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.

asimo77 wrote:I never understood "it's the player not the codex" mentality. The fact that each book is not exactly the same means there is going to be imbalance. Yes army X is better than army Y, it's that simple. Of course the player skill is very important, a good player with a poor list can probably beat a bad player with a great list. Tiers tell you who to expect to win in a match of equal skill level, what a tier list should not do is tell you who to play as.

Using a high skill player, like let's say Dash, to show it's not the army, it's the player isn't a good example. His skill allows him to beat better codexes, it makes up for the army's fault. If he faced an opponent with the same skill and was using a low tier army, you could reasonably say he would probably lose (provided the opponent has a strong list). That's what tiers are for, prediction among equal skill level.

Hm, I do agree with you here, good sir. I do VERY much agree that most armies have a hell of a leg up over Necrons. I guess that's why I put codex strength in NUMBER of viable builds. From there it's definitely player strength that fills gaps. So, yes, codexs are different enough to have imbalance. But, barring some mistakes, like Tyranids (I guess, I find them to be pretty good, but I got a casual group) every 5th edition codex is on a pretty similar level, with most 4th edition codexs being on good footing.

There is no such thing as "players of equal skill level" there's either making a mistake or not. Everybody makes mistakes of the foolish kind from time to time rare occasions. Making no mistakes is the sign of a brilliant, and extremely conservative player. Making bad decisions you think are not mistakes is the sign of a bad player. Making risky decisions with results that can turn out to be either bad or good is being a gambler. Calculated risks can be good when they win, bad when they lose, but just dumb when they are unnecessary. There is no skill level 'number' higher or lower than the next guy, just bad players, and varying different styles of not-bad players.

asimo77 wrote:I never understood "it's the player not the codex" mentality. The fact that each book is not exactly the same means there is going to be imbalance. Yes army X is better than army Y, it's that simple. Of course the player skill is very important, a good player with a poor list can probably beat a bad player with a great list. Tiers tell you who to expect to win in a match of equal skill level, what a tier list should not do is tell you who to play as.

Using a high skill player, like let's say Dash, to show it's not the army, it's the player isn't a good example. His skill allows him to beat better codexes, it makes up for the army's fault. If he faced an opponent with the same skill and was using a low tier army, you could reasonably say he would probably lose (provided the opponent has a strong list). That's what tiers are for, prediction among equal skill level.

Prediction among equal skill levels: My point is that among equal skill levels, codex doesn't matter much. From January 2010 to December 2010, I ran a Wych Cult. Oldest codex in 40k. Around the country, tournaments everywhere, I went 50 wins, 1 loss.

Are you telling me that in 51 games across the country, at top tables of GTs and RTTs that I never met someone of my own skill level?

The point of a "Take all comers list" is that its capable of taking on everything. There *IS* no "X army is better than Y army." With the exception of the aforementioned armies (Necrons, etc).

@ Guitardian So equal skill means they make the same amount and kind of mistakes

@Dash it's very possible that you're just that good

It just doesn't seem very intuitive to me to assume that every army is essentially equal, the differences are quite large, some books were made well before 5th edition even.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Prediction among equal skill levels: My point is that among equal skill levels, codex doesn't matter much

Except apparently Tyranids, Space Wolves, Chaos, Necrons, Witch Hunters, etc.

Vaktathi wrote:
EDIT: lol @ plastic army men game superiority complexes and blatant contradictions in the same thread.

quoted for truthness

Vaktathi wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:
Prediction among equal skill levels: My point is that among equal skill levels, codex doesn't matter much

Except apparently Tyranids, Space Wolves, Chaos, Necrons, Witch Hunters, etc.

Eh, I like to stir the pot. Space Wolves are perfectly competitive. Unless I'm in the equation and trying to pick a fight and drum up trouble with Space Wolves (link in my signature) for a specific reason.

But yes...I agree with the idea that codex 'strength' can be looked at in number of viable builds. Some armies have exactly one build they can run, and have a chance at doing well in a competitive environment. Those types of armies are lower 'tier' than others for the simple reason that they are predictable, in what they field, and things that are predictable are easier to beat. Now, is player skill important? Yes! Someone could take the same Necron list I've seen a hundred times, and beaten a hundred times* but run it in such a way that it totally kicks my cheesy meched out Guard's ass.

So yeah, in the end I think the various rankings of codexes should not be by tier, but instead by ability to have multiple builds:
1) Many Competitive Builds
2) Limited Competitive Builds
3) One Competitive Build
4) No Competetive Builds

*hyperbole. I've had a grand total of one game against 'Crons. And I lost. The example still counts ok!?

P.S.
Can we just sticky one of these threads so we stop getting one posted every other week?

This is the best thread i ever posted


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also have to say I love how my thread became a war. Ialso love how i asked what the top tier armies in tournaments are and it became this.

shadeyaces, there's no war here.

Just a bunch of sighs that you would create this thread. Maybe I've been around too long, but I think its disrespectful to the rest of the community to create a thread that gets posted every week. Its like announcing, "Hey Dakka! I'm here to bother you, but I'm too good to read anything anyone else has posted. I don't care if my questions have already been addressed. PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!"

Dashofpepper wrote: PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!"

With that line there, I suddenly notice a similarity between you two.

IMO, what really cements armies like Guards and Wolves as Top Tier is not just tournaments , but also friendly games. Dash is right in saying that in tournys that skill becomes much more important than army list, but in friendly games the list become important as most people would take less competitive units. Someone comes to a LGS with their Flash Gitz or their Swooping Hawks or Whirlwind and they look across the table to see +6 chimeras with vets and a bunch of artillery and get stomped by turn 3. The codex get labeled "cheezy", which in tuned leads to more WAAC people playing it, which in turned leads to seeing that codex more at tournys, which increases the chances of it placing high. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Luke_Prowler wrote:IMO, what really cements armies like Guards and Wolves as Top Tier is not just tournaments , but also friendly games. Dash is right in saying that in tournys that skill becomes much more important than army list, but in friendly games the list become important as most people would take less competitive units. Someone comes to a LGS with their Flash Gitz or their Swooping Hawks or Whirlwind and they look across the table to see +6 chimeras with vets and a bunch of artillery and get stomped by turn 3. The codex get labeled "cheezy", which in tuned leads to more WAAC people playing it, which in turned leads to seeing that codex more at tournys, which increases the chances of it placing high. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In this case, its not really a case of a high-tier army vs. a low tier (though I will argue that both Orks and Eldar need to be fixed), its a matter of a person bringing a semi-competitive/competitive army vs. a player bringing a really bad army list or a list designed to be wierd/just for the hell of it. (flash gits? Really?)

Also, all tier arguments and competitiveness should only really matter with 5th edition armies up. I know people whine and groan about 'nilla SM vs. SW (even though they are entirely different armies and play completely differently) but the balance of the newest 'dexs is faaar improved.

Tiers should be determined by matchups, in the ratio of win/lose for two players of equal skill and using typical strong builds.

Once the ratio for all forces have been done, the higher tier armies are the ones with more favourable matchups.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm the self-proclaimed best 40k player in the world. For a time, I was ranked the #1 player. At the moment, I think I'm ranked #6... I have a massively huge ego, and utter confidence in my skills.

I *am* arrogant...

I have a few questions for you...

Are you 5'6" or shorter? Were you abused as a child? Do you drive a Hummer? Is your genitalia measured in eighths of an inch? Do you have daddy issues or something?

Just curious. Some of your posts just beg those kinds of questions.

Why do these threads always devolve into name calling and insults? I mean, wouldn't it be better and more sane to challenge dash's proclamations with intelligent, reasoned arguments about why his ideas are wrong, or whatever, instead of making passive-agressive statements about what you speculate his private life is/was like?

Radical, just face it, he's good. Really good. Would you get at Obama for boasting that he's the president?

At least he's being honest

Radical wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm the self-proclaimed best 40k player in the world. For a time, I was ranked the #1 player. At the moment, I think I'm ranked #6... I have a massively huge ego, and utter confidence in my skills.

I *am* arrogant...

I have a few questions for you...

Are you 5'6" or shorter? Were you abused as a child? Do you drive a Hummer? Is your genitalia measured in eighths of an inch? Do you have daddy issues or something?

Just curious. Some of your posts just beg those kinds of questions.

In Dash's Defense, he often dispenses very good Advice, sometimes it's just in a very abrasive manner, and he let's his Ego seep into his posts, He is generally informative in a lot of his posts, and writes excellent battle reports. Sometimes you just have to take the good with the bad.

Necrons are definately top tier.



























Ok maybe not - but they will be one day!

Yes one day they will be top tier. Also I'm not on dakka enough to notice when a fourm has been remade before.

One of the problems in this particular thread is that the OP asked a quesiton in which he knew what he was asking, but did not articulate it well.

As for this thread poppping up repeatedly... so? It's a valid source of discussion. One of the reasons it gets bogged down isn't the repeated discussion of whether IG or Wolves are stronger, but that the discussion invariably moves to "there are no tiers" talk. Which is a fine topic on it's own, but one that's not going to change often. The shifting metagame, however, will continue to change.

So, my suggestion would be that when posting in a thread like this, if you feel the tiers havne't changed, simply repost your list. If you feel that there aren't tiers, maybe just don't post in the thread.

Thats not bad.

lunarman wrote:One day I'd love to play DashofPepper, I bet he can table me by turn two

(I'm the self proclaimed worst 40k player in the world)

Lol, I'd love to play you for that title.

Lord_Osma wrote:

lunarman wrote:One day I'd love to play DashofPepper, I bet he can table me by turn two

(I'm the self proclaimed worst 40k player in the world)

Lol, I'd love to play you for that title.

I propose a battle royale for the title of Worst 40k Player In The World!

My opinion, which is based on gut instinct (always a dodgy quality, but I do have 35 years of wargaming experience -- not 40K, historical mainly) and observation of the GT results, huh, is that at the moment IG and SW are the two top armies.

I would place Tau and Necrons in the bottom two -- obviously people will argue with that.

At the same time, the gap between best, middle and worst is not unbridgeable. I guesstimate it at 100 / 90 / 80. A good player or a decent dose of luck will carry the day.

The points level of a game is important too. Some codexes scale up better than others. For example, Tau improve a lot when you can afford plenty of firepower and markerlights.

The point about an all comers list is important, as extreme builds can be a bit one dimensional and fall into the paper scissors stone dimension.

I can't bring myself to believe that all the codexes are perfectly balanced and equal.

Kurgash wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!"

With that line there, I suddenly notice a similarity between you two.

You JUST noticed this?

Top Tier / Broke / Easy Win armies are - IG, BA and SW. There is no denying this.

Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:...this hobby is one I do to relax and try to forget about the horrors I have seen overseas,
(...)
And for the Record I do not fear any army, nor player for that matter, because they are not shooting at me for real, its a game.

Let me guess... you were a plumber, weren't ya?

Just kidding, obviously you were a primary school teacher...

Despite my silly, pathetic attempt at comedy, I fully agree with you:
I obviously try and create effective lists, but my first goal is to play and enjoy the game more than WAAC (just check the competitive level of my posted lists so far ), I have sometimes had more fun during a game I was losing or lost, than some games I easily won, perhaps due to the fact I sympathyse with my opponent's feelings and if he doesn't have fun, it is difficult for me to have it myself.
That and the fact that you learn better of your army by losing (weaknesses show up) than by winning (such weaknesses might remain hidden).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The point about an all comers list is important, as extreme builds can be a bit one dimensional and fall into the paper scissors stone dimension.

TAN-KEN-PON
FTW!
Really, I also think there might be no total success in balancing armies, but there is an only six-faced all mighty god that brings unpredictability to the game and there's always a cap for every bottle (this sentence has just been made up on the move, bear with me please?)

Radical wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm the self-proclaimed best 40k player in the world. For a time, I was ranked the #1 player. At the moment, I think I'm ranked #6... I have a massively huge ego, and utter confidence in my skills.

I *am* arrogant...

I have a few questions for you...

Are you 5'6" or shorter? Were you abused as a child? Do you drive a Hummer? Is your genitalia measured in eighths of an inch? Do you have daddy issues or something?

Just curious. Some of your posts just beg those kinds of questions.

I'm 73" tall (6' 1"). I was abused as a child - I suffered two broken adoptions because of abuse and was raised in the foster care system. I ran away to the army when I was 18, later went to and graduated from West Point damn near the top of my class. I debated (yes, master debater) and broke a bunch of collegiate records. I don't drive a hummer, I drive a Mitsubishi Spyder Eclipse Convertible. My genitalia is not measired in eighths of an inch. While I was on the dating scene, I actually *didn't* get any sometimes because of size issues, something I'm grateful that my wife has gotten used to. I make in excess of $100,000 per year, and have an important sounding title at my company. I never had a daddy, nor cared where I came from.

Anything else?

Here's the thing. I tell it like it is. I give advice based on my experiences, which are generally more expansive than most other folks. Few people travel as much for tournaments, 40k events, or get around as much as I do, let alone take pictures, write battle reports, and try communicating their tactical insights from each game to other people. Now that we're getting back into the GT season, my camera is warming up for new series of battle reports.

BECAUSE I tell it like it is, and because I'm successful, a lot of folks get butt-hurt. Most people are sheep, and if someone rises above them, rather than trying to match and elevate themselves, they'd prefer to pull down the riser. I announce that I'm better. That's right. Radical, I'm a better gamer than you. A better tactician, a better player, probably better looking, more insightful, I make more money, I get laid more often....<insert more spew here>. Without saying any of those things, that's the message that comes across in my advice-dispensing posts. Intentionally. I don't want to have to write 6 paragraphs explaining a tactical point REPEATEDLY in thread after thread - because ultimately the same stuff gets posted on Dakka over and over. Instead, I want to say, "Do it X way. It works. Look to my signature for proof." I stopped posting in Army lists because its the same lists, over and over and over. No one researches. Like this thread - the OP would rather speak than listen. There are a dozen+ threads identical to this one - but instead of looking for them, we get a new thread.

I put myself on a pedestal and proclaim myself superior because I *want* to be taken down. Not by trolls, but by people who can prove me wrong. When I say, "Warbikers don't deserve a spot in ANY competitive list," I'm saying it to provoke someone to prove me wrong, because I've not found a use for them, and genuinely want to see if someone can make them perform.

This particular topic....I stand by what I said. Codex is mostly irrelevant - it comes down to the player. I'm arrogant, and supremely confident in my abilities. I know full well that I should be more humble. But I demand to *be* humbled.

@Dashofpepper:
Your name is not Thomas Highway, perchance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbreak_Ridge

Well I'm sure the Pedestal is nice and all but weathering and decay comes eventually and a new shining star will eclipse yours, enjoy this time while you can as sooner or later you will meet your better.