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

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/nova-open-warhammer-40k-gt-results.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Highlights:

6 x Black Templars (26-30) 46.4%
22 x Blood Angels (97-79) 55.1%
6 x Chaos Daemons (16-32) 33.3%
6 x Chaos Space Marines (16-32) 33.3%
5 x Dark Angels (23-17) 57.5%
14 x Dark Eldar (58-54) 51.8%
6 x Eldar (21-27) 43.8%
32 x Grey Knights (140-116) 54.7%
21 x Imperial Guard (88-80) 52.4%
3 x Necron (11-13) 45.8%
10 x Ork (39-41) 48.8%
27 x Space Marines (96-120) 44.4%
25 x Space Wolves (106-94) 53%
6 x Tau (18-30) 37.5%
10 x Tyranids (34-46) 42.5%
4 x Witch Hunters (15-17) 46.9%

Wow, those are some nicely organized excel spreadsheets. Also there are some interesting results, chaos sucks as we all know. I am a bit surprised that the percentages are so closely packed. but it makes sense since there were so many games and players. thanks Mike!

any chance we will see the same results/spreadsheet for the invitational?

I'll happily taked 16th overall against that crowd in a group of 204 dudes

My paint score actually went down from last year but at least it can agree with the names ahead of me that I recognize that they were painted better

On a sidenote if I'm reading that right then Dark Angels are broken!!!!! They are totally the winniest codex in an event that still makes you win by 3 kps!

Very well organized results! Not a big difference in the results we saw from 'ard boyz with GKs being top and CSM being awful

I'm really saddened by how poorly CSM is doing in 2011

BA and DA were the highest win rates, but most of the codices are clustered together in the mid 40s to mid 50s. Also, for most dexes that weren't as successful or were more successful, you saw general parity among known skilled players, to include Tau and WH and Necron, who all had 5-3 or better results finishers

Im more interested in the trends among the more played armies. Dark angels seem like a good army but due to the extremely small number of players their success could be attributed to a single superstar player (or matchups to a lesser degree)

However, with GK, BA and the others it seems the overall average power level of those armies seems to be much greater in the hands of more average players

To see myself as #36 for the competitive field puts me in a good mood with the quality of players that were at NOVA. I must say I started looking for my name on page 3

very cool. Glad some ork players were there to make up for my sucking

I really liked the format, this is probably the most competative pure event I have ever attended but still catered to the visual aspect and kept casual players invested. Day 2 had huge involvement from people still at 'lower' tables which made it fun.

Great data aggregation! Thanks for that.

Wowzers, the top 18 are MEQ's.

But, a bug player in the top 20.

The BAO had a lot larger stratification of armies. I wonder what factors came into play here to see such a preponderance of MEQ armies in the top spots at NOVA.

Reecius wrote:The BAO had a lot larger stratification of armies. I wonder what factors came into play here to see such a preponderance of MEQ armies in the top spots at NOVA.

That is really interesting.

Did Dash's results get dropped lower? He mentioned that he diced off his last game (as seems to be the usual for him!) so if that came out as a loss maybe it dropped him. Otherwise, I would've expected him to be in the Top 20 given his making it to the final 4?

Great job, Hulk, although I wish you'd wrecked face with nids instead!! They're still tempting, although the DE won me over to start building up for 40k again in the end

Dash is listed as 7th on the competitive list (at least I think that's him).

Nice! Grats to all!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z_FVjQ8eJ_g/Tl-j9LMeiVI/AAAAAAAAAcg/ks5HsZg41uM/s1600/Johnson+Commander.jpg

Won best conversion.
Feels good with being the sculptor of that mini

Nice and unique paintjob as well.

Is the percentage score the fraction of list entrants from that codex that made it into the top half?

Reecius wrote:Great data aggregation! Thanks for that.

Wowzers, the top 18 are MEQ's.

But, a bug player in the top 20.

The BAO had a lot larger stratification of armies. I wonder what factors came into play here to see such a preponderance of MEQ armies in the top spots at NOVA.

This is actually not accurate, Reece.

What you're seeing is a simple competitive sort of the field as a whole, not accounting for bracketing. On Day 2, all the Top 16 were force bracketed together, and had to play only each other, so one of them went 0-4 on Day 2 after going 4-0 on Day 1. This put his competitive rating with the other 4-4's, even though he's still #16 from the field in the final STANDINGS (which I'm still waiting for my scoremaster to send me, the bracket splits).

The Top 16 for the NOVA includes 2 Dark Eldar, 2 Imperial Guard, Orks, Tyranid, then some knights, wolves, and angels.

So, it was actually fairly well spread, they just all had to play each other thereafter.

Even on the simple competitive sort, though, the Top 10 includes Tyranid, Guard, and Dark Eldar, so I'm not sure what you're looking at.

willydstyle wrote:Is the percentage score the fraction of list entrants from that codex that made it into the top half?

It seems just to be the winning percentage of that army type. So:

Total number of wins by that army / Total number of games played by that army = army win percentage


Sorting by win percentage gives you:


5 x Dark Angels (23-17) 57.5%
22 x Blood Angels (97-79) 55.1%
32 x Grey Knights (140-116) 54.7%
25 x Space Wolves (106-94) 53%
21 x Imperial Guard (88-80) 52.4%
14 x Dark Eldar (58-54) 51.8%
10 x Ork (39-41) 48.8%
4 x Witch Hunters (15-17) 46.9%
6 x Black Templars (26-30) 46.4%
3 x Necron (11-13) 45.8%
27 x Space Marines (96-120) 44.4%
6 x Eldar (21-27) 43.8%
10 x Tyranids (34-46) 42.5%
6 x Tau (18-30) 37.5%
6 x Chaos Space Marines (16-32) 33.3%
6 x Chaos Daemons (16-32) 33.3%


So the only armies to finish above .500 for the event were: Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard & Dark Eldar

And the Tau armies outperformed both Chaos books!

Oh yeah, that's pretty simple math. Considering Tau are better than CSM or CSD, it's not really a surprise to me.

Seems like SW and GK are the current top 2 codexes... With DE, IG, BA, and possibly Orks composing the rest of the tier1s.

I'm curious how the Deathwing armies did versus the non Deathwing. I can't help but speculate that the gap between the two is fairly wide, accounting for them averaging out as they did.

I think I see what Reecius was saying about the MEQ. In Yaks adjustments they represent the top 4 army books and 41% of the overall field.

I don't think people equate Necrons and CSM as MEQ books anymore. Of course they still have a 3+ save, but the term MEQ seems to have morphed to mean the current best 3+ save army books, not all of them.

SonsofVulkan wrote:Seems like SW and GK are the current top 2 codexes... With DE, IG, BA, and possibly Orks composing the rest of the tier1s.

You can never, and should never, take the results of a single tournament, or even just a few tournaments and skew those statistics to represent the entire game. Just like many big tournaments, the NOVA most definitely has a nationwide draw, however, a tournament still typically draws more players from the nearby geographic regions, and that means the numbers will always be skewed based on who is attending and what armies they are playing with.

For example, in California, I've noticed the last few big tournaments seemed like Grey Knights armies had essentially replaced Space Wolf armies (in terms of what people were bringing)...there just have been really, really few Space Wolf armies compared to what there was before the GK book was released. However, at the NOVA you can see that Space Wolves still had a huge, huge showing (#2 overall).

Furthermore, you always have to keep in perspective what you're looking at. Yes, CSM's tanked, for example, but we're only talking about 6 players. If even 2 more really good CSM players show up and go 7-1 or 6-2, then the standings become completely and totally changed.

That is exactly why you cannot take the standings of a single tournament or even a few tournaments and assume they tell some sort of statistical truth...the data is far too limited to be useful for anything except analysis of that particular event.

I personally do not agree that the codex order of winning percentage truly represents the strength of the codex. Chaos daemons can still beat every codex but GK and some good IG lists. Overall Chaos daemons can beat almost every army except a GK strike spam list, a straight up leafblower IG, along with venom spam DE. Otherwise I would say chaos daemons can beat dark angels, blood angels, space wolves, and any other codex.
Just my take on it, take the rankings with a grain of salt is all I am saying. I would not ever say chaos daemons is the worst codex. Now CSM....that may be a different topic.

Woo hoo. 2nd place

Go Dark Angels.

@MVBrandt

I should have qualified my statement. I was being too general and I could see why that was confusing.

I reorganized your spreadsheet by highest win ratio and the top 18 were MEQs (and as Darth pointed out, I meant only Imperial MEQs, again, i should have specified).

The armies that won the most games were 18/20 imperial MEQs. Even more interesting/alarming they were BA, SW, GK, and a single DW. No vanilla.

I was just looking at win/loss ratios.

I know that isn't indicative of the entire field, just which armies perform the best.

But as Yak pointed out, data can be looked at in a lot of different ways, not all of it indicative of the hobby as a whole.

Clauss wrote:I personally do not agree that the codex order of winning percentage truly represents the strength of the codex. Chaos daemons can still beat every codex but GK and some good IG lists. Overall Chaos daemons can beat almost every army except a GK strike spam list, a straight up leafblower IG, along with venom spam DE. Otherwise I would say chaos daemons can beat dark angels, blood angels, space wolves, and any other codex.
Just my take on it, take the rankings with a grain of salt is all I am saying. I would not ever say chaos daemons is the worst codex. Now CSM....that may be a different topic.

Of course they don't. A poor showing overall by a codex can always include a few other factors besides the book just not being very competitive:


1) If new/bad players play with the codex then they will lose with it, especially if the army is hard to master (like Chaos Daemons).

2) Good players often want to give themselves the best chance at winning a tournament, and that can mean choosing a very strong codex instead of one with less powerful options. Obviously if those same players chose not to use their top pick and played with 'lesser' books instead, presumably they would still have finished with a decent winning record and bumped up the overall standings for that codex.

Clauss wrote:I personally do not agree that the codex order of winning percentage truly represents the strength of the codex. Chaos daemons can still beat every codex but GK and some good IG lists. Overall Chaos daemons can beat almost every army except a GK strike spam list, a straight up leafblower IG, along with venom spam DE. Otherwise I would say chaos daemons can beat dark angels, blood angels, space wolves, and any other codex.
Just my take on it, take the rankings with a grain of salt is all I am saying. I would not ever say chaos daemons is the worst codex. Now CSM....that may be a different topic.

Hell hath no furry like a Null Zone or double Lash going up againt a Daemon army.

You also have to get more granular ... there were 3 of the 6 Tau players with winning records, but the 3 "bad" Tau were SO bad they drew the whole dex into a below-50% record ... it would be unwise to draw too much conclusion from anything ... just data for people to play with

Darth, really?
You just think of counter comps for a daemon army? That is a great argument to say vanilla marines and chaos marines are better than daemons.
I can wipe the floor of jump pack BA, or mephiston with m y daemon army, so my daemons are better than BA, cool. I can beat a deathwing army with ease, k cool. Daemons can beat SW armies that sit there and shoot, I can beat foot eldar. Okay my codex is now better than all those codexs....
Wait, this idea of how to prove which codex is better is horrible...Yeah, bad idea...

Clauss wrote:Darth, really?
You just think of counter comps for a daemon army? That is a great argument to say vanilla marines and chaos marines are better than daemons.
I can wipe the floor of jump pack BA, or mephiston with m y daemon army, so my daemons are better than BA, cool. I can beat a deathwing army with ease, k cool. Daemons can beat SW armies that sit there and shoot, I can beat foot eldar. Okay my codex is now better than all those codexs....
Wait, this idea of how to prove which codex is better is horrible...Yeah, bad idea...

I think what he meant is that in the hands of an average player chaos deamons do not do as well. But in the hands of a skilled player, they work wonders barring rolling for the bad half or bad reserve rolls. It has been discussed plenty that Deamons have problems against landraiders and heavy mech but not all deamon armies. Right now the way I see it, only GK can roll deamons considering if both players were equal skill. Grenades alone have destroyed a 800 point crusher star with just DCA and techmarine.

Well, it is nice to see that the 2 people who beat me this weekend came in 1st and second place.

yakface wrote:
Furthermore, you always have to keep in perspective what you're looking at. Yes, CSM's tanked, for example, but we're only talking about 6 players. If even 2 more really good CSM players show up and go 7-1 or 6-2, then the standings become completely and totally changed.

What you are saying is partly true. Alex Fennel played Deathwing and went 7-1. The Dark Angels scored 23-17 and without him they would have scored 16-16.

But I doubt that even a very good CSM player can score well with that army.