# How many 40k battles have you won/lost



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

Red = continuous edit

I've played 177 40k battles and won 154 of them.

104 battles with my space marine lost 17

71 battles with my necron lost 7


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

What...like ever?
These are approximate, so give or take maybe a couple either way.
Should be fairly accurate though.

*W/L/D*

Eldar 2nd Edition maybe 8 battles. 4/3/1

Space Marines 3rd Edition 4 battles. 2/1/1

Space Marines 4th Edition 8 Battles. 4/3/1
Daemonhunters 1 battle 0/0/1
Tau 4 Battles 3/0/1
Eldar 1 battle 1/0/0
Witchhunters 1 battle 0/0/1
Imperial Guard 1 Battle 1/0/0

Grand Total
15/7/6 28 games total.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

I guess its won/lost/drew

and yes every battle you've ever taken part in


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

I have never collected stats but I'll try to give a flavour.

My first armies were Dark Angels, Eldar and Speed Freeks. I maxed all these armies out to be competitive and won many more than I lost.

I then changed a bit as a gamer and only really play fluffy or quirky armies. For example an SM boarding party with only melta weapons as heavy/assault and only dreds for support. A daemon heavy wordbearers (no daemonettes) Tau with fifty fire warriors and no vehicles and 120 model walking ork army. Some of these are accidentally effective and some (Tau) are awful so I probably break even. I find I enjoy the challenge more. Speed freeks especially became almost impossible to lose with.


----------



## Sarigar (Dec 28, 2006)

Jeez, I have no idea. I've played since 1989. I can say I've won more than I lost overall. I imagine I've learned a trick or two in nearly 18 years of playing 40K. Damn, I feel old now.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

lost-Too many to count

won-Too few to remember (stupid cheese armies, I must be the only person who fields a fare balanced army in my store)


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Is this dictionary fair and balanced or Fox News Fair and Balanced?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

After calculating I have played 400games in 13yrs, of those 400 games I have won 50.....................thats crud. (stupid Cheese armies)


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

You've been playing since you were two?
:lol:


I couldn't pass it up.


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

We had a similar thread to posting W/L/D ratios in sig lines.

IMO, its stupid.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

I dunno man. When the games played gets up there in the hundreds, how on earth can you keep track of that?

How many games are you thugging your kid brother? How many are really legit? How can anyone tell? How do you judge whether a game IS legit? Does it have to be played at a convention or Battle Bunker? Does playing your kid brother at the dinner table count?


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Elchimpster has the right of it there,
I have been playing since Rogue Trader was the rule book and used to work in a shop selling GW products during 2nd Edition.
Played more than 20 games a week back then for about two and a half years, I could not tell you how many games I have played let alone the W/L/D.
So..... not enough/many/too many :lol:


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

It's easier for me because I haven't played that much; I'm more of a hobbyist than player. I've got fluff coming out of my ears, but practical playing experience, I'm still a newb.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

I fail to see the point in a thread like this. As has been stated, there is no way for anyone to prove/disprove the ratios someone gives so anything posted here will usually just be pointless. That being said, here is my w/l/d ratio

Chaos - 570/5/3
Tau - 251/76/4
LatD - 100/0/2


See my point?


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Must be a headache to remember ratios and such 
9/12/0 here but like 3 of the wins were from totally beating on my friends when it they were new, and same with most of my losses when i was new(er)
So yeah i agree on the point how much does w/l/d ratio really show?


----------



## Wrath of Khaine (Dec 29, 2006)

Viscount Vash said:


> Elchimpster has the right of it there,
> I have been playing since Rogue Trader was the rule book and used to work in a shop selling GW products during 2nd Edition.
> Played more than 20 games a week back then for about two and a half years, I could not tell you how many games I have played let alone the W/L/D.
> So..... not enough/many/too many :lol:


I've also been playing for just over a decade, and we'd hit that 10-20 games a week mark. Back then, I was pretty unstoppable. I remember winning my FLGS gaming club by more than 30 wins than anyone else, and thousands upon thousands more victory points. My saving grace was that in every game I was losing badly, I'd steal away with the objectives. I couldn't even try to count the wins, but I remember every loss and tie. Its probably like this..

2e Ultramarines 30/1/0
2e Eldar 20/0/0
3e Ultramarines 90/1/1
3e Eldar 50/1/0
3e Armored Company 12/0/0
3e RT Armored Company 6/0/1
3e Tyranids 5/0/0
3e RT Space Wolves 6/1/1
3e RT Eldar 14/1/0
3e RT Word Bearers 25/0/0
4e RT Eldar 2/0/0
4e RT Armored Company 4/0/0

I've only lost 5 times, and christ they were wipeout brutal losses. Every other game I came near losing, I managed to grab objectives, hit high-cost units, or pick off their scoring units.
I had 2 terrible games, one with my Word Bearers and another with my Space Wolves, both in RTs. I had a single squad left with both and pulled off a narrow victory in one and a tie in the Wolves game. God bless Blood Claws charging.
Those stats aren't totally accurate, cause there are probably alot more home games I've won and a few more home losses that I can't remember due to time and quantity of shopgames.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Elchimpster said:


> You've been playing since you were two?
> :lol:
> 
> 
> I couldn't pass it up.


who me?....no no, been playing since I was 5 (I'm 18)


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Has anyone here lost a decent amount of games :? ?


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Actually, I'm guessing all but maybe one or two people here have,m but the people who care are having shenanigans with their scores, and the people who don't don't post.

It's human nature, when comparing this sort of stuff, to justify to yourself that 'oh, all those losses didn't count, because they were against crap armies, and those ones don't count because I was a new player', and to similarly overestimate upon overestimations the amount of battles you've won. Everybody who thinks that these statistics are important does this, and that's the main reason I think they aren't. They're just not based in reality.


----------



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

There are exceptions to the rules, but I generally agree with Uber. I, personally, am a sucker for stats. That said, I've kept very careful track of all of my games, of which there have been many. What would be the point in me posting the stats though? I doubt any would believe me, and even if they did, so what? The off chance that someone might believe me, care enough about my record to be impressed by it enough to stroke my already massive ego is not worth dealing with the far more likely and expected flood of people who couldn't care less or who would believe I am full of crap. More importantly, if someone is going to praise me for something, I'd rather it be for writing an article or helping those who need it, since those things are worthy of more praise than me trouncing a bunch of people just because they didn't think orks knew how to aim a big shoota.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

You need to aim Big Shootas? I always thought the point was much like the Ogryn Ripper Gun: shoot so damn many bullets that they can't possibly _all_ miss.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Orks aiming :lol: Its true in a kind of "Over der!" Dakka dakka dakka way.

This topic has popped up now in about thee seperate posts now.
The only interest in previous games IMO should be how to improve off the back of them or those funny/odd siuations that often arise.

If you are the sort that feels that W/L/D statistics are important, stick them in your Signature and have done with it.


----------



## Hudge (Dec 24, 2006)

Played: 40 Won: 31 Drawn: 9 Lost: 0:twisted:


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

DaemonsR'us said:


> Has anyone here lost a decent amount of games :? ?


Me!


----------



## Hudge (Dec 24, 2006)

Not me I'm a warlord!!!! :twisted:


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

No idea what my total record would be. Been playing for too long, over 10 years now. And I usually play twice a week. About the only ones I keep track of any more are my GT games (US), which I've been a regular at ever since the first US GT in 1997. With my primary army of Imperial Guard, I've never had a GT where I lost more than one game, and I have had several GTs where I went undefeated with them. Yes, that's with IG!! 
On the rare occasions that I field something else, I haven't done as well, like my all-Scout Space Marine army a few years back, 2 wins, 3 losses, 1 draw. Didn't expect to do well with it but was hoping to bat .500.


----------



## NecronNidMarine (Jan 25, 2007)

played(total):25
won:17
lost:8 
:shock:


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

I'd say i've won 90% of my games. All my losses tend to come at the GT.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

i have yet to play a proper game of the new 40k... i had a little 400pt game with my tau vs some guard, which i lost, and another 400pt game to try out the grey knights vs blood angels, which i won.

so 1/0/1 i suppose...


----------



## Fallen Angel (Dec 22, 2006)

Jezlad said:


> I'd say i've won 90% of my games. All my losses tend to come at the GT.


And the practice games before that :lol: 

I tend to have a pretty high win ratio, though i like to lose some games as it just gets boring winning all the time. You learn more from losing than you do from winnning.....


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

Yeah...those practice games don't count.
:roll:


----------



## LongBeard (Dec 22, 2006)

With my BA's I'd say I tend to win the majority of my games.
But as Fallen Angel mentioned the losses are far more valuable, winning week In-week out can become pretty boring for yourself and your opponents.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Fallen Angel said:


> Jezlad said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say i've won 90% of my games. All my losses tend to come at the GT.
> ...


An introduction to Tau by Fallen Angel... 

I blame it on the drive :?


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

Necrons - forgot/most/none
Marines - maybe 20/5/1

I also fail to see the point in a thread like this.



> You need to aim Big Shootas? I always thought the point was much like the Ogryn Ripper Gun: shoot so damn many bullets that they can't possibly all miss.


 ahh good old spray and pray


----------



## Hudge (Dec 24, 2006)

You actually learn the same amount or more if you win because if you lose, you learn what doesn't work, if you win you learn what does.


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

LongBeard said:


> But as Fallen Angel mentioned the losses are far more valuable, winning week In-week out can become pretty boring for yourself and your opponents.


Indeed. Being able to talk back over a game & find out where you & your opponent think you went wrong is a really good way of learning from a game.


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

To anyone that wins far more than they lose I'll say this:

Play better opponents. Smacking down kids in your local shop may make your W/D/L ration look good but you are not actually going to learn anything.

:wink:


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

And as a reply to the OP:

I've been playing since I was 9. I'm now 29. Keeping track of the number of games i've W/D/L'ed is tricky.


----------



## Prophaniti (Jan 24, 2007)

Yeah, I've been playing for years too and I can't be bothered with, or remember the numbers for, an ego-prop like a W/D/L. In my case it's something like: about half/not many/about half.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

Most wouldn't believe or probably care about my win/draw/loss record.
But i could give my personal record vs flame on guys so far

2-0 :wink:


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Keeping score of your W/D/L record = personal masturbation in a public space.

That is all


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

lol ah I've when I was playing I played probably about 20 games and lost pretty much everyone. I was playing Space Marines by the way. So I decieded to throw in the towl and go for a army that looses most of the time anyway. :lol: 

Ok thats a little harsh on the old Deamon Hunters but you know...


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

> personal masturbation in a public space.


I've stopped doing that since the police were called :twisted:


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

That didnt stop me.


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

i just went to a new place


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

I knew I recognised the guy in the stall next to me :lol:


----------



## Kross (Mar 19, 2007)

I can not pretend to know how many games I've played let alone W/L/D I do know that I win a little more than I lose, and I lose a little more than I draw. I'm told that I'm a good Tau player whatever that means, but my favorite parts of the hobby are painting and modelling.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

The reason I posted this thread was to see who has played for a long time, who had the luck of the dice and who didn;t (because thats all it comes down to), also who looses and who wins a lot. I wasn't tring to boast or show off. 

I've been playing for almost 4 years now and being very competative I kept track of my W/L/D ratio. All of the results I've put are completely legit and against my friends (who are the same age as me) and adults at my local. None of them are against little kids I have a rule, never play people who havn't been playing long because you'll probaly win and it will be no fun.


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

Well, no, i definitely do not agree with that. Luck of the dice is a factor in success, but not on a grand scale.

There is a reasont that this is called a "strategy game," is involves strategy, and if you dont have it, you're screwed. 

Thats why their are different lists for different armies playing this and that for this etc.

Strategy.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

I dunno about that.
How many folks do you know that have certain dice they use?
Those purple ones for certain things, and those big ones for something else?
That's called mitigating the randomizer.

How many times have you been in or seen games where people either make every single save or conversely fail every save. Roll a handfull of Ones when you need a Two to hit?

I've played entire games where I've rolled entire squads-worth of shots to hit nothing while my opponant has made almost every single hit, wound and save by using the "right dice". You can't say dice have nothing to do with it. They most certainly do have a lot to do with it. Inevitably units will come in to conflict, and when that happens, if your dice are somehow "cursed" (or otherwise predisposed to bad rolls) you are going to be at a disadvantage. Most especially when up against someone who has mitigated the randomizer by using certain dice which are predisposed to rolling well.

Really, the only solution to this IMO is to have both players use the same dice sets in game (which I doubt will happen for the most part).

Randomizers (dice) are designed to be...random. Rolls are high sometimes and low sometimes. The vast majority of dice on the market are imperfect, rolling either high or low by the nature of the imperfections of their design: smoothness, rounded edges, etc. All things being equal, it should balance out. Things however are NOT equal, and with the given imperfections, trends in rolling in dice sets will be either high or low and can be predicted and subsequently mitigated. Hence "lucky dice" or "unlucky dice".


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

Ok, you are thinking inside the box still, i guess i will put it.

"Oh, i never win cause I have bad luck with dice." That basically what you can say indirectly.

I would say "Oh, I lose because my tactics suck and I took all my guardsman charging into a squad of Genestealers." Tactics, or lack of, play a bigger part to the game.

I never said dice had nothing to do with it. And dice beind "inclined to rolling well" is just coicidence. And rolling dice is speculation. Dice rolls are random.

There are ways to roll dice using a certain motion, which, according to complicated physics well get you the roll of "x."

But noone spends any time trying to do that (at least in 40k) They roll the dice, period. No matter how inclined a die is to rolling well or poorly, it is random. 

Their by extensive reports on how you roll 2 67% and 3 5% and 6 12% yadda yadda yadda, but that is still coicidence. Dice rices are not predictable, it is the prime example for discrete uniform distribution. 

Every side has the same chance to be rolled.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

Sorry man...not true at all.
The most common dice out there are imperfect and prone to rolling a given face more often than others.
Take a look at some of these articles on casino/ perfect dice and imperfect/ common dice:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dice-play/DiceStandard.htm
http://www.dice4everyone.com/dice-types.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/dicephysics/0107.htm


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

Elchimpster said:


> The most common dice out there are imperfect and prone to rolling a given face more often than others.
> /quote]
> 
> 1. Not all dice are "imperfect"
> ...


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

ok why are we arguing about DICE for christ sake, who cares if people beleive in certain dice that roll better or whatever, they must be orky players, we think these dice roll better so they do. or not, i have favourite dice for certain rolls, but then again they will screw up, i dont complain.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

It's not really an arguement, we're debating. No worries.

The common dice we all use, all the ones that are tumbled with rounded edges (not the perfectly square casino dice) are by definition imperfect. The odds of rolling imperfect dice and getting any face an even amount of times are not equal, which means some faces will be rolled more often than others: some will be high, some will be low, some in the middle. After using these imperfect dice you can figure out the trend and use the ones "that roll good". Doesn't mean they always roll perfect, but that the odds of them rolling a favored side is higher than average, which is really all that is needed to skew a game.

No coincedence, it's math. With imperfect dice it isn't a 1/6 chance anymore.

The only way to have dice that are truly random, is to use casino dice (hard, non-rolled corners). Most folks aren't going to do this as they aren't as easy to get a hold of.

The point being that dice are most certainly a factor in this game and the use of "favorite dice" can have a huge impact on the outcome of a game.


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

Ok. I get what your saying. But im trying tosay is, and i cant put it simpler, that even though some sides may be rolled more often, how could you predict each individual roll?

One at a time? 

Because if they are imperfect dice, then perhaps two sides have the same chance to be rolled that way.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

You aren't predicting a single specific roll...all one needs is a high percentage of successes to skew a game.

Think about games where you couldn't ever seem to hit/ wound/ or save. You did all the right things, but the dice determine the outcome...and if those are skewed the outcome is skewed.

We've all seen it.
Games where the dice really help or screw a guy. A game where a guy's "luck" couldn't be better/ worse.
It can turn a game around (either way).

We've all also seen folks who have certain dice they use for certain things. Some dice we've found are "lucky". Thing is, it's not luck, it's us noticing the irregularity over the course of time and taking advantage of it. Some guys use only these "lucky dice".

The fix?
Realistically, unless everyone uses the same batch of dice at a game table, or everyone uses balanced (casino) dice dice will continue to have an effect on the game outcome that isn't random.

A lot of folks claim that dice have nothing to do with it because it's "random" and the odds are fixed at 1/6 per die face. My claim is that it's not that simple, and that some players (well...some more than others) skew that randomness with irregular dice and mitigating the irregularity in their favor...giving them a small, but distinct advantage in games that can skew a game result.


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

very true. as i said i have favoured dice and they must be imperfect because I almost always roll a 6 on my black dice on certain types of cloth/table and so on.

but yes your argument is completely plausible and definitly true. but also going back to certain other factors, tactics does play a major part in wether you win or lose, although again a bad day with the dice does contribute to you winning even if you do have an awsum strategy


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

And we've done an awesome job in derailing this thread.

Totally my bad.


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

we're getting good at this, lets go to other forums and do the same!


----------



## Gothkid (Jan 31, 2007)

My dice suck. My average roll for recent games is 2 maybe 3- though in all fairness my dice rolls match my tactical skill :lol: ! 

My W/L/D is approximately....

3/6/18

Yeah!
To be honest I prefer to have a decent game than kick some 12 year old kid (although the 12 year old would well kick me!). 

Some part of my life is absolutely blessed...I'm sure :roll:


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

Heh, I just finished my first "league"...
0/5/1
Of course we had campaign cards we could use, and I used them in every scenario but one:
Fighting Xenos, have any resuly other than a victorious slaughter against you, and the outcome is counted for the Imperial side as a win. "Hold the Line" [My draw against the Orcs]
Fighting Chaos, Slay a greater Daemon with a force weapon and gain the initiative in the next turn for your faction. "Daemon Hunter" [slaughtered by Khorne forces, killed the Bloodthirster with my Codicier...whi immediately died]
etc.

So I lost the battles, and somehow helped the imperial faction.
We got nuked anyhow.
Meh.


----------



## Hudge (Dec 24, 2006)

WINNING IS BETTER BECAUSE YOU LEARN WHAT WORKS! :evil: If you lose you only learn was doesn't work and have to try something else.


----------



## demonkin (Nov 2, 2007)

yes well im new to 40k but ive played four battles (3 in this last month) but have lost 3 :suicide::suicide::suicide: (i swear two tanks and 7 squads of orks/tau should outnummber 2 squads and a bike of chaos and a bike and a hero for dark eldar) but one i won (two squads on two squads) but i didnt get to play my lord or terminator


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

So far with the new codex im 3-1-0, got the tie yesterday on a objectives match where we(my teamate and i) barely got the tie 1-1, we were very static firebase armies while they were very mobile and they basically began to overwhelm us before we really could do anything, but we held one objective by the hair of our chins!


----------

