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.

Hi again,

There's been a post about opening a new FLGS, and there was a question about how to help people decide the army they should start with.

Which lead me to wonder, has anyone ever graded army builds, in an easy-to-read manner?

I was thinking of things like comparing:
Ease of play against initial cost, for a starter army,
Close combat/ranged ability against survivability,
Other common type against something else.

It'd look something like this:

Difficult
..........|
..........|.......................... CSM
..........|
..........|.................................................................IG Mech
..........|
..........|
..........|.................................................Footdar
..........|
..........|
..........|
..........|
..........|
..........|
..........|............SM Tact
..........|
..........|
..........|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy
.............Cheap..................................................................Expensive

This one is obviously wrong, but you get the idea.

Has anyone done this already?
Does anyone have suggestions where armies should go on one of these graphs?
Is it worth the effort?

[Added dots. Spaces got chopped out]

You should make one. I personally don't know how easy it is to play with each army, but I think this graph would help a lot of people decide.

I'd make one myself, but I've played a total of 1 game of 40k in the past 2 decades, and have all of 2 codexes.
Without first-hand knowledge, I'd be misleading people based on hearsay.

Time I got reading

[EDIT: My first reply sounded too grumpy, sorry. Rewritten]

I'm not sure you could really make an understandable graph that's useful, there's too many variables, squads can be kitted out in many different ways not to mention terrain, local meta etc.

And of course when dealing with terms like 'ease of play' you're dealing more with opinion than cold hard fact. Although I think most people could agree Space Wolves are easier to play than Eldar, quantifying how much easier is a whole lot trickier.

I think graph could get a bit confusing fast. Or you would need many of them.
The one showed here is not a good. Typically that kind of graphs represent two related variables. Much better are just plain bars. Also, if there are many variables isn't it easier to use 10 point scale?

Footdar:
Cost: 6
Difficulty of play: 4
Range capability: 6
Meele Capability: 4
Mobility: 2

Mech IG:
Cost: 7
Difficulty of play: 3
Range capability: 8
Meele Capability: 1
Mobility: 6

Duallash CSM:
Cost: 5
Difficulty of play: 6
Range capability: 6
Meele Capability: 6
Mobility: 4

(Points also not accurate)

if you get one made let me know........wish i woulda had one before i started.

I'd best start with a list of army builds.

Is the best place to look the 40k Army Lists section?
Can anyone point me at a list, with summaries?

I'm asking a lot already, but it saves my mistakes needing to be fixed.

Ah, cool - a Herzsprung-Russell diagram of 40K units.