|
|
Post by El Capitan on Jun 24, 2005 13:04:14 GMT 1
As with Fantasy, here is a chart for army success in 40k in OGC games.
1 - Chaos 86% (1 player)
2 - Orks 54% (1 player)
3 - Eldar 49% (3 players)
4 - Tyranids 54% (3 players)
5 - Necrons 38% (1 player)
6 - Imperial Guard 25% (1 player)
6 - Space Marines 17% (8 players)
numbers in brackets indicate amount of players who have contributed to games with those armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by tturen on Oct 29, 2005 3:01:01 GMT 1
What no Imperial Guards?
|
|
Simon
Unydun
Fantasy & Magic Champion 2005. Leeds co-ordinator
Spongeman
Posts: 693
|
Post by Simon on Oct 29, 2005 9:57:21 GMT 1
No one plays them in the club at the moment...
|
|
|
|
Post by tturen on Oct 30, 2005 2:58:04 GMT 1
A pitty as the IG are among the best armies in 40k and extremely powerful. Our group has two players with IG. In fact one of the most impressive table top displays is two IG armies going after each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by LukeG on Oct 31, 2005 4:42:32 GMT 1
They look amazing, and when they're used right they steamroll their opponants off the board. I think the problem with them is that they are for 20th Century War fanatics while everyone in OGC at the moment prefers fantasy armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by tturen on Nov 1, 2005 5:47:43 GMT 1
"when they're used right they steamroll their opponants off the board. "
Indeed. I spent a couple years doing just that after the first two turns the games were essentially over. The Wolves proved to be far more challenging to play and much tougher to win with.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Capitan on Nov 1, 2005 16:56:27 GMT 1
Ive got this overwhelming desire to give the guard a whirl at the moment, i enjoyed the non record games ive plyed with them (and that preliminary barrage rule needs to be and has been in our format, scrapped!).
Id like to acxtually put some of my TA training into action, and then be horrified at trhe casdualty rate!
|
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Jan 6, 2006 19:06:52 GMT 1
URGH!! ARGH IT BURNS!!! sorry, i just necked the bottom of a packet of prawn pocktail skips, it was pure flavouring, my taste buds will never be the same again !  well mike is now playing guard, well see what happens. I WILL avenge the nercons and get that win rate up, also lets see if i cant get off to a goos start with the sisters |
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Jan 6, 2006 19:14:26 GMT 1
Ive always been interested in the guard, and loved the models, one draw back of the army is you either need lots of money to collect it, or years of 'this odd tank', and 'that random squad' being throw together in a club  I probably would have collected gaurds back in year 8/9, but back in those days when I was so impresionable everyone raved about how shit they were and I didnt fancy being the joke army  also dont think Id fancy a blood thirster charging the ranks of the gaurdsmen An old mate of mine had the pretorian box set back in the day, wish id got it off him while i could. Not spoken to him for ages thou :/ |
|
|
|
Post by tturen on Jan 9, 2006 5:50:20 GMT 1
Funny how the IG work out. The guy I bought most of my stuff from got rid of them because they coudn't win and then I all but stopped useing them because they coudn't stop winning...
|
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Jan 9, 2006 12:45:25 GMT 1
its definatly a powerful army, so long as your not a dumb ass, loose you 2 or 3 main tanks and thats probably game over
|
|
|
|
Post by El Capitan on Jan 23, 2007 19:29:09 GMT 1
1 - Chaos 80% (1 player)
2 - Sisters of Battle 61% (1 player)
3 - Orks 53% (1 player)
3 - Tyranids 53% (3 players)
5 - Eldar 45% (3 players)
6 - Necrons 37% (1 player)
7 - Imperial Guard 36% (2 players)
8 - Space Marines 21% (8 players)
Latest update of our club army successes,
note a trend that as most beginners play space marines they get pasted in the rankings whereas specialist armies tend to get the reception of the better and more experienced players ie Chaos and Sisters of Battle
....we really need another chaos player tho to bring the chaos % right down!
|
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Jan 23, 2007 21:09:38 GMT 1
just only use battles from the past 5 years, a HUGE percentage of that 80% comes from your early days of knowing all the rules when none of us had a clue..
Id guess your current win ratio is prob around 60%+?
|
|
|
|
Post by tturen on Jan 24, 2007 6:35:31 GMT 1
This is our groups experience in round numbers.
Our two Chaos players run about 50% and both are experienced.
IG: 50% Two players one always wins and the other always loses. One is a vet the other a newbie.
Wolves: 70% Two players one wins a lot the other is solid.
Marines (Blood/Ultra): 50% Two players one newbie who is learning fast.
Orks: 30% One player and the games are close.
Necrons: 20% One player with a limited army selection.
Tau: 50% Two players one who wins and one who loses a lot.
Eldar: 70% Two top notch players one with LONG beard.
|
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Jan 24, 2007 13:33:26 GMT 1
looks like a fun group. that necron dude was me, until we developed out necron list, then I got a lot better with them. The eldar list really needs looking at loop holes, cos as you say, the potential for beard there is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by tturen on Jan 25, 2007 0:50:54 GMT 1
They are a pretty good bunch of people. Even our drop in players are top notch. A great group to game with and the competition is strong just about across the board.
Our Necron player just needs some of the more nasty and faster moving Necron units. As it stands he has way to many basic troops. More experience with the list would help him as well. We also use the OGC list and that could be hurting him some as the OGC lists as a rule are less powerful than the original codex ones. It's my job to make those adjustments but I havn't had the time of late.
I agree that changes to the Eldar list should be made however our bearded player would never submitt to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Jan 25, 2007 19:44:42 GMT 1
he would it you refused to play him otherwise..
its silly to use power armys simply because youve found away to abuse how a few lines were written.. 40k should be a fully balaced and tactical game as much a possible.
Somone like that wouldnt last 2 mins around our group
|
|
|
|
Post by Charly on Jan 25, 2007 23:37:49 GMT 1
the way forth edition seems to be played now, from reading a few forums on ppls army lists etc, seems to be they choose a unit, give it every best piece of equipment going, and if u dont give them the rite equipment ur army list gets laughed at. and to hell with realism. so basically the game is secondary, its who has bearded up there army the most, whos managed to cram in the most elite troops they can. 40k ogc edition is designed to be the complete opposit, realism and background storyline take preference over creating rediculous armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by tturen on Jan 26, 2007 2:56:35 GMT 1
No need to refuse to play our Eldar player. The only army of mine he has beaten was my fledgling Tau force without a complete codex and with limited units to select from. It was a 'test' battle but about the only thing it tested was how fast the Tau could die against a tailored list designed to defeat the models he new I had to select from. Not hard since at that time we had to pool all our Tau and use every last one then add two IG squads just to get enough points. Then I shared command with a new player. All of that no longer the case and even our newer player who tends to struggle has won with his own Tau force.
Besides all our players tend to dip into the codex pretty deep. Its just that out Eldar player takes it to the extreme. Would be nice to see that change though. I get out voted every time the issue comes up.
|
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Jan 27, 2007 1:37:10 GMT 1
Its fair enough if thats how they want to play it, but just try putting the simple question to them:
Do you want to play a tactical combat simulator, or 'who can write the biggest cheese list'
|
|
