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.

Unless something drops below GW sells expectations, or drives them in to red, the chance of them reacting to anything is rather low.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Toofast wrote:
I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.

so to be clear... orks should be bad because they have always been bad and should continue to be bad? This is the "you play an NPC faction" argument, sadly GW seems to agree as orks are the only army to in my recollection have a model nerfed before release because non-ork players were complaining about how powerful it was going to be. orks had one powerful freebootaz list that was too strong and took a baseball bat to the codex nerf after dark eldar and mechanicus were broken for 6 months and got another light touch nerf.

To be fair my answer has basically been work with it but realize as I have since 4th edition, GW has nobody on the rules team that play, advocates for, or even likes to orks, they just like that the models sell well as people are loyal to the faction. realizing this by the middle of 5th that is unlikely to change. That said I do not think its a case of "well orks deserve to always be bad" as you imply instead its a GW problem and people should stop buying ork models until they get a proper fix.

Again, they just landed top 4 with 3 nids players in the GW Open, apparently Orks aren't that bad.

Maybe not, got 2 places telling me different info.

Dudeface wrote:
Aaaaaand there goes Orks to top 4 at the Seattle open

No alternative facts, please. He placed 10th with 6-2 and was the only ork list showing up anywhere near a podium.

Top 5 were exclusively reserved for nids.

Dudeface wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Toofast wrote:
I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.

so to be clear... orks should be bad because they have always been bad and should continue to be bad? This is the "you play an NPC faction" argument, sadly GW seems to agree as orks are the only army to in my recollection have a model nerfed before release because non-ork players were complaining about how powerful it was going to be. orks had one powerful freebootaz list that was too strong and took a baseball bat to the codex nerf after dark eldar and mechanicus were broken for 6 months and got another light touch nerf.

To be fair my answer has basically been work with it but realize as I have since 4th edition, GW has nobody on the rules team that play, advocates for, or even likes to orks, they just like that the models sell well as people are loyal to the faction. realizing this by the middle of 5th that is unlikely to change. That said I do not think its a case of "well orks deserve to always be bad" as you imply instead its a GW problem and people should stop buying ork models until they get a proper fix.

Again, they just landed top 4 with 3 nids players in the GW Open, apparently Orks aren't that bad.

i am looking forward to seeing the list. I suspect its the mortal wound theory list or a variant but i could be wrong there. at work and most sites are blocked, strangely dakka is not. the one statsite i can use only has up to 5/1 where orks had a 38% win rate. when 5/8 lists for this weekend post on cliff thomas's 40k fight club stats we can see the whole weekend.

Of note here though one placing does nto make an army necessarily strong, it means somebody is playing it very well if they do it consistently. an example was when Richard Siegler was taking a bottom tier Tau codex and winning event by playing to the missions and never making any mistakes.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
i am looking forward to seeing the list. I suspect its the mortal wound theory list or a variant but i could be wrong there.

Yep, it was bloodaxe MW spam, exploiting bomb squigs to snipe characters and "shoot" unhindered at targets without LoS.

Who is taking bets on what is getting nerfed in the next update?

 Jidmah wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
i am looking forward to seeing the list. I suspect its the mortal wound theory list or a variant but i could be wrong there.

Yep, it was bloodaxe MW spam, exploiting bomb squigs to snipe characters and "shoot" unhindered at targets without LoS.

Who is taking bets on what is getting nerfed in the next update?

probably, my issue with the list though is once ready for it a good player will be countering it without much change, keeping more out of range, eliminating units with squigs as priority etc. I hope i am wrong but I think its going to be a few adjustments to play by top players to keep it as a gatekeeper you have to prepare for moreso than ever going to win a major.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Aaaaaand there goes Orks to top 4 at the Seattle open

No alternative facts, please. He placed 10th with 6-2 and was the only ork list showing up anywhere near a podium.

Top 5 were exclusively reserved for nids.

Sorry I got an excited message with a list from my brother who omitted the "going into the last day" part.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Aaaaaand there goes Orks to top 4 at the Seattle open

No alternative facts, please. He placed 10th with 6-2 and was the only ork list showing up anywhere near a podium.

Top 5 were exclusively reserved for nids.

It looks like Tyranids finally asserted their dominance this past weekend. I don't think anyone is beating them. Harlies also had a decent jump back up.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It looks like Tyranids finally asserted their dominance this past weekend. I don't think anyone is beating them. Harlies also had a decent jump back up.

Still don't think they are "more broken than Harlequins" - but yes. If this week is any indication, that win percentage is bad and getting worse. Suspect there may be more winnowing down to "the best Nid list" - although I've not gone through them all. (I'm sure Goonhammer etc can do that for me.) Don't know if Knights will change things up.

Harlequins frankly could do with some more nerfs as well - but its probably not as big a deal.

Dudeface wrote:


Again, they just landed top 4 with 3 nids players in the GW Open, apparently Orks aren't that bad.

Maybe not, got 2 places telling me different info.

They were in top 4 going into day 2.

They did not end in the top 4 at the end. Plus, the list was just spamming bomb squigs; the core functionality of orks is terrible because GW's rules team won't put effort into orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
i am looking forward to seeing the list. I suspect its the mortal wound theory list or a variant but i could be wrong there.

Yep, it was bloodaxe MW spam, exploiting bomb squigs to snipe characters and "shoot" unhindered at targets without LoS.

Who is taking bets on what is getting nerfed in the next update?

There's a fething alarm klaxon at GW that goes off every time an ork list does well in comp play that tells them to nerf everything lol

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Again, they just landed top 4 with 3 nids players in the GW Open, apparently Orks aren't that bad.

Maybe not, got 2 places telling me different info.

They were in top 4 going into day 2.

They did not end in the top 4 at the end. Plus, the list was just spamming bomb squigs; the core functionality of orks is terrible because GW's rules team won't put effort into orks.

His list is a tad bit more nuanced than that, but the core tactic is cleary hiding everything and throwing squigs over walls, while avoiding fighting or shooting with most parts of the army because orks lose to everything in a direct fight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
There's a fething alarm klaxon at GW that goes off every time an ork list does well in comp play that tells them to nerf everything lol

It would be funny if it weren't true. GW is still layering on more nerfs on nob bikers with every iteration of their rules. At least no one at GW seems to remember that kanz were good in 5th, so they finally got back to not being total garbage.

Well GK were getting multi nerfed just in case, because they were too good in 5th ed. When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?

Karol wrote:
When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?

In 5th.

Tyel 804923 11361145 wrote:

Still don't think they are "more broken than Harlequins" - but yes. If this week is any indication, that win percentage is bad and getting worse. Suspect there may be more winnowing down to "the best Nid list" - although I've not gone through them all.

The tyranids, no matter what kind of an army people play have this distinct DE feel to it, of being undercosted. They plop down an army on the table, you think it is going to be a tough match, and then they inform you they have multiple stuff in reservs. And with all things over all good or overpriced the impact is felt more, the lower down the skill and army optimisation one goes.

Karol wrote:
Well GK were getting multi nerfed just in case, because they were too good in 5th ed. When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?

4th if i member correctly, had to do not due to combat prowess but due to abuse of wound allocation and multiwound models with differing equipment and FNP through a dok, at a time where a FNP was 4+ standardised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:
When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?

In 5th.

I stand corrected then?

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:
When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?

In 5th.

hmm, maybe they have something against 5th armies that were good. Were necron or csm good in 5th ed? Of course in relative terms, something had to be "the best".

4th if i member correctly, had to do not due to combat prowess but due to abuse of wound allocation and multiwound models with differing equipment and FNP through a dok, at a time where a FNP was 4+ standardised.

So it was like GK. 10 paladins each one with a different weapon load out. Was told they could take ton of small weapon fire without ever losing any models.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well GK were getting multi nerfed just in case, because they were too good in 5th ed. When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?

4th if i member correctly, had to do not due to combat prowess but due to abuse of wound allocation and multiwound models with differing equipment and FNP through a dok, at a time where a FNP was 4+ standardised.

It was a 4th edition codex written with 5th edition in mind™, but it really only was a thing during 5th. Nob bikers stood out because of exhaust cloud providing 4+ cover layered with 4+ FNP from the doc on a fast unit that could be made troops by a warboss. Regular nobz could do the very same thing, but were lacking exhaust cloud and had to bring a battlewagon to get anywhere.

It also was much more of an issue of players being pissed at the gamey exploit of the wound allocation rules and death stars in general than an actually powerful army - any S8 hit still instantly splatted them unless you were tanking those hits with a warboss. A unit of nob bikers with warboss babysitter usually clocked in at 600+ points.

GW absolutely made sure that this would never happen again:
- 6th: nerfed cover and FNP, removed the ability to allocate wounds while spreading instant death and S8 everywhere to deal with those pesky multi-wound models
- 7th: nerfed cybork dead (5++ => 6+ FNP), turned the doc unit upgrade into an IC which was more expensive and easy to kill through challenges, exhaust cloud deleted
- 8th index era: nerfed FNP again, reduced leadership, boss poles and the waaagh! banner deleted
- 8th codex: took away ability to take kombi-weapons
- 9th FW book: pain boy legended, moved from elite to overcrowded fast attack slot, extra choppa and stikkbombs taken away, NOBZ keyword removed
- 9th edition codex: 'keepin da order taken away, none of the new bike rules added, making nob bikers nothing but a worse (but more expensive) version of warbikers

Fun fact for Karol: GK Paladins were explicitly designed by Matt Ward to exploit these rules even worse than nobs ever could - the reason why there are so many different melee weapons is so you could create more unique load-outs to exploit the rule better with things like warding staffs added so they would not have the same issues as nob bikers in combat. Essentially they were nob bikers+2.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well GK were getting multi nerfed just in case, because they were too good in 5th ed. When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?

4th if i member correctly, had to do not due to combat prowess but due to abuse of wound allocation and multiwound models with differing equipment and FNP through a dok, at a time where a FNP was 4+ standardised.

It was a 4th edition codex written with 5th edition in mind™, but it really only was a thing during 5th. Nob bikers stood out because of exhaust cloud providing 4+ cover layered with 4+ FNP from the doc on a fast unit that could be made troops by a warboss. Regular nobz could do the very same thing, but were lacking exhaust cloud and had to bring a battlewagon to get anywhere.

It also was much more of an issue of players being pissed at the gamey exploit of the wound allocation rules and death stars in general than an actually powerful army - any S8 hit still instantly splatted them unless you were tanking those hits with a warboss. A unit of nob bikers with warboss babysitter usually clocked in at 600+ points.

GW absolutely made sure that this would never happen again:
- 6th: nerfed cover and FNP, removed the ability to allocate wounds while spreading instant death and S8 everywhere to deal with those pesky multi-wound models
- 7th: nerfed cybork dead (5++ => 6+ FNP), turned the doc unit upgrade into an IC which was more expensive and easy to kill through challenges, exhaust cloud deleted
- 8th index era: nerfed FNP again, reduced leadership, boss poles and the waaagh! banner deleted
- 8th codex: took away ability to take kombi-weapons
- 9th FW book: pain boy legended, moved from elite to overcrowded fast attack slot, extra choppa and stikkbombs taken away, NOBZ keyword removed
- 9th edition codex: 'keepin da order taken away, none of the new bike rules added, making nob bikers nothing but a worse (but more expensive) version of warbikers

Fun fact for Karol: GK Paladins were explicitly designed by Matt Ward to exploit these rules even worse than nobs ever could - the reason why there are so many different melee weapons is so you could create more unique load-outs to exploit the rule better with things like warding staffs added so they would not have the same issues as nob bikers in combat. Essentially they were nob bikers+2.

yup, the irony of using wound shenanagins to buff the new hotness of GK paladins (and the few existing multiwound models) that inadvertantly gave orks a nice powerful unit that worked will with our other competative lists of the days. We had kanwall and battlewagon bash both backed up by a squad or 2 of nob bikers. I miss my madmax orks actually working. I had a fun list I liekd a lot that took a few local tournaments with 2 warbosses on bikes, 2 maxed nob biker units w/painboys on bikes (now legends) backed up by 3x max squads of kannons (now legends) deffcoptas with a big bomb per squad (bomb now legends) a manz missle (meganobz in a trukk) some bikes and gretchen troops. It either got glory and won turn 2 or folded like a house of card, there was no inbetween . later in the addition incoperation of a dakkajet helped to hit back field stuff while allowing the death from the skies white dwarf for dogfighting rules (i keep waiting for GW to redo those in 40k they were quite fun)

Well maybe that is how GW games are, unless you play eldar, you get a few months every one or two decades when it is very fun to play your faction and that is it. Guess it wasn't my time for GK, on the other hand AoS with my Lords is super fun, even if I lose. I don't think there is an army I don't want to play aside for the mermaid people, who just hard counter shoting, so I just don't play vs them. As the saying went at my old store "there is always next edition".

I guess the question for the new season is how the new Knights stack up.

Knights are inherently a skew and so have tended either gatekeep the meta or define it as they did during 2018-19.

Looking nervously at these massed wardog lists. But then, they are only glorified rhino's if you get to assault them - so I may be exaggerating the fear.

A reddit thread prompted this thought. This is the top 100 from ITC split off to show how they do against the rest of the field ( all games, no TTS, 4/22 forward ). The gist is the perception of win rates is affected by armies the top players use.

I think this potentially demonstrates the difference in player skill despite strength of a book.

Its a good counter argument to the idea that a noob with [top meta list] would beat [40k professional] with [basically everything except Guard - and frankly I suspect even that would go up if they had to play them].

Its clear that judging balance purely on win% has a flaw in that it's exaggerated by top player favoritism. But the question is how far you go down.

I mean the top 100 in your list above represent a tiny fraction of the total games. For example 35 of 1102 Tyranid Games are from players in the top 100 - and their higher win% probably isn't really impacting that total win percentage very much. They are 3% of games. You are down to 1.9% in the case of Tau.

By contrast, 30 out of 415 Harlequin games is 7.2%. DE at 6.8%. If those players ditched the faction, you'd see a more pronounced drop.

I.E. DE have a 47% win rate from 365 games - and an 80% win rate from 25 games.
Lets remove those 25 top 100 games - and there 20 wins.

47% of 365=171.55, so lets say 172.
So this is now 152 wins from 340 games. So DE win rate falls from 47% to 44.7%. Round up to say 45%. So those pro's are probably helping DE by about 2.5%, which isn't inconsiderable.

Tyranid equivalents. 61% of 1102. 76% of 35. Maths doesn't totally work - but lets say 27 wins for the top 100. 61% of 1102=672 wins for everyone.
So the change becomes (672-27)/(1102-35)=60.45%. So only half a % or so's difference.

Is comparing under 10 games to something like a 1000 adequate? Not saying that either stats doesn't show important stuff.

There is food for though there. if tyranids after a 1000+ games, have a 61% win rate, then the book is probably really good, considering it is a win rate avarge out of the best and worse players. Then if pros take the same codex and get an even better win rate, then the book is probably too good.

Yes, I think it demonstrates that Nids are a good book with an easy carry, but that a number of other factions still have a path to flex up.

The numbers of games make it hard to be conclusive as always and I would not want to expand past 100. I think at about 150 their scores are about half of the top 10 so there's a big gap there.

Where are those who screamed "custodes are dead and nerfed into the ground, wtf GW"?

They seemed still pretty powerful to me and having a look at the chart Daedalus81 posted maybe I wasn't that crazy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
A reddit thread prompted this thought. This is the top 100 from ITC split off to show how they do against the rest of the field ( all games, no TTS, 4/22 forward ). The gist is the perception of win rates is affected by armies the top players use.

I think this potentially demonstrates the difference in player skill despite strength of a book.

Spoiler:

It's the first table that affects most of the players here though...

 Jidmah wrote:
It's the first table that affects most of the players here though...

Yea, but in terms of "problem armies" basically it is only Nids and perhaps some Harlies. Most people should be able to get a good game if you dodge the bugs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's the first table that affects most of the players here though...

Yea, but in terms of "problem armies" basically it is only Nids and perhaps some Harlies. Most people should be able to get a good game if you dodge the bugs.

Even against bugs, you can have a good game. Obviously talking about a casual game tho.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Even against bugs, you can have a good game. Obviously talking about a casual game tho.

I'm eager to potentially encounter them for the first time in a couple weeks at a major. We'll see how well I can fend of maleceptors.

I like playing chaos and based on the chart above I'm probably a below average player. If you take out the Top 100 victories then chaos has a win rate of about 31%. My win rate vs my meta is around 20% or so (if I'm lucky).

Now I feel worse then when I started this post.

The bigger issue that I note is what the top 100 are playing the most- Harlies, Asuryani, and Nids. That says that they think that these are the books with the best chance of winning.