Battle Reports for 5th Edition: A Summary

With the birth of 6th edition, I thought I should go back and recap my games of 5th so I can finally put them to rest.

For the record, I never really kept track of these numbers before I started the blog, and one of my main goals in keeping track was to find out just how successful I was. In my old gaming group, I was seen as someone who just doesn’t lose, but I knew that wasn’t true. I would’ve imagined that my win/loss ratio would’ve been about 7:5. It seemed that I won more than half of my games, but not anywhere near as many as my steady opponents would claim. Now I’ve hard data to analyze.

Since I’d started my blog (September 2009, for the record), I’ve played a total of 36 games, which comes out to just about one game per month. My total win/loss/tie ratio? 21:10:5

I’ll admit that I’m a little surprised by that, but it doesn’t seem too unreasonable. It means I win 58% of my games, lose 28% and tie the other 14%. In the end, that’s really not far off from my original assumption that I win “a little more than half of my games.”

For those that are interested, the games I played are:

Since I took the time to dig them all up, I thought I’d post some numbers:

The chart shows that I generally win more against people than I lose (which is to be expected). Interesting points that jump out at me are:

  • I played a total of 14 different players. Not bad, considering I played only 36 games. Granted, this doesn’t count different opponents in Team games or Apoc games as different opponents, but it does count them against my total number of games.
  • My total score against Cole is dead even at 1:1:3. I’d say he’s the player with the best grasp of the rules and the most competitive armies that I play against on a regular basis. I actually expected to have lost more there.
  • I was undefeated against Blaine, Charles, Drathmere, Jeff, Kevin, Kurt, & Matt (granted, most of those I only played 1-2 games).
  • The only players to beat me more than I beat them are Andrew (who I played only one game against) & Kris (who I dominated in our first game, when I decimated his army without him even causing a single wound to any of my models). Karma definitely got me on that one.

So then I broke down my wins/losses by armies, which can be found below:

  • My Win/Loss/Tie Ratio for each army I played was:
    • Dark Angels – 1:0:0
    • Dark Eldar – 0:1:0
    • Demons – 3:1:0
    • Eldar – 3:0:0
    • Tyranids – 7:3:2
    • Ultramarines – 7:6:2
  • It’s interesting that my Ultramarines are the most balanced force I have. I’m about dead even in wins/losses. That makes me happy.
  • I would’ve have figured I did as well with my Tyranids as I did, though I think those numbers are artificially inflated by Apoc games (where Bio-Titans reign supreme).
  • I remember my Eldar being undefeated early on, and I stopped playing them because of that. I haven’t played them since 2010 though. Heck, I sold most of them to create an Eldar Exodite force, but never got around to actually finishing that.
  • I’d all but forgotten I played a game with Dark Angels and another with Dark Eldar (borrowed army and proxied, respectively).
  • I’ve played against a total of 12 different armies (excluding “misc, which involves team games and Apoc games). That’s particularly interesting, seeing as GW only lists 11 total armies available, and I know that I never played against Chaos Demons, Dark Elder, Necrons, or Sisters of Battle. Something doesn’t add up…

Lastly, I took a look at my breakdown by Mission type:

  • It’s no surprise that the vast number of ties went to Objective based missions (as many of the 5th ed. Versions lended themselves to ties).
  • Kill points are definitely my weakness. I only won 20% of my games using that mission. This is no surprise, as the armies I build don’t tend to be focused around really tough units, but instead tend to include a wide variety of tactical choices. Since KP seems to be reduced in functionality in 6th, perhaps this will work to my advantage in the future?
  • I found it interesting that I only played one mission out of the Battle book—can that really be right?

Anywho, I’m not sure there’s a lot to learn from these numbers, but it was a fun experiment to go back and reminisce about the games of yesterday. I’m really happy I took the time to document all of these games, and am looking forward to resetting the clock for 6th Edition.

As always, thanks for dropping by.

18 comments on “Battle Reports for 5th Edition: A Summary

  1. Stats are fun!

    That’s a really solid record, far better than my 5th edition record and right now my 6th edition record is horrible.

    To speculate based on what I’ve seen, you seem to have a really solid and large collection for your armies. Now, 40K isn’t entirely an arms race but having a good collection to pull from in creating lists is a huge boon, so I can’t say I’m truly surprised at your record. Mine by contrast, as noted, has not been good at all and I’m working with a very limited collection.

    • What a thought-provoking comment. I was going to reply this morning before going to work, but I decided to mull it over before doing so. It would almost be better to make this an entire blog post, but let’s go with a quick reply:

      I do have a large army; though I don’t think larger armies equate to better win/loss ratios. As I was saying to Cole in the other responses to this article, I used to win far more games when I had fewer models/choices. Now, I’m sure I was a bit of an exception, but I think it stands to reason that there’s a sharp increase to win/loss as you buy the first few models, but after you have a good core, the ratio would actually drop back down (or stay steady at best).

      The logic here is that you start off buying random crap because it looks cool. As you buy some more units, you figure out what’s good, and start using that. Once you have the good stuff, anything else you buy would practically only hurt your odds of winning…

      All things being equal, your game would keep getting better, but the units in 40k simply aren’t equal. Some choices are obviously superior to all others in the ‘dex (for hints on which ones are good, go check your local ‘ard boyz tourney lists).

      I also wondered how having more in your collection could help you. Granted, in 3rd / 4th edition where they had different mission types, it made sense (also in games where you have alternate pre-determined objectives before you create your army). But in general, there are just accepted “good choices.” Unless you’re playing one of those games, I fail to see how more to choose from helps. Perhaps if you’re playing a game against an opponent who knows who he’s playing against and what army they’re choosing, so he can engineer his list against you?

      This doesn’t happen much around here though. Does that happen to you?

      I ramble, but I think the point is that I disagree that more models to choose from (ultimately) makes you win more games. There might also be something to the idea that players with more models have probably played more times, and also have more practice?

      • The idea, more easily explained, is this. In 5th we know MSU and mech in general tended to be dominant, or at least thought to be more dominant. Let’s say, for argument sake, that in 6th foot armies become the big thing. A person with a large collection can make that change from MSU to foot slogging units without blinking. Someone with a limited collection cannot and now needs to invest and investing takes time.

        The point being is that with a large collection you can play what you want. I’m not saying play what’s popular, but what you want because ultimately playing what you enjoy tends to lead to more victories than playing with what you have.

        It’s worth noting, like anything, there can be limits. If you own 10K of an army, yeah that’s certainly way beyond expectations and not what I’m getting at. I’m more talking the guy who has 6K of an army and routinely plays 2K games; plenty of flexibility in list building there.

      • Oh, certainly after an edition shift, owning a bunch of models will allow you to quickly shift to whatever the new dominate meta is, but that wouldn’t really be valid in this instance–as we’re talking about my record for the previous edition.

        I’m not sure that I agree with the “playing what you want” argument though. I think it lends itself to me (and my opponents) enjoying themselves more, but it probably handicaps my total ratio. If I played nothing but “the best” choices, I’m fairly certain I’d be more successful.

      • Also, I’m not saying you’re not a good player, obviously you are. Doesn’t matter how large a collection or how good a list is if you’re not good at the game. Being a good player with a good sized collection is the icing.

    • Took me a moment to figure out what you mean–but you’re pointing out that I counted it as a win, when it was actually a tie, right? You just had to have a better record than me, didn’t you?!?

      I’m curious as to what your current hobby goals are though, and how keeping track of your games would be in contradiction to that? Is one of your goals to take the game less seriously, and you’re afraid that tallying up your win/loss ratio will cause you subconciously play more aggressively?

      • well to be fair you also tallied a win up there for me that was also a tie, the Ultra vs IG 1750. (didnt realize they were links earlier lol i actually searched for that old report i linked).

        Your sorta right on the second note, as Danny noted about playing at Boscos im not interested in having difficulty getting games in because people just assume i will win… thats no fun for anyone. Ive been working for some time now to bring less thought out lists and so far the results have been exactly what i wanted. So essentially it seems counter productive to watch win/lose ratios when my goal is to not care about them.

        I do wish i had pictures of all my games though, i never remember to do it….

      • I don’t think it’s counter-productive to keep track of your win/loss ratio. In fact, it might actually help your argument. If people see that a particular army of yours (or your overall record) is that you only win half the time, they’re likely to believe that you play for fun and not to “pwn face.”

        Heck, that was my original goal. Blaine and the other guys I used to game with all of the time, had this mindset that I was unbeatable, so I wanted to prove (both to them and myself) that I lost a good deal of my games. Granted, I do win more than I lose, but I’m far from unbeatable.

        The other evolution I took as a gamer was that I stopped playing the best units every time. I was ultra cheesy for a long time, playing entire armies of Wolfguards w/ cyclones, Deathguard, Harlequins, etc. They weren’t unbeatable, but each proved to be the most powerful options for the ‘dex in 2nd edition. I found out what was the best and made an army list of them. Literally, my Blood Angels army consisted of Corbulo, and 50+ death company with powerfists and jump packs. That’s all I owned. I’ve found that expanding my collection to include unit choices that are considered “sub-par” has gone a long way to improve my perception.

        Sure, I don’t win as much, but my opponents don’t feel like I’m stomping them into the ground either. I don’t pull punches though–I still play to win, but I do so with tactically different choices. I also feel that using such “inferior” choices also makes me a better player. Anyone can win using the most powerful units, but it takes real strategy to win with the rest of the book.

        I’d definitely encourage you to keep score though. Don’t use it as some form of epeen though. And I really like that I can look back and practically every 5th edition game I’ve played and see it all out on paper. It was a fair bit of work, but it preserved the memories, and I’m really proud of the accomplishment (as sad as that may seem… )

  2. Neat. I have played far too many games of 5th to be able to remember and keep track of them like this.

    It’s cool that you’ve got a winning record, and one that shows you don’t lose very much either. Winning or drawing like 75% of your games is pretty good dude.

    I’ve just been trying out funky, more themed lists lately, rather than spewing out the random quasi-powerful lists that I had been playing at the end of 5th. It’s actually been way more fun, and I don’t care when I lose quite as much. That being said, winning a lot does have it’s price, as was stated by Cole earlier. I feel like I seriously have problems getting a game in when I go over to Bosco’s just because that group of guys feels like it’s a lost cause to throw down. I’d like to think that if I were a jerk to play against people would tell me, but I generally don’t think that I get too whiny, even when I’m losing every game against Cole 😛 It’s not even that I take super hard armies there or anything, it’s just…well, they don’t play so well over there, with a couple of exceptions.

    Right now, working on gluing together a bunch of Sisters I got last year, and trying to get some of my other Eldar models glued together. I’d like to play a more Wraith-themed list, so I’ve been thinking about running that Special Character Farseer from IA:11 so I can field four of my million Wraithlords, plus my Wraithseer. Hopefully i can make most of the army dead.

    • For the record, we don’t hang out with the same crowd really, but those I hear telling tales of your deeds, all seem to think you’re unbeatable. I’m guessing there’s some truth to your “fear factor” statements. Well, the good thing about an image is that you can change it.

      Sisters are crazy expensive. I have about 20 or so of them that I was selling to a guy online, and I had a heart attack when I saw what GW wants for them. That’s ridiculous. How do you find people feel about wraithlords? Personally, I abhore them–more than most things in the game, as they’re so fricken tough. The internetz don’t seem to fear them much, but then again, they’re all “meta” and loaded up with two dozen meltaguns in each list.

      By the way, if you want an army that seems fun, fluffy, and anyone would play you–there’s always space marine bikers… *cough*

      • Yeah, I don’t know. I’m not sure that I’d rather lose more, but I’m definitely not good enough right now to compete nationally against some of the better players that get lots of really high quality games. Mostly it seemed like the last couple years I’ve just been practicing for the next event that I’m going to, and I’ve been taking pretty hard lists to said events. I think I’m more at a point right now where I’m trying out different stuff, and since my games seem to be rarer (where I’m only playing once or twice a week), I need to consolidate and get more enjoyment out of my games rather than what seemed to be the typical “wham, bam, you’re tabled” sort of affair I’ve enjoyed in the past. Not so say that I don’t enjoy the occasional very competitive game (I definitely don’t see myself not attending any local tournaments in the future), but I feel like my style has definitely mellowed since the new edition came out.

        I ended up getting a pretty good deal (like $120?) on about 40 Sisters models. The plan is to paint them up, and maybe borrow some of my room-mates if I want to play a full sized game with them. Otherwise, they’ll be relegated to allies status. Insane pricing on them for sure though.

        The wraith stuff I haven’t heard a lot of complaints about in some time, and most of those come from more veteran players who actually played against them in 3rd ed, where they were like one of the most broken things ever. Most people don’t have any practical experience against eldar, since they’re so rarely brought to the table nowadays. I’d really like to break out the Soulguard of Ulthwe a little more often now that the rules have changed. I also have a ton of guardians to paint up as well. Like, 80 of the bastards

        Rob, I’d love to trade/buy some bikes off you. I would say that I’m not particularly financially solvent at this point though. It’s definitely an army I haven’t really played with since I got rid of my Ravenwing, which is one of those armies that for me that you always regret selling.

      • I’m not a huge fan of losing myself, but I don’t mind “handicapping” myself with “inferior” lists to make the game more fun for all involved. I argue that playing such unit choices makes me a more skill tactician and improves my game overall.

        If I may be so bold, I suspect much of your problem stems from your personal goals in gaming, and the community at large. You seem to strive to be a great competitive player, but unfortunately the level of competitive play in this area just isn’t up to snuff (the only ones I can think of are Cole & Mangles). That’s why you crush people when you bring competitive lists. Competitive players aim to get a single list mastered and learn what it can do against all comers, so they want to keep playing a list to perfect every nuance. The community here doesn’t seem to support that. Many people (like myself) vary their lists every game, and those that don’t aren’t often playing with optimized units anyway.

        I suspect that crushing the rest of us puppies with your hardcore tourney lists does nobody any good. Nobody likes to be humiliated, so they avoid playing with you, and you don’t get a real sense of the level of competition you’d find in other games.

        As for your solvency, we do take layaway. 🙂

        P.S. Did you get the sisters off Craigslist? There was a guy selling a bunch of those this summer, but when I sent him a message, they were gone.

      • I got them from Jason, who shows up to Muldoon with the nicely painted Orks?

        Yeah, I hear you regarding the goals statement. I’m not sure that’s going to continue to be my goal when living up here. I just can’t get the quality (or quantity) of games that I need to compete at a national level, in either 40k or Fantasy (which was really my competitive game). When I lived in the lower 48, I was able to work at the game store a couple nights a week after school and usually play a game, so combined with the three or so games that I could get in every saturday, I had a lot of practice. Not so much anymore, and I feel like I make a lot of mistakes. In addition to that, people seem to field lists that are way more friendly up here, though I’ve got no problems playing against whatever. Though Guard and GK were insanely frustrating last edition.

        To satisfy my competitive streak, I’ve started playing magic again. I might play some more Privateer Stuff, since their big Games Day-esque con I only have to fly down to Seattle to get to.

        Meh, just some thoughts. I still like your analysis. It’s neat to stare down statistics like that.

      • On the MtG front, if you want to come hang sometime, we play various games on Sundays at my house. You’re welcome to crash it when you’d like.

        We’re not super-hardcore on that front either, but it’s not crazy casual either.

Have something to add?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.