 players in the world) DE can not only obviously hang with mono IG but with all soup armies as well
Lol why do people keep placing Orks so high when none of the stats reflect these assumptions? Orks have a 45% win rate. We have yet to win one of the big big tournaments. Our codex is the most recent and our faction does not perform well under time constraints that are becoming the norm.
E - mono DE performs well in large part thanks to AoV. GSC and their allies are about to get a slice of that hot pie. It’s ridiculous to me that only a few factions have such a ridiculous, mechanics breaking ability. I hope GW roll it out to all factions or remove it from all. Stopping a key stratagem is game winning. You can’t put a price on such a powerful ability and in my opinion it’s too much for so few factions to have access to.
Orks are getting the "One of the best players in the world is bringing them to the biggest tournament in north america so they must be good" bump.
I thought time was going to be an issue but the people I talk to say the good players aren't having a time even with chess clocks. LVO will be a good test.
Asmodios wrote: You don't do it because its something called survivorship bias in statistics and is a truly terrible way to analyze data.
Say for example you are creating a new drug to cure a cold. There are 100 trials and in 57% of the time the cold is cured in the other 43% the patient dies. Saying "well looking at the top 57% of the trials this new drug is amazing.... I mean why even pay attention to the ones that didn't make it". Purposely skewing your data to remove failures is going to obviously give a skewed result to what you are looking at.
+1 to this. Statistics isn't magic, you have to pay attention to all the numbers to get a realistic view, and it's very easy and tempting to twist statistics to say something it doesn't say.
Asmodios wrote: You don't do it because its something called survivorship bias in statistics and is a truly terrible way to analyze data.
Say for example you are creating a new drug to cure a cold. There are 100 trials and in 57% of the time the cold is cured in the other 43% the patient dies. Saying "well looking at the top 57% of the trials this new drug is amazing.... I mean why even pay attention to the ones that didn't make it". Purposely skewing your data to remove failures is going to obviously give a skewed result to what you are looking at.
+1 to this. Statistics isn't magic, you have to pay attention to all the numbers to get a realistic view, and it's very easy and tempting to twist statistics to say something it doesn't say.
How do you remove data that is caused be a secondary factors.
If someone is 0-6 they can't play the game how they place isn't going to be a realistic representation of the power of any codex.
Their are players who do got to events for lolz with idiotic incoherent lists or knowingly introducing underpowered units.
Yiu need to be able to remove them from the data or even your raw data is flawed.
Asmodios wrote: You don't do it because its something called survivorship bias in statistics and is a truly terrible way to analyze data.
Say for example you are creating a new drug to cure a cold. There are 100 trials and in 57% of the time the cold is cured in the other 43% the patient dies. Saying "well looking at the top 57% of the trials this new drug is amazing.... I mean why even pay attention to the ones that didn't make it". Purposely skewing your data to remove failures is going to obviously give a skewed result to what you are looking at.
+1 to this. Statistics isn't magic, you have to pay attention to all the numbers to get a realistic view, and it's very easy and tempting to twist statistics to say something it doesn't say.
How do you remove data that is caused be a secondary factors.
If someone is 0-6 they can't play the game how they place isn't going to be a realistic representation of the power of any codex.
Their are players who do got to events for lolz with idiotic incoherent lists or knowingly introducing underpowered units.
Yiu need to be able to remove them from the data or even your raw data is flawed.
If someone goes 0-6 though, especially in a game like this, how do you know they don't know how to play? This game is highly based on luck, in both matchups and gameplay. It's like 1/3 luck, 1/3 skill, 1/3 list building. If he got some bad matchups early on, then some bad luck later, its possible a decent player could end up losing a lot of games. You cannot assume someone with a worse record is absolutely better than someone with a winning record, which is why it's important to include every game in the win/loss rates.
Asmodios wrote: You don't do it because its something called survivorship bias in statistics and is a truly terrible way to analyze data.
Say for example you are creating a new drug to cure a cold. There are 100 trials and in 57% of the time the cold is cured in the other 43% the patient dies. Saying "well looking at the top 57% of the trials this new drug is amazing.... I mean why even pay attention to the ones that didn't make it". Purposely skewing your data to remove failures is going to obviously give a skewed result to what you are looking at.
+1 to this. Statistics isn't magic, you have to pay attention to all the numbers to get a realistic view, and it's very easy and tempting to twist statistics to say something it doesn't say.
How do you remove data that is caused be a secondary factors.
If someone is 0-6 they can't play the game how they place isn't going to be a realistic representation of the power of any codex.
Their are players who do got to events for lolz with idiotic incoherent lists or knowingly introducing underpowered units.
Yiu need to be able to remove them from the data or even your raw data is flawed.
The simple answer is that you don't remove it.. Those 0-6/for the luz players are part of the event and data set. They are a realistic representation of the data as they are 1. playing in the same event 2. do not play any 1 specific faction 3. We are still counting wins against these players. Once again you can do something like saying "lets just look at the ITC top 10 players and what they're bringing" this isn't a complete data set like what we are referencing before but clearly some people don't want to look at the data. Now the only mono list a top player is taking is DE so saying comments like "mono IG is so laughably ahead of other mono lists" not only doesn't hold up under a large data set analysis but also even looking at just the top "winners".
The only time you remove data from a data set is when you want to hold a variable constant. So something like (players who have attended 3 or more events)essentially you need something that would apply equally to an entire data pool but you never remove single data points (oh this guy attended 3 events but did poorly we will just ignore him). You also need to take into account what you are holding constant and how this is going to skew the outcome
look at the lists at the bottom of tournament pools. Winning vs them is not 30% luck, the odds are stacked so far in the favor of a good list in the hands of a good player, that you simply have to play badly to lose to it. That's my opinion.
Asmodios wrote: You don't do it because its something called survivorship bias in statistics and is a truly terrible way to analyze data.
Say for example you are creating a new drug to cure a cold. There are 100 trials and in 57% of the time the cold is cured in the other 43% the patient dies. Saying "well looking at the top 57% of the trials this new drug is amazing.... I mean why even pay attention to the ones that didn't make it". Purposely skewing your data to remove failures is going to obviously give a skewed result to what you are looking at.
+1 to this. Statistics isn't magic, you have to pay attention to all the numbers to get a realistic view, and it's very easy and tempting to twist statistics to say something it doesn't say.
How do you remove data that is caused be a secondary factors.
If someone is 0-6 they can't play the game how they place isn't going to be a realistic representation of the power of any codex.
Their are players who do got to events for lolz with idiotic incoherent lists or knowingly introducing underpowered units.
Yiu need to be able to remove them from the data or even your raw data is flawed.
If someone goes 0-6 though, especially in a game like this, how do you know they don't know how to play? This game is highly based on luck, in both matchups and gameplay. It's like 1/3 luck, 1/3 skill, 1/3 list building. If he got some bad matchups early on, then some bad luck later, its possible a decent player could end up losing a lot of games. You cannot assume someone with a worse record is absolutely better than someone with a winning record, which is why it's important to include every game in the win/loss rates.
^
exactly this is why you can't just go pulling out numbers. Of course, you will get the statistical result you want pulling out the data you "feel" doesn't represent preconceived notions
If someone went into a tournament with anything except the intention to win, the data is already gamed and any conclusions you derive from it are likely flawed.
Unless you can find a way to separate the 'bad' data from the 'good' data without introducing human bias in how its selected, you're basically stuck with a data set that is useless.
Karol wrote: But you can from the type of army they take, at least if you also know the tournament rules.
No you can't. What you can do is make assumptions, but you can't actually say. And anyone can at the same time say your assumptions are wrong and baseless.
And they'd be right. You're making assumptions specifically that make your point look better, and for no other reason than that. Not assumptions you have any proof of being true. You're trying to abuse statistics to prove your point, and nothing more, and nobody is obligated to respect your asinine assumptions.
Everyone at a tournament wants to win. They build an army that they think gives them a good chance to win, within whatever pre-established "fluff" they want for their army. It may lead to some sub-optimal choices, but it's gotta be equal between all players using all races. I'm sure there are Eldar players with mono-codex lists, using less competitive craftworlds. Just like there are mono-codex Guard players, who take mechanized lists with lots of Chimeras. Not optimal, but they think it will give them a chance.
Horst wrote: Everyone at a tournament wants to win. They build an army that they think gives them a good chance to win, within whatever pre-established "fluff" they want for their army. It may lead to some sub-optimal choices, but it's gotta be equal between all players using all races. I'm sure there are Eldar players with mono-codex lists, using less competitive craftworlds. Just like there are mono-codex Guard players, who take mechanized lists with lots of Chimeras. Not optimal, but they think it will give them a chance.
Nobody is going in not hoping to win.
You don't know that as a certainty. Everyone likes to swing around claims as fact on the internet, but that's simply not how it works.
Horst wrote: Everyone at a tournament wants to win. They build an army that they think gives them a good chance to win, within whatever pre-established "fluff" they want for their army. It may lead to some sub-optimal choices, but it's gotta be equal between all players using all races. I'm sure there are Eldar players with mono-codex lists, using less competitive craftworlds. Just like there are mono-codex Guard players, who take mechanized lists with lots of Chimeras. Not optimal, but they think it will give them a chance.
Nobody is going in not hoping to win.
You don't know that as a certainty. Everyone likes to swing around claims as fact on the internet, but that's simply not how it works.
Fine. Most people try to win. Very few people will go into a tournament thinking, "I'm not even going to try!". You have to pay to get into these things after all, and they're not always cheap. I've never personally met a person who went to tournaments who didn't have a goal of winning, or at least doing well with their lore-based army.
Yeah, especially at larger tournaments you don't blow that much money and time to show up and not even -try- to win. Plenty of people go in knowing they aren't going to do well, or even win the majority of their matches. But they still try to win those matches. Yes, there is probably someone somewhere who just showed up to troll but that is so insignificant using it to discard tournament data is irrational.
bananathug wrote: Orks are getting the "One of the best players in the world is bringing them to the biggest tournament in north america so they must be good" bump.
I thought time was going to be an issue but the people I talk to say the good players aren't having a time even with chess clocks. LVO will be a good test.
He's sponsored to bring them. The sponsor has literally given him the army to use.
I've watched these so called top players play Orks with a chess clock and they have all struggled. So much so they don't actually play the rules written as they ignore rolling certain attacks or taking certain actions they deem a time sink.
I can't wait to see the results of the LVO, you're right in that it'll be a good test.
Horst wrote: Everyone at a tournament wants to win. They build an army that they think gives them a good chance to win, within whatever pre-established "fluff" they want for their army. It may lead to some sub-optimal choices, but it's gotta be equal between all players using all races. I'm sure there are Eldar players with mono-codex lists, using less competitive craftworlds. Just like there are mono-codex Guard players, who take mechanized lists with lots of Chimeras. Not optimal, but they think it will give them a chance.
Nobody is going in not hoping to win.
I think the difference is that I try to win matches once the table top game begins but even in a tournament, I let fluff, my own head cannon and personal preferences in models to make my list. I personally don't like Knights or other super heavies in a normal 40k game and therefor would not take one even if I recognize that objectively it would boost my chances of winning.
He builds the army he wants to build but he knows he's not going to win. It sounds like he goes to a lot of tournaments. He is also some kind of professional statistician. His job is to seperate signal from noise.
He does some analysis on exactly this question its not up to date, I think he jas the padt 2 years but not this year.
He only analyses players that have been to 3 events or more, and I think he has a criteria for wins lose record.
SHUPPET wrote: Blood Angels is one of the lowest tier armys in the game outside of soup. But because this isn't a soup game, they can contribute one of the core units to one of the strongest lists in the game. They are a top tier codex soup wise, trash tier solo.
Oddly enough, I agree with you. But you don't see a problem with this?
Ice_can wrote: How do you remove data that is caused be a secondary factors.
If someone is 0-6 they can't play the game how they place isn't going to be a realistic representation of the power of any codex.
Their are players who do got to events for lolz with idiotic incoherent lists or knowingly introducing underpowered units.
Yiu need to be able to remove them from the data or even your raw data is flawed.
You do it by increasing your sample size. MOST tournament lists are going to be competitive to a certain degree. By increasing your sample size you make outliers like say, a guy who brings a non-competitive fluffy army to a tournament statistically less important.
By only looking at a small sample of the overall quantity, you introduce a screening criteria that is probably not relevant to the results that you want to test. Say for example, you look at only the WINNING list for the past ten tournaments. What if in one tournament, by sheer happenstance there were no DE players? DE is then erroneously underrepresented in the resultant data-set through sheer chance. And, since the sample size is so small, this effects the accuracy of the data immensely.
Almost all data sets have "noise" (garbage data). The trick is to make the sample size so large that a pattern can be discerned through the noise.
SHUPPET wrote: Blood Angels is one of the lowest tier armys in the game outside of soup. But because this isn't a soup game, they can contribute one of the core units to one of the strongest lists in the game. They are a top tier codex soup wise, trash tier solo.
Oddly enough, I agree with you. But you don't see a problem with this?
OH I see a problem with it. I think the allies rules are terrible for competitive play, and REWARD you with big amounts of CP for cherrypicking the best things between dexes.
I'm not a fan of it at all.
But I'm just saying, whether I like it or not, this is how the game plays now. When we tiered Tau in 7th we tiered Riptide wing, not kroot spam. We take the strongest possible build available to a dex in competitive play and thats what tier they are, not the weakest. In competitive play, playing a keyword army as a mono-faction list is a personal restriction, and not reflective of the actual tier of that army. Otherwise Knights are garbage as they can't score or hold ground for gak and struggle to make the CP to do anything. A monofaction tier list would be interesting. But also not what the original post here says.
I know better than to get sucked into this conversation, but I'm going to do it anyway. I feel like people have done a poor job of defining the question, or at least have been defining the question in ways that fit their preferred answer. So I'm going to ask questions, then give my answers, and people can get as angry as they want with them.
1. If played by a strong, competitive player, what is the relative strength of the various factions and combinations of factions, from top to bottom?
Several lists have been given upthread, starting with Knights + IG and working down to poor Grey Knights. I by and large agree with the various lists. I think the argument about soup tiers and mono tiers is kind of missing the point. Both soup and mono lists are out there. If little Timmy at the game shop wants to know how his Iron Fists stack up, well, they lose to Eldar soup, they beat Grey Knights, and they are something like even vs Sisters of Battle.
2. When played by a casual player, does the tier list change in a meaningful way?
Basically asking if any of the factions or soups require a player to be an expert at the game to succeed with, or alternatively, asking if a tier list based on major tournament results is relevant to little Timmy going to his local shops Saturday afternoon event. Some games, particularly fighting games, have some fairly solid skill barriers, where until you learn a certain thing or how to deal with a certain strategy you will lose to the players who know it. I don't think that any faction in 40k so difficult to play that it takes being an expert at the game to get value out of them.
3. Does the event format change the tier list in a meaningful way?
I don't think the common major formats vary enough to impact the tiers, but I'm not up to date on the fine details of every major tournament. I would expect that time limits are the big question here. Orks (and to a lesser extent 'nids) might be able to take some final tables if someone can figure out how to move 300 models 6 times in one game.
3. Is the data we have strong enough to show that the tier lists are accurate?
No. In order to this right, you would shovel all of the data into a regression model in something like R or SPSS and see if there is a statistically significant difference in win rates between the factions. Given the number of confounding factors (sample size, player, event format, faction popularity, strength of schedule), your model is going to stare blankly at you then tell you to frack off. Getting a meaningful result out of the existing data set is going to be very tricky and the ability to draw conclusions limited.
Any attempt to model factions strength needs to account for faction popularity and player skill. If 50 people bring Ultramarines to a 100 person event, what does it mean that 4 of them placed in the top ten? What about if the only Sisters of Battle player got second? The extent to which player skill, faction strength, and luck impact success in the game is an open question. Any attempt to use the existing event results to rank faction strength needs to account for these complicated factors.
My opinion is that we can say certain factions are very strong, others are strong, others are mid tier, and so forth. I think that given the nature of the game and the data we have about the game, these discussions are ultimately going to come down to judgment calls based on individual experience.
4. Are any of the factions dominant to the extent that changes should be made to improve the health of the game?
I think the upper tier soups need toned down, but that overall the game is in a good place. I think that there will always be a best army, and a worst army. I think the extent to which the best builds dominate the game is less than it was in previous editions. I don't like losing a third of my army to a Knight, but I remember Leafblower, unkillable GK rhinos, and invisible dogstars.
Yea 5th was kinda the high point for durability in general but vehicles especially required either a close range melta shot or really lucky rolls with anti tank weapons. I remember my friends orks putting over half his armies fire power into a razorback and coming away with it just losing a stormbolter.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Yea 5th was kinda the high point for durability in general but vehicles especially required either a close range melta shot or really lucky rolls with anti tank weapons. I remember my friends orks putting over half his armies fire power into a razorback and coming away with it just losing a stormbolter.
To be fair, you'd have just as much chance of blowing up every vehicle they had in one round too, that worked both ways. The only real issue was transports, any vehicle that relied on shooting more than simply staying alive was guaranteed to at the very least be doing nothing for a turn if you hurt it at all
An Actual Englishman wrote: Lol why do people keep placing Orks so high when none of the stats reflect these assumptions? Orks have a 45% win rate. We have yet to win one of the big big tournaments. Our codex is the most recent and our faction does not perform well under time constraints that are becoming the norm.
E - mono DE performs well in large part thanks to AoV. GSC and their allies are about to get a slice of that hot pie. It’s ridiculous to me that only a few factions have such a ridiculous, mechanics breaking ability. I hope GW roll it out to all factions or remove it from all. Stopping a key stratagem is game winning. You can’t put a price on such a powerful ability and in my opinion it’s too much for so few factions to have access to.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Lol why do people keep placing Orks so high when none of the stats reflect these assumptions? Orks have a 45% win rate. We have yet to win one of the big big tournaments. Our codex is the most recent and our faction does not perform well under time constraints that are becoming the norm.
E - mono DE performs well in large part thanks to AoV. GSC and their allies are about to get a slice of that hot pie. It’s ridiculous to me that only a few factions have such a ridiculous, mechanics breaking ability. I hope GW roll it out to all factions or remove it from all. Stopping a key stratagem is game winning. You can’t put a price on such a powerful ability and in my opinion it’s too much for so few factions to have access to.
My personal belief about that is because Orkz have had such a god awful codex for so long (No codex in 5th or 6th edition and arguably the worst codex in 7th) that players became used to seeing orkz as the "NPC" Race and/or the "Easy Win" race so much so that now that we have a mid tier codex it feels like we are top tier simply because opponents now have to actually try as opposed to being handed wins. Not to mention that the competitive players who stuck it out with orkz are now winning even more so simply because they were used to having to scrape out wins by just out smarting their opponents on almost every turn and now the Ork army is a bit easier to play.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Lol why do people keep placing Orks so high when none of the stats reflect these assumptions? Orks have a 45% win rate. We have yet to win one of the big big tournaments. Our codex is the most recent and our faction does not perform well under time constraints that are becoming the norm.
E - mono DE performs well in large part thanks to AoV. GSC and their allies are about to get a slice of that hot pie. It’s ridiculous to me that only a few factions have such a ridiculous, mechanics breaking ability. I hope GW roll it out to all factions or remove it from all. Stopping a key stratagem is game winning. You can’t put a price on such a powerful ability and in my opinion it’s too much for so few factions to have access to.
My personal belief about that is because Orkz have had such a god awful codex for so long (No codex in 5th or 6th edition and arguably the worst codex in 7th) that players became used to seeing orkz as the "NPC" Race and/or the "Easy Win" race so much so that now that we have a mid tier codex it feels like we are top tier simply because opponents now have to actually try as opposed to being handed wins. Not to mention that the competitive players who stuck it out with orkz are now winning even more so simply because they were used to having to scrape out wins by just out smarting their opponents on almost every turn and now the Ork army is a bit easier to play.
I don't think so. People who are very good at the game (as measured by tournament placings) thought Orks would be near to the top. Not forum warriors - not random people who never play.
Now its fair to ask why did they seem to underperform at the LVO. To be fair, part of this might be bad matchups. Both of the theoretical stars ran into that 2nd placing Ynnari list and lost.
That list was partly designed to have more anti-horde (which is really anti-ork) firepower. - again, because people who are good at the game thought Orks would be a problem.
This suggests to me that Orks may have a meta problem. Its relatively easy to tailor a list which has a little more anti-Ork stuff, and this significantly skews your odds of winning that game, without disproportionately harming you against other lists.
Whereas there doesn't appear to be an anti traditional Imperial Soup list* which is why that list tends to win out.
*I don't think one has been identified even though it might have horrible matchups, which is usually a sign of being the meta defining list.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Lol why do people keep placing Orks so high when none of the stats reflect these assumptions? Orks have a 45% win rate. We have yet to win one of the big big tournaments. Our codex is the most recent and our faction does not perform well under time constraints that are becoming the norm.
E - mono DE performs well in large part thanks to AoV. GSC and their allies are about to get a slice of that hot pie. It’s ridiculous to me that only a few factions have such a ridiculous, mechanics breaking ability. I hope GW roll it out to all factions or remove it from all. Stopping a key stratagem is game winning. You can’t put a price on such a powerful ability and in my opinion it’s too much for so few factions to have access to.
My personal belief about that is because Orkz have had such a god awful codex for so long (No codex in 5th or 6th edition and arguably the worst codex in 7th) that players became used to seeing orkz as the "NPC" Race and/or the "Easy Win" race so much so that now that we have a mid tier codex it feels like we are top tier simply because opponents now have to actually try as opposed to being handed wins. Not to mention that the competitive players who stuck it out with orkz are now winning even more so simply because they were used to having to scrape out wins by just out smarting their opponents on almost every turn and now the Ork army is a bit easier to play.
I don't think so. People who are very good at the game (as measured by tournament placings) thought Orks would be near to the top. Not forum warriors - not random people who never play.
Now its fair to ask why did they seem to underperform at the LVO. To be fair, part of this might be bad matchups. Both of the theoretical stars ran into that 2nd placing Ynnari list and lost.
That list was partly designed to have more anti-horde (which is really anti-ork) firepower. - again, because people who are good at the game thought Orks would be a problem.
This suggests to me that Orks may have a meta problem. Its relatively easy to tailor a list which has a little more anti-Ork stuff, and this significantly skews your odds of winning that game, without disproportionately harming you against other lists.
Whereas there doesn't appear to be an anti traditional Imperial Soup list* which is why that list tends to win out.
*I don't think one has been identified even though it might have horrible matchups, which is usually a sign of being the meta defining list.
Yes, top players thought orkz would be good, just like Reece thought Stompa's and Killa Kanz would be top tier in 8th edition and dominate the meta. Take their "thoughts and ideas" with a grain of salt, just because they have success with other armies does not immediately make them an expert on all armies and the competitive balance of those armies. The fact remains that the guy who WON LVO last year couldn't even crack the top 8 this year because he took Orkz. You can argue that it was bad matchups, but again, that is the point of LVO, you don't know what armies you are going to face and have to prepare for everything....Also, the Loota bomb should be relatively good against a Flyer list in general because with 1 strat they don't suffer from -1 to hit (and orkz don't go beyond -1 to hit) and can shoot twice. So blasting away with 25-75 S7 -1AP 2Dmg shots a turn and than doing it twice with a strat, all hitting on 5s and 6s with each hit causing another shot as well as any rolls of 1 being rerollable, I would have thought that an Aeldari Flyer list would get decimated turn 1.
Regardless, the key take away on this for me is the fact that A lot of power gamers thought orkz would be competitive and beat out Imperial soup/aeldari soup and other top factions to win LVO, none of them got into the top 8, including players who won serious tournaments last year with other factions. (Nick was Aeldari last year)
Tyel wrote: I don't think so. People who are very good at the game (as measured by tournament placings) thought Orks would be near to the top. Not forum warriors - not random people who never play.
Now its fair to ask why did they seem to underperform at the LVO. To be fair, part of this might be bad matchups. Both of the theoretical stars ran into that 2nd placing Ynnari list and lost.
That list was partly designed to have more anti-horde (which is really anti-ork) firepower. - again, because people who are good at the game thought Orks would be a problem.
This suggests to me that Orks may have a meta problem. Its relatively easy to tailor a list which has a little more anti-Ork stuff, and this significantly skews your odds of winning that game, without disproportionately harming you against other lists.
Whereas there doesn't appear to be an anti traditional Imperial Soup list* which is why that list tends to win out.
*I don't think one has been identified even though it might have horrible matchups, which is usually a sign of being the meta defining list.
Yes, top players thought orkz would be good, just like Reece thought Stompa's and Killa Kanz would be top tier in 8th edition and dominate the meta. Take their "thoughts and ideas" with a grain of salt, just because they have success with other armies does not immediately make them an expert on all armies and the competitive balance of those armies. The fact remains that the guy who WON LVO last year couldn't even crack the top 8 this year because he took Orkz. You can argue that it was bad matchups, but again, that is the point of LVO, you don't know what armies you are going to face and have to prepare for everything....Also, the Loota bomb should be relatively good against a Flyer list in general because with 1 strat they don't suffer from -1 to hit (and orkz don't go beyond -1 to hit) and can shoot twice. So blasting away with 25-75 S7 -1AP 2Dmg shots a turn and than doing it twice with a strat, all hitting on 5s and 6s with each hit causing another shot as well as any rolls of 1 being rerollable, I would have thought that an Aeldari Flyer list would get decimated turn 1.
Regardless, the key take away on this for me is the fact that A lot of power gamers thought orkz would be competitive and beat out Imperial soup/aeldari soup and other top factions to win LVO, none of them got into the top 8, including players who won serious tournaments last year with other factions. (Nick was Aeldari last year)
I'm going to throw my two penneth in here because this is something that particularly interests me.
First, many of those people who are very good at the game and thought Orks would be top tier do not play Orks. This is a common theme I've noticed.
Of the cross section of players who are good at the game and who 'main' Orks, almost all said that they felt Orks had certain weaknesses that made it unlikely they finished in a high position at an event at the LVO. Reece said this (paraphrased).
People keep citing the fact that the two best Ork players lost to the same Eldar flyer list, as if this somehow justifies our low placing. It doesn't. We had those 2 players in the top 50. In the top 100 lists we had 5 players, most of which were sub 80 position (excluding the two previously mentioned). Yet over 10% of the meta were Ork players. Sure, some of these are new players that we'd expect to under perform, but in there also exist some of the most tactically sound and experienced players any faction has to offer. If the faction were top tier, we'd see them do better.
I play Orks and only Orks, despite owning a few other armies. I play them regularly. I feel that I'm in a position to know our strengths and, most importantly, weaknesses pretty well. Our faction had problems both internally and on a meta level and these things combined stop us achieving the top level status. We are too reliant on stratagems for durability and damage output - meta issue. We have units that are so poorly costed we are virtually mono build - faction and meta issue. We are simple by design - meta issue. Other armies can take our competitive niche and do it better - meta issue. We have no competitive niche of our own - faction and meta issue.
Semper is spot on. People are used to seeing Orks get obliterated and wiped from a competitive table. All it takes is a whiff that we may pose a slightly credible threat and the internet explodes thinking we're too strong. The truth of the matter is our codex brought nothing new to the party and we were the only faction to receive nerfs on our troop units from index to codex. Perhaps some of us Ork players, particularly myself, have been too strong when voicing our opinions on the changes and how they have negatively impacted on the army in terms of viability. But please understand that we do this from a position of knowledge. We play the faction all the time. We are passionate players and we have been mistreated by GW many times before. We have played the Imperial soup list and it beats us out. We have played Dark Eldar/Ynarri and their lists often tear through us, particularly if you bring the dreaded Loota bomb (and what do you take if not that?).
What I'm saying is that our faction is a one trick pony, this has been forced on to us because of the design of the codex and unfortunately it is not good enough to compete at the highest level. And when GSC hit the meta it will become even worse.
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
Nym wrote: Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
Indeed. The same thing can be said for many of our units. Burna Boyz. All the buggies. Our bikes. Tankbustas aren't a good unit in any other dex. We lack durability which is odd given we're supposed to be one of the most durable races according to the fluff.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Lol why do people keep placing Orks so high when none of the stats reflect these assumptions? Orks have a 45% win rate. We have yet to win one of the big big tournaments. Our codex is the most recent and our faction does not perform well under time constraints that are becoming the norm.
E - mono DE performs well in large part thanks to AoV. GSC and their allies are about to get a slice of that hot pie. It’s ridiculous to me that only a few factions have such a ridiculous, mechanics breaking ability. I hope GW roll it out to all factions or remove it from all. Stopping a key stratagem is game winning. You can’t put a price on such a powerful ability and in my opinion it’s too much for so few factions to have access to.
My personal belief about that is because Orkz have had such a god awful codex for so long (No codex in 5th or 6th edition and arguably the worst codex in 7th) that players became used to seeing orkz as the "NPC" Race and/or the "Easy Win" race so much so that now that we have a mid tier codex it feels like we are top tier simply because opponents now have to actually try as opposed to being handed wins. Not to mention that the competitive players who stuck it out with orkz are now winning even more so simply because they were used to having to scrape out wins by just out smarting their opponents on almost every turn and now the Ork army is a bit easier to play.
I don't think so. People who are very good at the game (as measured by tournament placings) thought Orks would be near to the top. Not forum warriors - not random people who never play.
Now its fair to ask why did they seem to underperform at the LVO. To be fair, part of this might be bad matchups. Both of the theoretical stars ran into that 2nd placing Ynnari list and lost.
That list was partly designed to have more anti-horde (which is really anti-ork) firepower. - again, because people who are good at the game thought Orks would be a problem.
This suggests to me that Orks may have a meta problem. Its relatively easy to tailor a list which has a little more anti-Ork stuff, and this significantly skews your odds of winning that game, without disproportionately harming you against other lists.
Whereas there doesn't appear to be an anti traditional Imperial Soup list* which is why that list tends to win out.
*I don't think one has been identified even though it might have horrible matchups, which is usually a sign of being the meta defining list.
Nick Nanavati thought he could win it all with Orks. He didn't but losing just one game in 6 is no indictment.
Nym wrote: Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
If T4 1w 6+ for 17 pts is bad then what does that make GKs? T4 1w nothing else for 19 points.
Nym wrote: Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
If T4 1w 6+ for 17 pts is bad then what does that make GKs? T4 1w nothing else for 19 points.
Glaring hole there is that you just left out the save of those greyknights...i wonder why. 17pts for a 6+ save or 19pts for a 3+ save?
Nick Nanavati thought he could win it all with Orks. He didn't but losing just one game in 6 is no indictment.
Nick and several other powergamers thought they could win it all with orkz, nick is the most notable comparison because he was the DEFENDING LVO CHAMP! The fact is that unarguably one of the best players in the game as well as several others like him, were unable to break into the top 8 with Orkz. The fact remains that ONE OF THE BEST players failed. So your average run of the mill player and even your average tournament player doesn't stand a chance.
And as previously mentioned, those of us who play orkz and have played orkz as our main army for years knew from the moment the codex dropped that we weren't top tier nor were we going to have a fair shot against the top lists. We rely on a massively overpriced codex that itself relies on stratagems to make function. Take away Shoot twice strat for Bad moonz and poof, lootas never see the board again, take away tellyporta and most of our vehicles never get played with again.
SemperMortis wrote: Glaring hole there is that you just left out the save of those greyknights...i wonder why. 17pts for a 6+ save or 19pts for a 3+ save?
Look we all know from listening to marine players whine for twenty years that armor saves don't really matter, damn the math.
SemperMortis wrote: Also, the Loota bomb should be relatively good against a Flyer list in general because with 1 strat they don't suffer from -1 to hit (and orkz don't go beyond -1 to hit) and can shoot twice. So blasting away with 25-75 S7 -1AP 2Dmg shots a turn and than doing it twice with a strat, all hitting on 5s and 6s with each hit causing another shot as well as any rolls of 1 being rerollable, I would have thought that an Aeldari Flyer list would get decimated turn 1.
It isn't really though. Just to show why it probably didn't work out:
On average dice (level 1, bad Mathhammer).
50*1/3*8/6*7/6*2/3*1/2=8.6.=17 on a Crimson Hunter Exarch. The Razorwings have a 4+ save, but have Black Heart Saves.
I'm sure there are apps that could do it for me out there - but I don't really want to spend an hour or so creating the code to run 1000 tests to come up with a rough percentage on killing a flyer.
What I take away though is that your odds of killing 1 are reasonable, your odds of killing 2 are quite low. If you were to fire 25 shots at two planes, there is a reasonable chance you would fail to kill either.
And since 25 lootas is 425 points (although I think Nanavati only took 22), plus the grots who need to be nearby to serve as meatsheilds, dropping a Hemlock is just about worth it but nothing special. Dropping a Razorwing (or the slightly more expensive Crimson Hunter) is pretty bad.
SemperMortis wrote: Also, the Loota bomb should be relatively good against a Flyer list in general because with 1 strat they don't suffer from -1 to hit (and orkz don't go beyond -1 to hit) and can shoot twice. So blasting away with 25-75 S7 -1AP 2Dmg shots a turn and than doing it twice with a strat, all hitting on 5s and 6s with each hit causing another shot as well as any rolls of 1 being rerollable, I would have thought that an Aeldari Flyer list would get decimated turn 1.
It isn't really though. Just to show why it probably didn't work out:
On average dice (level 1, bad Mathhammer).
50*1/3*8/6*7/6*2/3*1/2=8.6.=17 on a Crimson Hunter Exarch. The Razorwings have a 4+ save, but have Black Heart Saves.
I'm sure there are apps that could do it for me out there - but I don't really want to spend an hour or so creating the code to run 1000 tests to come up with a rough percentage on killing a flyer.
What I take away though is that your odds of killing 1 are reasonable, your odds of killing 2 are quite low. If you were to fire 25 shots at two planes, there is a reasonable chance you would fail to kill either.
And since 25 lootas is 425 points (although I think Nanavati only took 22), plus the grots who need to be nearby to serve as meatsheilds, dropping a Hemlock is just about worth it but nothing special. Dropping a Razorwing (or the slightly more expensive Crimson Hunter) is pretty bad.
22 Lootas = 44 shots on average, using bad moons and dakkax3 on 5s you average 22-24 hits a turn. Don't know the toughness but lets just say its 7 because why not? that is 11-12 wounds and against a 4+ that is 10-14 damage that goes through, that will degrade it if not flat out kill it, now use shoot twice strat and you just killed or heavily degraded 2 flyers so you can finish them off with ease the following turn or use other means (Mek Gunz) to finish it off.
Eldar flyers are T6 (thank gork) so you'd get more wounds through than that.
The flyers are fast enough that they could've all been out of range T1 though, so the lootas might not have had a good target unless you risk da jumping them into the open, but then it's doubtful you have enough grots around for a shield covering all angles.
SemperMortis wrote: 22 Lootas = 44 shots on average, using bad moons and dakkax3 on 5s you average 22-24 hits a turn. Don't know the toughness but lets just say its 7 because why not? that is 11-12 wounds and against a 4+ that is 10-14 damage that goes through, that will degrade it if not flat out kill it, now use shoot twice strat and you just killed or heavily degraded 2 flyers so you can finish them off with ease the following turn or use other means (Mek Gunz) to finish it off.
T6 for Eldar Flyers.
But I'd expect them to Vect the shoot twice stratagem if you got the first turn and could therefore do this.
Or they would vect grotshields and nuke you in their turn 1.
Nym wrote: Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
This really shows up why trying to understand the tier of a list is really problematic. Orks are actually really strong but what makes them strong can be countered by one faction (OK, two now that GSC have the same trick) and they are crippled. If you do not have a counter to the grot stratagem Orks can devastate you, if you do have a counter you will be left wondering why anyone would ever take Orks to a tournament. Given how prevalent Eldar soup are that means that Orks could rampage through an RTT with a little luck but are unlikely to win many GT events.
I think that makes Orks a classic gatekeeper list. They have enduring popularity with part of the player-base and they have power that can blow a lot of things straight off the table but when they hit their counter they hit it hard and fold. As that counter is usually to be found at the top tables that is the one place that Ork lists will struggle to stay for very long.
Marmatag wrote: Eldar and DE, without allies, pale in comparison to IG.
No. Mono-craftworld and mono-DE can fight perfectly on par with mono-IG.
I mean, this is a lie, but keep doing you man.
>Goes to 40kstats.com
>Win % as primary
>Guard 53.89%
>DE 57.10%
>Yanari 62.49%
>Asuryani 51.87%
>Thousand suns 57.84%
>Harlaquins 54.04%
yeah I mean guard is clearly leaps and bounds in front of everything else it's insane
40K stats is utterly meaningless in a discussion of mono factions because it uses the ITC faction definitions which are not mono. The top AM list at LVO was AM + Castellan, the top Mechanicus list at LVO was Mechanicus + Castellan + AM, all the top Eldar lists I saw were souped up etc.
The only thing you can take from 40K stats for a mono-faction discussion are those (unlucky) few that have zero soup options; Necrons, T'au, Orks. Tyranids quite often do not soup even in the more competitive builds so maybe include those as well. Everything else that is winning is very probably soup so not helpful to a discussion of how strong mono factions are.
Also just to repeat myself, those are ITC stats. That means that most of the figures come from the ITC missions and a great many of them from games using the ITC house rules on terrain. Those missions and terrain rules have a huge impact and have a dramatic balance impact. If you look at results from outside the ITC then things look very different, they put up results from the latest GWGT heat today and the top 5 were
Adeptus Astartes (G-man and pals)
Mixed Chaos
T'au
Mixed Chaos
Mixed Imperium
Typically the mission formats and tables that GW use put a premium on highly durable armies that can get onto objectives and hold them a while - e.g nurgle lists that just will not die[1]. So the GW meta has been revolving more around super-durable stuff and armies that can counter super-durable stuff. The new missions may change that around a bit, time will tell. Very brief early feedback is that unlike the LVO it was not dominated by the Castellan/Ynnari meta at all. So when we are talking about tiers we need to understand the mission set we are using as context and any house-rules in place. The ITC meta is really nothing like a GW-standard meta.
[1] They have had serious issues with slow-play, I am waiting to hear if they have managed to resolve that in some way. I'm not burning all my pink passes on taking a whole weekend to go play toy soldiers if none of my games go past turn 3 because some jerks reckon that is how to win.
Considering that a pure space marine list managed to place higher than orks did at LVO, I'm a bit questioning if that equals to orks being "high tier".
There's other problems with orks besides their heavy crutch on Stratagems. Unreliable anti-tank means Knights are always going to have an advantage over them. And our ability to sustain drops like a brick once our big units are whittled down, so an army like guard can outlast us.
I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.
Scissors = Eldari
Paper = Everything else
Rock = Imperial Knight Soup
Scissors is sharp, can cut paper like mad, can itself scratch rock and is durable enough to take a few hits before going blunt, but can still be used to stab back.
Paper, can smother rock but rock can still grind it down and rip it apart.
Rock, a blunt basic easier to use instrument.
Scissors = Eldari
Paper = Everything else
Rock = Imperial Knight Soup
Scissors is sharp, can cut paper like mad, can itself scratch rock and is durable enough to take a few hits before going blunt, but can still be used to stab back.
Paper, can smother rock but rock can still grind it down and rip it apart.
Rock, a blunt basic easier to use instrument.
Yes, everything other than Eldari beats Imperial Knights. Such an accurate analogy.
Nym wrote: Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
This really shows up why trying to understand the tier of a list is really problematic. Orks are actually really strong but what makes them strong can be countered by one faction (OK, two now that GSC have the same trick) and they are crippled. If you do not have a counter to the grot stratagem Orks can devastate you, if you do have a counter you will be left wondering why anyone would ever take Orks to a tournament. Given how prevalent Eldar soup are that means that Orks could rampage through an RTT with a little luck but are unlikely to win many GT events.
I think that makes Orks a classic gatekeeper list. They have enduring popularity with part of the player-base and they have power that can blow a lot of things straight off the table but when they hit their counter they hit it hard and fold. As that counter is usually to be found at the top tables that is the one place that Ork lists will struggle to stay for very long.
Marmatag wrote: Eldar and DE, without allies, pale in comparison to IG.
No. Mono-craftworld and mono-DE can fight perfectly on par with mono-IG.
I mean, this is a lie, but keep doing you man.
>Goes to 40kstats.com
>Win % as primary
>Guard 53.89%
>DE 57.10%
>Yanari 62.49%
>Asuryani 51.87%
>Thousand suns 57.84%
>Harlaquins 54.04%
yeah I mean guard is clearly leaps and bounds in front of everything else it's insane
40K stats is utterly meaningless in a discussion of mono factions because it uses the ITC faction definitions which are not mono. The top AM list at LVO was AM + Castellan, the top Mechanicus list at LVO was Mechanicus + Castellan + AM, all the top Eldar lists I saw were souped up etc.
The only thing you can take from 40K stats for a mono-faction discussion are those (unlucky) few that have zero soup options; Necrons, T'au, Orks. Tyranids quite often do not soup even in the more competitive builds so maybe include those as well. Everything else that is winning is very probably soup so not helpful to a discussion of how strong mono factions are.
Also just to repeat myself, those are ITC stats. That means that most of the figures come from the ITC missions and a great many of them from games using the ITC house rules on terrain. Those missions and terrain rules have a huge impact and have a dramatic balance impact. If you look at results from outside the ITC then things look very different, they put up results from the latest GWGT heat today and the top 5 were
Adeptus Astartes (G-man and pals)
Mixed Chaos
T'au
Mixed Chaos
Mixed Imperium
Typically the mission formats and tables that GW use put a premium on highly durable armies that can get onto objectives and hold them a while - e.g nurgle lists that just will not die[1]. So the GW meta has been revolving more around super-durable stuff and armies that can counter super-durable stuff. The new missions may change that around a bit, time will tell. Very brief early feedback is that unlike the LVO it was not dominated by the Castellan/Ynnari meta at all. So when we are talking about tiers we need to understand the mission set we are using as context and any house-rules in place. The ITC meta is really nothing like a GW-standard meta.
[1] They have had serious issues with slow-play, I am waiting to hear if they have managed to resolve that in some way. I'm not burning all my pink passes on taking a whole weekend to go play toy soldiers if none of my games go past turn 3 because some jerks reckon that is how to win.
I can't find the GWGT results, where did you find those?
This really shows up why trying to understand the tier of a list is really problematic. Orks are actually really strong but what makes them strong can be countered by one faction (OK, two now that GSC have the same trick) and they are crippled. If you do not have a counter to the grot stratagem Orks can devastate you, if you do have a counter you will be left wondering why anyone would ever take Orks to a tournament. Given how prevalent Eldar soup are that means that Orks could rampage through an RTT with a little luck but are unlikely to win many GT events.
I think that makes Orks a classic gatekeeper list. They have enduring popularity with part of the player-base and they have power that can blow a lot of things straight off the table but when they hit their counter they hit it hard and fold. As that counter is usually to be found at the top tables that is the one place that Ork lists will struggle to stay for very long.
I would argue that a list that relies on an easily-countered strategy to perform in any way competitive is by definition not a top tier list.
I would also argue that if a faction can only put forward one competitive list that is easily countered then the faction is not competitive.
SHUPPET wrote: I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.
Lol this is rich.
Ork players - "We believe our army isn't top tier as we play the army a ton and all the stats back up our thoughts (45% win rate, very few GT wins etc).
SHUPPET - " Nah those stats don't count for anything, we need to see how a top player handles the army to truly see how strong it is."
*LVO happens*
Ork players - "See, we told you this before but you wouldn't listen."
SHUPPET - "ROFL you dismissed stats ahead of time! Look at this straw man! Isn't it pretty?"
This is bogus. Provide proof to back up your claim.
Yeah I gotta side with An Actual Englishman here, I don't think I saw a single actual Ork player say Orks were top tier before the tourney and the tourney certainly hasn't proven Ork players wrong.
Nym wrote: Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
Indeed. The same thing can be said for many of our units. Burna Boyz. All the buggies. Our bikes. Tankbustas aren't a good unit in any other dex. We lack durability which is odd given we're supposed to be one of the most durable races according to the fluff.
Didn't like 2 or 3 ork armies that were having a good run at the event got paired against each other and then had to play their nemezis in form of eldar?
SemperMortis wrote: Glaring hole there is that you just left out the save of those greyknights...i wonder why. 17pts for a 6+ save or 19pts for a 3+ save?
Look we all know from listening to marine players whine for twenty years that armor saves don't really matter, damn the math.
I don't know about other marines, but vs GK the weapons being used this edition either leave them with no or +6 sv, or there are saves to be rolled going in their tenths per turn, which means those +3 or +4 GK die faster then IG that technicaly have worse stats. 5 GK termintors cost more then a whole detachment of IG, but they are no where near as resilient as the IG.
Yeah I gotta side with An Actual Englishman here, I don't think I saw a single actual Ork player say Orks were top tier before the tourney and the tourney certainly hasn't proven Ork players wrong.
Orks are a solid mid tier faction (i.e. where every faction should be), with a couple of semi-OP tricks which push them into competitive range. Those tricks have counters that happen to be in really popular lists. That's the truth of the faction. In general it's a good one, IMHO no changes are necessary, and if there are then they are nerfs to those tricks.
Yeah I gotta side with An Actual Englishman here, I don't think I saw a single actual Ork player say Orks were top tier before the tourney and the tourney certainly hasn't proven Ork players wrong.
Orks are a solid mid tier faction (i.e. where every faction should be), with a couple of semi-OP tricks which push them into competitive range. Those tricks have counters that happen to be in really popular lists. That's the truth of the faction.
In general it's a good one, IMHO no changes are necessary, and if there are then they are nerfs to those tricks.
*Orks perform badly with the best pilots taking them at the largest competitive event.*
"Orks are a solid mid tier faction with a couple of semi-OP tricks...."
What?
We're below pure SM insofar as results at the LVO go and I don't hear anyone talking about how they need nerfs to their tricks. In fact all I hear are people telling me how bad they are as a faction, despite countless statistics showing the opposite to be true. And GW are stupid enough to listen by implementing beta bolter rules and the like.
Orks need buffs or all other factions need nerfs. It's as simple as that. We are a low tier army. Our performances are under average. Our win rate is below average.
Is suspect the issue orks have isn't necessarily unique to them ( having a mandatory strategum build), but they are probably getting a bigger boost from said strategums and hence fall harder when they hit a unit that can shut down that strategum/build.
I know Tau can gain stupidly out of atacking strategums, but without that stack they don't have a competitive list.
This wasn't great fun to play but was ok ish untill Drukari aka codex Nope came along and to give orks the same weakness and then hand out unnerfed vect ro CSG shows GW rules team apparently being totally disjointed.
You can't make factions dependent on strategums then hand out No strategum strategums. It reduces the game back into rock paper scissors instead of actually being skill based.
Enter a tournament and hit CSG or Vect well your not winning with Orks or Tau, pull Guard or marines and your stand a good chance of winning.
I really don't get why the codex appear to be written by two sperate teams where one is out to screw over every codex written by the other team.
Nym wrote: Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
This isn't true.
It just isn't.
Vect is not nearly as common as you represent. And, Imperial Guard does not have access to Vect, and they are far and away the most common faction.
Orks were being played by some of the top players at LVO, and they run into the same thing most players do. Time, and not enough terrain. I spoke with the #1 Orks player (coming into LVO) and he lost his game 4 (first loss) because he ran out of time on the clock and his opponent got 3 consecutive turns - even then, he only lost by 2 points.
Further, if you go up against Imperial Guard, Tau, or any other shooty list without decent terrain, you're going to get rolled. In case you didn't know, the terrain on LVO tables was far more scant than at SoCal.
Lastly, people adjusted. One of the top Ynnari lists had 72 scatterlaser dice. People expected Orks and built to counter them. Except Guard, they already counter orks by having cheaper, better boyz in the form of guardsmen.
Yeah I gotta side with An Actual Englishman here, I don't think I saw a single actual Ork player say Orks were top tier before the tourney and the tourney certainly hasn't proven Ork players wrong.
Orks are a solid mid tier faction (i.e. where every faction should be), with a couple of semi-OP tricks which push them into competitive range. Those tricks have counters that happen to be in really popular lists. That's the truth of the faction.
In general it's a good one, IMHO no changes are necessary, and if there are then they are nerfs to those tricks.
*Orks perform badly with the best pilots taking them at the largest competitive event.*
"Orks are a solid mid tier faction with a couple of semi-OP tricks...."
What?
We're below pure SM insofar as results at the LVO go and I don't hear anyone talking about how they need nerfs to their tricks. In fact all I hear are people telling me how bad they are as a faction, despite countless statistics showing the opposite to be true. And GW are stupid enough to listen by implementing beta bolter rules and the like.
Orks need buffs or all other factions need nerfs. It's as simple as that. We are a low tier army. Our performances are under average. Our win rate is below average.
Most people I have seen said that Space Marines can compete (Not much anymore but they can still appear in TOP20-30 of big tournaments or even TOP15) by using Guilliman. But thats it. People doesn't say "Space Marine suck, buff guilliman gunline". People say "Space marines suck, buff the 90% rest of our army so we can play it, do whatever you want with guilliman"
And I don't see a TOP16 in a 700-800 person tournament to be "doing poorly", specially when the top1 and top 8 are 60% small variations of the same list. And sorry but the "10% players had orks so if less than 10% of the top 50 are orks then they are in a bad spot" just doesn't compute.
Not to say that orks are OP or ultra competitive or anything. I also think their power was overly estimated. But to say that they are a low tier army is just wrong.
It wasn't overestimated. Orks are dependent on terrain. The terrain at LVO, on some tables, was not conducive to Ork success. Also, playing the clock is difficult. If one in 6 tables are sparse, you're not winning lvo if you need decent terrain.
And looking at the top 10 in a 650+ person event is silly. You're looking at the top 1% of lists. Guard and Ynnari are consistently there in events because they're overpowered, but the rest of the factions kind of depend on luck, matchups, terrain, and missions versus the right opponent at the right time to make it.
Look at a sample of the lists that went 5-1 or better, or lists that won 4 games. Winning 4 games out of 6 is not bad.
People have acknowledged for some time that Guilliman lists can win. If you get first turn, you're going to roll. I lost the roll-off for first turn every game at LVO except once, and my opponent seized on me. I went second all 6 games. Unlikely, but it happens. Going first with a Guilliman gunline is amazeballs. But that doesn't change that space wolves, dark angels, and any other variant of marines are basically trash tier right now. Guilliman props up ultramarine vehicles. That's it.
Nym wrote: Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.
This isn't true.
It just isn't.
Which part?
"Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect)." - TRUE. All the Ork lists I looked at (around 10 or so) relied on the Loota bomb. Dark Eldar made up a massive proportion of the playership at LVO (greater than Orks even I understand) and the most common subfaction within the DE detachments was Black Heart by a country mile.
"Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be p[l]ayable." - TRUE if you take Grot shields out of the game Lootas never see play. They are absolutely reliant on it.
"Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad." - also TRUE. Even our GK player from earlier was shot down when he started to compare the two.
I'm struggling to see which part of Nym's statement is in any way false?
SHUPPET wrote: I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.
In shuppet's defense, I did say orkz would do well in the first few months after the codex came out because people were adjusting to the new meta....of course the codex came out in November and its currently mid February, so about twice as long as i said the ork codex would be doing well by relying on people not understand it. I have also seen people saying that the ork faction will be over represented in the top rankings because some of the best players in the game are playing Orkz....something that was proven true by the simple fact that the two best players finished in the top 20 and nobody else came even close even though we had something like 10% of the armies at LVO. And of course I am definitely one of those "trumpeting how poorly orks did at LVO" but mostly because I was proven right in my prediction perfectly.
Orkz are mid tier at absolute best. We have two tricks that work in any competitive sense. 1: Loota bomb, easily countered by GSC and Aeldari soup, not to mention, not exactly hard to wipe out grot shields...you know T2 and 6+ save and all, but even if you don't shoot them off the table, I have had Eldar jetbikes assault them and kill them. And 2: Codex: Deepstrike which is easily countered by meat shields.
Beyond the two tricks we have which rely exclusively on strats to be worth using, all of our units are over priced and under-performing, boyz went up in price, lootas are unusable without 3 strats being used on them, Burna's are a joke, Rokkitz on anything beyond tankbusta's is a waste, basically our entire fast attack slot is a tax for brigades.
Honestly without our Shoot twice stratagem I would rate the Ork codex as slightly below mid tier.
Most people I have seen said that Space Marines can compete (Not much anymore but they can still appear in TOP20-30 of big tournaments or even TOP15) by using Guilliman. But thats it. People doesn't say "Space Marine suck, buff guilliman gunline". People say "Space marines suck, buff the 90% rest of our army so we can play it, do whatever you want with guilliman"
Cry me a river. How is SM relying on Guilliman to be competitive any different from Orks having to rely on Bad Moon Lootas using a very specific set of stratagems to be competitive? Or Eldar relying on Ynarri Shining Spears, Reapers and Clown Bikes? Or IG relying on massed Infantry? It isn't. If you want to compete you will take the best thing available to your faction. And the biggest joke? The most competitive pure SM list is evidently better than the most competitive Ork list.
And I don't see a TOP16 in a 700-800 person tournament to be "doing poorly", specially when the top1 and top 8 are 60% small variations of the same list.
When we had the best player in the world using the faction? When the guy who literally finished first the year before couldn't do better than 16th? When we have less players in the top groupings of the tournament than we should have had percentage-wise? When we lose more times than we win? I do. Any reasonable person would.
And sorry but the "10% players had orks so if less than 10% of the top 50 are orks then they are in a bad spot" just doesn't compute.
Not what I said. What I said is that we had a tiny percentage of the top 50 and top 100 compared to the total number of players using Orks. That should be easier to compute?
Not to say that orks are OP or ultra competitive or anything. I also think their power was overly estimated. But to say that they are a low tier army is just wrong.
How? Please explain to me how you can claim when a faction loses more times than it wins, has an awful performance (overall, accounting for the entire Ork playership) at the largest competitive 40k event and the best player in the world is unable to take it to a better place than 16th even with many variables advantaging the faction (magic boxes for example) that the faction is anything but low tier? Please explain to me using your stats that show us to be better than those I have provided.
Most people I have seen said that Space Marines can compete (Not much anymore but they can still appear in TOP20-30 of big tournaments or even TOP15) by using Guilliman. But thats it. People doesn't say "Space Marine suck, buff guilliman gunline". People say "Space marines suck, buff the 90% rest of our army so we can play it, do whatever you want with guilliman"
Cry me a river. How is SM relying on Guilliman to be competitive any different from Orks having to rely on Bad Moon Lootas using a very specific set of stratagems to be competitive? Or Eldar relying on Ynarri Shining Spears, Reapers and Clown Bikes? Or IG relying on massed Infantry? It isn't. If you want to compete you will take the best thing available to your faction. And the biggest joke? The most competitive pure SM list is evidently better than the most competitive Ork list.
And I don't see a TOP16 in a 700-800 person tournament to be "doing poorly", specially when the top1 and top 8 are 60% small variations of the same list.
When we had the best player in the world using the faction? When the guy who literally finished first the year before couldn't do better than 16th? When we have less players in the top groupings of the tournament than we should have had percentage-wise? When we lose more times than we win? I do. Any reasonable person would.
And sorry but the "10% players had orks so if less than 10% of the top 50 are orks then they are in a bad spot" just doesn't compute.
Not what I said. What I said is that we had a tiny percentage of the top 50 and top 100 compared to the total number of players using Orks. That should be easier to compute?
Not to say that orks are OP or ultra competitive or anything. I also think their power was overly estimated. But to say that they are a low tier army is just wrong.
How? Please explain to me how you can claim when a faction loses more times than it wins, has an awful performance (overall, accounting for the entire Ork playership) at the largest competitive 40k event and the best player in the world is unable to take it to a better place than 16th even with many variables advantaging the faction (magic boxes for example) that the faction is anything but low tier? Please explain to me using your stats that show us to be better than those I have provided.
Stop downplaying it and people may actually take what you say seriously.
The question here is whether Orks are a top tier faction capable of fighting it out with top soup lists or just an AM level codex limited by not having access to soup, because having lists in the top 50 and a 16th place means being not as good as Tau as a monocodex but at least as good as CWE. SM had ONE good result, and that's it. Check how many more lists were in the top 50! SM had WORSE results than Orks, because the most important result in a tournament of that size is actually the number of lists that did 4-2 or better compared to the total number of lists of that faction. I think that even AM had worse results than Orks, but with soups being a thing is always hard to judge how good AM did. The really funny thing though is that the best mono AM list had no infantry squads.
Spoletta wrote: Stop downplaying it and people may actually take what you say seriously.
The question here is whether Orks are a top tier faction capable of fighting it out with top soup lists or just an AM level codex limited by not having access to soup, because having lists in the top 50 and a 16th place means being not as good as Tau as a monocodex but at least as good as CWE.
SM had ONE good result, and that's it. Check how many more lists were in the top 50! SM had WORSE results than Orks, because the most important result in a tournament of that size is actually the number of lists that did 4-2 or better compared to the total number of lists of that faction. I think that even AM had worse results than Orks, but with soups being a thing is always hard to judge how good AM did. The really funny thing though is that the best mono AM list had no infantry squads.
I'm not downplaying anything. The results speak for themselves. Nor do I particularly care whether people take what I say seriously on here or not. This place isn't exactly known for it's high level, intelligent discussion.
How do you figure Orks are as good as CWE as a monofaction since all good players using CWE will also be souping, for obvious reasons?
Can you post how many other pure SM lists were in the top 50? Same for pure IG lists? Also how many of each of those monofaction lists were there total? Then compare the Ork results to any list that had an SM or IG contingent.
This misdirection is getting tiresome. Let me make something abundantly clear - I don't care if mono IG and mono SM are both weaker than mono Orks, if the game is to be balanced around soup they probably should be. Luckily for them they have the option of allying and cherrypicking the best units from the largest faction in the game - Imperium. Orks, Tau and Necrons don't have this luxury. We stand on the strength of our own faction. Necrons are largely considered trash tier. Tau have performed well consistently since their codex and received a load of price drops in CA, they also performed well in this tournament. Orks have, so far at least, performed poorly. I don't have the luxury that your faction of choice might have, in that I can just go "Oh well, guess I'll see what this Castellan/Ynarri/[insert a staple of competitive soup play here] fuss is all about" if I am losing games. I also don't have the luxury that I can add most the new releases, should their rules be particularly strong, to my force, unlike soup players. Instead I have to wait until GW finally decide to look at Orks again which, given the amount of time it took for our codex release and given past performance, should be sometime in the next 2-3 years.
SHUPPET wrote: I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.
Lol this is rich.
Ork players - "We believe our army isn't top tier as we play the army a ton and all the stats back up our thoughts (45% win rate, very few GT wins etc). SHUPPET - " Nah those stats don't count for anything, we need to see how a top player handles the army to truly see how strong it is." *LVO happens* Ork players - "See, we told you this before but you wouldn't listen." SHUPPET - "ROFL you dismissed stats ahead of time! Look at this straw man! Isn't it pretty?"
This is bogus. Provide proof to back up your claim.
Hmmmmmm... how bout you, just for once, for the first time ever, actually provide some proof to YOUR claim? If you can source me at ANY point saying this, I will admit you were right.
No, really I'm waiting. I don't recall EVER saying that at all or anything even resembling it that you could paraphrase down to this. But you seem confident that I did, so if you're right please prove it? This should be an easy win for you if what you say is true. You won't be able to do it though, because akin to your proven fabricated Geoff Robinson quotes, your fabricated Pablo Martinez quotes, your current quote of me is one that was simply never said.
For someone who makes liberal use of the term "strawman" without actually understanding it's meaning, you need a better tactic other than inventing non-existant statements to argue against and then pretending "you can't be bothered" to source them. This revisionist history doesn't work on a forum where everything is a click or two away.
My only point was that certain people were dismissing the validity of LVO stats beforehand, who are now waving them around as proof of their perspective. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways, either it was going to be representative of their status or not and you can't just option select whichever one suits you best retrospectively lol and it's funny to see this in action.
SHUPPET wrote: I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.
In shuppet's defense, I did say orkz would do well in the first few months after the codex came out because people were adjusting to the new meta....of course the codex came out in November and its currently mid February, so about twice as long as i said the ork codex would be doing well by relying on people not understand it. I have also seen people saying that the ork faction will be over represented in the top rankings because some of the best players in the game are playing Orkz....something that was proven true by the simple fact that the two best players finished in the top 20 and nobody else came even close even though we had something like 10% of the armies at LVO. And of course I am definitely one of those "trumpeting how poorly orks did at LVO" but mostly because I was proven right in my prediction perfectly.
Orkz are mid tier at absolute best. We have two tricks that work in any competitive sense. 1: Loota bomb, easily countered by GSC and Aeldari soup, not to mention, not exactly hard to wipe out grot shields...you know T2 and 6+ save and all, but even if you don't shoot them off the table, I have had Eldar jetbikes assault them and kill them. And 2: Codex: Deepstrike which is easily countered by meat shields.
Beyond the two tricks we have which rely exclusively on strats to be worth using, all of our units are over priced and under-performing, boyz went up in price, lootas are unusable without 3 strats being used on them, Burna's are a joke, Rokkitz on anything beyond tankbusta's is a waste, basically our entire fast attack slot is a tax for brigades.
Honestly without our Shoot twice stratagem I would rate the Ork codex as slightly below mid tier.
Thank you Semper for recognising the sentiment I'm talking about here and that not everyone who shared it has put it as mildly and amiably as you did pre-LVO. I respect your opinion, mid tier may just be accurate but one thing I speak out against is people claiming they are only competitive "gatekeepers". They are definitely more than a "gatekeeper" army as certain others have labelled in the past. Having a poor match-up doesn't condense an entire army into a niche of gatekeeping, any more than Tyranids for example are a gatekeeper, who have two very iconic and edition persistent match ups. Nah, thats just downplay, Nids are (or at least we're before GSC) a solid mid, like Orks may be now.
SHUPPET wrote: I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.
Lol this is rich.
Ork players - "We believe our army isn't top tier as we play the army a ton and all the stats back up our thoughts (45% win rate, very few GT wins etc).
SHUPPET - " Nah those stats don't count for anything, we need to see how a top player handles the army to truly see how strong it is."
*LVO happens*
Ork players - "See, we told you this before but you wouldn't listen."
SHUPPET - "ROFL you dismissed stats ahead of time! Look at this straw man! Isn't it pretty?"
This is bogus. Provide proof to back up your claim.
Hmmmmmm... how bout you, just for once, for the first time ever, actually provide some proof to YOUR claim? If you can source me at ANY point saying this, I will admit you were right.
No, really I'm waiting. I don't recall EVER saying that at all or anything even resembling it that you could paraphrase down to this. But you seem confident that I did, so if you're right please prove it? This should be an easy win for you if what you say is true. You won't be able to do it though, because akin to your proven fabricated Geoff Robinson quotes, your fabricated Pablo Martinez quotes, your current quote of me is one that was simply never said.
For someone who makes liberal use of the term "strawman" without actually understanding it's meaning, you need a better tactic other than inventing non-existant statements to argue against and then pretending "you can't be bothered" to source them. This revisionist history doesn't work on a forum where everything is a click or two away.
SHUPPET I wasn't being literal. Clearly my statements weren't you verbatim. Regardless, people in glass houses probably shouldn't throw stones but it's a bit too late for that so please do go first as I asked in the very post you quoted.
Show us any proof of this statement; "I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO". Show that you aren't strawmanning. I'll wait. And if you manage to prove it I'll gladly admit I was wrong and that you aren't just strawmanning.
Oh and both my Geoff Robinson and Pablo Martinez quotations were real, but you already know this. Pablo was the second podcaster I heard refer to Orks as a gatekeeper army. If you weren't some random on a forum I would bother to find the exact video timestamp for you, but I'm sure you'll have some ridiculous response, or you'll simply leave the thread, happy at having wasted my time.
My only point was that certain people were dismissing the validity of LVO stats beforehand, who are now waving them around as proof of their perspective. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways, either it was going to be representative of their status or not and you can't just option select whichever one suits you best retrospectively lol and it's funny to see this in action.
Who? Who are these "certain people"? To be fair, if that was the case I agree. But I didn't notice anyone doing it. Certainly not any Ork players but, again, I'm happy to be proved wrong.
You literally put quotation marks around a statement and claimed I said it. I didn't ask you to quote me verbatim, I specifically asked you to provide proof of ANY statement I made that could even be paraphrased to resemble what you are claiming I said. What does not being literal mean here? Is this another way of admitting that you just completely invented a perspective I absolutely never expressed, and yet unmistakeably attributed it to me?
SemperMortis admitted to doing just that where I quoted him in the second half of the post, so if you are trying to argue that there weren't people doing this then that's a road that doesn't go very far. Is what you are actually asking is whether or not I'm referring to you?
SHUPPET wrote: SemperMortis admitted to doing just that where I quoted him in the second half of the post, so if you are trying to argue that there weren't people doing this then that's a road that doesn't go very far. Is what you are actually asking is whether or not I'm referring to you?
Yea I saw that. you also admitted to not be referring to him in your post. So who WERE you referring to? No I couldn't care less if you were referring to me particularly.
To be clear Semper didn't admit to saying what you claimed people said either. What he actually stated was that the codex would do well for the first few months while people adjusted to it (you can see this in your own post), he did not state that the codex would do well at LVO because "people hadn't bothered to learn how to beat it". You see the difference there?
Orks representation in the top chunk of LVO was quite good. While they can't compete with Imperial Guard or Ynnari, no one really can, which is why those two factions always win everything.
Other than that, Orks overall outperformed all flavors of space marines, Necrons, Tyranids, Ad-Mech, and were on par with Tau, Craftworlds, and Dark Eldar.
Orks are the perfect example of a good codex. Intensely powerful but with real weaknesses. And unlike other good armies (Dark Eldar) they don't depend on allies to prop them up (not that they can take allies, but still).
Naturally the Genestealer Cults codex is going to gak on them, but it's going to ruin everyone except Imperial Guard.
SHUPPET wrote: SemperMortis admitted to doing just that where I quoted him in the second half of the post, so if you are trying to argue that there weren't people doing this then that's a road that doesn't go very far. Is what you are actually asking is whether or not I'm referring to you?
Yea I saw that. you also admitted to not be referring to him in your post. So who WERE you referring to? No I couldn't care less if you were referring to me particularly.
Well, that's wrong. Semper was one of the people I was referring to, among others. However If I wanted to target people by name, I would have in my original post, I don't feel I need to go that far nor do I want to - the people in question know who they are. I'll mention Semper's name now as he put his hand up, and he was also one of the people who was a bit more amicable and a lot less declamatory in his delivery. If you don't feel it applies to you, you needn't get this defensive over it, as it was not directed towards you. My statement stands, certain people who dismissed LVO stats beforehand are now rallying behind it. This proof that what I claimed was happening, exists simply a few posts above my own, at this point the validity of my statement is not in question, there is no onus for me to find further sources for something left intentionally openended.
You on the other hand, chose to name me by name. You choose to paraphrase a "non-verbatim" perspective I supposedly expressed (even though it directly clashes with actual statements I've made in the past) so please, for the first time ever - source one of your nonsense, invented quotes that you make on other people's behalf. Your Geoff "quote" was disproven, your Pablo "quote" remains unsourced, and now you are refusing to do the simple thing of quoting me on it. I have barely posted in weeks, it should be easy - this is an easy win for you, PROVE I SAID SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THIS, or stop quoting me with falsified statements IMMEDIATELY. Literally the ONLY reason not do so is because you have outright lied about it. Which you have.
An Actual Englishman wrote: To be clear Semper didn't admit to saying what you claimed people said either. What he actually stated was that the codex would do well for the first few months while people adjusted to it (you can see this in your own post), he did not state that the codex would do well at LVO because "people hadn't bothered to learn how to beat it". You see the difference there?
Oh, I didn't realise we were being pedants now.
FTR, claiming "the codex only does well because people haven't spent enough time adjusting to it" is almost identical to "the codex only does well because people haven't learned how to beat it yet", but if you want to separate them into two different reasons for dismissing the LVO results, that's absolutely fine. It was encompassed in my post by the fact that I gave two examples of reasons why people were doing it and said "etc". My point doesn't die by a new reason being used to dismiss the LVO results and then later rally behind lol, it just expands upon it.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: Curious, as I don't play them nor do I have the codex. Why are GK considered flaming dumpster tier?
in short terms, everything pays a bit too much for what they gets. It's difficult to point at any one thing besides that, because the tools it needs are there technically, they just aren't at a reasonable cost.
I personally probably wouldn't go as far as "flaming dumpster tier", though they are the worst in the game.
They are Space Marines (A faction of overcosted generalist) that is even more overcosted for a couple of advantages that aren't really that usable. They aren't unusable, as a couple of people in LVO has shown. They have some tricks that they can pull off.
But is like playing Ganondorf in a Smash Bros Game. You aren't playing to win, you are playing to try to humiliate your opponent with a bad faction.
SHUPPET wrote: Well, that's wrong. Semper was one of the people I was referring to, among others.
This is new. And I note you've edited your post when you said literally the opposite. You actually said "Semper I wasn't referring to you" in that post you've edited 4 times above. Shame I didn't quote that part of your post before you had a chance to edit it. Lol unreal. You realise I can see when you edit posts right?
However If I wanted to target people by name, I would have in my original post, I don't feel I need to go that far nor do I want to - the people in question know who they are. I'll mention Semper's name now as he put his hand up, and he was also one of the people who was a bit more amicable and a lot less declamatory in his delivery. If you don't feel it applies to you, you needn't get this defensive over it, as it was not directed towards you. My statement stands, certain people who dismissed LVO stats beforehand are now rallying behind it. This proof that what I claimed was happening, exists simply a few posts above my own, at this point the validity of my statement is not in question, there is no onus for me to find further sources for something left intentionally openended.
I'm defensive because I know your statement is false and I dislike the way you throw around these falsehoods to claim an entire subsection of the playerbase is speaking rubbish. Since you've yet to provide any proof and since you've said two things directly contradicting each other ('Semper, you're not one of the people I'm referring to' and then 'Semper was one of the people I was referring to') and you've now edited the post to remove your contradictory statement I can safely say that you don't discuss things in good faith.
You on the other hand, chose to name me by name. You choose to paraphrase a "non-verbatim" perspective I supposedly expressed (even though it directly clashes with actual statements I've made in the past) so please, for the first time ever - source one of your nonsense, invented quotes that you make on other people's behalf. Your Geoff "quote" was disproven, your Pablo "quote" remains unsourced, and now you are refusing to do the simple thing of quoting me on it. I have barely posted in weeks, it should be easy - this is an easy win for you, PROVE I SAID SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THIS, or stop quoting me with falsified statements IMMEDIATELY. Literally the ONLY reason not do so is because you have outright lied about it. Which you have.
Have you finished going back and editing all those posts yet or do you need more time?
I can't prove you said something because apparently you go back and rewrite the silly things you've said and unless I quote everything you write there and then you will simply change it later when it suits. Just as you have done with Semper above. This is a waste of time. You've really shown your true colours here.
An Actual Englishman wrote: To be clear Semper didn't admit to saying what you claimed people said either. What he actually stated was that the codex would do well for the first few months while people adjusted to it (you can see this in your own post), he did not state that the codex would do well at LVO because "people hadn't bothered to learn how to beat it". You see the difference there?
Oh, I didn't realise we were being pedants now.
FTR, claiming "the codex only does well because people haven't spent enough time adjusting to it" is almost identical to "the codex only does well because people haven't learned how to beat it yet", but if you want to separate them into two different reasons for dismissing the LVO results, that's absolutely fine. It was encompassed in my post by the fact that I gave two examples of reasons why people were doing it and said "etc". My point doesn't die by a new reason being used to dismiss the LVO results and then later rally behind lol, it just expands upon it.
Well "almost identical" is not identical is it? People "almost" stating the things you claimed they stated is not the same thing as actually stating them is it? In future, please don't use falsehoods to try and belittle, patronise and call into question the validity of what an entire player base have said. As I said in my very first post to you, it is bogus. But then, apparently, you are also bogus.
SHUPPET wrote: Well, that's wrong. Semper was one of the people I was referring to, among others.
This is new. And I note you've edited your post when you said literally the opposite. You actually said "Semper I wasn't referring to you" in that post you've edited 4 times above. Shame I didn't quote that part of your post before you had a chance to edit it. Lol unreal. You realise I can see when you edit posts right?
What? I called my own statement wrong, and went back and corrected it - there was nothing being concealed here. I admitted that Semper was one of the people in question (I actually confused him for another poster with a similar name), and decided it was okay to put him by name anyway as he had put his own hand up. This was me conceding to you. My statement has been unmistakably proved, this line of arguing that it doesn't count because Semper says it is beyond absurd. Your claims however, as always, remains as unsourced, completely fabricated nonsense.
I can't prove you said something because apparently you go back and rewrite the silly things you've said and unless I quote everything you write there and then you will simply change it later when it suits. Just as you have done with Semper above. This is a waste of time. You've really shown your true colours here.
All my posts have editing. It's rare that I make a single unedited post, no matter what I talk about and no matter what its about. I post off my phone and I need to fix multiple mistakes, formatting errors, and intent clarifications that weren't immediate to me in my initial post. Take the tinfoil hat off please. I'm pretty outspoken in my opinion and I stand by them and admit mistakes when I'm wrong, anyone familiar with me on these forums may attest to that. Why don't you just admit you can't source your statement? This is utter tripe from you. How bout this - if I can source a past statement of my own that CONFLICTS with what you claim I said, will you then admit that it's not a perspective that I hold and you completely invented it? Lol, I'd just like to hear it from you first before I do so, or at least what excuse you will come up with to dismiss it.
you throw around these falsehoods to claim an entire subsection of the playerbase is speaking rubbish.
An Actual Englishman wrote: In future, please don't use falsehoods to try and belittle, patronise and call into question the validity of what an entire player base have said. As I said in my very first post to you, it is bogus. But then, apparently, you are also bogus.
At no point did I call into question anything said by an entire player base, nor did I use falsehoods. I quite clearly said "Certain people", at no point was this directed at anything beyond two or three people nor was it implied to be, this is just another of the strawmen you are notorious for using at every single turn.
I usually play Chaos Soup. I've never attended a tournament, likely never will (not through any ill will, more just because i'm a casual player that doesn't have it in him atm to get too competitive about the game).
So I usually play purely casual and we often mix and match. I don't think any of us consider the competitiveness of armies in any grand scheme. I've seen it cited a few times that 'the casual gamer' wants to know how competitive their army is' but that's kind of an oxymoron from the oft. Having played for just short of twenty years and about to become acquainted with 30 I can say that most of the players I have encountered have armies we found to be interesting and liked. Most of us have units we could afford to buy and liked the look of and most of us make army lists from a variable combination of units we fancy using (within the confines of the rules) and react in strategy and tactics when we arrive and know what scenario we're playing. There have been a couple of guys who took the game very seriously and purposefully bought and played the best/competitive lists they could for 'casual' play and they were fine - yeah, people threw things and laughed, but we played with them all the same.
None of that is to say we approached games with the utter absence of any strategy but really it was just about what we enjoyed within the defined rules. This whole 'meta' of what tier is what is, at best, a passing interest that, from what I can see, is currently being tailored and inflated by some to be something major to suit some form of anti-soup argument. I personally would be upset without soup. To me, CSM and Daemons belong in an army together without significant consequence. To me, any and every chaos model should be able to be used in an army under the banner of Abaddon the Despoiler because that's the setting these armies live in.
It seems fairly obvious to me that if you take much interest in what rank your army is to the level of needing to winge about it not being good enough to stand on its own against the creme of the crop from an entire faction, I kind of think you're a bit more on the competitive side than casual and probably need to come to terms with the fact that the only way you can seemingly be truly competitive right now is to use soup (hell, I know the pain, i've been there 40k siblings). If you don't like that and don't think that should be the way of things, then only play in games against mono factions and bring in that restriction for yourself, whatever you enjoy, but don't presume to ruin it for a group of people who are fine with that rule set as that's a bit poor in spirit.
I'd wager that the majority of casual gamers play with and make the best of what they like and can afford. The issue with soup almost exclusively lives and dies in discussion forums and is more an issue with the attitude of some players rather than a game that's now been designed for soup. Soup certainly isn't perfect, I get that, but removing it isn't a solution to what is an evolution and what I consider to be a feature of the game. We could talk about balance for hours but really, if you want perfect balance, go play chess (I love chess) or start fighting the purple guy with the scrotum chin for the infinity stones.
Take away Shoot twice strat for Bad moonz and poof, lootas never see the board again, take away tellyporta and most of our vehicles never get played with again.
I think thats a bit of exxageration. I played with the Index and thought it was pretty good. It wasn't "the new Bad Moonz" good. But it was good.
I think that we also need to accept that 9th out of 660 people isn't a sad showing. Lol. Dice ARE involved. The Orks are very good and they will win tournaments and have been. We won't ever REALLY know what dice roll here or there screwed Nick. But I think its fair to say the Orks are in no way suffering now like they have before.
Lootas average 80 hits with their special magic, assuming 3 shots per weapon. 80 str 7, -1 AP shots HIT. 2 dmg each is significant as well. Keeping in mind that these hits are in two waves, meaning they can kill by splitting fire, MULTIPLE targets with that. I think we can safely say this is absolutely a huge return on 425 points. No Imperial Knight does better than that. None.
The thing that will REALLY hurt the Orks just dropped. Genestealer Cult Acolyte unit could be the doom of all 25 Lootaz in one go. It's scary. Further, they can flip the switch off on the firing twice for the Lootaz. Its a mega hard counter, and one that frankly might have gone too far. The actual money cost of doing it will dissuade many, but for the elite, I doubt seriously that it will.
The ability to shoot twice defines a unit in a big way. It doesn't mean that without the stratagem they aren't worth it, but it is such amazing value, it's hard to perceive using them without it.
Marmatag wrote: The ability to shoot twice defines a unit in a big way. It doesn't mean that without the stratagem they aren't worth it, but it is such amazing value, it's hard to perceive using them without it.
Their problem is not their damage output.
It is their utter lack of durability. T4, 6+, 17pts. An opponent doesn't need to shutdown Moar Dakka if he has already killed the Lootas by denying Grot Shields.
Why are you arguing so much whether Orks are top tier? they're not. Sure they have some nice tricks up their sleeve and may seem powerful now as they are a new codex, but the fact is that soup is so powerful and GW is increasingly encouraging it and making it more powerful is proof that nothing is top tier unless it is soup.
Take away Shoot twice strat for Bad moonz and poof, lootas never see the board again, take away tellyporta and most of our vehicles never get played with again.
I think thats a bit of exxageration. I played with the Index and thought it was pretty good. It wasn't "the new Bad Moonz" good. But it was good.
I think that we also need to accept that 9th out of 660 people isn't a sad showing. Lol. Dice ARE involved. The Orks are very good and they will win tournaments and have been. We won't ever REALLY know what dice roll here or there screwed Nick. But I think its fair to say the Orks are in no way suffering now like they have before.
Lootas average 80 hits with their special magic, assuming 3 shots per weapon. 80 str 7, -1 AP shots HIT. 2 dmg each is significant as well. Keeping in mind that these hits are in two waves, meaning they can kill by splitting fire, MULTIPLE targets with that. I think we can safely say this is absolutely a huge return on 425 points. No Imperial Knight does better than that. None.
The thing that will REALLY hurt the Orks just dropped. Genestealer Cult Acolyte unit could be the doom of all 25 Lootaz in one go. It's scary. Further, they can flip the switch off on the firing twice for the Lootaz. Its a mega hard counter, and one that frankly might have gone too far. The actual money cost of doing it will dissuade many, but for the elite, I doubt seriously that it will.
THAt is the real problem with Orks now.
The problem is that its 425pts for the 25 lootas AND its another 150 to 180pts for the grots you need to shield them (ive used 40 grots to shield a loota bomb and had them shot off the table turn 1) So before you spend any CP on making them worth taking you have already invested 575 to 605 for a one trick pony. So 1/3rd of your army is tied up in a single unit.
Marmatag wrote: The ability to shoot twice defines a unit in a big way. It doesn't mean that without the stratagem they aren't worth it, but it is such amazing value, it's hard to perceive using them without it.
Their problem is not their damage output.
It is their utter lack of durability. T4, 6+, 17pts. An opponent doesn't need to shutdown Moar Dakka if he has already killed the Lootas by denying Grot Shields.
That is the stratagem they are tied to.
Exactly the point. So yeah you get decent damage potential....so long as you spend 600pts and are fine with using the following stratagems on them: Grot Shields, Mob Up, Showing off, MOAR DAKKA and probably a command reroll for when you roll that dreaded 1 or 2 for number of shots. Now You have 25 T4 bodies and 50-60 T2 bodies all with 6+ saves to survive past turn 2. A Castellan knight with 2 siegebreaker Cannons costs the same as that and it is T8 with a 3+ save and 28 wounds, furthermore its almost always running around with a 4+ invuln save and most of the time its going to have that 1 strat to give it a 3+ Invuln save, for pure dakka output the Castellan is significantly better against T7+ targets due to the better ap of its weapons and the fact that it has a fething Volcano Cannon which is S14. Against lighter infantry and vehicles the Lootas are better, but which is harder to get rid of? A Horde of 50 grotz or a T8 vehicle with a 3+ invuln save?
Lootas are the Ork version of the Imperials Knight Castellan except lootas are worse vs basically everything except the one thing orkz didn't need help in killing, infantry and light vehicles.
If you don't like that and don't think that should be the way of things, then only play in games against mono factions and bring in that restriction for yourself, whatever you enjoy, but don't presume to ruin it for a group of people who are fine with that rule set as that's a bit poor in spirit.
This maybe a stupid question, but how does one achive that? I mean what argument would be valid to make someone play, maybe even buy models, they do not want ? I would love to face armies that were my tier, thing is no one seems to be playing them. I know that saying that the game is unfun to you doesn't work, people don't care if you have fun or not, unless they are your close friends or family.
Jancoran wrote: No. Gretchen give incredibly cheap cp. Youd want them with or without 25 lootaz.
Except all they are good for is cheap CP where as a guardsmen which is 1pt more can actually be an effective unit and was heavily utilized by recent winners of LVO.
Grotz suck except for CP and I would rather have boyz, I still take 30 grotz for CP to fill out battalions but that is it.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Is it time to compare the humble grot to an Infantryman again? Shall we see what 1pt buys us?
1pt gets you +1 toughness, +1 strength +1 armor +12 weapon range, +1 weapon skill and a bunch of other fun things But i mean...orkz are the absolute best codex in the game right?
I posted earlier in the Tournament Discussion and also on Reddit about some statistical analyses I did of the 2018 win rate data posted on 40kstats.com. Some of you might find that discussion relevant to the current discussion.
You can see the rest of the analyses in those threads, but from my quick first pass (using a k-means clustering of mean win rankings), it seems like army rankings can be boiled down into 3 "tiers" of armies (see the figures in the Spoiler). Bad, Average, and Good. Adding additional "tiers" didn't explain a whole lot more variance in these data over lower cluster solutions. The 4 "tier" solution, for instance, just explains a little more variance than the 3 cluster solution, and splits Drukhari and Ynnari into their own top-tier ranking. Obviously, we can nit-pick individual armies and make more fine-grained rankings, but ranking armies in 3 tiers does a pretty good job and explained the preponderance of variance in the data.
Figures are in the spoiler:
Spoiler:
This is of course, limited in many ways, but is an interesting first pass at a data-driven way to organize the faction rankings from an evidence based perspective.
rollawaythestone wrote: I posted earlier in the Tournament Discussion and also on Reddit about some statistical analyses I did of the 2018 win rate data posted on 40kstats.com. Some of you might find that discussion relevant to the current discussion.
You can see the rest of the analyses in those threads, but from my quick first pass (using a k-means clustering of mean win rankings), it seems like army rankings can be boiled down into 3 "tiers" of armies (see the figures in the Spoiler). Bad, Average, and Good. Adding additional "tiers" didn't explain a whole lot more variance in these data over lower cluster solutions. The 4 "tier" solution, for instance, just explains a little more variance than the 3 cluster solution, and splits Drukhari and Ynnari into their own top-tier ranking. Obviously, we can nit-pick individual armies and make more fine-grained rankings, but ranking armies in 3 tiers does a pretty good job and explained the preponderance of variance in the data.
Figures are in the spoiler:
Spoiler:
This is of course, limited in many ways, but is an interesting first pass at a data-driven way to organize the faction rankings from an evidence based perspective.
How are the armies classified? With your data can you tell the difference between single codex Dark elves (in spaaaace) and dark elfs with some kind of psycher support?
Its cool that you have that data but its of limited uses until we can tell the difference between solo lists and allied forces.
rollawaythestone wrote: I posted earlier in the Tournament Discussion and also on Reddit about some statistical analyses I did of the 2018 win rate data posted on 40kstats.com. Some of you might find that discussion relevant to the current discussion.
You can see the rest of the analyses in those threads, but from my quick first pass (using a k-means clustering of mean win rankings), it seems like army rankings can be boiled down into 3 "tiers" of armies (see the figures in the Spoiler). Bad, Average, and Good. Adding additional "tiers" didn't explain a whole lot more variance in these data over lower cluster solutions. The 4 "tier" solution, for instance, just explains a little more variance than the 3 cluster solution, and splits Drukhari and Ynnari into their own top-tier ranking. Obviously, we can nit-pick individual armies and make more fine-grained rankings, but ranking armies in 3 tiers does a pretty good job and explained the preponderance of variance in the data.
Figures are in the spoiler:
Spoiler:
This is of course, limited in many ways, but is an interesting first pass at a data-driven way to organize the faction rankings from an evidence based perspective.
How are the armies classified? With your data can you tell the difference between single codex Dark elves (in spaaaace) and dark elfs with some kind of psycher support?
Its cool that you have that data but its of limited uses until we can tell the difference between solo lists and allied forces.
The armies are classifed according to a players primary faction as input on BCP or as collated by 40kstats.com (see the other threads for more details).
Yes, this is absolutely limited without more detailed information. Unfortunately, there is less data to address questions about specific faction combinations (which could still be done nevertheless). Also, BCP and 40kstats.com have only begun to collate the unit selections from individual player's lists. They have tallied up the LVO data, for instance, which required fully submitted lists for the event. Unfortunately, not all events require that information or make it available. Addressing those questions is definitely a future directions thing.Nevertheless, I think this is a good way to conceptualize the standing of factions generally over the past 2018 tournament season.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Is it time to compare the humble grot to an Infantryman again? Shall we see what 1pt buys us?
1pt gets you +1 toughness, +1 strength +1 armor +12 weapon range, +1 weapon skill and a bunch of other fun things But i mean...orkz are the absolute best codex in the game right?
GW in an attempt to encourage larger armies has made things to cheap that a lot of granularity has been lost. The floor is so low now that things can't be priced properly and you get huge swings in power that is highlighted with the above jump of one point gets you an insane amount of additional utility.
Jancoran wrote: No. Gretchen give incredibly cheap cp. Youd want them with or without 25 lootaz.
Except all they are good for is cheap CP where as a guardsmen which is 1pt more can actually be an effective unit and was heavily utilized by recent winners of LVO.
Grotz suck except for CP and I would rather have boyz, I still take 30 grotz for CP to fill out battalions but that is it.
It costs 90 points to get 5CP. You'd have already taken the characters anyways o its basically 90 points and 30 bodies gets you 5 cp. I'm sorry but Orks drink CP's like OJ on a hot day in Florida. Also last time i checked, IG werent in ork armies. So comparison there is sort of irrelevant. If you the ork player want 5 CP's, you the ork play have to dish out 90 points. Big whoop. You WILL get that bag in spades as production goes.
Very good thus far. Buggest "fun" list ive seen is the triple Vulture spam w Swarmlord, genestealers and abberants leading the parade, and mandatory sniper and such.
Very good thus far. Buggest "fun" list ive seen is the triple Vulture spam w Swarmlord, genestealers and abberants leading the parade, and mandatory sniper and such.
But i mean...orkz are the absolute best codex in the game right?
