It's early days and much can and probably will change but who's looing like they're gonna get a healthy boost? We know lots of previously top tier armies are looking over their shoulders with trepidation at the moment, and the new Boyz on the block are feeling pretty confident, but who do you think (pure speculation obviously) will be dominating the tournaments?

Obviously the Orks seem to be looking healthy, lots of troops with the new run ability has got to be nice.

Personally I'm thinking the Black Templars might be a good bet. You can go foot-slogger/troop heavy if you like but with the possibility of a much more impressive Landraider (less to fear from anything less than strength 9, and less heavy weapons on the table to boot), and the fact that it's unlikely their codex will be hit by 'nerfbat' for a long time I think they look good. Especially if the new preferred enemy rule that the whole army can get is as good as it sounds.

I read Mauleed post that he thinks the Guard are gonna be winners, not sure I see the reasoning there but he often sees things that don't occur to me.

So what do you think, something's gotta fill the Nidzilla/mech skimmer shaped hole in the top tables...

Every army is getting a boost.

Whiners don't see the overall picture, all they see is their sacred cow getting the shaft.

My advice: Own every army. Then you're never boned.

Unless GW goes under. Or sells out to Hasbro-Mart.

Black Templar and other footslogging assault marine lists definately seem to get more good than bad. Their only disadvantage being that they now have to stand up to other armies tricks too eg Genestealers hiding behind gaunts.

Honestly Falcons were just no fun, my brother and I haven't played a 40k game in over a year (we've been trying a new game pretty much every time we meet + Hordes) but we'll be sure to give the new edition a go at some point.

Marines got a boost + landraiders are good now.

Necrons won't even know we changed editions. Monoliths are harder to kill.

Tyranids Kinda early but horde armies migh have some promise now that warriors can't be sniped away. Nidzilla seems fine, better via marching monsters.

Tau lost skimmers gained troop shields. I think they are going to throw back to 3rd ed with ground pounder list.

Dark Eldar hurt slightly, but there skimmers were already paper. No entanglement Is awesome for them. Might see a return to non WWP armies. probably not though.

Guard, there tanks aren't scoring any more. Mech Guard armies might be the new norm. I think it's kind of a zero sum gain for them.

orks are peachy keen

Stelek wrote:Or sells out to Hasbro-Mart.

Please tell me that was just a baseless joke and not even a rumour...

Just thinking about the 3 armies I own (Nurgle Chaos, Imperial Guard, Tyranids) they're all getting better.

Chaos: Land Raider = better, Rhinos don't entangle anymore (and PMs laugh at S4 hits with saves allowed from exploding). The deepstrike change doesn't hurt so bad as everything will come in off icons. The only bad thing is that Battlecannon templates will now wipe out PM squads 50% of the time (hit all under the template, no FNP from S8). But because of that, a Defiler in cover is looking pretty good...

Imperial Guard: Russ toughness is now great, and their battlecannons hit all under the template - can't complain. Sentinels in cover (or even walking behind tanks, shooting over them) get cover saves, awesome. Mech Guard (7+ Guard squads in Chimeras (in cover) shooting a heavy out the top) will actually be quite survivable, and any Chimeras still mobile by turn 5 can move up and dump troops on objectives in a parody of 4th-ed Skimmer land-grabs. Cameleoline just got sick (3+ saves in forests...heh)

Nids: Swarms of gaunts blocking LOS to Stealers - sign me up! Also granting cover saves to cheap Warriors (Toxin Sacs, Deathspitter), who can now walk among/behind the gaunts shooting barrages of S6 Deathspitter templates (with a Barbed Strangler in the mix?) over their heads. The decision as to which model to place forwards (to start the barrage with a large or small blast template) will be interesting...
VCs got a lot worse at taking out vehicles though. So did S4 Rending. But Barbed Stranglers that hit everything under the template are real nice against hordes. Mech Guard vs Nids will be interesting, but I think that Nids can give Orks a good run for their money...

Any list with numbers is going to have a real advantage over more elite armies, with the way wound allocation and outnumbering is sounding. Thinking nids will adapt and continue to be totally frightening, but anybody running horde orks is going to be sitting pretty. Real solid army right now as is, but all those big ork mobs are going to just get stronger with RUN! in there, along with combat changes. Land Raiders get even harder for them, but ah well tank hammer ftw (and tank bustas get easier to control with LoS blocking).

And lobbas get boosted by the no-roll-to-hit-always-scatter thing for templates, unlike every race with BS3+

- Salvage

I am really liking my drop pod list. 800+ pts in troops is a good start, and skimmer nerfing will just make me that much better.

Godzilla I think is tgetting doinked by the inability to hurt high Av.

This is going to sound outlandish, but here's my prediction for tiering:

Top
Rhino rushing plaguemarines of some sort
Necron phalanx
Footslogging Orks
IG with 3 leman russes
Drop Pods

Mid
Monolith Necrons
Footslogging Eldar
Footslogging Tau
Footslogging Marines
IG horde
Mechanized IG

Low
Most everyone else.

I forgot that Chaos are actually going to be pretty good. They have some of the nicer basic troops out there.
Heh maybe the dev team has some idea what they are doing after all.........

Top tier will be whatever the wisdom of the Intarwebz acclaims it to be, and whatever the strategic perspicacity of the tournament circuit copy-pastes from the Intarwebz onto their army lists.

I see what you're saying Nurglitch, and I have to point out I have no idea what happens in US events (seems the majority of the population here on Dakka are colonials) but here in the UK the 'wisdom of the interwebs' is a fairly accurate reflection of whats doing well at any given point in the tournament scene. Obviously I have no proof but I was always under the impression that the 'intarwebz' took its lead from the tournaments and not the other way about. (could be wrong though... hmm, chicken and egg anyone?)

MrJones wrote:I see what you're saying Nurglitch, and I have to point out I have no idea what happens in US events (seems the majority of the population here on Dakka are colonials) but here in the UK the 'wisdom of the interwebs' is a fairly accurate reflection of whats doing well at any given point in the tournament scene. Obviously I have no proof but I was always under the impression that the 'intarwebz' took its lead from the tournaments and not the other way about. (could be wrong though... hmm, chicken and egg anyone?)

I think both internet analysts and tournament based players are able to do the odds and figure out what's underpriced and what the most powerful and broken builds are. It's not that hard to do. It may be chicken and egg, but the God who created both the chicken and the egg is broken and unbalanced army lists and poorly playtested rules. Once the Codexes are internally balanced and balanced against each other then there will be much less emphasis on tiers.

Asmodai wrote:

MrJones wrote:I see what you're saying Nurglitch, and I have to point out I have no idea what happens in US events (seems the majority of the population here on Dakka are colonials) but here in the UK the 'wisdom of the interwebs' is a fairly accurate reflection of whats doing well at any given point in the tournament scene. Obviously I have no proof but I was always under the impression that the 'intarwebz' took its lead from the tournaments and not the other way about. (could be wrong though... hmm, chicken and egg anyone?)

I think both internet analysts and tournament based players are able to do the odds and figure out what's underpriced and what the most powerful and broken builds are. It's not that hard to do. It may be chicken and egg, but the God who created both the chicken and the egg is broken and unbalanced army lists and poorly playtested rules. Once the Codexes are internally balanced and balanced against each other then there will be much less emphasis on tiers.

Let's not get too Zen here

And while internet analysis is good for volume of discussion and presentation of bizzarre alternative viewpoints (many names could be named...), it tends to overfocus on single-unit selections and forget that unit synergy is what makes things kick donkey. But yes, the most mathematically broken choices jump out in whatever medium.

Savnock wrote:

Asmodai wrote:

MrJones wrote:I see what you're saying Nurglitch, and I have to point out I have no idea what happens in US events (seems the majority of the population here on Dakka are colonials) but here in the UK the 'wisdom of the interwebs' is a fairly accurate reflection of whats doing well at any given point in the tournament scene. Obviously I have no proof but I was always under the impression that the 'intarwebz' took its lead from the tournaments and not the other way about. (could be wrong though... hmm, chicken and egg anyone?)

I think both internet analysts and tournament based players are able to do the odds and figure out what's underpriced and what the most powerful and broken builds are. It's not that hard to do. It may be chicken and egg, but the God who created both the chicken and the egg is broken and unbalanced army lists and poorly playtested rules. Once the Codexes are internally balanced and balanced against each other then there will be much less emphasis on tiers.

Let's not get too Zen here

And while internet analysis is good for volume of discussion and presentation of bizzarre alternative viewpoints (many names could be named...), it tends to overfocus on single-unit selections and forget that unit synergy is what makes things kick donkey. But yes, the most mathematically broken choices jump out in whatever medium.

True. I was drinking Tazo's Zen tea, so that must have gotten reflected in my post.

Use of unit synergy is what separates tournament winners from also rans, along with use of terrain, match-ups and luck. Unfortunately, the metagame varies wildly from place to place (in terms of what armies are popular), each tournament has a different amount of terrain and different types and sizes, etc.

None of those things can be controlled or anticipated in advance - either by tournament players or by the pundits. Instead the discussion focuses on what factors are controllable - e.g. making sure you have enough heavy weapons, can survive a turn of hypothetical return fire, can move across a hypothetical table to secure an objective a certain distance away in a theoretical mission that might or might not exist who attempting to prevent the mythical MEQ from doing the same.

Everyone could make a 36 variants of each post (light, medium, heavy terrain x each army) with subparagraphs for each of the major builds for that army, but let's be honest. I'm posting on Dakka because I'm too lazy to start writing my essay that's due next week or finish painting up the Whirlwind on my coffee table. That doesn't bode well for me, or anyone else, going into more than a superficial analysis of the most likely outcomes.


Paragraph 1113.B.2.1 - In the event of emergency: It is always possible that a Grand Tournament or Rogue Trade Tournament will catch fire or be attacked by terrorists or a lone psychopath. Although Orks and to a lesser extent, Marines are already prepared for this eventuality (see Appendix B, paragraph 359), Eldar players face unique challenges. First, Grav-Tanks are generally not flame-retardant. Nor are they bullet proof (unless the steps in subparagraph 3253.B.1 have been followed). Use of the Falcon as a flotation advice is inadvisable, unless the liquid medium is pudding (para. 255) or jello (para. 256). On to addressing Eldar's unique challenges. The first topic is fire. Eldar are better off here than Tyranids or Orks, but worse off than Marines in terms of quick-packing. The proprietary of packing up your army before leaving has been much debated (see infra). Generally speaking, if the fire is only minor or electrical it is best to take easily flammable Codexes and rulebooks, but leave the models on the table. You should leave in an orderly manner after your opponent. It is possible that your opponent in fact set the fire and planned to remain to measure distances and make minor adjustments after the building was evacuated. You should not allow this to happen. Flame-retardant clothing is recommended (see Appendix Q). Terrorist attacks also poses significant challenges for the Eldar player. Eldar transfers include Taoist symbols. This will pose a challenge if the tournament is taken hostage by Taoist extremists as the symbols could be seen as sacrilegious. For this reason, it is advisable not to use those symbols. (Note: some players maintain these symbols provide luck or quantum fluctuations that affect die rolls. For a more thorough discussion see Appendix V: Religion and Superstition). The lone psychopath can also pose a challenge. Statistically, Eldar players are 24% more likely to suffer from mental illness than the general Warhammer 40,000 playing population (n24564). For this reason, the psychopath may attempt to bond with the Eldar player as a kindred spirit. This can be useful sometimes, but it places the Eldar player in great danger. Before a tournament, the player is well-advised to attend classes on hostage negotiation and criminal behavior. As always, the player should be able to defend themselves (see Paragraph 245325-Q on Self-Defence for Gamers and Appendix M - Are sidearms acceptable at the game table?).

Nah.

Lol! That must be some essay you're avoiding.

Barkeep, I'll have what he's having.

Asmodai wrote:Once the Codexes are internally balanced and balanced against each other then there will be much less emphasis on tiers.

A simpler explanation is that the armies are balanced and it's simply the prevalence of bad armchair analysis that gives credence to silly ideas like armies being "top tier".

Nurglitch wrote:A simpler explanation is that the armies are balanced and it's simply the prevalence of bad armchair analysis that gives credence to silly ideas like armies being "top tier".

Ok, as a guy who reads plenty of threads, I've noticed that you occaisionally let slip that maybe you're not 100% certain that there are power imbalances in the codex. What makes me curious is that I'd like to know to what extent you find that true. Do you think that all codices, past, present and future are perfectly balanced with regards to winnability? Do you think that any varients in power are minor enough to not be relevent?

In your dismissal of armchair analysis, you contest that Dakka's theory of list preeminance is mostly groupthink. Are we wrong? And if so, how do you know that all lists are balanced? Are you engaging in your own analysis, or have you extensively playtested all top teir army lists against DA, Daemonhunters, IG, old orks, and found them to be even?

In a hypothetical, lets say we were to take 1000 gamers, divide them into groups A and B, evening out intelligence, experience, general player skill, etc. among the groups. Group A will use Nidzilla, tri-falcon eldar, and new Orks. Group B will use DA, IG, and Old Orks. Assuming both sides got plenty of time to familiarize themselves with their lists, and all outside variables were kept constant, would you expect Group A to perform no better than group B?

If you've explained the reason for your dismissal and the process by which you've come to your conclusions in another thread, by all means link me to it.

Polonius: Your avatar truly represents the sagacity for which you are rightly famed. I believe that no rigorous analysis has been done with regard to whether codicies and the units told of within them are 'balanced'. Indeed no rigorous definition has been offered for that term, and no rigorous analysis employing that term has yet to be offered. In the absence of rigorous method one can quite reasonably expect results to not only be false, but misleading.

In my dismissal of armchair analysis I contest that where no rigorous method is employed the reasonable person errs on the side of caution and rejects the possible truth of any results. That reasonable person cannot reject all results, but that is simply because, as the principle of explosiveness tells us, the set of results would be transfinite and irregular, and thus unknowable.

Similarly one must reject the relevance of what is commonly known as 'play-testing', as the object in question is a mathematical structure and no empirical testing will avail one who wishes to explore such a structure and remark upon its properties with any accuracy.

In the absence of knowing whether all lists are balanced, but knowing that many lists and armies that are often considered unbalanced may be used effectively by a player that is skilled in the game of Warhammer 40k, the only reasonable conclusion is that when one does not find success with a particular army, one must eliminate the variables of luck, mission, skill, and the skill of one's opponents before supposing that the army itself is a crude instrument.

If we were to take 1000 gamers, and divide them into two equal groups, where one group used what are commonly considered the "top-tier" armies and one group used what are thus considered the "bottom tier" armies, I would not expect either group to perform better than another within the standard deviations. I would not expect this for two reasons:

The first reason is that the effectiveness of the armies would depend on the missions and terrain being used, as well as the skill of the players and the capacities inherent in the armies. Even if kept constant with regard to lucky, mission, and terrain, this sample would not avail us where the total product of the variables concerned requires consideration to assure the likelihood of truth in any conclusions.

The second reason is that the number of moves in any particular game between any players would be very very large as well, so we could not know whether the players used the armies well since we have abstracted away what it means to use an army well as a product of skill. Essentially such a hypothetical situation would be a ridiculous waste of time and effort, and yield misleading results. But what else can you expect with the misapplication of the methods of empirical science?

In the meantime, and in the absence of the resources to misapply the scientific method it seems that players must misuse the methods of pure science, in particular according to the fallacies of argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority, question-begging, appeals to prejudice, and all the traditional fallacies of reasoning beloved of internet forum users.

hmm, interesting post. I'm really not sure if I should respond tit-for-tat, replying to each idea, or if I should respond in a manifesto.

I guess before I respond fully, I'd like more elaboration on your ideas. You said that you would expect my hypothetical test would not show either group to have an advantage. This was due, you claimed, to external variables (missions, skill, luck) as well as by claiming that such a test is a misapplicaiton of empirical science. I'm not a scientist, but I've always assumed that the way to test a hypothesis (that certain armies perform better than others) was to do what you can control external variables so that the only independent variable was that being tested. I tried to be clear, but maybe I wasn't enough. I'm suggesting that we take an arbitrarily large number of gamers, have them play a large number of games against the other group, and try to normalize as many variables as possible. Have the gamers play every mission in the BGB, GTs, Ard Boys, etc. Make the groups large and random to reduce a skill gap. Have them play large numbers of games to minimize the effects of luck.

Would such an experiment yeild valid results? If not, why not? If not, how would you construct an experiemnt to test this? And if you cannot test this hypothesis, even hypothetically, then are you saying that it is unknowable?

Look, I'm the first to admit that differences in how an army is constructed is more vital to success then what list it's drawn from, and that how a game is played is more vital then either. I want to assure you that I'm not arguing that list constructions, and use of power codices, is the #1 key to 40k success.

You repeatedly claim that missions, terrain, etc. play a huge factor. I've played 40k in a few cities now, in a bunch of stores, and while terrain and missions are factors, most seem to revolve around a central core (3-5 pieces of large, LOS blocking terrain, a few scattered peices of smaller terrain, most missions drawn from the BGB) rather than more exotic tables and scenarios. What interests me is that IIRC you've stated that your group uses all kinds of interesting missions, table set ups, etc. If so, then the difference between armies sharply drop off compared to the differecne between mission. It's possible that there is an observer bias here, namely that you don't see the effect, so you assume it's not there.

Finally, you spend a decent amount of time in your post discussing "Truth," and while you never use the term "opinion," it's insinuated that you view the groupthink as opinion and are rejecting it for not being truth. that's perfectly valid and uncompromising. Your goal is to show that the accepted wisdom of the internet is less reliable than is claimed. Your post above can be nitpicked, and I might do so later after you clarify some things, but you clearly have some grasp on truth, empiricism, and logic. Which is why it seems odd to me that your posts aren't "keep in mind that there is no evidence that top teir lists perform better," but instead read more like "there are no top tier lists" or "so called top tier lists do not perform better." It's a subtle difference, but it's the difference between lack of evidence (which you ably point out) and evidence of a lack (which is even more noticable).

Anyways, I think we're probably on a more closer page then I thought at first, although I'm curious to see exactly how rigorously you contest that all lists are perfectly blaanced.

"Similarly one must reject the relevance of what is commonly known as 'play-testing', as the object in question is a mathematical structure and no empirical testing will avail one who wishes to explore such a structure and remark upon its properties with any accuracy."

So in your estimation, empirical research on this topic is worthless?

I disagree with that. It can certainly be misleading, but the proper use of empirical research combined with mathematical norms is most likely to create satisfactory results.

These results are reflected in the placement of 'top-tier' armies at tournaments. If you accept that the goal here is to create army lists that win tournaments, then it's evident that the method is working. Rather than deny reality, it's more productive to examine why they win.

The decisions made during a game of 40K are usually relatively simple. It can be assumed that all expert players will be able to intelligently deploy their army, choose the right priority targets, etc. This mitigates the impact of the individual player's skills.

What else explains the empirical results? Luck, in the grand scale can be abstracted into probability. 40K involves many, many dice being rolled. The standard deviation for rolling 1d6 and saving on a 5+ is huge, but when you do so for a unit of 30 Gaunts, the results are very likely to fall within a narrow range. Outliers are possible, but are rare enough to be safely discounted.

Thus, finite mathematics and probability calculations in general should provide some idea of whether any given list will perform better than the same list assuming no change in terms of player skill or environment.

Army lists can play a role in this too. Suppose a Blood Angels Space Marine is 10 points and it is identical in every way to a Dark Angels Space Marine except that the Dark Angels Space Marine costs 20 points. Would you expect the Blood Angels player with twice as many identical models to do better than the Dark Angels player assuming all other factors are equal? If yes, then you've admitted that it is possible for an army list to be better than another army list. Although the discrepancies are rarely that dramatic, they certainly exist and are provable.

As a parallel, the game Go has used handicapping the number of pieces available for centuries as a way of compensating for player skill. 40K does the same thing with the Grey Knights (as an example) whose points cost exceeds what their strengths and weaknesses might otherwise suggest.

Another factor that cannot be ignored is the flexibility of the list and the availability of powerful units. For example, if the Imperial Guard had access to no other guns besides S3 Lasguns, they would have severe trouble competing against lists with tanks and high toughness models. I think that's almost self-evident. From that we learn that availability of heavy weapons is a necessary component to make a powerful list. Armies in which those weapons are extremely rare will tend to be less powerful than those with cheap and ready access to them.

We have acknowledged that a list with cheaper and better units is more powerful and more likely to win than a list with more expensive and worse units.

'Balance' is defined by Merriam-Webster's dictionary as "equality between the totals of the two sides of an account". In the context of gaming, we can treat this as meaning an equal chance of winning if all other factors are equal. As demonstrated, it is entirely possible for one list to be more powerful than another list within those limitations. As such it is possible that some lists could be unbalanced.

How do we decide what is balanced? By using the very techniques that are employed on this board: empirical research (play-testing) combined with mathematical analysis.

Neither of them is sufficient by itself, but the combination of the two allows us to form and test hypotheses and form valid conclusions.

Because empirical science is the only valid epistemological framework for finding truth. Yup. that's not narrow minded at all.

Asmodai wrote:

'Balance' is defined by Merriam-Webster's dictionary as "equality between the totals of the two sides of an account". In the context of gaming, we can treat this as meaning an equal chance of winning if all other factors are equal. As demonstrated, it is entirely possible for one list to be more powerful than another list within those limitations. As such it is possible that some lists could be unbalanced.

How do we decide what is balanced? By using the very techniques that are employed on this board: empirical research (play-testing) combined with mathematical analysis.

Neither of them is sufficient by itself, but the combination of the two allows us to form and test hypotheses and form valid conclusions.

IMO, Balance in 40k is meant to work as Rock-Paper-Scissors. The difference being that if general list A is meant to beat general list B most of the time, list B may be altered to improve results against list A at the cost of other matchups.

I don't really understand why playtesting results are so crucial or regarded so highly in this game. In this game, optimization is possible, and contrary to what seems to be popular belief, optimization has nothing to do with preferred play-style.

i.e.- If I play to attend a tournament and I know that the other armies present are (just for example, of couse)
10% Tau
20% Eldar
30% Space Marines
20% Orks
20% Tyranids

There is exactly ONE optimal list for my army. If the optimal list ends up being weakest against Tau and I play Tau all 3 rounds, that doesn't mean that I didn't take the optimal list for the tournament.

Da Boss wrote:Because empirical science is the only valid epistemological framework for finding truth. Yup. that's not narrow minded at all.

The irony there is that empirical science isn't particularly interested in truth. Science is a game of "King of the Hill," where the goal is to prove the top theory wrong. The longer and more capably a theory resists being disproven, the more generally accepted it becomes. Few scientists would use the word "truth," of course.

That's the view presented by Karl Popper, who said that science must be falsifiable to be true science, meaning if there was no way to disprove a theory (like the flying spaghetti monster) it could not be sceince, while something that can be disproven (like, say, the concept that two units of mass will attract each other across space, i.e. gravity) is science, because all you need to do is show that the theory is wrong (by finding two peice of matter totally uninterested in each other, or, funnily enough, by pigs flying).

There is also the idea that science is not such a race, but rather a generally accepted group of laws, theories, principles and procedures that Thomas Kuhn labeled a paradigm. This paradigm (for example, Newtonian motion or the idea that organisms evolve by passing down traits) allows for tons of work to be done. The paradigm is accepted because it allows for useful science to be done, and will be kept until so many problems with it emerge that it must be discarded and a new paradigm will replace it (Kuhn's most famous example is Copernicus writing that the planets go around the sun, rather than the other way. The original paradigm wasn't bad, it's just that over time Copernicus's was better.)

How does any of this apply to 40k? Well, Popper would say that a controlled study were to show that absent outside variables, army list construction had no discernable impact on success, it would certainly challenge the theory that some lists are top teir. Kuhn would say that the paradigm of more powerful codices allowing for better success allows for a certain amount of work to be done in determining the how to succeed at tournaments. This paradigm would persist until there were a better paradigm that better explained why people win in 40k.

Just out of curiosity, do any of you have any solid test cases to list, or are you merely emmisaries of convoluted speach? I'd be interested to hear what kind of study you would set up that would be inclusive enough to ascertain an army listst superiority over another.

Vaelar wrote:Just out of curiosity, do any of you have any solid test cases to list, or are you merely emmisaries of convoluted speach? I'd be interested to hear what kind of study you would set up that would be inclusive enough to ascertain an army listst superiority over another.

Well, let's not get confused over the issues here. I'm not saying you could test to find out the strongest army possible (although it could be possible). I'm advocating for the position that there are "stronger" and "weaker" codices, and the way to test that would be to simply have "strong" and "weak" lists play each other, taking pains to balance player skill, terrain, and missions.

Polonius: I'm pretty up to date on what science is actually
I find some of Nurglitch's posts to be highly amusing though.

Polonius: I can assure you that I have checked for observer bias. A unit's performance will depend upon the terrain it is played in and the mission which it is used to achieve. A unit of bikes, for example, will perform differently depending on the amount and arrangement of difficult terrain, such as the difference between a forest and a desert, and where they need to be on the board to 'solve' the mission, such as where they need to capture an object, destroy an objective, or exit the border via some board edge. One of the things my group does is cut the missions to fit the armies, so we either choose the mission first and then design the armies, or we take the armies and figure out what would be an equal match.

Certainly when I used to play in Halifax's Rogue Battalion game club and the odd tournament in a local independent retailer called Odyssey 2000 I noticed that there were certain habits that people had for setting up boards and choosing missions that would eventually appear to make some armies preferable to others. The game my brother and I played, him to much greater success as he eventually won a Canadian Grand Tournament back in 3rd edition, was deliberately playing armies and troops that the consensus on the internet and around town had dubbed weak.

The interesting thing that I found, in particular, was that people weren't just narrow in their army selection and ideas about board set-up, but also about their application of armies to missions and board set-ups. They were, as the consensus on the internet continues to be, highly risk adverse and they could not understand how my brother and I (particularly my brother) could win games by choosing actions that were risky, either because the actions were inherently risky or because the material employed made them risky (and occasionally both).

In fact that's the reason my current group plays like it does, because we were all sick of the internet game where people played armies rather than games. Since we all know each other and play at each other's places, and none of us have large collections, we take the time and effort to make the games about more than just the troops.

Now, precision, truth, and logic are parts of my area of specialization as a philosopher, the philosophies of science and mind, and I like to think I know a thing or two about them and the ways they have been construed. One of the usual things that I've learned in the course of my post-graduate work (and that really I should have picked up during my undergraduate work) is that if there is no evidence for a particular position, then it's useful to consider games with a different framework of positions that may be supported by the evidence.

Hence I am not merely saying that there is no evidence that 'top tier lists' perform better, I am saying that the Warhammer game in which people talk about there being a 'top tier' of armies is a stupid one and an illusory one. Much like games about physics involving phlogiston, as a classic example, are stupid games and physicists have fortunately moved on to more effective games that yield more truthful results about the material inputed into those game structures.

Asmodai: In my opinion empirical research on the subject of whatever 'balance' might be in the game of Warhammer 40k would be about as useful as empirical research into the truth-value of statements like '2+2=4' in conventional decimal arithmetic. Games are mathematical structures and the only useful way they can be treated is via the methods of mathematics and logic. Certainly this admits the possibility of applying computer science to the computation of these structures, but this will not be sitting around watching trained monkeys play the game, but using computers to crunch the set of possible problem spaces in the game. The application of statistics will merely give us the values to input into particular problem spaces and combinatorial game theory will have to provide the structure of those space.

In addition, the more I think of Nurglitch's post I keep coming up with questions.

It seems to me that Internet wisdom has the strongest lists picked, not because they are inherently better, but because they perform better in the missions gamers regularly face on terrain that they normally use. If you look at the five basic missions, all but one require some mobility. All require having at least a few durable units. One has the armies start 18" from each other, others 24". All give points for kills, but just as many points exist in objectives.

Assuming you were to build army lists for those missions, or scenarios derived from those missions, a certain list of requirements emerges: mobile elements, some long range shooting, the ability to fight for objectives, units that won't evaporate quickly, scoring units that can contest objectives, etc.

Based on those needs, many of the Top Tier army choices make more sense. Everything in a nidzilla army can move, often with fleet. Everything in a tri-falcon eldar army, barring the autarch, is a mobile scoring unit. Both have some, but not overwhelming long range fire power.

I could go on, but this leads to an obvious question: assuming gaming groups and tournament organizers tend to stay within the general area of those sorts of missions, is it unreasonable to assume that some armies are superiour than others? While you're not eliminating missions as a variable, it's bounded fairly tightly.

Well then, what you need to do is start questioning your own reasoning and asking yourself: "If it seems to be this way, what might I be missing out, or what would be the case if I were wrong about something?" I mean if those things just seem that way to you it will be useful to check if the way they seem reflects the way they are.

You may also want to look up inductive fallacies and study up on them.

Except, I don't currently need to question my reasoning. I'm getting the results that I expect. I'm not getting the results you expect. I don't see why I"m the one with a problem.

Can you say that codices are perfectly balanced, such that there is never an inherent advantage to be gained by army list construction?

If you can say that, then we can work on disproving that. If you can't, it means we merely disagree on where to draw the line as to the importance of army lists.

Finally, while I post when I can, please don't simply tell me to study up on something. If I make an error, point it out, or at least provide a link. When people were discussing copyrights, I didn't simply say, "learn up on IP," I tried to teach them something.

I'm hearing what you're saying, and I"m trying to understand and explain my position. I get the feeling that you're simply ignoring or deflecting anything I say, such that it seems your saying "there is no way you can convince me, there is no evidence that will sway me, and I know that I am correct." If that's the case, then that's fine, but there's no sense in discussing anything further.

Finally, phlogiston was abandoned because it was displaced by a better theory. In it's time, it was a decent enough theory that worked better than the one before it, and it also led to productive results. Maybe there is a better theory for 40k than top teir armies, but nobody has put one forward, and for many people, it's yeidling useful results.

You always need to question your own reasoning, particularly when you're getting the results that you expect (guess what the name of that fallacy is?). Basically you need to assume that you're the one with the problem as a matter of course, especially when you feel you're right, because that's when errors get through, when they haven't been checked for.

I wouldn't say that codicies are perfectly balanced because I don't know that "perfectly balanced" is supposed to mean in a rigorous sense rather than a loose conversational sense. I don't see the point in perjuring myself.

Seeing as right now I'm being paid not enough dollars to tell undergraduates to study up because they make errors that they could have avoid had they studied the books they bought or the information being given away for free on the internet, you can imagine why I might be loath to give you free lectures on what mistakes you're made and how to avoid them. While it may appear that I have all the time in the world I'm writing off-the-cuff and have no time to re-write all those perfectly good text-books and websites out there, particularly when they are available upon the convenience of your finger-tips.

Unlike IP these mistakes are frequently simple (often too simple for people to understand so they think that they're really complicated because it's considered socially okay not to understand things are that complicated) and avoidable with a quick check on wikipedia and the serious sites the wikis in question often link to.

As an aside, you may want to do a little more research on the matter of Phlogiston. It was never a "decent enough theory that worked better than the one before it". Like the 'tier' theory of Warhammer it only appears to yield useful results for its users because the users are not giving it the attention they'd give to basic arithmetic while drunk at a bar. Plenty of better theories have been put forward, but like all good theories they're not pat cut-and-dried things that appeal to people's prejudices and wooly-thinking, and as ever the louder voices push the simplistic answers that appeal to that set of biases that people gain before the age of 18, to mangle Einstein.

But never mind all that. This is no place for constructive analysis, as that would be off-topic. Go back to talking about your top tier armies, and nod wisely at the sagacity of your peers when they say things you agree with and mock them when they don't. No doubt you can call the wisdom that you glean from these rigorous and critical investigation "results" and feel the better for it.

I apologize for hijacking the thread. Please return to your discussion.

Nurglitch wrote:Asmodai: In my opinion empirical research on the subject of whatever 'balance' might be in the game of Warhammer 40k would be about as useful as empirical research into the truth-value of statements like '2+2=4' in conventional decimal arithmetic. Games are mathematical structures and the only useful way they can be treated is via the methods of mathematics and logic. Certainly this admits the possibility of applying computer science to the computation of these structures, but this will not be sitting around watching trained monkeys play the game, but using computers to crunch the set of possible problem spaces in the game. The application of statistics will merely give us the values to input into particular problem spaces and combinatorial game theory will have to provide the structure of those space.

It's not pure math though. It's math + players. It's not just analyzing the probabilities, but how those probabilities influence player decision-making.

If we want to see how trained monkeys play the game, then sitting around watching the trained monkeys is a valid research tool. That's the reason why pure math is inadequate. Even the most die-hard player tends not to go for pure mathematical efficiency. Social pressures (e.g. comp guidelines) and prejudices across the user base (e.g. GW's line that 'You just need to shoot Falcons more') will exert an effect that cannot be usefully compensated for in the mathematical models.

I'm not particularly interested in whether a computer model thinks Orks are balanced. What matters is whether they are balanced in the context of a tournament (or friendly game) situation where they are played. That means taking into account the particularities of the trained monkeys participating in the tournament.

Most financial theorists think that Alexander Graham and Warren Buffet are wrong - efficient market theory says you can't outguess the market. Warren Buffet rolls around on his bed made of $1,000,000 bills and doesn't care what theorists think because his 'incorrect' theory and practices produces real results. I think that's the case with your theories too. You suggest that Tri-Falcon is no more likely to do well in a GT than Gretchin based Orks, but the real world results indicate the opposite. That suggests that your theory, not the universe is incorrect.

EDIT: To clarify, games are mathematical constructs. Game-playing is a sociological construct. If you use pure mathematics, you're missing half the picture.

Its an interesting philosophical debate thats easily remedied if sufficient case studies were built to perform a simple statistical analysis. One could argue that there is sufficient tournament result information to make such a claim, but I'd be hesitant to do anything other than draw an inference.

Having said that, the argument that a question cannot be studied because all the factors cannot be adjudged flies in the face of analysis. No experiment is pure. By controlling as many variables as possible then results can be obtained.

In the example. If all codexes were held constant (no new codexes or rules editions) then, provided enough games were played to make the statistical runs valid, the query could be directly answered in the narrow. Is list A better than list B in a tournament setting can indeed be found.

And if that doesn’t work then one can always fall back on the question, are Kroot Mercs equal to the mech eldar?
Speed?
Options?
Firepower?
Ability to take down vehicles?
Abilityu to defeat infantry?
Ability to survive?

So, in short, you're saying the following:

-You are smarter than me (probably true)
- Your logic is right, and mine is wrong, but you can't explain why....
-Given that it would take the same time to point out an error as the comment on how ignorant I am to make an error, you chose the latter (good for you)
- You won't stake down a position at risk of being wrong
- You'd rather hide behind academic snobbery than actually, you know, debate something (keep it up and you'll get tenure!)

I apologize for sounding adversarial, but I feel that I've asked questions you won't answer, proffered theories you can't rebut, and I've tried to be genial, only to be condscended to.

I'm assuming you're speaking to Nurglitch's thread there P.

P wins the award for the word proffered. Rarely used but always raises the eyebrow

Polonius wrote:
- You'd rather hide behind academic snobbery than actually, you know, debate something (keep it up and you'll get tenure!)

My favorite part. Almost spilled my popcorn.

jfrazell wrote:Its an interesting philosophical debate thats easily remedied if sufficient case studies were built to perform a simple statistical analysis. One could argue that there is sufficient tournament result information to make such a claim, but I'd be hesitant to do anything other than draw an inference.

Having said that, the argument that a question cannot be studied because all the factors cannot be adjudged flies in the face of analysis. No experiment is pure. By controlling as many variables as possible then results can be obtained.

In the example. If all codexes were held constant (no new codexes or rules editions) then, provided enough games were played to make the statistical runs valid, the query could be directly answered in the narrow. Is list A better than list B in a tournament setting can indeed be found.

And if that doesn’t work then one can always fall back on the question, are Kroot Mercs equal to the mech eldar?
Speed?
Options?
Firepower?
Ability to take down vehicles?
Abilityu to defeat infantry?
Ability to survive?

We know that even if codices start out perfectly balanced, they don't stay that way. Dark Eldar got a revision that in no uncertain terms made them more powerful. If a codex got stronger when no other codex changed, it meant that either it was weak before and is now balanced or was balanced before and somehow got stronger.

Nurglitch has some very valid points to be made about groupthink, collective wisdom, and the power of perception. These are all valuable topics that deserve debate, and I think that while top tier gamers know that most of their success is due to their skill, and most casual gamers don't care, there is probably a swathe of gamers who think that their problems are due to poor army selection, not simply being a bad player.

The difference between me and Nurglitch is that he assigns either no or next to no weight to codex selections (and possibly even army composition, although I'm not certain) as a predictor of success. He would argue, I believe, that If two equally skilled players knew ahead of time the mission and the rough terrain available, and each drew a random codex with all options available, they would have nearly identical chances of winning. I would argue that given the missions, there is a signifigant enough factor to be found in differences in army strength. While this variable might be only 10% (picking a number arbritrarily), over time it can lead to signifigant wins. 10%, say, might turn one draw into a win in every other tournament, turning a 2-0-1 finish and a nice certificate for Best Sportsman into a 3-0 finish and a Best Overall.

Hey who took my trained monkeys?!

I don't know but he took my typewriters too. Mentioned something about Hamlet...

jfrazell wrote:I'm assuming you're speaking to Nurglitch's thread there P.

P wins the award for the word proffered. Rarely used but always raises the eyebrow

If it weren't obvious before, when I'm not playing 40k (or arguing about it on das interwebz) I moonlight as the world's most mediocre law student.

Yeah, that's why I pointed out that you'd need a combination of classic and combinatorial game theory. If by balance we mean "each side has a 50% chance of winning regardless of the army" then we want to examine the problem space of the game, not how monkeys might solve it.

It seems to me that if you want to figure out which armies are going to be 'top tier', then you want to find out how the monkeys might solve it. After all, regardless of whether the armies are balanced, if you want to sell a game to monkeys then you want the game to be balanced in the perception of the monkeys rather than in actuality.

That's certainly a profitable way to sell the game, to sell something where the perception of the balance is valued via a non-well-founded semantics such that one can "out-guess the market" just like one can outguess any logical system (see: Godel) by applying conditions of self-reference and deriving the properties of that systems. You just rejig the game every time the reflective equilibrium of the game stagnates, which is, incidentally, what GW seems to be doing...

I don't suggest that "Tri-Falcon in no more likely to do well in a GT than Gretchin based Orks" because that would be stupid and not what I said. I suggest that the list found in Codex: Eldar is 'balanced' (see above) with the list found in Codex: Orks because both yield a diverse array of army compositions that are effective under a comparable spread of missions and terrains.

Likewise I don't imagine that the universe can be correct. The universe is just fact, it just is, statements made according to theories can be correct, and theories are neither correct nor incorrect, just effective or not. It goes:

Universe N Theory ≡ True(statement)

Getting back on topic, I think that the Orks are going to be the "top tier" army in the 5th edition, because the monkeys will talk themselves into thinking it is. The monkey that notices this and plans accordingly, I predict via the time honoured method of pulling something out of my arse, will win the tournament circuit.

Ayah, vampires are about the only people who still use the word. I like to occasionally annoy people with it myself.

I don't suggest that "Tri-Falcon in no more likely to do well in a GT than Gretchin based Orks" because that would be stupid and not what I said. I suggest that the list found in Codex: Eldar is 'balanced' (see above) with the list found in Codex: Orks because both yield a diverse array of army compositions that are effective under a comparable spread of missions and terrains.

I don't believe thats supported by tournament data however. I'd have to see a larger sample, but of the tournament results I've cared to look at, Eldar have scored higher per game than orks. If one looks at GTs, then the spread of comparable missions and terrain is factored out of the equation.

Now I could be wrong, but as you say, do the math and disprove it.

So, you admit that army composition can be a factor in success. Ok, that's a good start.

You're point seemed to be that in a balanced system, by adding a perception of value, or inducing people to think they can cheat the system, you can increase desire for the cheat. that's a sloppy paraphrase, but essentially you're saying that GW wants people to think that one army is "better" so that people will buy it.

the flaw in that theory, I think, would be that you're ignoring the very real possibility that GW errs in writing it's codices and rules, and frequently (and admittedly) over or undercosts units, adds rules that are too powerful, an in general has created a system that is inherently cocked.

Look at the example of DE. According to you, there was no more advantage to playing DE after the revision then before, despite the army gaining durable assault troops, mobility in both bikes and WWP, and some interesting new toys. For a revision like that to occur, with virtually no negative changes, means that the book got better! Now, did DE win every event they entered after that? No, but I'd imagine they did better.

Some of the power difference might be perception, or even most of it, but there are clear cut cases out there (oblits at T5, adding the 5++ to termies, etc) that seem to indicate that what is written in a codex has an impact on performace.

Polonius wrote:So, in short, you're saying the following:

-You are smarter than me (probably true)
- Your logic is right, and mine is wrong, but you can't explain why....
-Given that it would take the same time to point out an error as the comment on how ignorant I am to make an error, you chose the latter (good for you)
- You won't stake down a position at risk of being wrong
- You'd rather hide behind academic snobbery than actually, you know, debate something (keep it up and you'll get tenure!)

No, I'm not saying any of that. That would be seriously misrepresenting what I said.

-I'm not claiming to be smarter than you, but pointing out that this is my specialty and an enormous field, and would appreciate it would help if you took the time and effort to understand the basics so we can proceed with the conversation. Claiming that I'm smarter than you would be like claiming I'm gruner than you. Meaningless.

-I've explained why the logic I'm employing is correct, rather than doing something so stupid as to simply assert its correctness. Seriously, go back and see.

-Given that it would take several books worth of argument to point out how you're wrong I foolishly asked you to read the ones already written. The problem of theory-selection is a very complicated problem in the philosophy of science, and one that's becoming more and more relevant now that the mess of science (competition between theories no longer looks like a strict progression to laymen and funding agencies) is more out in the open than ever.

-I've certainly staked down the position that the concept of 'top tier' is stupid and that people should abandon it for the reasons provided.

-And I entered into discussion (debate? that's for debate club, lawyers, and politicians I'm afraid. useful discussion is analysis) in the hope that people would be able to discuss the issue and not each other. But hey, it's easier to vilify people eh? Ever heard of "ad hominem"? That's where you attack someone and try to make them look bad rather than offering a constructive comment about the topic at hand.

Polonius wrote:I apologize for sounding adversarial, but I feel that I've asked questions you won't answer, proffered theories you can't rebut, and I've tried to be genial, only to be condscended to.

So instead of taking the high road or imagining that you might not be condescended to, and that your interlocator might be honestly pointing out that you need a grounding in the basics before engaging in a complex discussion about theory-preference, you decided to make it personal. Thanks. Usually the rule of thumb in these sorts of discussions is the rule of charity, that however much of a prick your interlocator may come across as you should treat them as though they mean well.

That's why I'm jealous of mathematicians and physicists. Nobody assumes that people in those fields can teach advanced theoretical discourses in their subjects in a few short sentences. People don't assume they're being condescended to when physicists and mathematicians politely ask them to go study up a bit when they get asked why quantum-loop gravity rather than M-theory or why a 26-place polynomial is required to compute prime numbers. That stuff sounds complicated, whereas theory preference, well, we all know what science is right? My bet is that somone somewhere in this thread is going to proudly quote Karl Popper and I'm going to have flashbacks.

Ok, well, if the subject is too complicated for me to understand, as it would appear to be, I'll leave it for the time being. I'm sorry if asking you to say "it's really complicated, but this linke www.thisisreallycomplicated.com will at least show you the basics" was out of line. If nothing else, it would make the point that what you're talking about is serious and you know your stuff without simply telling us that it's real.

BTW, I did quote Karl Popper about 15 posts back, so you missed your chance to explode.

Did I take it personally? Yeah, a bit. Because I tried to get you to break down your point, and not simply ignore it because it's all academic gibberish. I was told that you won't do that, and if I don't understand, I should read up on the subject. I don't want to sound like a simple country bumpkin, but if you can't break down a theory or idea or concept to the point that an intelligent person can understand it, then it might not be a theory as much as a dogma. I understnad that it might take time, but even a physist could analogize any given theory, at least crudely.

So, while I suppose your right in that the following is wrong, I'm still not certain why:
1) some units appear more useful in the gaming situations I encounter regularly than others.
2) some codices contain more of such useful units and/or some of the most highly useful units in the game.
3) armies drawn from those codices seem to handle games pretty well, leading to slightly more wins than those from average codices, and far more than from the worst codices.
4) therefore, some codices are simply more powerful then others!

I could see that you might challenge any or all of the premises, but then we're getting into a debate on admissibility of evidence, and that is a different kettle of fish.

To disprove that you'd have to show at least one of the following:
1) that gamers regularly use missions that deviate wildly from those in the BGB and GT/RTT packs
2) That every codex contains an even number of useful units or That any given codex is constructed such that synergy makes seemingly subpar units better
3) there is no evidence that armies from top tier codices perform better, or what evidence there is is misleading (probably the easiest to do)
4) there is an error in my reasoning.

Asmodai wrote:
It's not pure math though. It's math + players. It's not just analyzing the probabilities, but how those probabilities influence player decision-making.

If we want to see how trained monkeys play the game, then sitting around watching the trained monkeys is a valid research tool. That's the reason why pure math is inadequate. Even the most die-hard player tends not to go for pure mathematical efficiency. Social pressures (e.g. comp guidelines) and prejudices across the user base (e.g. GW's line that 'You just need to shoot Falcons more') will exert an effect that cannot be usefully compensated for in the mathematical models.

This (bolded) part I disagree with. Why could that not be usefully compensated for mathematically? Of course it could, it's just much more complicated a calculation with many more variables.

Asmodai wrote:
Most financial theorists think that Alexander Graham and Warren Buffet are wrong - efficient market theory says you can't outguess the market. Warren Buffet rolls around on his bed made of $1,000,000 bills and doesn't care what theorists think because his 'incorrect' theory and practices produces real results. I think that's the case with your theories too. You suggest that Tri-Falcon is no more likely to do well in a GT than Gretchin based Orks, but the real world results indicate the opposite. That suggests that your theory, not the universe is incorrect.

I don't know anything about economics, but I do know that no matter how horrible an idea something may be, it will work for someone. I also know that association doesn't prove causality.

Nurglitch wrote:That's why I'm jealous of mathematicians and physicists. Nobody assumes that people in those fields can teach advanced theoretical discourses in their subjects in a few short sentences. People don't assume they're being condescended to when physicists and mathematicians politely ask them to go study up a bit when they get asked why quantum-loop gravity rather than M-theory or why a 26-place polynomial is required to compute prime numbers. That stuff sounds complicated, whereas theory preference, well, we all know what science is right? My bet is that somone somewhere in this thread is going to proudly quote Karl Popper and I'm going to have flashbacks.

No, it's because they're expected to be bad communicators. It doesn't matter that Oppenheimer was bad at communicating his theory, because when you have an atomic bomb dropped on you, you rarely need any further evidence to accept it.

Philosophers have it harder because the results of their labours are harder to grasp and often counter-intuitive (e.g. Hume). On the other hand, the most renowned scientists - Einstein, Darwin, or Hawking as examples are renowned largely because they were able to express themselves intelligibly.

You don't need to be a genius to understand 'A Brief History of Time'. The book though is a landmark in the public consciousness because it was expressed well enough that people could grasp the underlying concepts. When you tell me to read thousands of pages of theory and try to make sense of it, all you're telling me is that you don't understand the theory well enough to express it coherently and precisely. That may not be your intent, but that's how it comes across.

As a lawyer, I don't have the luxury of telling a client to go study up when they want to know why I included a clause in their will to avoid a 17th century statute. I need to be able to explain why it's there in a coherent way in a couple of sentences. It's good for me too, because if I can summarize all the considerations into a paragraph that a layman can understand, it means that I know what the theory means too. Sometimes something is too complicated (e.g. here's why you're entitled to a resulting trust) and I need to break it down into individually digestible steps while still avoiding jargon or shortcuts. That also helps understanding.

I like Locke for that reason. Anyone can understand his philosophy. He breaks everything down, explains what he's doing, avoids jargon and doesn't skip steps. It's fine if you're too lazy to do that, but claiming that your specialty is an enormous field doesn't really grant you the ability to say 'Because I said so' if you expect to convince me with your argument.

jfrazell wrote:I don't believe thats supported by tournament data however. I'd have to see a larger sample, but of the tournament results I've cared to look at, Eldar have scored higher per game than orks. If one looks at GTs, then the spread of comparable missions and terrain is factored out of the equation.

The tournament data is not a representative sample, and it's hardly been rigorously tracked (we could not, for example, google up the board arrangements from past grand tournaments).

jfrazell wrote:Now I could be wrong, but as you say, do the math and disprove it.

Where the tournament data is not a representative sample it seems unlikely that statements deduced from it need to be falsified, as they do not have deductive validity and thus do not preserve the truth-value of the statements about game balance that they are (mis)applied to support. It's like me saying: "Nine of out ten gorgs like snapple. Therefore Americans like snapple." While it may be true that nine out of ten gorgs like snapple, there are no gorgs in the United States, and I could not disprove that first premise by going back and finding that indeed only eight out of ten gorgs like snapple. Gorgs are irrelevant to whether Americans like snapple.

Polonius wrote:So, you admit that army composition can be a factor in success. Ok, that's a good start.

You may find it useful if you abandon the pretense of this being some sort of battle in which we extract admissions from each other. We've already started from the assumption, in this discussion, that army composition may affect 'balance', whatever that is. What we're trying to determine is whether army composition has an effect on 'balance' such that it overwhelms all other variables in the game.

Polonius wrote:You're point seemed to be that in a balanced system, by adding a perception of value, or inducing people to think they can cheat the system, you can increase desire for the cheat. that's a sloppy paraphrase, but essentially you're saying that GW wants people to think that one army is "better" so that people will buy it.

That is a sloppy paraphrase. In fact that's what you might call a "lossy" paraphrase, one that does not preserve the information in the original phrasing. A fantastic way to misquote someone, but certainly ineffective for getting to the root of the matter. I suggest either abandoning paraphrasing, or doing it more carefully so that meaning and thus truth is preserved.

Polonius wrote:the flaw in that theory, I think, would be that you're ignoring the very real possibility that GW errs in writing it's codices and rules, and frequently (and admittedly) over or undercosts units, adds rules that are too powerful, an in general has created a system that is inherently cocked.

You mean the flaw in that "straw man" or sloppy paraphrasing of my explanation. Since what we're trying to determine is whether GW errs in writing its codicies so that they are not 'balanced', this can hardly be something I've ignored. Indeed had I assumed that I would be "begging the question".

Polonius wrote:Look at the example of DE. According to you, there was no more advantage to playing DE after the revision then before, despite the army gaining durable assault troops, mobility in both bikes and WWP, and some interesting new toys. For a revision like that to occur, with virtually no negative changes, means that the book got better! Now, did DE win every event they entered after that? No, but I'd imagine they did better.

If you are going to say things like "according to you" you need to either paraphrase me exactly or quote me so that you don't waste time and comprehension misrepresenting me. But to address this point I can't really say whether there were negative changes to the Dark Eldar book upon its revision or not. That would again be begging the question by valuing the changes before a structure for calculating real values is determined.

So you don't misrepresent me again: According to me there might not have been any real advantages gained by the Dark Eldar, but merely situational advantages that appealed to the prejudices of Dark Eldar players rather than genuinely advantaging a unbalanced army.

Among other things it does not appear that the internet consensus has changed its opinion: recommendations for Dark Eldar armies on this board alone, for example, are limited to Raiders full of Warriors backed up by Ravagers. But that is merely idle speculation on my part and certainly could be wrong. No doubt there are armies out there composed of Beast Packs, and Scourges, and Grotesques, and Mandrakes, and so on.

Polonius wrote:Some of the power difference might be perception, or even most of it, but there are clear cut cases out there (oblits at T5, adding the 5++ to termies, etc) that seem to indicate that what is written in a codex has an impact on performace.

I don't think these cases are clear cut. On the face of it sure, adding a point to a characteristic would seem to be an advantage, but then that is only an advantage where the most effective deployment of the Take the Tyranid Carnifex, for example. It has all sorts of options to upgrade that may be taken by players, yet many choose not to because that extra point of toughness or strength or whatnot is not always worth it. Given that this bonuses are only conditionally worth the points paid for them it seems reasonable that bonuses like those of the Terminator invulnerable saves, where they are not purchased as an option, are not always worth it because like the optional bonuses with the Carnifex they are conditional in their effect.

Heres what i think. There is no stronger or weaker. like someone else on this post said its a game of rock paper scissors, Orks may win most of the time vs say, ultramarines. but its a very VERY different list than you would take against nids

In the end when comparing strength you have to look at different lists. if your list can deal with everything, odds are it cant do it well. if your wondering why then do people look up army lists, copy said lists, and claim them to be superior, its because of the simple law of "people are stupid"

they copy it with no regard to metagame or anything like that.

i dont know, i just started like 2 weeks ago

Polonius wrote:
So, while I suppose your right in that the following is wrong, I'm still not certain why:
1) some units appear more useful in the gaming situations I encounter regularly than others.
2) some codices contain more of such useful units and/or some of the most highly useful units in the game.
3) armies drawn from those codices seem to handle games pretty well, leading to slightly more wins than those from average codices, and far more than from the worst codices.
4) therefore, some codices are simply more powerful then others!

The conclusion is a fallacy (assuming the premises are true, since that's not the debate here). It assumes that all "units that appear useful in the gaming situations you encounter" are equally useful.

Terminizzle wrote:

Asmodai wrote:
It's not pure math though. It's math + players. It's not just analyzing the probabilities, but how those probabilities influence player decision-making.

If we want to see how trained monkeys play the game, then sitting around watching the trained monkeys is a valid research tool. That's the reason why pure math is inadequate. Even the most die-hard player tends not to go for pure mathematical efficiency. Social pressures (e.g. comp guidelines) and prejudices across the user base (e.g. GW's line that 'You just need to shoot Falcons more') will exert an effect that cannot be usefully compensated for in the mathematical models.

This (bolded) part I disagree with. Why could that not be usefully compensated for mathematically? Of course it could, it's just much more complicated a calculation with many more variables.

I don't know anything about economics, but I do know that no matter how horrible an idea something may be, it will work for someone. I also know that association doesn't prove causality.

True, the point about EMT was a bad example anyway since Berkshire-Hathaway's results can be attributed as much to management substitution as preternatural intuition.

I suppose that with infinite resources you could mathematically model everything. On practical terms, this sort of mathematical model would be at least as complicated (I think) as one that would model the weather accurately a hundred years from now. That's beyond the range of current programming skills and processing power.

First you'd need some way to measure what those pressures and prejudices actually are (in a way that wouldn't change them just by the act of measuring them), then figure out what results they lead too and then find some way to aggregate that data.

As much as it's a current trend to use computer models in sociology, I don't anticipate it leading to anything useful in the short-term.

My couple of cents

When someone says that 40k is balanced and that there are no instances of overpower or under powered codexes they are making this statement on the a few false premises:

1. That the design team is infallible
-Being human the design team cannot be perfect
-For example of their imperfection see any faq, they openly admit to mistakes made/
-Even if they did make well balanced codexes they would encounter problems with rule shifts....
2. That game mechanics are temporarily out of place between rule transitions.
-Enough said codexes are usually with one given ruleset
-Imperial Guard were designed with 3rd edition ruleset in mmind despite the impending release of 4th edition
-It could be argued that codexes Choas and Eldar were designed with 5th edition in mind and were broken in some respect under the 4th edition ruleset.
3. That all players are created equal and are capable of using generalship.
- Sadly not everyone is created equal. Because of this some of us will excel at the game while others will struggle to remain competitive.
-For more example see any reading on chess ranking. (Sorry for all you art of war nut, but if you want to get better and 40k you need to think in terms of chess. Not the taoist warrior handbook.


Now I went through the time and effort to write that, but I know I didn't change anyones mind.

Nurglitch wrote:
You may find it useful if you abandon the pretense of this being some sort of battle in which we extract admissions from each other. We've already started from the assumption, in this discussion, that army composition may affect 'balance', whatever that is. What we're trying to determine is whether army composition has an effect on 'balance' such that it overwhelms all other variables in the game.

We are? You should have said that three pages ago.

I don't think these cases are clear cut. On the face of it sure, adding a point to a characteristic would seem to be an advantage, but then that is only an advantage where the most effective deployment of the Take the Tyranid Carnifex, for example. It has all sorts of options to upgrade that may be taken by players, yet many choose not to because that extra point of toughness or strength or whatnot is not always worth it. Given that this bonuses are only conditionally worth the points paid for them it seems reasonable that bonuses like those of the Terminator invulnerable saves, where they are not purchased as an option, are not always worth it because like the optional bonuses with the Carnifex they are conditional in their effect.

When the advantage comes for free, it's hard to argue that it's not an advantage (e.g. with Terminators).

Answering your question from above, I think it depends. In some situations army composition will be overwhelming (e.g. a tournament played without terrain using VPs only to evaluate the winner).

Other times it will be almost irrelevant (Tau vs. Space Marines in a mission where Skimmers can't move because of 'windshear' and the surface is a toxic goo causing each unit to take a S3 AP4 hit at the start of every turn).

In a typical tournament army composition probably very influential on the results, but not determinative.

Asmodai wrote:
First you'd need some way to measure what those pressures and prejudices actually are (in a way that wouldn't change them just by the act of measuring them), then figure out what results they lead too and then find some way to aggregate that data.

I'm not so sure about that, either- it would be both useful and practical to make a list of a few different results that have different tactical implications and weigh the probability of each occurrence based on approximations of those pressures and prejudices.

So technically I agree with you, but I think it's not only possible but practical to approximate the sort of data you referred in the statement I bolded previously.

I'm sure Space marines will get a boost. They are Gws posterchildren and they'll get their new codex then too.

Awesome, we're about 12 posts into the discussion and I think we might actually know the topic!

Nurglitch said: "What we're trying to determine is whether army composition has an effect on 'balance' such that it overwhelms all other variables in the game. "

Well, first off, I don't think anbody would say it overwhelms the other variables. I stated a couple of times that it might be fairly small, but signifigent. IIRC, you haven't really stated much, but you seem to think that asuming there is an impact is incorrect. Forgive me for my presumption, but you certainly have come off, in this thread and others, as seeing no impact. If we're merely trying to determine how much impact it will have, then it's a waste of time. If we both agree that there is some, then we've at least reached a conclusion of sorts.

And, I apologize for paraphrasing. I was doing it because I simply cannot follow what you are saying. I'm trying to put it in my own words and get it, and I am failing. At the risk of sounding horribly ignorant, I'm going to have to ignore your more complex thoughts.

Again, I'm not a logician, but here's revised thought breakdown:
1) Most gamers play with a relativly small set of missions
2) Most gamers use similar sets of terrain
3) Given 1&2, some units appear to be of higher quality than others.
4) Some codices have either more high quality units, or a small handful of units of extremely high quality.
5) Those codices often do better relatively to other codices.
6) therefore, those codices are more powerful.

Polonius wrote:Ok, well, if the subject is too complicated for me to understand, as it would appear to be, I'll leave it for the time being. I'm sorry if asking you to say "it's really complicated, but this linke www.thisisreallycomplicated.com will at least show you the basics" was out of line. If nothing else, it would make the point that what you're talking about is serious and you know your stuff without simply telling us that it's real.

You know, if I didn't know better I'd say you were dead-set on misunderstanding me. Obviously the subject is not too complicated for you else I would not recommend brushing up on it. If it were too complicated for you, then it would be pointless to expect you to benefit from such review. I certainly know you're capable of using Google and understanding the reference to using Wikipedia to search for the key-words such as "Theory" and "Selection"".

Polonius wrote:BTW, I did quote Karl Popper about 15 posts back, so you missed your chance to explode.

Or, you know, I already did...

Polonius wrote:Did I take it personally? Yeah, a bit. Because I tried to get you to break down your point, and not simply ignore it because it's all academic gibberish. I was told that you won't do that, and if I don't understand, I should read up on the subject. I don't want to sound like a simple country bumpkin, but if you can't break down a theory or idea or concept to the point that an intelligent person can understand it, then it might not be a theory as much as a dogma. I understnad that it might take time, but even a physist could analogize any given theory, at least crudely.

There's a problem right there. If you're going to call it academic gibberish, then you have the wrong attitude. Likewise if you're going to say things like "I don't want to sound like a simple country bumpki..." then you have the wrong attitude. I'm treating you like an intelligent person, one that knows better than to ask for complex subjects to be over-simplified. Likewise I don't see why I should spend the time unpacking this information and lecturing to you when you're intelligent enough to access and assimilate the information yourself. If we're going to have this discussion a crude analogy will make it more difficult than it already is. So here, here's a link to the wikipedia article on theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory. While wikipedia is not a good reference work it is often linked to good reference works.

Polonius wrote:So, while I suppose your right in that the following is wrong, I'm still not certain why:
1) some units appear more useful in the gaming situations I encounter regularly than others.
2) some codices contain more of such useful units and/or some of the most highly useful units in the game.
3) armies drawn from those codices seem to handle games pretty well, leading to slightly more wins than those from average codices, and far more than from the worst codices.
4) therefore, some codices are simply more powerful then others!

If you want to know the reason why, I recommend converting this argument to a predicate calculus. This will make the properties of the argument more apparent without the distraction of the connotations of English. In particular you will find that your argument is a mess of vague predicates (useful, regularly, pretty well, more powerful, etc) that will make any formal treatment of it impossible. Basically the reason you're not certain why this argument is unsound, and why I could not prove it, is because it is ill-defined.

Polonius wrote:I could see that you might challenge any or all of the premises, but then we're getting into a debate on admissibility of evidence, and that is a different kettle of fish.

Actually it's the same 'kettle of fish' since you're appealing to anecdotal evidence in the informal argument you've presented. Call it a debate if you like, but I'm not debating. I'm simply pointing out how the problem is to be treated and salient properties of a rigorous analytic treatment of the subject. As I said this isn't debate club; I'm not fighting you and I regard this as a co-operative venture to discover the truth.

Polonius wrote:To disprove that you'd have to show at least one of the following:
1) that gamers regularly use missions that deviate wildly from those in the BGB and GT/RTT packs
2) That every codex contains an even number of useful units or That any given codex is constructed such that synergy makes seemingly subpar units better
3) there is no evidence that armies from top tier codices perform better, or what evidence there is is misleading (probably the easiest to do)
4) there is an error in my reasoning.

None of these things can be demonstrated. As with the argument presented above none of them are well-defined, consisting of vague predicates and constants without empirical references that we can point to as either the case or not. Perhaps I could claim #4, but that would not be an error in your reasoning so much as a lack of reasoning on your part, which no doubt you would take as a grave insult rather than an honest observation that the method you employ admits no falsification nor rigorous treatment and as such not something relevant to the truth. Here's a link that should help you formalize your argument, should you care to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification_theory

Terminizzle wrote:

Asmodai wrote:
First you'd need some way to measure what those pressures and prejudices actually are (in a way that wouldn't change them just by the act of measuring them), then figure out what results they lead too and then find some way to aggregate that data.

I'm not so sure about that, either- it would be both useful and practical to make a list of a few different results that have different tactical implications and weigh the probability of each occurrence based on approximations of those pressures and prejudices.

So technically I agree with you, but I think it's not only possible but practical to approximate the sort of data you referred in the statement I bolded previously.

Possible. I'm not an expert in computer theory. Approximate results might be possible. It might also be able to approach the problem from a different angle - by figuring out what should happen and then seeing how the actual results differ you could estimate the effects of factors that are unmeasurable directly.

Asmodai wrote:We are? You should have said that three pages ago.

In the real world it tends to go without saying, unless one is currently at a meeting of the debate club...

Asmodai wrote:When the advantage comes for free, it's hard to argue that it's not an advantage (e.g. with Terminators).

It's not hard. It's a simple matter of not presuming it to be an advantage, and then not presuming what it is to be universalized. Somewhat easier to do when one employs first-order logic and the predicate and quantity is explicit.

Asmodai wrote:Answering your question from above, I think it depends. In some situations army composition will be overwhelming (e.g. a tournament played without terrain using VPs only to evaluate the winner).

Other times it will be almost irrelevant (Tau vs. Space Marines in a mission where Skimmers can't move because of 'windshear' and the surface is a toxic goo causing each unit to take a S3 AP4 hit at the start of every turn).

Sure, but whether those statements are true is what we are trying to figure out. It might be that while the sentence in the first paragraph is false, the one in the second may be true, or both can be true, and so on.

Asmodai wrote:In a typical tournament army composition probably very influential on the results, but not determinative.

I love these kinds of statements. They're so carefully vague, and loaded with truisms. I don't want to sound insulting (though having said that someone has to be insulted, you, you there, you're insulted right?!), but how could we say that it is true that in a typical tournament army (what given value of "typical"?) composition is probably (what probability?) very influential (influential how? how much is 'very'?), but not determinative (what, so if it wasn't probably very influential, but improbably very influential, or probably not very influential, would the results would be the same?).

Nurglitch: What we have here, I'm afraid is a failure to communicate. I like what you're doing, and I do sincerely apologize for coming off adversarial while accusing you of being pompous and stiff. Here's why: you're an academic, schooled in a language for determining truth that I don't speak. I'm a law student, schooled in using evidence and rhetoric to sway a trier of fact that my assertion is more correct.

I think you've got some great ideas percolating, but alas none of us can hang with you while discussing them, especially since so many of them appear, at least, to be counterintuitive (I get what you mean about terminator's 5++ not always being an advantage, but let's be colloquial: the unit got a buff.)

I'll doff my hat and admit that it probably can't be shown with any rigor that composition has an effect on outcome. The question, of course, is what can be shown to be true with any rigor?

People don't assume they're being condescended to when physicists and mathematicians politely ask them to go study up a bit when they get asked why quantum-loop gravity rather than M-theory or why a 26-place polynomial is required to compute prime numbers.

Wanna bet? My first reaction would be to question their motives. After all my math teacher taught me that (that whole damn lies and statistics rearing its ugly head again). If you can’t boil your argument down to a clear, concise point, then that’s your fault, not the listener.

jfrazell wrote:

People don't assume they're being condescended to when physicists and mathematicians politely ask them to go study up a bit when they get asked why quantum-loop gravity rather than M-theory or why a 26-place polynomial is required to compute prime numbers.

Wanna bet? My first reaction would be to question their motives. After all my math teacher taught me that (that whole damn lies and statistics rearing its ugly head again). If you can’t boil your argument down to a clear, concise point, then that’s your fault, not the listener.

to be fair it's often hard to pare down a doctrine or theory to the point where it can be easily understood without losing some of it's flavor and complexity. It's possible to make something look simple, but you can't make something be simple.

Blackmoor’s Beliefs II

I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong.
I believe that you can build an army from any codex and win.
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT.
I believe that there are no bad armies, only bad match ups.

I have seen all kinds of armies out there that do well, and everyone is surprised by there success. Take for example GTs. There are a lot of armies at the top or win, and you see the list and wonder how they did it.

Blackmoor wrote:Blackmoor’s Beliefs II

I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong.
I believe that you can build an army from any codex and win.
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT.
I believe that there are no bad armies, only bad match ups.

I have seen all kinds of armies out there that do well, and everyone is surprised by there success. Take for example GTs. There are a lot of armies at the top or win, and you see the list and wonder how they did it.

QFT. I agree with all of these. The rub, of course, lay in belief #4.

Is Nidzilla simply better than IG, or does it match up better with a great % of tournament lists? Since the Ork codex was finally disposed of, I doubt there are any truly bad codices out there (Even DH can take IG. Pure Grey Knights isn't a codex, it's a build).

Blackmoor wrote:
I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong. [1]
I believe that you can build an army from any codex and win. [2]
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT. [3]
I believe that there are no bad armies, only bad match ups. [4]

1- Most likely, this is the case.
2- Sure you will win, but how often will you win? 1/10 games? 1/20?
3- Sure, you absolutely could take any army and have a non-zero chance of doing well. But if you took that list to 20 gt's, how many could you reasonably expect to do well at? It definitely CAN happen. It almost definitely will not happen very often.
4- I agree- how could something be bad in a vacuum? There's no such thing as bad when there's nothing better it's compared to.

There's a new rule rumor posted about 5th edition, it states that the winner of every game of 40k is to be decided by who has the most Monstrous Creatures in play at the end of the game.

Do all codexes have an equal chance of winning now?

Polonius wrote:Nurglitch: What we have here, I'm afraid is a failure to communicate. I like what you're doing, and I do sincerely apologize for coming off adversarial while accusing you of being pompous and stiff.

So don't apologize, work with me on building lines of communication.

Polonius wrote:Here's why: you're an academic, schooled in a language for determining truth that I don't speak. I'm a law student, schooled in using evidence and rhetoric to sway a trier of fact that my assertion is more correct.

Being clever with rhetoric does not mean one cannot employ the methods of truth.

Polonius wrote:I think you've got some great ideas percolating, but alas none of us can hang with you while discussing them, especially since so many of them appear, at least, to be counterintuitive (I get what you mean about terminator's 5++ not always being an advantage, but let's be colloquial: the unit got a buff.)

It is untrue that you can't discuss these things. If you can do arithmetic than you are familiar with the methods I'm employing here. The subject is wide and deep and difficult, not impossible. One reason for doing it this way is to avoid the error that build up via colloquial modes of conversation. Take the example of the Terminators. They got a 5++ save. Not a buff, an advantage, an improvement, or anything but an additional 5++ save. Truth is easy. All it takes is patience and care.

Polonius wrote:I'll doff my hat and admit that it probably can't be shown with any rigor that composition has an effect on outcome. The question, of course, is what can be shown to be true with any rigor?

Well just bowing out having been bullied into accepting a position without argument is worse than bullying someone into agreeing with you. Either way you're accepting something fallaciously, via an appeal to authority.

As for the second question: All statements about mathematical structures such as games that are made according to logics that admit truth.

Nurglitch wrote:[The tournament data is not a representative sample, and it's hardly been rigorously tracked (we could not, for example, google up the board arrangements from past grand tournaments).

Of course it is, you're just not willing to accept the ramifications of those results. You're revealing your own bias.

The results would be representative of tournament results in a given period of time. By analyzing those results trends can be shown. Simply put, holding the rules constant will yield a certain number of GT tourneys. If Eldar have greater scores per game than Kroot Mercs, then on its face its an indicator that Eldar are superior in tournaments. Obviously more games would lead to a greater confidence level, but nevertheless it is an indicator.

Will it reflect if Mech eldar are better than troopy guard? No, in that instance you are correct-we do not have enough granularity for that. Would it reflect onto standard RTTs? No, although conclusions could be drawn in that direction. would it stand up against a much larger sampling of games? Again no, however the conclusion is not designed to.

jfrazell wrote:Wanna bet? My first reaction would be to question their motives. After all my math teacher taught me that (that whole damn lies and statistics rearing its ugly head again). If you can’t boil your argument down to a clear, concise point, then that’s your fault, not the listener.

I'd bet money on that, seeing as it's a sure thing. If it wasn't then your math teacher wasted your time by not distilling the essence of mathematics down into a pithy phrase for you to memorize and instead requiring you to learn a variety methods and practice them.

That's the entire point of computer science, that some mathematical structures are so complex that they require mechanical assistance to compute. There was a philosophical myth that Alan Turing dispelled when he formalized computer science, that went something like: Given any problem the power of the mind is such that it will admit succinct solution, which is balderdash. Still, imposing an aesthetic sense of parsimony in young math students is always a good thing, if only to make marking easier. Incidentally that's also why there's an argument in the mathematics right now (well, for a while now) about the validity of computer-assisted proofs like the one about the four-colour theorem. Basically these proofs are too long to be humanly checked, but if you check them with a computer you're just begging the question about whether the method of computation will produce a valid proof.

Anyhow, the point is that communication requires a transmitter, a medium, and receiver (to put it crudely), and where miscommunication occurs the error can be attributed to between 1 and 3 of those things.

How is this still on topic? Well, an interesting thing about statements is that you can typically predict the value of their "abstract nonsense" by figuring out how you think about them. Incidentally that's the motivation for category theory, in case anyone was interested...

Blackmoor’s Beliefs II (Amended)

I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong.
I believe that a good player can make a winning list out of any codex that suits their play style.
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT. (70+ battle points)
I believe that there are not bad codexes, only bad match ups.

Amended for clarification.

Blackmoor wrote:Blackmoor’s Beliefs II (Amended)

I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong.
I believe that a good player can make a winning list out of any codex that suits their play style.
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT. (70+ battle points)
I believe that there are no bad pizza pies, only bad fillings
Amended for clarification.

Fixed your belief system

I'd bet money on that, seeing as it's a sure thing. If it wasn't then your math teacher wasted your time by not distilling the essence of mathematics down into a pithy phrase for you to memorize and instead requiring you to learn a variety methods and practice them.

I do believe I've just been insulted. My opinion of you, well stayed the same.

jfrazell wrote:Of course it is, you're just not willing to accept the ramifications of those results. You're revealing your own bias.

Okay, how is it a relevant sample? What is it a relevant sample of? Or, surprise surprise, did you misunderstand the scope of my statement?

jfrazell wrote:The results would be representative of tournament results in a given period of time. By analyzing those results trends can be shown. Simply put, holding the rules constant will yield a certain number of GT tourneys. If Eldar have greater scores per game than Kroot Mercs, then on its face its an indicator that Eldar are superior in tournaments. Obviously more games would lead to a greater confidence level, but nevertheless it is an indicator.

Yup, it turns out you did. I was pointing out that the tournament data was not a representative sample of the games played in total. If you're going to play statistics then you need to state the confidence level, explain how you're holding the dice factor constant, and then explain the algorithm you're using to filter out that noise. I recommend a recent one that a friend of mine developed to track sea turtles, which is very very handy for dealing with the sort of deviation that the GW dice will impose. Supposing that you're going to limit your conclusions to the tournament circuit you're also going to have to find a way of tracking the configurations of terrain and figuring out a way to hold this variable steady when its abstraction results in a net loss of information about the armies acting over it.

jfrazell wrote:Will it reflect if Mech eldar are better than troopy guard? No, in that instance you are correct-we do not have enough granularity for that. Would it reflect onto standard RTTs? No, although conclusions could be drawn in that direction. would it stand up against a much larger sampling of games? Again no, however the conclusion is not designed to.

So yes, what I said seems to be true then, because if the scope of the conclusion is limited to tournaments and not the entire game then the tournament data is not mere an un-representative sample of the tournament games, it is unrepresentative of the state of the Game.

jfrazell wrote:Will it reflect if Mech eldar are better than troopy guard? No, in that instance you are correct-we do not have enough granularity for that. Would it reflect onto standard RTTs? No, although conclusions could be drawn in that direction. would it stand up against a much larger sampling of games? Again no, however the conclusion is not designed to.

jfrazell wrote:I do believe I've just been insulted. My opinion of you, well stayed the same.

Your belief is false, and your opinion of me is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

As is yours to the topic.

I've posted my beliefs?

Which distract from the topic, "who's going to be top tier in 5th,"

Nurglitch wrote:

Asmodai wrote:We are? You should have said that three pages ago.

In the real world it tends to go without saying, unless one is currently at a meeting of the debate club...

Asmodai wrote:When the advantage comes for free, it's hard to argue that it's not an advantage (e.g. with Terminators).

It's not hard. It's a simple matter of not presuming it to be an advantage, and then not presuming what it is to be universalized. Somewhat easier to do when one employs first-order logic and the predicate and quantity is explicit.

Asmodai wrote:Answering your question from above, I think it depends. In some situations army composition will be overwhelming (e.g. a tournament played without terrain using VPs only to evaluate the winner).

Other times it will be almost irrelevant (Tau vs. Space Marines in a mission where Skimmers can't move because of 'windshear' and the surface is a toxic goo causing each unit to take a S3 AP4 hit at the start of every turn).

Sure, but whether those statements are true is what we are trying to figure out. It might be that while the sentence in the first paragraph is false, the one in the second may be true, or both can be true, and so on.

Asmodai wrote:In a typical tournament army composition probably very influential on the results, but not determinative.

I love these kinds of statements. They're so carefully vague, and loaded with truisms. I don't want to sound insulting (though having said that someone has to be insulted, you, you there, you're insulted right?!), but how could we say that it is true that in a typical tournament army (what given value of "typical"?) composition is probably (what probability?) very influential (influential how? how much is 'very'?), but not determinative (what, so if it wasn't probably very influential, but improbably very influential, or probably not very influential, would the results would be the same?).

I use all of those words in their ordinary everyday meaning. That's more than sufficient precision for the topic at hand.

I sell computers. I sell them to system Techs, IT Co-ordinators, and on the rare occaision, a little old lady who wants to try 'that internet thingie'.

It is my assertion that I communicate for a living, if I cannot communicate effectively with the Client, in terms they understand, I am an idiot, NOT THEM.

So, if 'jargon' makes me feel more 'intelligent'-I am decieving myself. Al the person hears at the other end of the conversation is"Blah/waffle/Rhubarb"

Which makes me an Idiot, for wasting thier time and mine.

Oh, as for top-tier lists in 5th Ed-just look for loopholes in the main rulebook, and pick your army list accordingly.

So no DS, 2 flamers per squad, no missile launchers, 10 man squads, no assault cannons(nerfed-FTW)!

It only really matters to me if they release 'Redux'-and have not taken the 5th Ed rules into account*shudder*............

To the topic. I'd posit that lists which maximize infantry power and speed will be more effective (yes a duh moment). I'm thinking pack born BA's as an example. I'm not convinced that rhino rush will necessarily make a combat, and bolter rush only slightly gains. How does this impact chaos forces?

I foresee the pending demon codex to be much stronger than previously thought: plethora of troops; fast attack units that may potentially be able to deepstrike in the army; otherwise nurglings or less expensive demons can hide their more powerful brethren.

jfrazell wrote:Which distract from the topic, "who's going to be top tier in 5th,"

So the absence of posting my beliefs distracts from the topic? Curious. I have posted some facts about reasoning to support the contention that the answer to the topic is always: "No one". Perhaps that is what you are erroneously referring to.

Asmodai wrote:I use all of those words in their ordinary everyday meaning. That's more than sufficient precision for the topic at hand.

No, unfortunately it's not. That's why mathematics and logic use symbols, because the use of words in their ordinary everyday meaning is informal and hence imprecise, even (especially) for the topic at hand. That is, of course, supposing we're interested in the truth rather than mere opinions of the colonic variety.

akira5665 wrote:It is my assertion that I communicate for a living, if I cannot communicate effectively with the Client, in terms they understand, I am an idiot, NOT THEM.

You are neither my clients nor my students and I refuse to talk down to you.

Nurglitch wrote:

Asmodai wrote:I use all of those words in their ordinary everyday meaning. That's more than sufficient precision for the topic at hand.

No, unfortunately it's not. That's why mathematics and logic use symbols, because the use of words in their ordinary everyday meaning is informal and hence imprecise, even (especially) for the topic at hand. That is, of course, supposing we're interested in the truth rather than mere opinions of the colonic variety.

I normally don't seek truth in assessing what miniatures armies are competitive. A wide-range of informed opinions is fine. I suggest that you're taking this way too seriously.

OK. We get it Nurglitch. You think there is balance between codexes (on its face is absurd with new rules coming out). Thats great and good for you.

Now back to the topic. Asmodai, how do you envision this potentially impacting BA and the rumored Demon codex?

jfrazell wrote:OK. We get it Nurglitch. You think there is balance between codexes (on its face is absurd with new rules coming out). Thats great and good for you.

Now back to the topic. Asmodai, how do you envision this potentially impacting BA and the rumored Demon codex?

Demons will be released with 5th edition in mind. I don't think anyone disputes that. From the rumours they'll have some shooting troops and some nice close combat units as Troops. This should make them competitive in the scoring units category.


Daemonettes initially seemed to be a no-brainer Troops choice, but with the changes to rending, I think they'll be about even with Bloodletters. I don't know enough of the details on the other units to comment. It's awfully hard to say how the 5th ed rumours will effect the Daemon rumours.

Blood Angels is an easier question to answer. I think they'll be extremely competitive. Assault Marines are great for displacing the enemy off the objective and it won't hurt to lose them as much in KP missions as most other races' assault units. The Furioso being able to run makes it more useful - although it'll still be a marginal choice. The Baal stays even - it's rending got worse and it can't move and fire, but it will benefit from cover. I think, overall, BA are right where they should be in 5th edition. (The current vogue build focusing on 5 man Veteran Assault Squads with tons of Powerfists probably will fall by the wayside.)

That was highly entertaining. But at least I now understand a bit more where Nurglitch is coming from. I can sorta see his point, but I think that in selecting a theory you've got to use whatever evidence you've got, as a proper, rigorous analysis is impossible or at least highly unfeasable in certain situations.
But I'm going to go read up on theory selection anyway.
(What confuses me the most is how a free situational advantage cannot be considered a power boost for the purposes of determining whether a unit has gotten better or worse. Is it about some unknowable context, where that situational advantage is cancelled out by another situational disadvantage to some other aspect of the list?)

Also, Nurglitch, I think you might have a nicer time discussing these issues if you refrained from using terms like groupthink and implying that we are all monkeys. That's just going to piss people off.

Asmodai wrote:I normally don't seek truth in assessing what miniatures armies are competitive. A wide-range of informed opinions is fine. I suggest that you're taking this way too seriously.

I don't think your suggestion has merit. Posting on an internet forum is pretty recreational. Serious would be writing a paper for an academic journal, or writing a grant proposal to study the topic. I'm just chattin' with my peeps, as it were. Opinions are nice, but truth is something you can work with, y'know?

Take this discussion of who's going to be the top tier army. Some people, perhaps clever people, are going to carefully note the consensus and buy accordingly. Other people are going to simple satisfy their own prejudices, and others might change their own opinions. It seems useful for all involved that their opinions be reckoned against the truth so that they buy well, are disabused of their prejudices, or change their opinions to something true rather than simply more convincing (which tends to mean whoever shouts the loudest or appeals to the favourite prejudices).

Baal's rending got worse?

Hmm it's twin linked BS4. Anytime you hit with 4 shots (which is most of the time) you still get 4 tries at rending.

Minutely worse, but it's still a great tank.

Think of 18" ram attacks. Yeah, sign me up!

Wow, you go away to work for a day and return to find a thread has evolved beyond all recognition. I'm really pleased about that because I love people intellectualising my hobby. I began as a kid because I loved the cool toy soldiers but as i grew older the reason I'm in the hobby is the huge mental stimulation it offers on every level (if you look for it).
I appreciate the discussion but my original question has perhaps been rendered slightly obsolete by the debate it spawned. Let me alter the question slightly then.

Whether or not they exist, many people percieve that there is a tier system in 40k in 4th ed. Based on what we hear that 5th ed might be, what do you think people might percieve those new tiers will become?

Da Boss wrote:That was highly entertaining. But at least I now understand a bit more where Nurglitch is coming from. I can sorta see his point, but I think that in selecting a theory you've got to use whatever evidence you've got, as a proper, rigorous analysis is impossible or at least highly unfeasible in certain situations.

It's traditional to abstain from applying a theory under conditions of insufficient evidence. Otherwise you're basically cutting the evidence to fit your theory. Which is generally considered bad. In a sense that's my argument why the top tier army won't exist. It won't exist for the same reason ghosts don't exist: despite many people holding strong opinions about ghosts and their existence there simply isn't enough information about them to start on a science of "ghostology" that isn't about all the things that people mistake for ghosts.

Da Boss wrote:But I'm going to go read up on theory selection anyway. (What confuses me the most is how a free situational advantage cannot be considered a power boost for the purposes of determining whether a unit has gotten better or worse. Is it about some unknowable context, where that situational advantage is cancelled out by another situational disadvantage to some other aspect of the list?)

Something you might want to read is "Faster than the Speed of Light" (http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257). Not directly applicable, but it's fun to see how these things actually play out (as opposed to the theories of how they should play out). It'll also give your reading some broader context beyond gaming. What you're calling a "free situational advantage" is just that, only an advantage in some situations. If something is not an advantage in some situations, it is not free (it's easy to put a price on nothing), and if something is an advantage in a situation its cost may be measured against a theoretical commiserate decrease in cost. In other words the cost of giving Terminators a 5++ save is equal to the difference between the points value of a Terminator without the 5++ in all of the situations, both where the 5++ save takes effect, and where the 5++ save does not take effect and a reduced points cost would have been preferable.

Da Boss wrote:Also, Nurglitch, I think you might have a nicer time discussing these issues if you refrained from using terms like groupthink and implying that we are all monkeys. That's just going to piss people off.

But 'groupthink' is the term used to describe what tends to go on in these forums. Someone says something, and in order to get along other people either agree or they disagree in a polite way that will allow them to maintain social standing. There's fascinating research out there showing how monkeys are incredibly stupid about analytic thinking but incredibly smart when it comes down to social thinking.

Monkeys and monkey-like animals such as humans, unless they do really weird things like learn how to count or have congenital deformities like autism and autism spectrum disorders, engage in groupthink for the most part because the sensitivities of the group are what is most apparent, and the truth is less important than getting along. Fortunately by applying principles of patience, care, and charity we can get along by not taking offense at attempts to grasp the truth and constructively criticize each other's attempts. Life is simply better where you don't take offense even when you could.

I mean sure, it'll piss people off, but people take offense at damn near everything unless you act like a properly servile beta monkey. In academia, at least, productivity is only possible where people grit their teeth and charitably suppose that not everyone has a team of writers to make their speeches pleasing and soothing to the listener's ear.

MrJones wrote:Whether or not they exist, many people percieve that there is a tier system in 40k in 4th ed. Based on what we hear that 5th ed might be, what do you think people might percieve those new tiers will become?

I think it will be less well defined. The current leaders get bumped down, and others get bumped up. As the game goes on, Orks comparative inability to deal with heavy armour will become more recognized. The boost to ordnance will also hurt them most.

Necrons will be very powerful out of the gate - but they'll be redone sooner rather than later so any dominance would be short-lived.

Marines will get both boosted and suffer drawbacks at the same time, so I'd expect them to remain equally popular. The recent Codexes seem remarkably balanced internally, so that's a positive sign. When Orks came out people complained about the lack of a Gretchin screen. Now it's back. The Eldar Elite choices for close combat troops make sense now with each of them bringing a unique element to the table. (And so on, it's all been discussed in other threads.)

I'm sure there'll still be tiers, but I hope they'll be less rigid and defined than they are currently.

Before I begin, I greatly apologize if I do not address what is being discussed because really, I have no clue what you are saying.

From my view, it seems ideas of top tier are based more in the exploitation of rules of the game rather than a unit's mathematical breakdown. Nidzilla is so powerful because TMC's have a huge advantage of durability and firepower as a lucky railgun shot has no chance of insta killing a gunfex, as opposed to a demolisher. This makes a carnifex, based on the rules, much more powerful. It also helps to note that you can have more carnifex's than leman russ's in a typical army.

Rules are written by normal folk, so it doesn't seem surprising that they can be manipulated, poorly put, or even unfair. I don't believe all codex's are balanced because some lists have special rules that can be manipulated to a greater extent than others. Again, I go with Tyranids in this example as you can field 8 monstrous creatures, which is a great benefit seeing how vehicles, with the exception of certain fast skimmers, are still quite vulnerable to enemy fire.

The rise of top tier armies seem to be people that play warhammer as a competitive source of entertainment and so search for a way to be the most competitive, which often involves using the nuances of the rules to their advantage.

The game would be boring otherwise as every codex would have the same things, just bugs with guns or nuns with guns. Generalship, the ability to plan ahead, to abuse the variables like terrain and mission, is what makes the game enjoyable, in my eyes. It is not to say that top tier armies are unbeatable, I don't think anybody is making that claim, but rather top tier armies are lists specifically designed to maximize a player's advantage based on the rules of the game, but this certainly does not guarantee a win. If a player knows the rules and knows how to manipulate them, then these lists may be more powerful than others, based on the fact that the player using them knows how to work within the ruleset. I think a complete novice to the game would not get the most out of a perfectly constructed top tier list since, in my opinion, the advantage lies in the rules of the game, not just what units are used.


And on the point of the thread,
I'd say that Footslogging Orks and Stealer/hormie swarm will be very competitive and popular. 5th edition seems to give much more favor to CC based armies with massed troops and so these lists will utilize that to the extreme based on the number of units that can be fielded (180 ork infantry Troops and either 72 stealers or 180 hormies or a mix thereof), all of which count as scoring for objective based missions, and all of which are formidable CC fighters. With the run ability, you have orks that can move up to 12" a turn, with one turn where they can feasibly move up to 18" and assault. Hormies can move up to 12" a turn and feasibly assault up to 24". Stealers are still fast as hell and while rending is no longer as potent, it is still very very effective.

Nurglitch: Cheers for the link. I'll not read it now, as I'm behind on some work (stupid tendancy to procrastinate).
But I think if you examine the forum more carefully, you'll see less groupthink than you have implied exists here. A lot of discussion is more heated and adversarial than you would expect if people were just trying to get along (although socialising is part of the reason people come here, obviously). Some people's opinions are given more weight than others by certain groups, but it's not like we're all a hivemind who unilaterally agree about what's the best.

I think I've made a linguistic mistake that always irritates me when other people do it: I should have said hypothesis instead of theory. Your talking about theory sorta distracted me. I think it is acceptable to formulate a hypothesis, look for evidence for and against your hypothesis, and run with it. In my actual job, I'm very critical of that sort of thing, because I'm a research scientist (I literally just spent nearly a year on my experimental design, nearly driving myself demented trying to get it just right. And I'm still not 100% happy, so every presentation now comes with two pages of warnings and statements of limitations). I do not feel it nessicary to apply the same amount of rigour to my hobby. I'm happy to speculate and enjoy reading anecdotes, and to ramble on about optimum configurations and the like.

I also think your ghost analogy is a bit wierd, and misses the point of my counterargument somewhat. My point was that not everything in life needs to be tied down to empirical truths and a scientific framework. Other ways of thinking about these things are fine and dandy as far as I can see.

I didn't particularly take offense at your monkey comment, but surely if you acknowledge that people might, you should take it into account when posting? You could have easily have made that point and not used a potentially offensive term, and still kept it true.

I think your zeal (hope that's the correct word!) for correct, clear thinking about this stuff is probably a symptom of being so specialised in your knowledge. If the discussion ever rambled near my specialty, I'm sure I'd be just as tenacious.

Da Boss: I pointed out that groupthink isn't a "everyone agrees and gets along" kind of thing. It's about people putting socializing before truth, whether that's trying to win arguments and being adversarial, weighting arguments by the people that put them forth, or getting along.

About hypotheses: it is not reasonable to posit hypotheses in the absence of a justified theoretical framework. That's why I used the example of ghosts, something that scientists are often familiar with, those theoretical entities whose existence is posited to fill up the ontological holes in a theoretical framework. Sometimes it works (see: Neptune) and sometimes it doesn't (see: Vulcan), but the utility of doing so is only ever confirmed after the fact and doing so is never anything more than theoretical jerry-rigging. Ghosts are just those embarrassing entities that, like Vulcan and Phlogiston and so on, turn out to be superfluous and indeed distracting from what is actually going on. Proposing entities to explain phenomena is rightly the last resort beyond even returning to theory selection to determine the most parsimonious theory available (or to design one that is).

The reason I brought up ghosts is to point out that no, other ways of thinking about things like Warhammer and so on are not fine and dandy. If we think about Warhammer in sloppy ways, then we're going to end up with bad conclusions and stupid discussions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or what army is going to be top tier in the 5th edition of Warhammer 40k, and it's the kind of subtle and insidious stupid like that that poisons reasonable discussion in general.

Acknowledging that some terms might offend people, particularly when those terms are particularly apt, is no good reason to avoid using those terms. There is, for example, a particular shade of dark brown whose name goes unspoken because of a particular stupid chip on people's shoulder about it. Part of what makes it so offensive to some people is the fact that a consistent and widespread effort has been made to make it clear that the word is offensive.

My "zeal", if you can call it that, is a response to being bored stiff at the endless cavalcade of incorrect and woolly thinking (and seeing the problems that result from people ignoring the small yet important details) and knowing that change starts somewhere. It's not enough to point out the truth, it must be constantly tested, promulgated, explored.

lemurking23's post demonstrates at least a willingness to give the matter some careful thought, and if that's a result of my effort then it's a start on who's going to be in the top tier because a careful discussion of who's going to be in the top tier will eventually clear the board of candidates.

Okay. I don't want to misrepresent you or anything so please correct me immediately if I'm wrong, but are you dismissing non-scientific thought as lacking in real value? Because I would have to disagree with you there.
I'm going to go off and think about this some more, and read up on what you said. I'm interested in what you have to say, so would you mind if I took this to PM so we're not clogging up this thread, or would you prefer to continue the discussion here.

Nurglitch wrote:Da Boss: I pointed out that groupthink isn't a "everyone agrees and gets along" kind of thing. It's about people putting socializing before truth, whether that's trying to win arguments and being adversarial, weighting arguments by the people that put them forth, or getting along.

Well, I see that you have a point here, and may be right. I'm not sure that there are any absolutes on the topic per se, and that there is a great deal of grey area here.

~snicker~

Seriously, though, this topic is something that keeps me up at night, and it all goes back to the basic "how do we know what we know?" conundrum. How much am I, as an individual, willing to dig into the basic principles that rule my life? Science, politics, math, sociology, psychology, etc, all deep (to a greater or lesser degree) disciplines, most of which I won't do more than dip my toes in. I posit that you could spend your whole life and not feel like you've got a really good grasp on how everything works, and so you base your information off of personal observation and information imparted by sources you trust. Hell, sometimes you have to make a decision based on a source you don't trust as that may be all you have to go on. And this is where groupthink comes in.

What groupthink, in this scenario, allows us to do is make certain assumptions because we don't want to spend the time and energy to solve a very complex problem. We simplify, we rely on anecdotal evidence, we come up with working models that seem to hold up. This isn't the best solution if you really want to find out if there are top-tier codexes or not, but it is the best solution if you have limited resources to spend on the problem. A solution to this would be rather long and involved and I think you'd be hard pressed to get many people to follow your reasoning even if you had solid proof. It's one of those accurate yet not practical sort of things.

I don't dispute that just about any codex can be used to make an effective army, but for most of us, it's just not worth spending the time or effort to do it.

Also, Nurglitch, you really need to write textbooks.

Iorek: The reason that there isn't a best solution out there for finding out whether there are top-tier codicies is there isn't one. The methods for proving this are quite simple, if you have the time (which we have available), the information (which we have available), and the will to put them together (which is the stumbling block).

As for the textbooks I'm working on it. The trick seems to be explaining an economic treatment of ethics to ethicists and non-well-founded logics to economists...

Isn't 'ethinonmics' pretty well established? I remember studying it a few years ago.

You might find this article: http://www.hartjournals.co.uk/le/volumes/8/issues/1/733.html interesting Nurglitch. It's by the Prof who I studied ethics with a few years ago.

No, it's something rather different from ethinomics/ethonomics. That stuff is pretty old hat, and Amartya Sen certainly said it best so far.

Still, that's off-topic, unless we want to do something like apply an economic analysis or "intentional stance analysis" to the problem of which army is going to be the top tier in the 5th edition of Warhammer 40k.

So essentially Nurglitch's point is that theoretically, one can never empirically or definitively prove which army or unit is "top tier".

Mainly because you can't apply a real scientific method to 40k in order to do so.

However, Nurglitch seems to be an academic. Lots of good, solid theory.

I'm an Engineer, we take that theory stuff they teach us and at the end of the day we've got to build something that works.

I'd like to think that with enough practice and experience, limiting our scope to the main missions and rules in the rulebook, and in this case, the new 5th Ed Missions and Rulebooks, we can work out which units and armies are able to utilize the new rules to the most effect in order to win the most games against the widest variety of opponents using the same points value.

While the theory says that you can't ever truly prove which army or type of build is the "best", you sure as hell can get enough experience to find out which lists have more advantages over their competitors.

This is something I think that Nurglitch even halfway admits:

In fact that's the reason my current group plays like it does, because we were all sick of the internet game where people played armies rather than games. Since we all know each other and play at each other's places, and none of us have large collections, we take the time and effort to make the games about more than just the troops.

You essentially had to change the rules of the missions in order for "the internet game" to not play a significant factor in your own games of 40k.

Much like how now, Mech Eldar, traditionally 2 units of 6 Harlies, 6 Fire Dragons, 2 or so units of Jetbikes, and 3 Falcons, is a "top tier army" or something that's considered to be very strong in normal 40k missions and 4th Ed rules is suddenly going to become absolutely terrible under the 5th Edition rules because all of a sudden only troops score (which the list lacks), the fact that absolute last turn grabs are highly improbable to rely on (random game length, every game), the Falcons don't move as fast, aren't as survivable, Victory Points are far less Important, and Rending on Harlequins is not as good as it is now.

By the virtue of this set of observations and reasons, one who has experience playing 40k in 4th edition and sees the coming rules of 5th can say that a Mech Eldar army which would be very effective on the table top using 4th Ed rules is going to be far less effective using the 5th edition rules.

Of course this is relying on my experience as a player to come to this conclusion. Now I can support these statements with pointed facts of the differences in the game, which support my position.

While this isn't the most empirically perfect solution, it sure as hell does give us a statement that I feel is valid in terms of comparing an armies performance in 4th ed to 5th ed.

Um, so, to re-rail to the original topic...

The lists I'm expecting to get big bumps are:

- Jetbike-trooped Eldar. They're already good troops choices, and in 5th I'm not sure any list will have better ability to claim objectives. Same cost as a vanilla SM assault marine, get jetbike movement (especially the assault move) and better shooting in exchange for weaker assault -- they even share the same armor save and toughness. A lot of the rest of the list suffers somewhat in the new edition, although I'm wondering if Blackmoor-pattern Warwalker squads won't be very good. Falcons won't be nearly as dominant -- holo-fields will still be quite good, but they're (relatively) expensive non-scoring units and the Eldar list doesn't have any scoring units that are going to be worth transporting in a Falcon, so they're going to lose their lock on the Eldar HS slots.

- Blood Angels (and/or similar traited marines). It's been said again and again, but assault marines as troops is going to be good.

- Chaos. While Guardian Jetbikes will be better objective grabbers, Plague Marines will be peerless ad objective holders. Of course, they'll also have some competition in that regard from Thousand Sons... If some of the other rumors hold out and Chaos gains access to Drop Pods, the strength of Plague Marines and Thousand Sons with good deployment rules stands to put Chaos as one of the lists to beat. Then you lash the other guy's troops away from the objectives... I sense the potential for Dual-lash Plague Marine-heavy Chaos lists to become one of the most hated lists -- lots of very resilient troops, special abilities that instead of killing, just push other units to where their scoring status doesn't matter.

- Drop Pod marines. Unfortunately for my lovingly-painted Space Wolves, the Power Fist nerf (no extra attack from Power Fist + Bolt Pistol) makes them even more overcosted for what you get. Other Drop Pod lists should work out well -- especially with the guaranteed drop by turn 5, they'll have one of the best troop delivery mechanisms sending down cheap T4 3+ wounds.

- Necrons. I'm hoping the final rulebook has a USR that overrides Living Metal. If not, Necrons stand to be the list to beat.

- Orks. Run. Enough said.

Of course, that's about half the lists as they stand. 'Nids look to suffer without any particularly resiliant troop choices, but still more expensive than Orks to get anywhere close to the same combat effectiveness. Guard gets better, but still has issues -- like, the base guardsman is still overpriced, and while Russes are really good now, they aren't scoring and lose some mobile firepower -- maybe guard that never leave their Chimera could work, though.

So what's the worst 5th ed list? Dark Angels?

Jetbike Eldar actually are going to be not all that I think.

Their best Jetbikes are HQ (Warlocks) or Fast (Spears). The main issue is the random game length. They'll do well because they can zoom in on the objective and score at the end - like most fast objective takers now.

The problem is that all 5th Ed Games use random game length. 1/3 of the time, the game ends on Turn 5. That means 2/3 of the time the game is going to continue and your opponent can remove them from the objective via shooting or assault (likely assault).

This continues since you've now got a 50/50 shot that a Turn 7 will be played and the same situation applies.

The problem with the Jetbikes is that they're inherently small in size and will fold in assault.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:So essentially Nurglitch's point is that theoretically, one can never empirically or definitively prove which army or unit is "top tier".

Incorrect. My point is that there is no 'top tier' army and that it can be proven, though it would have to be mathematically rather than empirically because it is a normative claim rather than an empirical one.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Mainly because you can't apply a real scientific method to 40k in order to do so.

More exactly you can't apply descriptive methods to normative matters.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I'm an Engineer, we take that theory stuff they teach us and at the end of the day we've got to build something that works.

Cool. After you're done building a machine that logs which army is 'top tier' maybe you can get on with that cold fusion engine I've been pining for.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I'd like to think that with enough practice and experience, limiting our scope to the main missions and rules in the rulebook, and in this case, the new 5th Ed Missions and Rulebooks, we can work out which units and armies are able to utilize the new rules to the most effect in order to win the most games against the widest variety of opponents using the same points value.

I suppose everyone needs a rock to roll uphill. Maybe Camus was right.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:While the theory says that you can't ever truly prove which army or type of build is the "best", you sure as hell can get enough experience to find out which lists have more advantages over their competitors.

Which is why it's important to get right which theory and what exactly it says before you start hammering in nails. The "theory" I'm putting forward is simply the point that you cannot even find out which lists have more advantages over their competitors (which seems to be rather synonymous with 'top tier' I would say) because that would again attempt to apply empirical methods to a normative problem.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:This is something I think that Nurglitch even halfway admits:

This is another good reason to admit to some rigor in everyday conversation, so these misunderstandings do not take place.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:You essentially had to change the rules of the missions in order for "the internet game" to not play a significant factor in your own games of 40k.

Nope. We just found that where we chose armies first we ended up with imbalanced missions. The problem was not that armies were tailored to fit each other, they problem was that they rarely fit the mission. The emphasis on armies doesn't strait-jacket the players into standardized armies unless they think it should. The emphasis on armies does, however, mean that armies often do not match the mission and terrain, which means that the distribution of the advantage is not only often unequal, but arbitrarily so as well.

The internet game is where people think they need to take a particular kind of army in order to win under any conditions, is where armies are tailored to fit each other as if material were the beginning and end of the game. Perhaps it's the lack of a board on the internet. The problem, it seems, is that the actual game is about the army in the context of the terrain, mission, and the latter are not completely arbitrary so people gravitate towards armies that perform under certain specific conditions, rather than general armies. There's a reason why it's useful to ask new players about the size of the board and the amount of terrain employed when they complain about army x.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:By the virtue of this set of observations and reasons, one who has experience playing 40k in 4th edition and sees the coming rules of 5th can say that a Mech Eldar army which would be very effective on the table top using 4th Ed rules is going to be far less effective using the 5th edition rules.

Or by appealing to one's prejudices. Experience does not always equal expertise. Indeed it often equates to prejudice when one's experiences were not understood in the proper context. In this case the proper context includes terrain and missions, the experience of which I doubt few players have of the 5th edition of Warhammer 40k.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Of course this is relying on my experience as a player to come to this conclusion. Now I can support these statements with pointed facts of the differences in the game, which support my position.

So lay them on the table.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:While this isn't the most empirically perfect solution, it sure as hell does give us a statement that I feel is valid in terms of comparing an armies performance in 4th ed to 5th ed.

So why should the rest of us consider your feelings in the matter? What makes them accurate with regard to the facts of the matter?

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I'm an Engineer, we take that theory stuff they teach us and at the end of the day we've got to build something that works.

Cool. After you're done building a machine that logs which army is 'top tier' maybe you can get on with that cold fusion engine I've been pining for.

You can make the smarmy comments you want, but I'm talking about building a list that's "better" than something most other people will field.

Better meaning that it has a higher chance of achieving the victory conditions for the missions outlined in the new rulebook, maximizing their ability to use the rules of the game to my advantage.

For instance in 5th edition, a Tyranid army with two small units of Rippers as Troops, some Ravenors in Fast Attack, 6 shooty Carnifex's and two Hive Tyrants is going to be very poor in terms of actually winning 2/3 of all games played using standard missions.

Conversely, that same army in 4th Edition will stand to do far better than most others in the missions in the current BGB.

My point about you focusing too much on theory and not enough on experience shows when you talk about how an Elite Dakka Fex (2x TL Devourers, +1BS) is a terrible unit choice that is highly ineffective. Going by other posts you've made, you said you didn't start playing 40k again till recently. I'm going to say that your experience, or at the very least, your judgment skills are poor. Because I like other people who have done well playing 40k in a competitive environment (GW run National Tournaments) have noted the extreme effectiveness of a Dakka Fex in playing 40k.

You can call it bias, but much like with the current rules and the choice to equip a sarge with a Power Weapon or a Power Fist, experience playing 40k shows that the Power Fist is the better option to take 99% of the time. This is something you get from experience and examining the rules and units in the game. All the theory you want to go on about isn't going to change that fact in 4th edition.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I'd like to think that with enough practice and experience, limiting our scope to the main missions and rules in the rulebook, and in this case, the new 5th Ed Missions and Rulebooks, we can work out which units and armies are able to utilize the new rules to the most effect in order to win the most games against the widest variety of opponents using the same points value.

I suppose everyone needs a rock to roll uphill. Maybe Camus was right.

The context of the game that we're discussing is not that complex. Especially in 5th Edition where the victory conditions for the 3 missions we can see are so cut and dry.

You can't state something to be true for all cases, but my god man you can observe general trends.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:While the theory says that you can't ever truly prove which army or type of build is the "best", you sure as hell can get enough experience to find out which lists have more advantages over their competitors.

Which is why it's important to get right which theory and what exactly it says before you start hammering in nails. The "theory" I'm putting forward is simply the point that you cannot even find out which lists have more advantages over their competitors (which seems to be rather synonymous with 'top tier' I would say) because that would again attempt to apply empirical methods to a normative problem.

Top tier implies that one army is better above all competitors. This is becoming less and less the case as new codex's come out, even in 4th Edition.

That doesn't mean I can't say that the new Ork Codex is capable of building a much more powerful army to take on all comers than say, codex Dark Angels.

This extends to units. I can say with some authority based on experience that Storm Guardians are generally a very poor unit for their points, especially compared to say, Ork Boyz.

Once you acknowledge the fact that some units are overall better for their points than other units, even in the same codex, then you infer that some codex's are better than others by the sheer fact that the codex with more "points efficient" units must be better than other codex's without such units.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:You essentially had to change the rules of the missions in order for "the internet game" to not play a significant factor in your own games of 40k.

Nope. We just found that where we chose armies first we ended up with imbalanced missions. The problem was not that armies were tailored to fit each other, they problem was that they rarely fit the mission. The emphasis on armies doesn't strait-jacket the players into standardized armies unless they think it should. The emphasis on armies does, however, mean that armies often do not match the mission and terrain, which means that the distribution of the advantage is not only often unequal, but arbitrarily so as well.

The internet game is where people think they need to take a particular kind of army in order to win under any conditions, is where armies are tailored to fit each other as if material were the beginning and end of the game. Perhaps it's the lack of a board on the internet. The problem, it seems, is that the actual game is about the army in the context of the terrain, mission, and the latter are not completely arbitrary so people gravitate towards armies that perform under certain specific conditions, rather than general armies. There's a reason why it's useful to ask new players about the size of the board and the amount of terrain employed when they complain about army x.

And what about armies that don't really need much terrain to work properly? What if all they need are a few pieces of blocking LOS terrain in their deployment zone, and a few pieces of it scattered about the rest of the board in various places?

In 40k, my experience tells me that at tournaments and in most game stores, you can invariably setup terrain with some kind of cover and/or blocking LOS terrain in your deployment zone. Simply because they either let you have some say in how the terrain is setup, or that is how organizers deem a "fair" terrain setup to be in order for one side to not have a "terrain advantage" over the other.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Of course this is relying on my experience as a player to come to this conclusion. Now I can support these statements with pointed facts of the differences in the game, which support my position.

So lay them on the table.

I did, see the example of the Mech Eldar army which is a very competitive army under 4th Edition (for the reasons given), and the same army will not be nearly as competitive in 5th edition for the reasons I also stated. It's all right there in my post, you simply didn't even look at it (otherwise you wouldn't be asking me to lay it out for you).

Voodoo Boyz wrote:While this isn't the most empirically perfect solution, it sure as hell does give us a statement that I feel is valid in terms of comparing an armies performance in 4th ed to 5th ed.

So why should the rest of us consider your feelings in the matter? What makes them accurate with regard to the facts of the matter?

Because by it's very nature determining what the "best army" for a given rules set or mission type is something that's more akin to figuring out "who was the best quarterback of all time" rather than trying to scientifically prove a physics equation.

While on one hand the answer is impossible to find out in any definitive sense, you can easily rule out completely stupid answers to the question. For instance if you tried to say that Michael Vick was a better quarterback than Brett Favre, you'd just get laughed at by anyone who followed the sport.

It's the same way with you trying to tell me that a Dakka Fex is a terrible unit choice that is ineffective. It's just something that's ludicrous to someone who's spent a good amount of time playing with and/or against that unit with a variety of different armies and missions.

Everything with hard troops will be the thing to go with the new senario rules.

Chaos demons might even be used to some degree.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:
However, Nurglitch seems to be an academic. Lots of good, solid theory.

I'm an Engineer, we take that theory stuff they teach us and at the end of the day we've got to build something that works.

Now thats something my Dad would say. Engineer powers ACTIVATE!

jfrazell wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:
However, Nurglitch seems to be an academic. Lots of good, solid theory.

I'm an Engineer, we take that theory stuff they teach us and at the end of the day we've got to build something that works.

Now thats something my Dad would say. Engineer powers ACTIVATE!

You see it a lot in the field. Guys with too much book smarts and not enough experience.

Nurglitch has a history on Warseer of being the guy who likes to talk about generally considered effective units and say how bad they are. Conversely he brings up units that are considered terrible (ie. 3rd Ed Shining Spears) and sing their virtues.

And while his accusations of group think do ring true some times, with too many people just accepting something without really seeing how it does work out on the table, the general idea's that he'll sometimes come out with are laughable. Example here being his statement that a Dakka Fex is a terrible unit.

While group think is a problem, so are armchair generals. Guys who've got tons of posts on the subject of playing, but eventually you see them post that they play 1-2 times a month, or 4-6 times a year.

Compared to people who play 3-4 times a week who post tactical advice and unit evaluations, as opposed to talking about high level theories about whether the fact that something "top tier" can even exist.

From what I've seen in my experience as a player and as someone who's observed a fair amount of games, there are times when army list selection has determined the winner of a game. I've seen bad players with great "no-brainer" lists beat good players with a more toned down army. This happens a bit in 40k because of the nature of the game (everything has 360 LOS, most units can project force at a fairly long range, regardless of direction) and because of the limited set of victory conditions we get for the standard set of missions presented in the book.

Being a regular at a GW store, I happen to know a decent variety of people there. Vets who are in their 20's or 30's like me, down to 15 year olds who come in to play or hang out on the weekends. Now these 15 year olds, they're not better players than I am, but they know the game well enough to not make tactical blunders. I'm confident enough that if I had them run a semi-optimized Godzilla Nids list, that it would trounce my favorite fluffy styled Ultramarines army. And that's almost regardless of the mission being played or the terrain setups.

This is because certain unit types and unit combinations are much more powerful than what other armies can do with the same amount of points. Here's a fun example using my favorite fluffy UM list and a Godzilla list I came up with in about 2 minutes:

Ultramarines:

Master Of Sanctity - 122 Points
Jump Pack, Bolt Pistol, Frags

10 Tactical Marines, Plasma Gun, Power Fist Vet Sarge - 190
Rhino, Smoke, Extra Armor - 58 Points

10 Tactical Marines, Melta Gun, Power Fist Vet Sarge - 190
Rhino, Smoke, Extra Armor - 58 Points

10 Assault Marines, 2 Plasma Pistols, Power Fist Vet Sarge - 260

Landspeeder Tornado - 80

Landspeeder Tornado - 80

Predator Annihilator - 150
Extra Armor, Sponson Lascannons

Predator Annihilator - 150
Extra Armor, Sponson Lascannons

Vindicator - 160
Dozer Blade, Power of the Machine Spirit

vs.

Godzilla Nids

Hive Tyrant - 221
+WS, +I, +S, Flesh Hooks, Implant Attack, Bio Plasma, 2x Scything Talons, Wings, Warp Field

Hive Tyrant - 150
+WS, +BS, +S, +Sv, 2x Twin Linked Devourers

Dakka Fex - 113
2x Twin Linked Devourers, +BS

Dakka Fex - 113
2x Twin Linked Devourers, +BS

Dakka Fex - 113
2x Twin Linked Devourers, +BS

6 Genestealers - 126
+Sv, Flesh Hooks

6 Genestealers - 126
+Sv, Flesh Hooks

2 Ravenors - 80
Rending

2 Ravenors - 80
Rending

Gun Fex - 188
+BS, +Sv, +Wound, Barbed Strangler, Venom Cannon

Gun Fex - 188
+BS, +Sv, +Wound, Barbed Strangler, Venom Cannon

Now compare those lists. One is chocked full of "Internet Wisdom" that Nurglitch goes on so much about being terrible or not even applicable to the game, and one is just based on models I like the look of and what I feel represents a mobile strike force according to the fluff for my army.

Both armies come to 1500 Points or less.

One army is markedly better at performing well against most opponents and is oriented to winning the missions presented in the 4th Ed BGB, while the other one isn't.

Now if you can't admit that certain army configurations are better than others, then I'd suggest that you haven't played the game enough. Once you admit that certain army configurations are better than others, especially at say, winning a tournament against 3 or 5 unknown opponents playing standard missions, then you're essentially admitting that some Codex's are capable of putting together stronger army configurations than other ones.

This doesn't mean that some armies automatically win while others automatically lose, or that some codex's are incapable of winning. It just means that there are imbalances in the game and that some armies give a player a better chance at winning in normal missions than others.

Heh heh switch out a gunfex for the 2nd HT, and add lots of genies and you have my 2000 point list, proof that mediocre people can play lists better than they are : )

Ayah. Nurgly has a point in that there are hidden gems. However, mitigation and reduction of risk variables, and extrapolating from that is part of my business. You can only make conclusions form the data that brung ya.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Once you acknowledge the fact that some units are overall better for their points than other units, even in the same codex, then you infer that some codex's are better than others by the sheer fact that the codex with more "points efficient" units must be better than other codex's without such units.

Hard to acknowledge some fact when it is not actually factual. But I digress. Since you're no longer talking about top tier armies, having abandoned that (and, incidentally the topic) I'll just have to sit by the sidelines and watch you enjoy yourself.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:And while his accusations of group think do ring true some times, with too many people just accepting something without really seeing how it does work out on the table, the general idea's that he'll sometimes come out with are laughable. Example here being his statement that a Dakka Fex is a terrible unit.

What, you mean where I pointed out that in my experience and that of my gaming group that we gave up on the so-called "Dakka Fex" because we didn't feel it was particularly effective, that's armchair generalship? Nice to know. I guess my experiences just aren't as worthy as yours because they disagree with yours. How about that?

Nurglitch wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Once you acknowledge the fact that some units are overall better for their points than other units, even in the same codex, then you infer that some codex's are better than others by the sheer fact that the codex with more "points efficient" units must be better than other codex's without such units.

Hard to acknowledge some fact when it is not actually factual. But I digress. Since you're no longer talking about top tier armies, having abandoned that (and, incidentally the topic) I'll just have to sit by the sidelines and watch you enjoy yourself.

I'm talking about "top tier armies", or rather at least proving they exist by pointing out that certain units perform better for their points than others.

If that's true, then that means not all units, and thus, codex's are not created equally in terms of power.

And if that's true, then there are "tiers" of armies that can make more powerful lists than others.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:And while his accusations of group think do ring true some times, with too many people just accepting something without really seeing how it does work out on the table, the general idea's that he'll sometimes come out with are laughable. Example here being his statement that a Dakka Fex is a terrible unit.

What, you mean where I pointed out that in my experience and that of my gaming group that we gave up on the so-called "Dakka Fex" because we didn't feel it was particularly effective, that's armchair generalship? Nice to know. I guess my experiences just aren't as worthy as yours because they disagree with yours. How about that?

I'd say ether you were playing some kind of wierd missions that were definitely not the normal stuff you'd find in the BGB (ie. lets say you had missions where only Troops were scoring units), then I can see it not being effective.

But if you played normal missions (which is what are used at tournaments and most pick up games, which is what we're discussing) with it extensively, and found it ineffective, then the experience of most people who play the game would show that you either didn't use the unit properly or that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Much like how some people can try and say Mike Vick is a better QB than Brett Farve, they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean they know a whole lot about football.

The answer is obvious: Spase Mareenze!!!!!!

Mike Vick is a better QB than Brett Farve, they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean they know a whole lot about football.

Wait a second, those guys aren't football players. They play American football.

Since this thread isn't anything about 5th edition anymore, let's talk about the weather. A snowstorm just swept over Sweden and hit Finland his morning. It's annoying, but much more interesting than your theoretical debate about what constitutes a points effective unit.

Therion wrote:

Mike Vick is a better QB than Brett Farve, they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean they know a whole lot about football.

Wait a second, those guys aren't football players. They play American football.

Hold on, isnt that a quaint form of rugby where they pay an extra point for a 6+ save.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I'm talking about "top tier armies", or rather at least proving they exist by pointing out that certain units perform better for their points than others.

Perform where? When? How? In whose company?

Voodoo Boyz wrote:If that's true, then that means not all units, and thus, codex's are not created equally in terms of power.

I love the way you keep switching terms. It means that you move from proving that some units perform better to proving that some units are more powerful to proving that some codicies are more powerful. Your reasoning is invalid, full of undisclosed premises, and exactly three 'leaps of logic' (a bit of logical sleight of hand where one premise is switched for a non-equivalent one).

Voodoo Boyz wrote:And if that's true, then there are "tiers" of armies that can make more powerful lists than others.

So let's review: By proving that some units perform better, that some units are more powerful, that some codicies are more powerful, one can prove that there are "tiers" of armies that can make some lists more powerful than others. To be honest I'd love to see you do this. It'll certainly be entertaining. One question though: When you say "prove" do you mean actually demonstrate the soundness of the logic required, or do you simply mean "waffle on a bit, then declare your original assertion to be true"?

Voodoo Boyz wrote:But if you played normal missions (which is what are used at tournaments and most pick up games, which is what we're discussing) with it extensively, and found it ineffective, then the experience of most people who play the game would show that you either didn't use the unit properly or that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I take it you have heard of "argumentum ad populum" right? That's where an idea is valued because of it popularity. That's why I'm glad that I can point to my brother's Canadian Grand Tourament win, back in 3rd edition when nobody wanted to take Fireprisms, Shining Spears, and pretty much everything in the army that he won with, so I can point out that the majority is often dead wrong. The experience of most people is just that, experience. The value of it lies with how it relates to the truth.

Y'know, about a decade ago when I was still swimming competitively I swam for a club whose motto was "Perfect practice makes perfect". The point being something that all good athletes and coaches should recognize: you learn what you practice, and if you practice badly then you will learn bad habits and you will learn bad performance. The same goes for game, since they use the same learning apparatus. There are plenty of people out there whose experience is virtually worthless, whose understanding of that experience is non-existent, and who consider themselves experts because they have never thought rigorously about the game and never had their ideas critically examined.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Much like how some people can try and say Mike Vick is a better QB than Brett Farve, they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean they know a whole lot about football.

I love this phrase. It's up there with "If so-and-so says it, it's good enough for me!" or "They can say the world is round, and they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean they know a whole lot about geology." I mean basically you're saying that they're obviously wrong because they disagree with you, not because the information they use to reach that conclusion is incorrect, or there is an essential flaw in their reasoning. They could, for example, be considering something that you are not, or they could be experts that are simply making an understandable but implicit error in their reasoning. But you won't know because you aren't checking what they actually know about football, you're simply dismissing them out of hand because they don't agree with you and you pride yourself on knowing football.

If I was really stupid I'd say: "Stick to engineering" but I'm not that stupid and instead will say: "Please, show us your reasoning."

Therion wrote:It's annoying, but much more interesting than your theoretical debate about what constitutes a points effective unit.

What, you mean as opposed to a non-theoretical debate?

Therion wrote:

Mike Vick is a better QB than Brett Farve, they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean they know a whole lot about football.

Wait a second, those guys aren't football players. They play American football.

Since this thread isn't anything about 5th edition anymore, let's talk about the weather. A snowstorm just swept over Sweden and hit Finland his morning. It's annoying, but much more interesting than your theoretical debate about what constitutes a points effective unit.

You deserve it for living in a country with attractive women. I'd be willing to put up with the occasional snowstorm for that.

Therion wrote:

Mike Vick is a better QB than Brett Farve, they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean they know a whole lot about football.

Wait a second, those guys aren't football players. They play American football.

Since this thread isn't anything about 5th edition anymore, let's talk about the weather. A snowstorm just swept over Sweden and hit Finland his morning. It's annoying, but much more interesting than your theoretical debate about what constitutes a points effective unit.

I'll bite. Whats considered a snowstorm there? If ice falls off the delivery truck its a blizzard here and the city shuts down.

Edit: ditto on the deserve it for having to put up with the blondes thing.

hey! Canada has all kinds of hot chicks.

I'll admit you have to watch out for the ones that are a little on the non-smiley side.

Nurglitch wrote:

Therion wrote:It's annoying, but much more interesting than your theoretical debate about what constitutes a points effective unit.

What, you mean as opposed to a non-theoretical debate?

I described your debate as theoretical and uninteresting. I never said I would like an alternative, or that one exists. Stop spamming the boards.