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.

Fetterkey wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:
Tiers don't exist in 40k. Almost any army in the game can do well in the right hands.

I don't agree with that statement, but even if true, it's nonsense. If not all armies can do well in the right hands (which is what you claim) then there are at least two tiers (which contradict your first phrase).

Tiers imply that there's an actual stable ranking of some kind. The 40k metagame is so underdeveloped and unstable that what is good is unclear. What isn't good is even harder to discern.

No they don't. Tiers imply a heirarchy. I'm pretty confident in saying that right now, Chaos and IG are better than Tau and Dark Angels. To say otherwise flies in the face of all information.

If you're going to make little half trollish sweeping statements, (things like "There are no tiers in 40k"), the least you could do is not immediately invalidate that statement later in you post. Once you acknowledge that there are armies that wont' do well in the right hands, you've begun the sorting. This is like the fourth of these little things you've done, and in every one you end up retreating from the initial shock statement to a bland aphorism that nobody really questions. It happened in the lash thread, it happened in the melta thread, and it's going to happen here, simply because you can't defend an idiotic position for too long.

Tiers are truthfully irrelevant. Armies can be placed in "tierrs" on how good they are but it comes down to understanding lists and generalship.

Who was talking about a metagame? I don't need a rigorous tournament system to know that Dark Angels are worse than Dark Eldar. I simply don't. And that has nothing to do with when the codexes were released or anything like that. The best lists from one are going to do better than the best lists from the other, based not just on solid reasoning and theory hammer, but experience.

YTTH has some good points, but you have to remember that every conclusion is drawn based on the assumptions that are made on that blog, and may not be universal. It's not a coincidence that nearly every definition of "good" matches what the author likes or does, and ever definition of bad or ineffective is what the author won't do or doesn't like. My point being, it's easy to generate some great conclusions when you pick the starting assumptions.

Edit: the previous post originally linked to several articles on the meta game on YTTH. Note to self: always quote when rebutting.

Polonius wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:
Tiers don't exist in 40k. Almost any army in the game can do well in the right hands.

I don't agree with that statement, but even if true, it's nonsense. If not all armies can do well in the right hands (which is what you claim) then there are at least two tiers (which contradict your first phrase).

Tiers imply that there's an actual stable ranking of some kind. The 40k metagame is so underdeveloped and unstable that what is good is unclear. What isn't good is even harder to discern.

No they don't. Tiers imply a heirarchy. I'm pretty confident in saying that right now, Chaos and IG are better than Tau and Dark Angels. To say otherwise flies in the face of all information.

If you're going to make little half trollish sweeping statements, (things like "There are no tiers in 40k"), the least you could do is not immediately invalidate that statement later in you post. Once you acknowledge that there are armies that wont' do well in the right hands, you've begun the sorting. This is like the fourth of these little things you've done, and in every one you end up retreating from the initial shock statement to a bland aphorism that nobody really questions. It happened in the lash thread, it happened in the melta thread, and it's going to happen here, simply because you can't defend an idiotic position for too long.

And yet those advocating that tiers don't exist are not be harsh or critical using the old "your position is dumb."

My earlier cheesy statements were made toward the title of the thread not to polonius.

The part of picking fights is directed at polonius for the need to say things like your position is stupid. That makes you seem childish.

Tiers are a creation of a tounie mind set. Yes the armies(tau, necron, DE, etc) are older. Yes the older armies take a bit more practice or strategy, but makes them no less competitive if put with a good war gamer. Just because at this point(because many are using old codexes and not retrofitted to 5th) requires a bit more forethought and not as forgiving doesn't make an army suck. It's just a bit of more work till they get a new dex. The only army I think is leaning towards being in a league of its own is the new IG. They are just really darn solid all around.

It's funny people say that the SM army is good for beginners. It has tons of options to overwhelm. It can have a completely different play style with each different HQ. The only thing maybe good for beginners is that it's easy to get.

If those who want more love for other races suggest the xenos who need some love to the new guys .

tell me if im being stupid but one of the things that killed me (fluff wise) in the New SW and SM codex's was the fact that their psykers could get 2 psychic powers a turn............ I'm not saying its over powered or anything just that 2 psychic powers is a zeetch thing...

scifi112233 wrote:tell me if im being stupid but one of the things that killed me (fluff wise) in the New SW and SM codex's was the fact that their psykers could get 2 psychic powers a turn............ I'm not saying its over powered or anything just that 2 psychic powers is a zeetch thing...

I haven't seen anything in the SW codex that lets them use 2 a turn. Aside from Mephiston(BA) I don't know any other SM psyker who can use multiple powers in a turn.

WarmasterScott wrote:
The part of picking fights is directed at polonius for the need to say things like your position is stupid. That makes you seem childish.

I could have use a nice word like "intellectual untenable," but sometimes you call a spade a spade. When a person tells you something that is counter to all of your experience and reasoning, I don't think you're entirely out of line for thinking they're either messing with you or hold a foolish stance.

If I told you, for example, that attracting people of the opposite sex has nothing to with physical looks, status, confidence, or personality. would you think I was holding a position that is defensible, or would you think, "maybe this guy is actually an idiot?"

And Fetterkey has a history of this, as I alluded to. He likes to make claims sharply counter to conventional wisdom, and then back off them when the heat gets to high.

Polonius wrote:

WarmasterScott wrote:
The part of picking fights is directed at polonius for the need to say things like your position is stupid. That makes you seem childish.

I could have use a nice word like "intellectual untenable," but sometimes you call a spade a spade. When a person tells you something that is counter to all of your experience and reasoning, I don't think you're entirely out of line for thinking they're either messing with you or hold a foolish stance.

If I told you, for example, that attracting people of the opposite sex has nothing to with physical looks, status, confidence, or personality. would you think I was holding a position that is defensible, or would you think, "maybe this guy is actually an idiot?"

And Fetterkey has a history of this, as I alluded to. He likes to make claims sharply counter to conventional wisdom, and then back off them when the heat gets to high.

I understand your point but I'm saying as someone who doesn't "know" you it is sort of a put off to some good points you may be making.

If you think my posts are off putting, wait until you read the rest of the posts here....

Polonius wrote:If you think my posts are off putting, wait until you read the rest of the posts here....

Oh I know I have read some already.

Polonius wrote:No they don't. Tiers imply a heirarchy. I'm pretty confident in saying that right now, Chaos and IG are better than Tau and Dark Angels. To say otherwise flies in the face of all information.

Tier lists rank something's metagame viability and theoretical performance under tournament conditions. Unfortunately, this can't be done for 40k, because there's not really any such thing as strict "tournament conditions" given scenario divergence, terrain effects, different FAQs or rulings, etc. Quite frankly, you're simply wrong. You're trying to import a meaningful term in other games into 40k, where it doesn't apply, and in doing so you have to twist definitions.

Also, Tau and Dark Angels seem perfectly viable if built correctly, just like any other Codex.

Polonius wrote:If you're going to make little half trollish sweeping statements, (things like "There are no tiers in 40k"), the least you could do is not immediately invalidate that statement later in you post. Once you acknowledge that there are armies that wont' do well in the right hands, you've begun the sorting.

When I say that there are armies that won't do well, I'm primarily talking about lists rather than Codices. If you take 30 Vanguard Veterans with power fists on every guy, for example, you will probably not win. However, almost any Codex that comes to mind can make a viable list, especially if you count gimmick/RPS lists as viable.

Polonius wrote:I could have use a nice word like "intellectual untenable," but sometimes you call a spade a spade. When a person tells you something that is counter to all of your experience and reasoning, I don't think you're entirely out of line for thinking they're either messing with you or hold a foolish stance.

Or perhaps your reasoning is incorrect and your experience isn't fully generalizable?

Fetterkey wrote:

Polonius wrote:No they don't. Tiers imply a heirarchy. I'm pretty confident in saying that right now, Chaos and IG are better than Tau and Dark Angels. To say otherwise flies in the face of all information.

Tier lists rank something's metagame viability and theoretical performance under tournament conditions. Unfortunately, this can't be done for 40k, because there's not really any such thing as strict "tournament conditions" given scenario divergence, terrain effects, different FAQs or rulings, etc. Quite frankly, you're simply wrong. You're trying to import a meaningful term in other games into 40k, where it doesn't apply, and in doing so you have to twist definitions.

Why not? Why can't it be done? There are a lot of variables, but there are a lot of constants. Most people are building armies either for local tournaments where they know the scenarios, terrain or house rules, or for large national events where the information is equally available or not to all players.

There's a common mistake people make with empiricism, in that they assume that they have enough data to come to an absolute conclusion. That's rarely true. A slightly less common mistake is to do what you're doing, which is to look at a pile of evidence, no matter how big, and simply say "it's not enough, so it has no value." Generalizations can have value, and don't need to based on absolute truth.

I'm not sure what meaningful terms I'm trying to import other than "better" or "worse."

Also, Tau and Dark Angels seem perfectly viable if built correctly, just like any other Codex.

Ok. Based on what? Everybody I know whose played those armies seems to think they're weaker. They seem to struggle at large events, if they show up at all.

If there is no real evidence for tiers, how can there be evidence that the armies are all balanced? Simply human failing seems to imply that given 15 active codices, they're not all going to be equally good. It's not possible.

Polonius wrote:If you're going to make little half trollish sweeping statements, (things like "There are no tiers in 40k"), the least you could do is not immediately invalidate that statement later in you post. Once you acknowledge that there are armies that wont' do well in the right hands, you've begun the sorting.

When I say that there are armies that won't do well, I'm primarily talking about lists rather than Codices. If you take 30 Vanguard Veterans with power fists on every guy, for example, you will probably not win. However, almost any Codex that comes to mind can make a viable list, especially if you count gimmick/RPS lists as viable.

I'll agree in that I think every codex can produce a list that has a puncher's chance. Sure, all deathwing can get lucky, as can ninja tau or DH landraider spam. The greatest weight I'd give to a tier system would be that the lower tier your army is, the harder it is to consistently win. I'm not saying DA can't win. I'm saying it's harder than with Chaos.

Polonius wrote:I could have use a nice word like "intellectual untenable," but sometimes you call a spade a spade. When a person tells you something that is counter to all of your experience and reasoning, I don't think you're entirely out of line for thinking they're either messing with you or hold a foolish stance.

Or perhaps your reasoning is incorrect and your experience isn't fully generalizable?

Polonius, a quick look at Fetterkey's posting history will tell you your wasting your time arguing with him.

He basically just goes around and attacks a well established tactic or ability as trash, people to point out the obvious flaws in his attacks, he dismisses them with 1 sentence opinions that contain no facts, and then moves on to troll elsewhere. (Highlights include: 'lash is awful', 'melta weapons aren't good anti tank', and now 'all codexes are equal')

Having someone try to argue with you that Dark Angels are just as strong as Chaos should clue you into this. If they want to pretend that codex creep doesn't exist (snicker) then let them. (although how anyone can say that after the Ork codex is beyond me)

So it seems the thread has been derailed from a forum of sw hate to tier/codex issues?

IntoTheRain wrote:Polonius, a quick look at Fetterkey's posting history will tell you your wasting your time arguing with him.

He basically just goes around and attacks a well established tactic or ability as trash, people to point out the obvious flaws in his attacks, he dismisses them with 1 sentence opinions that contain no facts, and then moves on to troll elsewhere. (Highlights include: 'lash is awful', 'melta weapons aren't good anti tank', and now 'all codexes are equal')

Having someone try to argue with you that Dark Angels are just as strong as Chaos should clue you into this. If they want to pretend that codex creep doesn't exist (snicker) then let them. (although how anyone can say that after the Ork codex is beyond me)

Well, if my goal was to change his mind, yes, I'd be wasting my time. there are really only two good responses to cranks: ignore them, or demonstrate to all those reading why the crank is wrong. I hold no illusion of changing Fetterkey's mind, but hopefully I can prevent others from agreeing.

Honestly, the issue now isn't really codex creep. Chaos, which is over two years old, is still one of the strongest books. DE is older than Tau, nids, or DA. Witchhunters are old and still good. I think they nerfed chaos (which was the strongest for years) and are bringing everything up to roughly the level of Orks/IG/chaos.

WarmasterScott wrote:So it seems the thread has been derailed from a forum of sw hate to tier/codex issues?

Well, the core issue is "are Wolves better than the rest of the armies or not," and an examination of how great the power gap between books are in general isn't totally out of place.

Polonius wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Tier lists rank something's metagame viability and theoretical performance under tournament conditions. Unfortunately, this can't be done for 40k, because there's not really any such thing as strict "tournament conditions" given scenario divergence, terrain effects, different FAQs or rulings, etc. Quite frankly, you're simply wrong. You're trying to import a meaningful term in other games into 40k, where it doesn't apply, and in doing so you have to twist definitions.

Why not? Why can't it be done? There are a lot of variables, but there are a lot of constants. Most people are building armies either for local tournaments where they know the scenarios, terrain or house rules, or for large national events where the information is equally available or not to all players.

There's a common mistake people make with empiricism, in that they assume that they have enough data to come to an absolute conclusion. That's rarely true. A slightly less common mistake is to do what you're doing, which is to look at a pile of evidence, no matter how big, and simply say "it's not enough, so it has no value." Generalizations can have value, and don't need to based on absolute truth.

I think that the number of constants is too low to make valid assumptions. Consider that tiers take a long time to define, even in games that have perfectly stable and identical tournament settings. In 40k, tournament settings are extraordinarily divergent. Consider the recent reports from the Wild West Shootout-- either three or four out of the five scenarios were ridiculous "screw you" missions that could be won or lost based entirely on list composition, and one of those was not only an awful scenario but one that was not disclosed to players beforehand! Even 'Ard Boyz, the supposed champion series of competitive 40k, had awful scenarios that seriously affected composition. When you combine this with the unavoidable terrain variance, issues with points sizes in between events, and the fact that not all tournaments even allow the same units, it's pretty clear that the 40k metagame is dangerously unstable at best. Look at all the misinformation on the Internet-- people really don't know what's going on!

Polonius wrote:

Also, Tau and Dark Angels seem perfectly viable if built correctly, just like any other Codex.

Ok. Based on what? Everybody I know whose played those armies seems to think they're weaker. They seem to struggle at large events, if they show up at all.

Those armies can do things that other armies can't. And there are many strong armies that frequently don't show up-- Sisters, Dark Eldar, etc.

Polonius wrote:I'll agree in that I think every codex can produce a list that has a puncher's chance. Sure, all deathwing can get lucky, as can ninja tau or DH landraider spam. The greatest weight I'd give to a tier system would be that the lower tier your army is, the harder it is to consistently win. I'm not saying DA can't win. I'm saying it's harder than with Chaos.

That seems like a more viable theory than "hard tiers."

Polonius wrote:There is value to challenging conventional wisdom. Group think, intellectual stagnation, etc. are all very real threats that arise whenever people start to agree a little too much. Not all of the results of consensus are wrong, though. In a situation like this, people are generally swayed by three things: tournament results, reasoning/theoryhammer, and sheer weight of numbers. If you're going to sell Dark Angels are just as competitive as Chaos, you need to present some evidence to go with the theory. Tell us what list you'd take. Do well at a tournament. Convince a few other people.

The problem is that tournament results don't always generalize, weight of numbers is meaningless in a rational discussion, and reasoning/theoryhammer is disconnected from actual play experience. Unfortunately, since 40k has such high barriers to entry and such a wide range of potential lists, everyone can't play every army, so it's very difficult for people to gain accurate experience or even precise conceptions of what particular armies or units can do.

So a comparing tau, DA, necron, DE, CSM, etc is relevant to where the 5th edition books "power" lies? I would think that a debate of the wolves ability would involve them more or at the very least include codexes released closer to 5th edition.

IntoTheRain wrote:He basically just goes around and attacks a well established tactic or ability as trash, people to point out the obvious flaws in his attacks, he dismisses them with 1 sentence opinions that contain no facts, and then moves on to troll elsewhere. (Highlights include: 'lash is awful', 'melta weapons aren't good anti tank', and now 'all codexes are equal')

If you actually read "The Melta Myth," you'd find that I didn't say that "meltas are bad" but rather that "long range anti-tank is just as important, if not more so, than meltas." Further, most people in the thread agreed with that post. I'm not saying that all Codices are equal, I'm just saying that tiers don't exist in a situation like 40k, where there isn't a consistent/stable metagame.

Polonius, what makes you think I'm a crank?

Fetterkey wrote:
I think that the number of constants is too low to make valid assumptions. Consider that tiers take a long time to define, even in games that have perfectly stable and identical tournament settings. In 40k, tournament settings are extraordinarily divergent. Consider the recent reports from the Wild West Shootout-- either three or four out of the five scenarios were ridiculous "screw you" missions that could be won or lost based entirely on list composition, and one of those was not only an awful scenario but one that was not disclosed to players beforehand! Even 'Ard Boyz, the supposed champion series of competitive 40k, had awful scenarios that seriously affected composition. When you combine this with the unavoidable terrain variance, issues with points sizes in between events, and the fact that not all tournaments even allow the same units, it's pretty clear that the 40k metagame is dangerously unstable at best. Look at all the misinformation on the Internet-- people really don't know what's going on!

You keep making claims with no real back up. Why do tiers take a long time? Theory hammer isn't right all the time, but people tend to spot good lists right away. And even if you assume that 40k is genuinely that unpredictable, wouldn't the best lists simply be those lists that can weather those variances the best?

It also doesn't change the reality for most people, which is playing in a small pool of armies with well defined terrain using a common bank of missions.

Polonius wrote:

Also, Tau and Dark Angels seem perfectly viable if built correctly, just like any other Codex.

Ok. Based on what? Everybody I know whose played those armies seems to think they're weaker. They seem to struggle at large events, if they show up at all.

Those armies can do things that other armies can't. And there are many strong armies that frequently don't show up-- Sisters, Dark Eldar, etc.

There are strong armies that don't show up, but there are reasons for that. DE and sisters are hard to collect (due to cost), and hard to learn how to play properly.

And sure, Tau and DA can do things other armies cant', but that doesn't make them good. It makes them unique, but that's not the same as good.

Polonius wrote:I'll agree in that I think every codex can produce a list that has a puncher's chance. Sure, all deathwing can get lucky, as can ninja tau or DH landraider spam. The greatest weight I'd give to a tier system would be that the lower tier your army is, the harder it is to consistently win. I'm not saying DA can't win. I'm saying it's harder than with Chaos.

That seems like a more viable theory than "hard tiers."

What exactly do you think most people mean when they talk about tiers? There's a power spectrum, and we're simply trying to analyze it.

Polonius wrote:There is value to challenging conventional wisdom. Group think, intellectual stagnation, etc. are all very real threats that arise whenever people start to agree a little too much. Not all of the results of consensus are wrong, though. In a situation like this, people are generally swayed by three things: tournament results, reasoning/theoryhammer, and sheer weight of numbers. If you're going to sell Dark Angels are just as competitive as Chaos, you need to present some evidence to go with the theory. Tell us what list you'd take. Do well at a tournament. Convince a few other people.

The problem is that tournament results don't always generalize, weight of numbers is meaningless in a rational discussion, and reasoning/theoryhammer is disconnected from actual play experience. Unfortunately, since 40k has such high barriers to entry and such a wide range of potential lists, everyone can't play every army, so it's very difficult for people to gain accurate experience or even precise conceptions of what particular armies or units can do.

I'd agree that 40k doesn't have tiers right now in the same way that, say, Street Fighter 4 does (or will, when they get shaken out).

But it does have tiers in the sense that books fall into 'good' and 'somewhat disadvantaged' and the top lists in each book do the same.

And for a comment back on topic, I'd say that the SW codex is pretty solid aside from 'removed from play' nonsense that didn't need to be introduced and the various versions of Bloodclaws look overpriced.

Polonius wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:
I think that the number of constants is too low to make valid assumptions. Consider that tiers take a long time to define, even in games that have perfectly stable and identical tournament settings. In 40k, tournament settings are extraordinarily divergent. Consider the recent reports from the Wild West Shootout-- either three or four out of the five scenarios were ridiculous "screw you" missions that could be won or lost based entirely on list composition, and one of those was not only an awful scenario but one that was not disclosed to players beforehand! Even 'Ard Boyz, the supposed champion series of competitive 40k, had awful scenarios that seriously affected composition. When you combine this with the unavoidable terrain variance, issues with points sizes in between events, and the fact that not all tournaments even allow the same units, it's pretty clear that the 40k metagame is dangerously unstable at best. Look at all the misinformation on the Internet-- people really don't know what's going on!

You keep making claims with no real back up. Why do tiers take a long time? Theory hammer isn't right all the time, but people tend to spot good lists right away. And even if you assume that 40k is genuinely that unpredictable, wouldn't the best lists simply be those lists that can weather those variances the best?

It also doesn't change the reality for most people, which is playing in a small pool of armies with well defined terrain using a common bank of missions.

Polonius wrote:

Also, Tau and Dark Angels seem perfectly viable if built correctly, just like any other Codex.

Ok. Based on what? Everybody I know whose played those armies seems to think they're weaker. They seem to struggle at large events, if they show up at all.

Those armies can do things that other armies can't. And there are many strong armies that frequently don't show up-- Sisters, Dark Eldar, etc.

There are strong armies that don't show up, but there are reasons for that. DE and sisters are hard to collect (due to cost), and hard to learn how to play properly.

And sure, Tau and DA can do things other armies cant', but that doesn't make them good. It makes them unique, but that's not the same as good.

Polonius wrote:I'll agree in that I think every codex can produce a list that has a puncher's chance. Sure, all deathwing can get lucky, as can ninja tau or DH landraider spam. The greatest weight I'd give to a tier system would be that the lower tier your army is, the harder it is to consistently win. I'm not saying DA can't win. I'm saying it's harder than with Chaos.

That seems like a more viable theory than "hard tiers."

What exactly do you think most people mean when they talk about tiers? There's a power spectrum, and we're simply trying to analyze it.

Polonius wrote:There is value to challenging conventional wisdom. Group think, intellectual stagnation, etc. are all very real threats that arise whenever people start to agree a little too much. Not all of the results of consensus are wrong, though. In a situation like this, people are generally swayed by three things: tournament results, reasoning/theoryhammer, and sheer weight of numbers. If you're going to sell Dark Angels are just as competitive as Chaos, you need to present some evidence to go with the theory. Tell us what list you'd take. Do well at a tournament. Convince a few other people.

The problem is that tournament results don't always generalize, weight of numbers is meaningless in a rational discussion, and reasoning/theoryhammer is disconnected from actual play experience. Unfortunately, since 40k has such high barriers to entry and such a wide range of potential lists, everyone can't play every army, so it's very difficult for people to gain accurate experience or even precise conceptions of what particular armies or units can do.

Just because theory hammer is disconnected doesn't mean it's of no value. Again, you seem to be overly willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It didn't take years of playtesting to realize that "lootas are good." I really think your view of tournament gamers and how they analyze armies in a really prejudicial light. Just because they are using whatever information is available to them, even if incomplete, doesn't make the conclusions erroneous. Yes, more people should be aware that most rankings are first order approximations, but but most are.

You keep making these statements about 40k as if you have unusual insight into the game, and while you're not wrong, I think you're over estimating how wrong everybody else is thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:
Polonius, what makes you think I'm a crank?

Cranks hold beliefs despite evidence, often by dismissing all evidence against their theories for one reason or another. You seem to hold these beliefs, counter to most people's, and then shrug away all the evidence people present for one reason or another.

Another possibility is that you do such a poor job of reading what other people are writing, not in the threads you start but in the ones that discuss the consensus you later attack, that you see things that aren't there. For example, many people by the time of the melta thread were realizing that meltas weren't everything. You're analysis, while at it's core correct, was inflated by the idea that people were still 100% convinced that meltas were all you needed.

The final possibility is that you know what you're doing, but you're just trolling. Toss off an argument, get a huge discussion going, and than back off of it by watering it down. If you're really trying to counter conventional wisdom and overly broad rules of thumb, than issuing blanket statements in opposition aren't really better.

Polonius wrote:You keep making claims with no real back up. Why do tiers take a long time? Theory hammer isn't right all the time, but people tend to spot good lists right away. And even if you assume that 40k is genuinely that unpredictable, wouldn't the best lists simply be those lists that can weather those variances the best?

Tiers take a long time because people *don't* spot what's good right away, and need to be constantly updated, as what's good can change quickly. Nob Bikers were considered dominant for a while until people realized what to do against them. Many people still think Lash is some god-tier ultimate ability that can win games by itself. Tyranids, which I frequently see listed as "garbage tier," recently won a major event. Being able to weather variances is difficult to measure, especially given the wide geographic distribution of 40k and the fact that all lists can't be used at all events.

Polonius wrote:There are strong armies that don't show up, but there are reasons for that. DE and sisters are hard to collect (due to cost), and hard to learn how to play properly.

And sure, Tau and DA can do things other armies cant', but that doesn't make them good. It makes them unique, but that's not the same as good.

In general, if you can do something that can win against a standard response, and your opponent hasn't seen it before, you have a strong advantage.

Polonius wrote:Just because theory hammer is disconnected doesn't mean it's of no value. Again, you seem to be overly willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It didn't take years of playtesting to realize that "lootas are good." I really think your view of tournament gamers and how they analyze armies in a really prejudicial light. Just because they are using whatever information is available to them, even if incomplete, doesn't make the conclusions erroneous. Yes, more people should be aware that most rankings are first order approximations, but but most are.

I know theoryhammer has some value-- that's why I post here. But theory and practice aren't synonymous. I am seeing more and more evidence that gaming skill is more important than listbuilding ability, for example, while conventional thinking would indicate that listbuilding is paramount-- this is, after all, the community where "use tactics" is considered a joke opinion and represents people who don't know what they're doing.

Polonius wrote:You keep making these statements about 40k as if you have unusual insight into the game, and while you're not wrong, I think you're over estimating how wrong everybody else is thinking.

I consider myself to be an average player in terms of skill, but I have had different experiences with 40k than many-- experiences which, in my view, make me less susceptible to trends.

@Fetterkey:
If 100 people were to play a hardcore mech IG list for 10 games, and then play any DA list (I don't care what build), the win/loss ratio would be significantly higher with the IG list. It doesn't matter what the scenarios were, and it doesn't matter what points level. Of course, this experiment is not going to happen, but if it could happen I think everyone would agree with my predicted results.

That's all tiering is. Certain codices simply have an "edge" that make them more likely to win. Key words being "more likely". Nobody said DA or Tau can't win, and indeed they can be tough, competetive armies when played well, but they are tiered low because time after time they lose more than they win. In the end, tiering is nothing more than a rough outline of which codices or specific army builds we can statistically expect to win games.

That experiment doesn't show which is actually better, though. It shows which is easier to pick up and play.

Fetterkey wrote:That experiment doesn't show which is actually better, though. It shows which is easier to pick up and play.

And there is no conclusive way to prove who's stronger, better, etc. So this whole debate is moot.

I agree.

Fetterkey wrote:That experiment doesn't show which is actually better, though. It shows which is easier to pick up and play.

lol. Nice. Fine, how about 100 experienced players who had played that army for a long time? It doesn't matter. Results would still be the same.

MorbidlyObeseMonkey wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:That experiment doesn't show which is actually better, though. It shows which is easier to pick up and play.

lol. Nice. Fine, how about 100 experienced players who had played that army for a long time? It doesn't matter. Results would still be the same.

I disagree with that prediction, though I'd be interested to see the results of that experiment-- not that it will ever be conducted.

Am I reading this

Of course there is a tier system in 40k. I could take a tau army, and beat the hell out of some beginner using the best IG build. Does this mean tau were better? Not at all, simply that I was a much better player. Now if I play a clone of myself, he will stomp my head in with that IG army.

Tier boils down to how many players can do well with an army. The greater percentage of players that do well the greater it is in tier rankings. Its not too hard to go wrong with IG, wolves, chaos, or marines right now. But take eldar, harder to design a functional list as everything is still in 4th edition. And there is less room for error. Does this mean I wont place at events with eldar? Not at all, simply that less people can then with orks for example. Its a bang for your buck situation. Look at the new grey hunters, counter attack, bolter, bolt pistol, hand weapon, grenades, two melta guns and a power fist for like 200 points. Yes please. And I have more room for error with a unit like this. Oops, got them too close to a tank, guess ill just melta it. Oh got charged by a monstrous creature, guess ill do some damage with the fist. Got 30 ork boyz in front of me, guess ill fire my pistols and then charge. Much more wiggle room compared to a unit like dire avengers or fire warriors. And in the case of the first, for very few extra points per model.

So more people will do well with space wolves then with eldar. Because wolves are a more forgiving army.

Yes, but forgiving is different than good.