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.

Dude, just shut up.

No u!

I'm sorry that it gets you all butthurt, but if you honestly think Tyranids are competitive in a 5th edition mech environment then you're playing a different game than everyone else.

Also, what does Stelek have to do with this? Do you throw unprovoked insults at strangers often?

methoderik wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:
Were those top ten by battlepoints or by fluffy hobby competition overall points? The former is somewhat relevant, though one would also have to argue that Necrons and Tyranids are competitive (they're not), and the latter makes this laughable as far as support is concerned.

Dude, just shut up. If you have never played a competitive Nid list in 5th edition you are playing the wrong people.

Obviously you, Frank, and Stelek play in this little bubble of a Universe where Sun revolves strictly around you guys. For the rest of us apparently incapable players, National Tournament Results as well as personal experience will help determine our meta game. Not some flame tactic blog site maintained and created by a guy who was permanently banned from this forum for being a gigantic douche bag.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's priceless.

Read Danny's Blog, maybe you'll learn how to play the game well.

No Eldar in the Top Ten, and you think it's a reasonable basis for results? Get real.

You can't claim that Orks doing well in the last UK GT shows they're strong, and that them doing well in Necromonicon proves they're strong, when the army that won the former apparently had no representatives at the latter!

Lack of IG lists also indicates a weak player base.

To put it simply - Those Ork lists may well have been among the best there, or the best players there, but they couldn't even beat Necrons, so they're pathetic.

Orks = Bottom of Competitive. Necrons = Bottom of the Barrel.

Danny Internets wrote:

You can take into account match ups, how favorible the missions played in the match ups, etc. But there is no denying that the same story to come out of this event matches closely with the rest of the country, namely Deamons, Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, and Orks are producing the more competitive builds.

By looking at these results and coming to that conclusion, you must also logically conclude that Tyranids and Necrons are top competitors. After all, their representation in the top 10 here equals that of CSM, the competitive nature of which you believe to be substantiated by this list.

Not necessarily. The high placing of a single player is indicative of that player and his match ups. The several placings of multiple players playing out of the same codex is indicative of that codexes power.

If you remember, my previous post compared the result of the Necro with the rest of the results nation wide, which is why I included Chaos Space Marine in my list.

It will also be interesting to see how the results of the Big Waagh compare in here also (once they finally get them posted).

I know that Marines pretty much dominated the top spots - at least top 3-5. Other top armies going into last round were Eldar and Chaos.

As far as I know there - the few Necron and bug players did rather poorly.

Mahu wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

You can take into account match ups, how favorible the missions played in the match ups, etc. But there is no denying that the same story to come out of this event matches closely with the rest of the country, namely Deamons, Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, and Orks are producing the more competitive builds.

By looking at these results and coming to that conclusion, you must also logically conclude that Tyranids and Necrons are top competitors. After all, their representation in the top 10 here equals that of CSM, the competitive nature of which you believe to be substantiated by this list.

Not necessarily. The high placing of a single player is indicative of that player and his match ups. The several placings of multiple players playing out of the same codex is indicative of that codexes power.

If you remember, my previous post compared the result of the Necro with the rest of the results nation wide, which is why I included Chaos Space Marine in my list.

Frank Fugger has pointed out that Necrons have performed well in UK GTs. One could apply your same logic to them as you currently do to CSM, given their nationwide results and the single instance of a player placing in the top 10 of the Necronomicon.

Danny Internets wrote:

Mahu wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

You can take into account match ups, how favorible the missions played in the match ups, etc. But there is no denying that the same story to come out of this event matches closely with the rest of the country, namely Deamons, Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, and Orks are producing the more competitive builds.

By looking at these results and coming to that conclusion, you must also logically conclude that Tyranids and Necrons are top competitors. After all, their representation in the top 10 here equals that of CSM, the competitive nature of which you believe to be substantiated by this list.

Not necessarily. The high placing of a single player is indicative of that player and his match ups. The several placings of multiple players playing out of the same codex is indicative of that codexes power.

If you remember, my previous post compared the result of the Necro with the rest of the results nation wide, which is why I included Chaos Space Marine in my list.

Frank Fugger has pointed out that Necrons have performed well in UK GTs. One could apply your same logic to them as you currently do to CSM, given their nationwide results and the single instance of a player placing in the top 10 of the Necronomicon.

There is also less data coming out of the UK results then come out of the US simply due to the amount of events run each year per country. It is fair to say though that US results are by far the best competitive borrometer because we have a more competitive culture, and the results are spread out among a great many region playstyles.

Danny Internets wrote:

Dude, just shut up.

No u!

I'm sorry that it gets you all butthurt, but if you honestly think Tyranids are competitive in a 5th edition mech environment then you're playing a different game than everyone else.

Also, what does Stelek have to do with this? Do you throw unprovoked insults at strangers often?

Oh don't worry, my butt is fine. I was simply trying to save you from making even more than an ass out of yourself with your comments. While not as dominant as they once were at the end of 4th, Bugs can still hold there own against even your feared mech lists.

Again, if you can't see this... the problem sounds more like you...

There is also less data coming out of the UK results then come out of the US simply due to the amount of events run each year per country. It is fair to say though that US results are by far the best competitive borrometer because we have a more competitive culture, and the results are spread out among a great many region playstyles.

Well, regarding which culture is more competitive, that's simply a matter of opinion. Even if you could definitively say one culture is more competitive on average than another, this means little when all you need to fill out an event is 40-100 potentially cut-throat individuals.

As far as your second point is concerned, from my experience every club is its own little microcosm and unless there are multiple play groups in the same area they are often wildly different from one another, whether they're 5 miles apart or 500. The internet also does a lot to mitigate the effects of physical proximity between groups. While I haven't played in the UK, I doubt the variety of styles is any different when bringing together clubs at a national event.

Elessar wrote:

No Eldar in the Top Ten, and you think it's a reasonable basis for results? Get real.

How do you know if there were even any Eldar players there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elessar wrote:[
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's priceless.

Read Danny's Blog, maybe you'll learn how to play the game well.

Orks = Bottom of Competitive. Necrons = Bottom of the Barrel.

If it reflects his opinion on this and the previous threads, I will pass.

methoderik wrote:

Elessar wrote:

No Eldar in the Top Ten, and you think it's a reasonable basis for results? Get real.

How do you know if there were even any Eldar players there?

Because the event results show 4 Eldar players: http://www.thenecro.com/coverage.htm

Also interesting is that there were 12 Ork players there, the majority of which placed in the bottom half of the standings by battle points.

Danny Internets wrote:

Because the event rules show 4 Eldar players: http://www.thenecro.com/coverage.htm

Wow a whole 4, out of how many? And I guess since they are playing Eldar they have to be skilled players?

4 of 68 were Eldar players (5.9%).

For reference, there were 5 Daemon players (7.4%) and 6 Chaos Space Marine players (8.8%). And only 3 Tyranid and Necron players (4.4%).

This thread has received multiple reports now.

STOP the flaming, personal attacks, insults, etc.

This thread is now on a short leash...

Well, shorter than before this.

There was 1 very good mech eldar player who lost to the witch hunters army that was built to be anti-mech. Yermom had the highest placing Nids and he can tell you how the environment was.

As for IG, I think alot of people who took IG either a) didnt have their ideal army yet, b) havent found the competitive build or c) got destroyed by the mission or a bad matchup.

I think one thing that differs in Warhammer 40k compared to say, Magic: the Gathering, is that there is a lot more player skill and randomness involved.

There can be quite a skill gap in Warhammer40k that a lot of people don't want to admit. Really good players can make excellent plays that can allow a "worse" list to win. Heck, I've been playing 40k for 6 years and I have players in my group that are better players than me and have played more games. One of the main reasons I continue to play is to continue improving upon my game.

I guess what I am saying is that unlike, say, Magic: the gathering, you can't look at the winning lists of a tournament and say "those are the top lists". In 40k, you can almost always say "those are some of the best players who entered the tournament".

There are also other factors that can easily change the results of a game such as mission objectives, dice rolls, etc. Then you also have bad matchups or mirror matches that can change the end results. Heck sometimes you even have players who have been playing for years, but havent played a specific army that their gaming group doesn't own. Heck, I've never played a Dark Eldar army yet. Sure, I've read the codex but that doesn't match the experience of actually playing against them. Nobody owns them around here.

Also, I think when some look at an army such as Tyranids and say that they aren't competitive, I think the main thing they are trying to say is that if you take 2 equally skilled players and have them play game after game, the Tyranid player will come out losing more often than winning. We have observed this in our group and we are confident that our Tyranids lists are as good as they come. Yeah, the Tyranids win games and force us to play smart but we definitely take them down more than they take us down. In a tournament, a good Tyranid player with a good list can win some games against top-tier lists with some lucky dice rolls, favorable objectives/matchups or mistakes on their opponents' part.

Really all I'm saying is that there are a lot more factors that go into performing well in a tournament besides the exact list being played. I also think some people don't realize how mistakes can be made on a game-by-game basis even be really good players who have been playing for many years. I think any very skilled player can take almost any codex and have the capability of performing well and I think that is what we see often in these tournament results.

methoderik wrote:Obviously you, Frank, and Stelek play in this little bubble of a Universe where Sun revolves strictly around you guys.

I wish that were true; a lot of other people in my group are beginning to wake up and smell the new Edition, which means it's getting less and less worthwhile taking my Grey Knights out of their drawer. That makes me go sad-face, because I've grown accustomed to successfully running an outmoded army with a no-brain strategy that will always work as long as my opponent can't deal with the models I put on the table.

Elessar wrote:Orks = Bottom of Competitive. Necrons = Bottom of the Barrel.

A fine summation

@Skipdog, good post indeed.

You are of course right, a good player will beat a poor player most of the time, even with an inferior list.

What Frank, Danny, Stelek, myself, and others are saying is that, in an environment where no player stands out above the others, Orks, Necrons, Daemons and Nids can't really compete.

That said, Stelek posted a new Daemon list that just might.

@TheHod, I saw in Yermum's thread that a MechDar player was top table heading into 5 - but he still came outside the top ten, which proves (to me) the Necron, Daemon and Ork players had an easier time than he. Especially reading the weak-ass lists Yermum had in some of those games. Sounds like he played fairly well, but some of those guys he faced were no contest. In a series of games between 2 good players with balanced lists, there are few/no massacres.

Eldar players don't have to be skilled, and I would in fact say, given their results, that none of them was exceptionally skilled. Apparently one was good, I accept that, since I wasn't there. Still eager to see his list though.

@Frank: Thanks.

Danny Internets wrote:

Dude, just shut up.

No u!

I'm sorry that it gets you all butthurt, but if you honestly think Tyranids are competitive in a 5th edition mech environment then you're playing a different game than everyone else.

Also, what does Stelek have to do with this? Do you throw unprovoked insults at strangers often?

You know you must be making a good point when you piss someone off on this board.


But Yermom did have a good point. The metagame around the area for the Necro is assault oriented and 5th edition does favor assault armies with cover, run, and a far more brutal assault phase. People will play what they like and some can do very exceptional with what they have.

skipdog172 wrote:Really all I'm saying is that there are a lot more factors that go into performing well in a tournament besides the exact list being played. I also think some people don't realize how mistakes can be made on a game-by-game basis even be really good players who have been playing for many years. I think any very skilled player can take almost any codex and have the capability of performing well and I think that is what we see often in these tournament results.

QFT. All this talk of "tier this" and "competitive that" is just mental masturbation. The fact of the matter is a skilled player with experience with his army can still win in the face of rank and file players with their "uber flavor of the month" army list.

The Green Git wrote:

skipdog172 wrote:Really all I'm saying is that there are a lot more factors that go into performing well in a tournament besides the exact list being played. I also think some people don't realize how mistakes can be made on a game-by-game basis even be really good players who have been playing for many years. I think any very skilled player can take almost any codex and have the capability of performing well and I think that is what we see often in these tournament results.

QFT. All this talk of "tier this" and "competitive that" is just mental masturbation. The fact of the matter is a skilled player with experience with his army can still win in the face of rank and file players with their "uber flavor of the month" army list.

Of course that was already stated, in the first of these threads. We don't disagree - but that's not the point. The point isn't what you can do to an inferior player, because it is in fact LOSING in such a situation that proves a point.

The fact, as we see it, is that Orks aren't able to stand against most evenly skilled players. I don't know how anyone can fail to understand that that is what we keep saying.

(Apart from silly 'flavour of the month' nonsense you're so fond of. MechDar, MechVets, AirCav, Best of Tau/Marines, Plague/Blit spam...hardly fotm when they're not going away - being as genuinely good list, unlike Orks, means they're here to stay.)

@thehod: Every post I make must be a good point, according to your logic!

Elessar wrote:
Of course that was already stated, in the first of these threads. We don't disagree - but that's not the point. The point isn't what you can do to an inferior player, because it is in fact LOSING in such a situation that proves a point.

The fact, as we see it, is that Orks aren't able to stand against most evenly skilled players. I don't know how anyone can fail to understand that that is what we keep saying.

I totally understood what you were saying.

Again, I totally disagree.

While certain match ups will always favor a certain side, Orks can still be competitive when facing similar skilled opponents using your "here to stay" lists. (Tyranids as well)

there's only one real way to know if an army is competitive , when someone plays that army does it win?

It does not matter if you think it's because the opposition was weak or that people have not adapted to 5th ed.

In the end what matters is if with his list a guy can win with it reliably then it's competitive.

Elessar wrote:

@thehod: Every post I make must be a good point, according to your logic!

Well you do have valid points, I never said anyone was trully wrong.

methoderik wrote:

Elessar wrote:
Of course that was already stated, in the first of these threads. We don't disagree - but that's not the point. The point isn't what you can do to an inferior player, because it is in fact LOSING in such a situation that proves a point.

The fact, as we see it, is that Orks aren't able to stand against most evenly skilled players. I don't know how anyone can fail to understand that that is what we keep saying.

I totally understood what you were saying.

Again, I totally disagree.

While certain match ups will always favor a certain side, Orks can still be competitive when facing similar skilled opponents using your "here to stay" lists. (Tyranids as well)

The distinction is this:

If using MechDar, there are certain lists (AirCav, for example) that you REALLY don't want to face - it stretches the list to almost breaking point to take it on at it's own level and to get victory is a serious test of the player and the army.

With Necrons, there are lists you CAN'T reliably beat - this is why they aren't competitive. Orks have the same issue.

That, is where we disagree. You don't want to believe that any army is hamstrung to that degree.

The problem here, and where a lot of the anger is coming from, is that many have misread the direction this thread has taken.

The question is not how good a player is, or if lucky match-ups occured, etc. The questions that should be asked is simply this:

1) Do Orks have the tools do deal with everything they need to in a competitive environment; and

2) If yes, do they have these tools in the abundance that other armies do?

Ork players: Try not to treat this as an attack on you as a person or a competitor. Try to focus on the tools you have to perform with. Could they be better?

Ork opposers: Similarly, stop attacking player bases at nonsense 'tournaments'. Take a look at what the codex has to offer.

I think we will have a far more informed discussion if these points are kept in mind. If not, it will at least be a little more civilized.

P.S. Mods: I would hate for this thread to be shut down just because an individual is angry and decides to bomb it. Do you have other options than that?

Shep wrote:

I hope that in the finals, there are swathes of ork players, all hungry to get an offical and IN PRINT ruling on deffrollas. I for one think that they should work on vehicles, and I think a lot of the former ork players that are tired of getting walled off and templated in their local meta will come back into the fold hardcore.

So ork players keep winning next month please! I need to see that deffrolla ruling in print!

This is the one thing keeping me from going back to orks competitively. It needs clarification because it is def a factor keeping the orks from tier 1 right now. And hey GW will sell more "deff rolla bits packs" as well.

@Fearspect:

That's what we started out by doing, but are now constantly needing to rebut the declaration that because Orks beat this that and the other list at PoorListCon 09 that this isn't evidence that contradicts our previous (still unanswered) points.

I have no desire to see this thread locked either.

Elessar wrote:@Fearspect:

That's what we started out by doing, but are now constantly needing to rebut the declaration that because Orks beat this that and the other list at PoorListCon 09 that this isn't evidence that contradicts our previous (still unanswered) points.

I have no desire to see this thread locked either.

I believe your previous points are going unanswered because they lack... a point.

You give us speculation and opinion as to why they suck.

We give you National tournaments results and our own speculation and opinion as to why they don't suck. Who's winning that debate?

You ask for evidence and then provide none in return.

I am sorry you take offense, and think I am mad or upset. I am not. Just arguing the other side. If you call me a sub par or deficient player or insinuate it in some way, expect a retort.

My opinion is just as valid as your opinion, and at least mine has some backing.

Peace out.

Oh, I don't take offence. Bemused would be more accurate.

Facts (again):


Orks can't reliably kill AV14
Orks can't reliably kill Seer Councils
Orks can't get into CC with, and therefore beat, MechDar, or, even worse, DE.
Orks can't cope with Manticores and Multiple Rocket Pods.
Lootas/Burnas require Dedicated Transports in a 5th Edition environment.
The Ork Codex suffers to much from FoC Saturation - ie, too many choices worth taking compete for the same options, the best example being Elites - taking Nob Bikers and Lootas means taking Nobs as Troops. Is this bad? Only if you want Kommandos, Burnas, Tankbustas...or a KFF.
The KFF is too good, because it forces it's inclusion in a sensible Mech Ork list. Thinks that are taken because they're too good to ignore, rather than just being great on their own strength are bad, as they restrict player choice, and strategy.

On the last point, compare to Vulkan. Is he picked for his support prowess? Yes, of course. But he also runs around with 4 S6 Power Weapon attacks, and a re-roll in both sets he has to make. Not incredible, but more than enough to hold his own.

Obviously, the above points also apply primarily to balanced Ork lists - one trick ponies have no place in a serious discussion about the strength of the Codex.

I'm prepared to discuss ANY of the above points.

Elessar wrote:Oh, I don't take offence. Bemused would be more accurate.

Facts (again):


Orks can't reliably kill AV14
Orks can't reliably kill Seer Councils
Orks can't get into CC with, and therefore beat, MechDar, or, even worse, DE.
Orks can't cope with Manticores and Multiple Rocket Pods.

Orks do have a tough time with 14 all around, but that is limited to LRs and Monos. This is the only real weakness in the dex. Even then, Orks can kill them with PKs.

Orks can kill Seer Councils... easier than most armies can. The best way to kill a Council is massed firepower, and Lootas and Shoota boys have that is spades. I have seen plenty of Fortnued councils go down to concentrated Ork firepower.

Orks can kill MechDar - again Loota fire kills AV 12...dead. Also, Deffkoptas work wonders at taking out all medium to light vehicles (Rokkits+Saw).

Again, Koptas kill Maticores dead, as do Lootas (if the have LOS) and Snikrot Kommandos.

Note that nothing that I mentioned is tailored. Most good balanced Ork lists will have Lootas, tons of PKs, and a few Koptas in them. Heck, even Snikrot is in tons of lists.