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.

So, There was a lot of talk around what armies were good and what were bad in 5th edition, and lots of "well, Army X run by person Y got Z battle points, so they Suck/Rule" type comments.

I thought I'd take a (pretty simplistic) look at the results and look at:

Total amount of each army
Average battle points of each army
Standard deviation of those battle points.

I didn't work particularly hard on this. Don't take this to actually mean anything or promote anything, but it is interesting to look at. To me, the most interesting information comes from the well-represented armies (say, 10+ entries). The least interesting is things like Daemonhunters/Witchhunters, only because of the fact that with allies, there is really no way to tell what those armies really are. I guess that goes for pretty much all of these armies, but it's even weirder with those two.

Anyway, to the statistics:

EDIT: Ugh, should have previewed, I'll try to make this look nicer, guess the board doesn't like tabs.

EDIT: Fixed Witchhunters/Daemonhunters. They were screwed up.

Army Number of armies Average Battle Points Std. Deviation
Daemons 6 67.16666667 16.31461512
Witchhunters 6 66 17.97776404
Other 1 63 0
Orks 7 62.85714286 20.95573566
Daemonhunters 2 61.5 16.26345597
Black Templars 3 59.66666667 18.14754345
Blood Angels 3 59.33333333 17.7857621
Eldar 15 59.2 15.30732784
Space Marines 12 56.83333333 9.417906864
Total/Averages 128 56.0390625 14.47528567
IG 10 55.4 9.094564921
Chaos Space Marines 20 54 14.06002171
Tau 5 53.8 15.54670383
Space Wolves 4 53.5 15.06651917
Tyranids 12 53.25 15.46329966
Necrons 4 51.75 15.62849961
Dark Angels 15 48.53333333 11.4322018
Dark Eldar 3 43.33333333 10.96965511


I've sorted by average battle points.

To me it looks like most armies came out very close to the average. The only real outliers are DH and Daemons. Tyranids low scores are surprising to me. And Dark Angels, with 15 players and such a low score...maybe they really did get lost on the way to the 40k special olympics.

FYI, there were two DH lists at Vegas and six WH lists there.

The other DH list was...sad, is the best way I can put it.

Yeah, I went based on the way the lists were named on the statistics page. I'm 100% positive the DH and WH armies are mislabeled and confusing, and basically useless for the statistics purposes.

I mean, most of this is dumb. Who knows what these lists were? Who knows how unlucky the matchups were, or how smart/dumb the generals were, or how unfair the missions were to these lists?

I do think it is interesting to see how the armies with 10+ representatives clump around the mean, or below. More evidence that it's the general and army design that matters, not the codex, at least to me. But man DA...those numbers are not good.

lambadomy wrote:
Army Number of armies Average Battle Points Std. Deviation
Daemonhunters 6 71.83333333 12.08994072
Witchhunters 2 44 4.242640687

What Stelek was saying is that you have Witchhunters and Demonhunters miss labeled and you should edit your post.

Again there were 6 Witchhunter armies at the top and 2 Demonhunters at the bottom according to the GWs results.

http://gwuscommunity.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/vegasgt40k.pdf

Blackmoor wrote:What Stelek was saying is that you have Witchhunters and Demonhunters miss labeled and you should edit your post.

Correct.

Blackmoor wrote:Again there were 6 Witchhunter armies at the top and 2 Demonhunters at the bottom according to the GWs results.

Oh I don't know.

Of the 8 Hunters lists, combined I placed 3rd in the standings...if that makes me 'at the bottom' that's some interesting criteria. lol

Stelek wrote:Of the 8 Hunters lists, combined I placed 3rd in the standings...if that makes me 'at the bottom' that's some interesting criteria. lol

We always knew you were a bottom

Very interesting but as you rightly point out a statistician's nightmare. Needs moar data.