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.

Blood angels.

PS- orks iz da biggest and da best!!!

Threads like this make me sad as SoB and BA are my two main armies.

Hopefully BA will get an update soon...

D

Worst armies are eldar necrons and some times tau ! Bekuz they are op , only thing I hate about new orks is Ghaz change and cyborg body ! And baby stompa loocks like trash but I have alot more useful units in hs so I can never purchase him or see him in my army

 CrownAxe wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
Orks highest rank at BAO was 52nd... Coincidence?
Torrent of Fire said 'nids are dead center of the pack. Blood Angels still lack a codex. They'll feel the love soon.

Orks... With low Av, open topped transports, they are made of explodium. Thats about a 45% kill rate in the explosion. Then da Boyz are no longer immune to pinning fail that and another d6ish die there. Then that's your 25% in the shooting phase so let's just kill off another d6. Orks will stay at the bottom. Regarding the cheap guns... Try to keep those guys on the table after a morale check... Ld 5.

I have a few problems with that graph. Firstly it doesn't have SOB, DA, SW, DE, GK, Demons, IK, or inquisition. That is A LOT of armies missing, some of them 'major' armies.
Secondly it doesn't have a year - by looking at the fact it still lists 'imperial guard' that would suggest it is not recent. Both AM and Orks have had recent new dexes which makes a huge difference.
Thirdly it doesn't state the size of the sample pool.

Thats because its a part of a larger article from this years BAO (which was a few weeks ago). That actually answers all of your problems with it.

Heres the whole article http://www.torrentoffire.com/5416/bay-area-open-inside-the-numbers

Thanks for the link! Interesting read. Although with the ork dex JUST out I don't think we can draw any ork conclusions from that graph. The sample pool is still very small too. A reasonable indicator though.
Eldar, Tau, Crons, CSM, SM and BA are right where I would expect them. Im exceptionally surprised at both guard and nids. Guard I would expect much higher - although I suppose their dex is new as well so the results may not have adjusted as expected yet. And nids I thought would be down with BA! That is a nice surprise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can't call it a pattern yet (with only 2 results to go on) but the SM and Tyranid percentage both increased 4 to 5 months after the release of the new dexes... could be an indicator that it takes that long for armies to be theorized, built, tested, practiced and taken to tournament...

BA are the worst currently. Overpriced assaulty army in (again) a shooty edition. Old codex that has aged very poorly.

Then i'd say Nids. Sure they can win, but their list creation is so limited that they arent even fun to play.

I'd say DE after that due to a poorly aging codex. While they have a few lists that work if you ally in half another army, they dont function well on their own and have taken poorly to the 6th and 7th rule changes.

SoB are somewhere down there, but i dont even consider them a full codex. They are something like Codex Inquisition. A half-assed job of throwing together old rules and not caring if its useful or competitive.

Blood Angels are by far the most over costed and underpowered army out there and to be honest I can't see how GW are going to make them better in this day and age of shooting based warfare.

DE I don't really see as a weak army they are just unforgiving in there play style, sure they could do with an update but I don't see it as urgent as the Blood Angel one.

To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

 techsoldaten wrote:
To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

Can't tell if you are joking, or you don't know how strength of schedule is calculated....

 techsoldaten wrote:
To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

Nice find. Out of the top 20 finishers (115 players listed); 15 of those 20 had the softest Strength of Schedule.
I don't know how BAO is setting up strength of schedule, but it sure looks like the formula to win is play kick the baby.

I think BA are really bad. I've not used them at all, but every time I use my crons against them I instantly have 6 points In my 2nd turn

BA are bad for the same reason old-dex orks were bad. The general game's rules counter their playstyle and no compensation was given via FAQ/Errata. Half their crap only worked because the BRB allowed it to work, not a codex specific rule - well, the BRB changed to prevent assault from reserves as a whole except for old-dex Zagstruk and ....whatever that BA unit was that can do it (name escapes me). Considering they removed that feature from Zagstruk, i imagine BA will lose it too. But, they will most likely give them something else. After all, Kommandos started to blow goats when they couldnt assault after infiltrate but now they get Stealth (shroud with snikrot) so they can survive the barrage upon them much easier.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

Can't tell if you are joking, or you don't know how strength of schedule is calculated....

He's not joking.

Strength of schedule in the BAO is, to my knowledge, the total number of points given up to your opponents. So the winner of the event just happened to allow the least amount of points to his opponents... I bet that's how he won six games!

The name "strength of schedule" logically sounds like it should be how tough your opponents were, I'll give you that one. But, that's not what the actual statistic is. It's just how many total point you gave up. Each win awards 1000 points, each draw 500, so the player with wins and one draw only gave up 500 and something points.

Codex: Legion of the Damned is the worst army. You automatically lose unless you take allies. It is literally impossible to win with a LotD army without help from another army.

Chaos Space Marines. Because they have such potential yet fall so short. Half their dex is useless or doesn't fit the fluff.

 Kriswall wrote:
Codex: Legion of the Damned is the worst army. You automatically lose unless you take allies. It is literally impossible to win with a LotD army without help from another army.

I think we might have a winner...

 Kriswall wrote:
Codex: Legion of the Damned is the worst army. You automatically lose unless you take allies. It is literally impossible to win with a LotD army without help from another army.

Nah, you might get a draw, your opponent could also reserve everything, ending the game with a double elimination.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Codex: Legion of the Damned is the worst army. You automatically lose unless you take allies. It is literally impossible to win with a LotD army without help from another army.

Nah, you might get a draw, your opponent could also reserve everything, ending the game with a double elimination.

-Matt

So if your opponent is literally brain dead, it's not the worst.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
It's the Sisters of battle by a landslide. They don't even get a real codex. They have a tiny pool of miniatures and there rules were terribly written. Add in that the miniatures are overpriced and metals and you' can see that they're the worst off.

I have run sisters for quite a while. They make power armor armies and terminator heavy armies cry.

They may not be top tier, but they have their moments where its not even fair.

Well, I guess you can't blame an ork player for a lack of understanding statistics as well as reading comprehension.

BA really should be next in line for a codex. We need more stuff speeding across the board and smashing faces to force shooty lists to invest in countermeasures again.

I would say Tyranids.

Granted 7th ed changes made Dark Eldar a lot weaker and, Blood Angels though effective at what they do are just too overpriced to be otherwise good.

Tyranids have a new codex, new units, new point costs and, outside of a few specific builds (which themselves aren't that great), they are bad. Not just bad but, -bits of gelatin with smaller bits of old spam stuck to it at the bottom of a rusty container- bad.

Opponents that beat me often still can't win with Nids, in fact I've never lost against Nids. The Nid codex definitely didn't benefit from codex creep. Blood Angels have some good tricks and the only thing they need to be good is point reductions (significant ones though). I can understand BA or DE being bad due to dated rules and costs, happens to every army but, for an army to be released with the intent of making it sucky? That's bad.

 RancidHate wrote:
I would say Tyranids.

Granted 7th ed changes made Dark Eldar a lot weaker and, Blood Angels though effective at what they do are just too overpriced to be otherwise good.

Tyranids have a new codex, new units, new point costs and, outside of a few specific builds (which themselves aren't that great), they are bad. Not just bad but, -bits of gelatin with smaller bits of old spam stuck to it at the bottom of a rusty container- bad.

Opponents that beat me often still can't win with Nids, in fact I've never lost against Nids. The Nid codex definitely didn't benefit from codex creep. Blood Angels have some good tricks and the only thing they need to be good is point reductions (significant ones though). I can understand BA or DE being bad due to dated rules and costs, happens to every army but, for an army to be released with the intent of making it sucky? That's bad.

Based on your avatar and sig, I see you are a Dark Eldar player. I think virtually every Nid player around would agree that DEldar are a bad matchup for Nids - maybe the worst possible matchup because of all the Poison (which Nid MCs tend not to like). That may be skewing your view a bit.

To Asmodas; a very reasonable interpretation. However, I been playin Eldar since '06 and DE since '11. Yes Big Nids are weak against DE poison, Little Nids might swarm OK. Just the same, those other 5 years, I had dozens of matches against Nids, never lost! Now they're even worse...

EDIT: Damn shame, too. The Haruspex is an awesome model. I can imagine it eating and halfway digesting a Rhino and its' occupants before it finishes stuffing it in its' maw. One friend of mine converted a Tervigon into what I called the BallsFex. Instead of the female birthing of gaunts, it did the male ...uh... dissemination... of gaunts

Haruspex shoulda had S10 AP2 Fleshbane Armorbane attacks with the 'Cavernous Maw' codex made-up imaginary pretend special rule: If it is in melee with a vehicle and it causes an Explodes result with a melee attack, the vehicle does not exactly explode instead it is instantly, and horribly, digested. The vehicle and all embarked occupants are immediately removed from play!

 RancidHate wrote:
To Asmodas; a very reasonable interpretation. However, I been playin Eldar since '06 and DE since '11. Yes Big Nids are weak against DE poison, Little Nids might swarm OK. Just the same, those other 5 years, I had dozens of matches against Nids, never lost! Now they're even worse...

I wouldn't put too much faith in DEldar vs Nids these days... 7th edition flipped that matchup completely. Tyranid FMCs are complete death to all DEldar units, and DEldar have no anti Nid FMC. Sure thy can kill the stuff on the ground, but few good Nid lists have a lot of land MCs. True in 5th and 6th it sucked, but try playing Tyranids in 7th. I've played two DEldar lists in 7th, after 5 turns in each one player had 3 warriors left, the other was tabled. DEldar simply can't handle FMCs now.

I genuinely don't understand the continued Tyranid hate. The book is bland, sure, but the army is consistently placing around or above the middle of the pack on ToF and the two big GTs we've had so far.

 jifel wrote:

I wouldn't put too much faith in DEldar vs Nids these days... 7th edition flipped that matchup completely. Tyranid FMCs are complete death to all DEldar units, and DEldar have no anti Nid FMC. Sure thy can kill the stuff on the ground, but few good Nid lists have a lot of land MCs.

To be fair, it does depend on the list.

Not all nid players will want to use the flying MC, regardless of their strength (possibly in the hope that if flyers are ignored for long enough they might all sod off and die).

 jifel wrote:

I genuinely don't understand the continued Tyranid hate. The book is bland, sure, but the army is consistently placing around or above the middle of the pack on ToF and the two big GTs we've had so far.

Emphasis mine - I think you answered your own question.

Many people care more about having an interesting book than a strong one. And, on that front, the nid book just doesn't deliver.

Splinter racked raiders full of warriors are death to Tyranid FMCs. Twin linked poison shooting. Not sky fire, but it's got the volume of shots.

Eldar...... because of what they do to the game right now.

Sisters

The first Big tournament in 7th - Bay Area Open - proved, that so far the worst codex in 7th edition is Imperial guard.

Look at the numbers, read the article, its pretty interesting (and short - for those of you who do not read often...)

http://www.torrentoffire.com/5416/bay-area-open-inside-the-numbers

That article is nice, but it has two issues:

1) Sample size is low. Even for necrons and eldar, it's hard to tell if they are a good army or if the eldar players simply were more lucky/got better matchups etc.
2) Assuming luck is a constant, there are two factors to being successful in tournaments: The quality of your army and they quality of the players. In order to make a reliable statement about an army, you'd have to make players play different armies. There could be more good eldar players than good imperial guard players simply because eldar are more attractive to players, because players who ditched their previous army went to eldar because its 6th edition power or because it's the flavor of the month. Space marine prevalence might either be sign of a good army, or simply a sign for more players sticking to their army and thus gaining more experience.

Unless you differentiate between player skill and army power level, there is no way to tell if a faction is better than another, or if players of a faction are better in general than players of other faction.

 Jidmah wrote:
That article is nice, but it has two issues:

1) Sample size is low. Even for necrons and eldar, it's hard to tell if they are a good army or if the eldar players simply were more lucky/got better matchups etc.
2) Assuming luck is a constant, there are two factors to being successful in tournaments: The quality of your army and they quality of the players. In order to make a reliable statement about an army, you'd have to make players play different armies. There could be more good eldar players than good imperial guard players simply because eldar are more attractive to players, because players who ditched their previous army went to eldar because its 6th edition power or because it's the flavor of the month. Space marine prevalence might either be sign of a good army, or simply a sign for more players sticking to their army and thus gaining more experience.

Unless you differentiate between player skill and army power level, there is no way to tell if a faction is better than another, or if players of a faction are better in general than players of other faction.

While I agree with the 2nd point, and your first point certainly seems true, no one takes either of these things into account when they look at the same statistics and see that Blood Angels and Orks, for example, are near the bottom. They just see data that backs up what they already believe to be true and say "See?! I told ya!!" So, while it doesn't "seem right" that Imperial guard are near the bottom as well...it may just be the beginning of a new trend.

Or... Blood Angels and Orks are also underused and only played by bad generals. *shrugs*

Unless we can clone a person and have said clones play every army in a tournament against themselves, the ToF chart, while useful in a lot of ways, doesn't do a great job with power rankings beyond the top 5 or so. After the top 5ish armies (which, as the quoted poster points out, are the armies that the quality players most likely field)...the strength of general and thin representation of an army are too wild of variables to accurately predict anything.