So long story short, I had never heard of Ragnar till GW announced his model. Apparently he's some well known space wolf character, I thought he was a brand new Primaris character like the dark angels guy. I made an offhand comment of why didn't they pick a more well known character like Yarrick to fight Ghaz and, well, it started a pretty interesting discussion.
So I decided to make a poll to see if I've just been living under a rock or if this was common. For fairness sake, please don't vote if you play Imperial Guard or Space Wolves, it's pretty obvious which you'd be more familiar with there. When I say are you familiar, I mean which character would you feel more comfortable answering questions about at the drop of a hat with no way to look up things online, stuff like
1. Famous battle they were in
2. A signature weapon
3. A mighty deed they've done
4. A well known enemy
Or really just any interesting tidbits. This is purely a "who is more well known" poll. So even if you've heard of both, vote for the one you feel you are more familiar with off the top of your head.
No pole is needed. You have been living under a rock! All joking aside though I think Ragnar has more books about him than any other 40k character possibly.
As far as I’m concerned they’re both equally well-known. I don’t play guard or space wolves, but I did start playing in 2nd ed. I’d put Ragnar and Yarrick as the most well known characters in their respective factions.
Having played both space wolves and guard I'd say Ragnar. Ragnar's book series started with one of the very first black library novels. He was one of the first named characters to get a model at the tail end of RT. Space Wolves actually got the first ever codex which came out just before 2nd edition. In fact Logan Grimnar didn't get a model until much later.
Crimson wrote: This is a really weird question as they both are incredibly well known and I would have assumed that most 40K players are familiar with both.
I agree. I think there's some sort of "how dare Ghaz fight and maybe even be beat by this no name space marine! he's stealing Yarrick's thunder" sentiment. but ragnar is a insanely well known character, and frankly I see nothing wrong with Ragnar and Ghaz kicking each others asses. Just like I saw nothing wrong with dark angels fighting the 1k sons instead of the space wolves. GW'd get boring if we only ever got the same rival match ups again and again,
The problem isn't who is more well known, the problem is WHEN they were well known. Ragnar has had a full book series that was a common intro-level black library series. But that was back in 3rd or 4th?
Meanwhile, Yarrick has been a staple of Guard and Ork codex fluff, and I think main rulebook too, but I'm not aware of him featuring in a black library book? (Armageddon Wars could really use a series if they haven't gotten them already.)
So, if you started playing in 5th ed or later and don't read black library, you'd not know that Ragnar was any more famous than any of the other variety of Space Wolves characters added in the 5th ed Space Wolves Codex that don't have books about them. Whereas you would be likely to have heard of Yarrick due to his mentions in codices/rulebooks, and if memory serves, higher likelyhood to appear on the tabletop.
I was aware of both of them and their exploits more than some Primarchs (looking at you Ferrus Manus). It does kinda surprise me that a person could be on Dakka Dakka for a few years, an active player who at least glances at the lore and isn't aware of either of them.
Of the two, I know Blackmane a little more as I encounter more Space Wolves players than I do Ork players.
Crimson wrote: This is a really weird question as they both are incredibly well known and I would have assumed that most 40K players are familiar with both.
You seen the Psychic Awakening thread? There are a few there whose egos are so bruised by the thought of Ghaz getting hurt that they're trying to act as if Ragnar is a nobody who's never done anything of note and has never had the spotlight on him.
Sim-Life wrote: Why do people keep saying both? Both are more well known? That doesn't make sense. .
People are saying both because asking which is better known is a bit like asking which of your feet you are more aware of. I know I have two feet, I've known about both of them for about the same length of time, and I know more or less the same about them both. It would be impossible for me to choose one or the other.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Meanwhile, Yarrick has been a staple of Guard and Ork codex fluff, and I think main rulebook too, but I'm not aware of him featuring in a black library book? (Armageddon Wars could really use a series if they haven't gotten them already.)
Sim-Life wrote: Why do people keep saying both? Both are more well known? That doesn't make sense. .
People are saying both because asking which is better known is a bit like asking which of your feet you are more aware of. I know I have two feet, I've known about both of them for about the same length of time, and I know more or less the same about them both. It would be impossible for me to choose one or the other.
You don't need a "both" option though?
If you know about them equally then surely the act of not voting is the same as expressing this opinion?
The OP wants to know who you're more familiar with. If the answer is both, perfectly equally, then don't vote.
Crimson wrote: This is a really weird question as they both are incredibly well known and I would have assumed that most 40K players are familiar with both.
You seen the Psychic Awakening thread? There are a few there whose egos are so bruised by the thought of Ghaz getting hurt that they're trying to act as if Ragnar is a nobody who's never done anything of note and has never had the spotlight on him.
This is a complete and utter lie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: I agree. I think there's some sort of "how dare Ghaz fight and maybe even be beat by this no name space marine! he's stealing Yarrick's thunder" sentiment.
I didn't know who ragnar is either. I'm sure I've heard his name before, but to me he'd just be one of many not-chapter master heroes for one of the many types of space marine. I don't mean to be snide, I don't expect non-eldar players to know who nuadhu fireheart is either for example. It doesn't help that I don't read space marine novels of course.
Yarrick on the other hand I've known about for editions.
Sim-Life wrote: Why do people keep saying both? Both are more well known? That doesn't make sense. .
People are saying both because asking which is better known is a bit like asking which of your feet you are more aware of. I know I have two feet, I've known about both of them for about the same length of time, and I know more or less the same about them both. It would be impossible for me to choose one or the other.
You don't need a "both" option though?
If you know about them equally then surely the act of not voting is the same as expressing this opinion?
The OP wants to know who you're more familiar with. If the answer is both, perfectly equally, then don't vote.
yeah because THAT wouldn't skew the survay at all, nope not at ALL.
The fact is Ragnar is a pretty well known character, and unless you hate space Marines you've proably read the books featuring him. and Yarrick is a well known character (although he's less well noted in the novels as he doesn't apper in any of the "first stop for faction X" books out there)
just judging from the responses here the over whelming response seems to be everyone knows about him.. unless they're part of the "anti-marine crowd" in which case yeah why would they know about him?
I voted Yarrick because though I know that both characters exist, I couldn't have answered any of the OP's questions about Ragnar before reading all the comments from the pa thread earlier today, while I've been able to answer all four questions about Yarrick for years.
This is probably due to the fact that, though I play neither faction, I've read far more lore and novels about the guard than loyalist marines, and none about Space Wolves. I just prefer underdogs to alpha wolves I guess, and with the sheer number of books bl produces it's pretty easy to read about what you like and avoid what you don't.
You're the chief culprit here mate. You're the one acting as if Ragnar is just some captain. And you're clearly the one with the bruised ego, who has filled every PA thread with endless whining about the Orks not getting enough stuff, and then when Ghaz was shown off, complaining about the fluff with him being "killed".
I'm super happy they didn't pick Yarrick this time. It has been done and done and this won't weaken the Yarrick / Gazghull relationship.
It's like we used to have the Ultramarines vs Behemoth and now we have the Blood Angels vs Leviathan.
But both are still true.
I'm honestly surprised by the amount of responses saying they've never heard of Ragnar before. I don't play space wolves or play anyone that does, but I at least know of him. Are people just not curious about other factions models and characters? I know I tend to check out other factions models just out of curiosity.
Don't get me wrong, I know about both pretty well after playing the game for 20+ years. But if it weren't for one of my friends playing Space Wolves, I probably wouldn't have known much about Ragnar, other than him being a Wolf Lord and one of the oldest special character models recently available.
But Yarrick definitely has a more interesting story to me, so I've retained more information about him. A regular bloke (as regular as a Commissar gets, at least) who beat up a bunch of Orks with one arm cut off, who then grafted an Ork power claw to the stump, and then gave himself a laser eye just to fuel Ork superstitions? That's pretty badass. The whole Vietnam-esque Armageddon Wars were so evocative to me as a teenager as well.
So, I know Yarrick "better" because he's more memorable to me, especially in the context of Ghaz.
fraser1191 wrote: I'm honestly surprised by the amount of responses saying they've never heard of Ragnar before. I don't play space wolves or play anyone that does, but I at least know of him. Are people just not curious about other factions models and characters? I know I tend to check out other factions models just out of curiosity.
for some people they seem to hate marines and try to pretend they don't exist as much as possiable. I don't get it but I don't get the anti-jedi SW bandwagon eaither
I haven't read a single space wolves novel, I don't know exactly what he did, but I was aware of him, his name, and that he was famous and exceptional SW captain.
So not as much as Yarrick (probably one of the most famous characters) but I knew who he was, just not in details.
Yeah, as both a SW & Guard player, I'm just going to ignore the OPs request that I not vote....
I'm equally familiar with both.
I voted Ragnar however as I've been familiar with Ragnar longer (so I guess that counts as "more"?):
A) I've been playing SW when they were a RT era White Dwarf list,
B) the SW have the honor of being the 1st Codex ever printed (in 2nd ed),
C) Ragnar (or at least his stats) has led my SW army since day 1. Always. Every time. The actual model I use is Leman Russ himself (the RT era mini - because Ragnars listed gear 100% (and what he's sculpted with) matches what LR is sculpted with. Including the wolves.
And as long as 1) Russ himself is still on walkabout, 2) non-primaris power armor Ragnar is an option, that's how it'll stay. Should the sad day arrive when only primaris-ragnar exists & Russ is still MIA? Then my LR mini gets a downgrade ruleswise. :(
I came to the Guard about 6 months after their 2e codex arrived. And while I've certainly used Yarrick plenty over the years, he's nowhere near being used in every IG list I make.
If you know about them equally then surely the act of not voting is the same as expressing this opinion?
The OP wants to know who you're more familiar with. If the answer is both, perfectly equally, then don't vote.
Refraining from voting is not proffering an opinion, it's simply not participating in the poll. Limiting the poll to responses from people who are only familiar with one or the other is a bizarre choice, given that both characters are established enough that most people (or at least most who have been in the game for any length of time) will be familiar with both.
MrMoustaffa wrote: So long story short, I had never heard of Ragnar till GW announced his model. Apparently he's some well known space wolf character, I thought he was a brand new Primaris character like the dark angels guy. I made an offhand comment of why didn't they pick a more well known character like Yarrick to fight Ghaz and, well, it started a pretty interesting discussion.
So I decided to make a poll to see if I've just been living under a rock or if this was common. For fairness sake, please don't vote if you play Imperial Guard or Space Wolves, it's pretty obvious which you'd be more familiar with there. When I say are you familiar, I mean which character would you feel more comfortable answering questions about at the drop of a hat with no way to look up things online, stuff like
1. Famous battle they were in
2. A signature weapon
3. A mighty deed they've done
4. A well known enemy
Or really just any interesting tidbits. This is purely a "who is more well known" poll. So even if you've heard of both, vote for the one you feel you are more familiar with off the top of your head.
I know both, since I am both a Guard player and a Space Wolves. He's the like calgar or cato sicarius hero of the Space Wolves who's treated as all around being awesome with absolutely no weaknesses that actually ever get him in trouble. He does have the dubious honor of having been one of the oldest character models still in print, at least until now, so he's an obvious candidate for the primaris refresh treatment.
If you told me that it includes Ragnar Blackmane [and I didn't already know], I'm like "oh yeah, that guy. Great, Primaris Ragnar Blackmane is exactly what I wanted, definitely more than a potential cool and uniquely space-wolves generic wolf lord model, or even a primaris wolf lord on primaris wolf wolf."
Not voting since I play guard, but I feel the poll could have been better if the question was “are you familiar with Ragnar?” since the op clearly was not (and neither was I). Having to choose between the two characters seems a bit misleading to the actual point.
Anyway, I was genuinely surprised by how storied Ragnar is according to many posters. I only knew him as possibly the oldest sculpt for sale, thanks to another thread. But I don’t read much outside of the main rule book or the codexes.
I guess that explains why the whole ordeal felt very underwhelming for me. “Fight of the millennium” but I didn’t even know one of the fighters! Lol. It might have been more interesting if Ragnar came back as a dreadnought imo. As it stands the first fight didn’t change anything.
If you know about them equally then surely the act of not voting is the same as expressing this opinion?
The OP wants to know who you're more familiar with. If the answer is both, perfectly equally, then don't vote.
Refraining from voting is not proffering an opinion, it's simply not participating in the poll. Limiting the poll to responses from people who are only familiar with one or the other is a bizarre choice, given that both characters are established enough that most people (or at least most who have been in the game for any length of time) will be familiar with both.
Added a third option for Both. Didn't think I would need that option but I guess it's fair to say you do in fact feel equal on them. Forgive the long wording but that seemed the most accurate way to sum up that feeling based on what others said
Glad I wasn't the only one. It seems like there's a clear dividing line based on when you started. It looks like if you started around 5th or later, Ragnar apparently had little lore that made it out of his codex, so few knew of him. Meanwhile apparently Ragnar got a big push in 2nd and 3rd edition. Would explain his lower numbers too. So if you're an old player he's a household name, whereas to new players unless they have a space wolf player with a varied collection he didn't have a lot to pick out from all the other marine characters non marine players are subject to on a day to day basis.
That said, it would make sense that he's less memorable to those outside his faction. Not trying to be mean, but his story really isn't very different from all the other "rising star" marine characters out there. From what I've been reading to learn about him, you could replace the wolves and chapter names with one of a dozen chapters and most would be none the wiser. Meanwhile there's not really another character out there like Yarrick, his closest comparisons I can think of being Dante and Creed, an old warrior too stubborn to die and crafty to boot. But then you add on he's a commisar who wears an Ork power klaw and shoots lasers from his eye and that's different enough most players can remember that.
I voted Ragnar. But it's biased because Space Wolves were my first during at the very beginning of third edition. Having said that I've known about Yarrick nearly as long. I honestly don't see how anyone interested in the fluff wouldn't know both.
Before his new model I only knew there was an old Ragnar model, but despite having more Space Wolves than Space Marine players in our group and despite having no Imperial Guard players I knew much more about Yarrick. I had no clue about the background of Ragnar and literally said similar things like the Englishman about him as I don't felt he should be a match for possibly the second greatest villain after Abaddon in the 40K universe.
Have to go with Yarrick on this one. I know about Ragnar, but especially when it comes to Ghaz, his story is much more compelling. A powerful Space Marine hero defeats a giant alien monster? That's Tuesday. But a regular commissar who beats an alien monster, rips of said monster's arm, makes the monster's arm his own, and becomes seen as something of a deity among the monster's men? That's something truly special.
Having not played Space Wolves or Imperial Guard in 25+ years of playing 40K on and off, I was familiar with both, but Ragnar Blackmane more so. I put neither as the more familiar one - simply because I don't much care about either of them. Could only tell you scant information about either.
However, consider that for grognards...Ragnar Blackmane was "the" Space Wolf lead character in 2nd edition (and as mentioned in another thread, it was heavily suggested he was actually a follow up Leman Russ sculpt - see the original RT one - before they changed the story for Primarchs) and was present in the actual battle report in the Space Wolves Codex for 2nd edition. Yep, they had a battle report in the actual codex.
Now, Yarrick spans the same age, even model-wise (more or less), but Ragnar is definitely a well known old-school model/hero. He just simply wasn't given any presence for the past 10-15-20 years because he hadn't had a new sculpt and GW never likes to promote or put old models front and center if they can avoid it. All of the propaganda gets hurled at anything with a new sculpt.
As much as I'm familiar with both, I know less about Yarrick. I do agree there might be an age/time factor as I don't recall much new fluff or content for Ragnar over the last 4 editions, where as Yarrick has had a few novels as previously mentioned.
Seeing the third option, I don’t think that’s particularly fair. I’d say I’m equally familiar with Ragnar and Yarrick, I’m also just as familiar with Dante, Calgar, Eldrad, Ghazgull and Abaddon in that as far as I’m aware they’re each the main named character on the tabletop for their respective factions.
ArcaneHorror wrote:Have to go with Yarrick on this one. I know about Ragnar, but especially when it comes to Ghaz, his story is much more compelling. A powerful Space Marine hero defeats a giant alien monster? That's Tuesday. But a regular commissar who beats an alien monster, rips of said monster's arm, makes the monster's arm his own, and becomes seen as something of a deity among the monster's men? That's something truly special.
Right!
hell, Yarrick scares orks. he's like their version of the boogeyman. who do orks(war boss down to grot) check under their beds before "sleeping"????
Regardless of how many books he has about him, Ragnar is a third company captain or other pointlessly wolf-related sobriquet with no prior history with Ghaz, who is the Apex Ork of the setting.
Let's say the new Abaddon model came out with a little story saying that he had been killed by Grotsnikk, only to be revived by the chaos gods. Both are long established characters but it would still seem very strange and dis-empowering for Abaddon.
As far as being well known, Yarrick has been on the cover of a suppliment and been a special character for years, with two excellent models with distinctive features (ork power fist). Ragnar on the other hand is a pretty standard looking space wolf. It would be no surprise to me that yarrick is better knowm
TheGenuineMetz wrote: Regardless of how many books he has about him, Ragnar is a third company captain or other pointlessly wolf-related sobriquet with no prior history with Ghaz, who is the Apex Ork of the setting.
Let's say the new Abaddon model came out with a little story saying that he had been killed by Grotsnikk, only to be revived by the chaos gods. Both are long established characters but it would still seem very strange and dis-empowering for Abaddon.
As far as being well known, Yarrick has been on the cover of a suppliment and been a special character for years, with two excellent models with distinctive features (ork power fist). Ragnar on the other hand is a pretty standard looking space wolf. It would be no surprise to me that yarrick is better knowm
The Ragnar model is probably older than some posters on the forum, he's a character with a wealth of background from the late 90's/early 00's who hasn't had much attention over the last decade, hence why he seems less relevant to a lot of people who are newer to the hobby.
TheGenuineMetz wrote: Regardless of how many books he has about him, Ragnar is a third company captain or other pointlessly wolf-related sobriquet with no prior history with Ghaz, who is the Apex Ork of the setting.
Let's say the new Abaddon model came out with a little story saying that he had been killed by Grotsnikk, only to be revived by the chaos gods. Both are long established characters but it would still seem very strange and dis-empowering for Abaddon.
As far as being well known, Yarrick has been on the cover of a suppliment and been a special character for years, with two excellent models with distinctive features (ork power fist). Ragnar on the other hand is a pretty standard looking space wolf. It would be no surprise to me that yarrick is better knowm
except Ragnar ISN'T the third company captain, the space wolves don;'t have numbered companies but Blackmane's company is second to Longan Grimnar's Company in terms of size. they're also the posterboy company for space wolves.
If you know about them equally then surely the act of not voting is the same as expressing this opinion?
The OP wants to know who you're more familiar with. If the answer is both, perfectly equally, then don't vote.
Refraining from voting is not proffering an opinion, it's simply not participating in the poll. Limiting the poll to responses from people who are only familiar with one or the other is a bizarre choice, given that both characters are established enough that most people (or at least most who have been in the game for any length of time) will be familiar with both.
and refraining from voting skews the poll.
How, exactly?
The question the OP is asking is; 'which character do you know best of these two options'.
If you know them both perfectly equally (dubious I think) then you don't have no value to add to the poll that specifically asks you to decide which you know best. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.
'Do you like apples or oranges best?"
"Both."
+Di Caprio eye squint meme+
MrMoustaffa wrote: Added a third option for Both. Didn't think I would need that option but I guess it's fair to say you do in fact feel equal on them. Forgive the long wording but that seemed the most accurate way to sum up that feeling based on what others said
I'm confused... Are you asking if people know who the characters are, or are you asking which they prefer? Because the title says the former, while this seems to be aiming for the latter.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Added a third option for Both. Didn't think I would need that option but I guess it's fair to say you do in fact feel equal on them. Forgive the long wording but that seemed the most accurate way to sum up that feeling based on what others said
I'm confused... Are you asking if people know who the characters are, or are you asking which they prefer? Because the title says the former, while this seems to be aiming for the latter.
He's asking WHICH CHARACTER ARE YOU MORE FAMILIAR WITH, as the title and OP.
If you're trying to find it which of two things someone prefers, having them point out that they like them both equally gives you data, even if it's not what you expected. Having them not respond at all tells you nothing. It might mean they have no preference. It might just mean they didn't answer you.
So what makes you think that not answering is statistically more useful than giving a factual answer?
They are one and the same.
no they're not, I'm extremely familer with yarrick and ragnar both. I'd not really be able to say I'm more familer with one or the other.
If I know 100% of what there is to know about Yarrick and Ragnar both, would I not be able to say I am very familer with BOTH of them? 40k lore is hardly something by which you can't know plenty of both. that said Rangar features in 7 (or more) novels. The Yarrick Omnibus is from what I can tell one or two novels packaged with some short stories. So suspect there's more raw information about Ragnar out there
He's asking WHICH CHARACTER ARE YOU MORE FAMILIAR WITH, as the title and OP.
In his added 'both' option he refers to being indifferent or having no opinion... Which is a reference to preference, rather than familiarity.
Read the OP and question...
We don't need 'both' as an option because he isn't asking if you know them or which you like best. He's asking which of the two characters do you know best. He even gives specific guidance in the OP.
It's a binary question. You're trying to give a non binary response.
The response of 'both' is literally and definitively not an answer to the question posed. Look, an example;
'Was the coin toss heads or tails?'
'Both.'
'Kill me.'
Definitely Yarrick. I am aware of Ragnar Blackmane, because I have been playing since 2nd edition, but Logan Grimnir is the character I associate more with Space Wolves. I don't read a lot of Black Library novels because they are mostly garbage, so my main insight into the background is the stuff published in game supplements.
Yarrick was in the intro campaign for 2nd edition when I started playing, and he was in the Third War for Armageddon supplement and associated material in White Dwarf. He has a much more memorable storyline than Ragnar Blackmane, who I know is an impetuous space wolf captain...that is not particularly unique.
So yeah, Ragnar is less known to me, although I know both characters.
I don't care about Ragnar beheading Ghaz. We Ork players have to remember we are only second class NPC players compared to Space Marines.
The response of 'both' is literally and definitively not an answer to the question posed. Look, an example;
'Was the coin toss heads or tails?'
'Both.'
'Kill me.'
Using an example of a binary question to illustrate a non-binary situation doesn't actually work.
A more apt example would be a photo finish between two horses in a race... Which of them won? Both did.
The questions asks which of the two people are more familiar with, initially without considering the possibility that people might be equally familiar with both. That doesn't mean that 'both' is an incorrect answer, it just means that the preset responses to the question did not adequately cover the possible options.
If you disregard them as irrelevant to the question of which horse won, you'll never know.
The answer to that rhetorical question is 'none'. And, like in horse racing, the OP doesn't want to know and doesn't care. The question is which you know best. Pick one. Which horse won? Pick one.
And, like in horse racing, the OP doesn't want to know and doesn't care.
Yes, because the OP was trying to make a specific point, and didn't actually think it through.
Asking a question and only accepting some of the possible answers is pointless.
Is the horse race thing supposed to be some sort of 'gotcha'?
You do realise that in all likelihood there would have been a true winner in all of those cases, whether by a hair, or an atom, but it couldn't be measured at the time?
This question is binary. If you truly can't decide between the two, don't vote, because that's your contribution to the question asked (none).
I'm genuinely amazed you're struggling with such a simple statistical rule.
The response of 'both' is literally and definitively not an answer to the question posed. Look, an example;
'Was the coin toss heads or tails?'
'Both.'
'Kill me.'
Using an example of a binary question to illustrate a non-binary situation doesn't actually work.
It's also not a binary question - "edge" is an ignored third possibility, which depending on the coin can be significant enough to be allowed for in testing.
I believe Engligh pound coins - not sure if the current or old type, off the top of my head - are one example, ironically.
JohnnyHell wrote:Wow. That added third option. Screams out the intent of the thread... and is just insulting to anyone who’d want to click it. Hilarious.
Yeah, honestly sounds a little passive-aggressive. Probably isn't, but it certainly comes across that way. You absolutely *can* be equally familiar - how about someone who doesn't know anything about either, or knows everything about both?
An Actual Englishman wrote: This question is binary. If you truly can't decide between the two, don't vote, because that's your contribution to the question asked (none).
It really isn't binary, and abstaining from voting provides less clarity and data - in this case, clearly settling some kind of rivalry between Yarrick and Blackmane. It's not a question with a binary outcome, especially seeing as there's even a "neither" option. Which, similarly, in the interest of data, should also be expressed (because otherwise, you couldn't tell if people just didn't look at the poll, or if they had an opinion, but you didn't provide place for it - which could even lead people to feeling forced into making a choice, skewing the results).
And, like in horse racing, the OP doesn't want to know and doesn't care.
Yes, because the OP was trying to make a specific point, and didn't actually think it through.
Asking a question and only accepting some of the possible answers is pointless.
Is the horse race thing supposed to be some sort of 'gotcha'?
You do realise that in all likelihood there would have been a true winner in all of those cases, whether by a hair, or an atom, but it couldn't be measured at the time?
This question is binary. If you truly can't decide between the two, don't vote, because that's your contribution to the question asked (none).
I'm genuinely amazed you're struggling with such a simple statistical rule.
Even though it doesn't seem to be the case, if the majority of the sample were equally familiar you're only querying a tiny minority of the potential responses which is a significant piece of data.
They're both equally hugely well known characters to me. And certainly used to be a very common sight on the table before the game turned into a meta combo slug fest. Even if just using the models for generic characters.
They both have allot of very well known fluff.
And both have had books, though ragnar certainly got the most books by one of the better known writers.
Didn't vote as none of the 3 fit.
And it will depend on how long you've been involved.
The current generation of players have little to no interest in the lore. Only meta.
Regardless I voted Yarrick, Blackmane is somebody I just about remember from back in the day and when I see his mini I go "oh yeah". Lorewise Yarrick was an iconic 40k character for me personally.
Must be said that the reason for this could be as simple that he happened to feature in a couple of White Dwarfs that were around when I first started or something.
Dai wrote: Well it seems this thread certainly has an agenda
Regardless I voted Yarrick, Blackmane is somebody I just about remember from back in the day and when I see his mini I go "oh yeah". Lorewise Yarrick was an iconic 40k character for me personally.
Must be said that the reason for this could be as simple that he happened to feature in a couple of White Dwarfs that were around when I first started or something.
The thread might as well read "who should have fought Ghaz" unless it's a genuine request for insight into how well known some characters are.
Dai wrote: Well it seems this thread certainly has an agenda
Regardless I voted Yarrick, Blackmane is somebody I just about remember from back in the day and when I see his mini I go "oh yeah". Lorewise Yarrick was an iconic 40k character for me personally.
Must be said that the reason for this could be as simple that he happened to feature in a couple of White Dwarfs that were around when I first started or something.
The thread might as well read "who should have fought Ghaz" unless it's a genuine request for insight into how well known some characters are.
Have you read the OP? It literally states why the thread was created. If there is an agenda in this thread, the OP isn't the one pushing it.
Dai wrote: Well it seems this thread certainly has an agenda
Regardless I voted Yarrick, Blackmane is somebody I just about remember from back in the day and when I see his mini I go "oh yeah". Lorewise Yarrick was an iconic 40k character for me personally.
Must be said that the reason for this could be as simple that he happened to feature in a couple of White Dwarfs that were around when I first started or something.
The thread might as well read "who should have fought Ghaz" unless it's a genuine request for insight into how well known some characters are.
Have you read the OP? It literally states why the thread was created. If there is an agenda in this thread, the OP isn't the one pushing it.
TIL people don't know what binary means.
Yes, the OP opened the poll because:
I made an offhand comment of why didn't they pick a more well known character like Yarrick to fight Ghaz and, well, it started a pretty interesting discussion.
Also agreed it isn't the OP pushing the agenda directly, rather just funnelling issues form other threads inadvertently.
TIL that if you ignore all but 2 outcomes people consider something binary.
I think it is important and different to have a both option [I would have voted both had the option been available at the time.]
If one was a nobody, and one was well known, then there might have been a case for the OP's agenda, but since they're both old and well established and well known characters, it doesn't actually really make a difference which one they used.
Anyway, back around to Ragnar Blackmane, a Primaris Blackmane was never really on my bucket list of things that I wanted. I would greatly have preferred a cool nobody/generic character model like Shadowspear or the DA guy from RoTD.
OTOH, I also see that Ragnar is A: the poster boy of the Space Wolves, B: a really old sculpt, and C: is generally well known, and as such is the ideal candidate for the box set, and if they had gone with a generic character, there would have been a general outcry like "why wasn't it Ragnar? He's so old! Why invent a new throwaway character for a line that has like 10 characters to have picked from!"
An Actual Englishman wrote:TIL people don't know what binary means.
TIL that apparently, if you only provide two answers and neglect to include other options, any question can count as "binary".
An Actual Englishman wrote:If a question has only 2 outcomes it is by definition a binary question, yes.
If you only put down two options for question that arguably needs three to four, it's a poor question, and a forced binary perspective.
It'd be like asking "what's your favourite food, pizza or cake?" - what if pizza or cake were neither someone's favourite? You either force them into giving an inaccurate answer, or you end up having a smaller sample size, reducing the validity of any study you were trying to conduct.
There absolutely are times for binary questions and answers, but this isn't it. A true binary would be "have you heard of Ragnar Blackmane before PA - yes or no?".
Honestly my only complaint is that it's trying to pin another SM vs X dynamic more then anything else. Before it was IG/Yarrick, which feels.. annoying more then anything else that they've tried to shoehorn it in like this.
The response of 'both' is literally and definitively not an answer to the question posed. Look, an example;
'Was the coin toss heads or tails?'
'Both.'
'Kill me.'
Using an example of a binary question to illustrate a non-binary situation doesn't actually work.
It's also not a binary question - "edge" is an ignored third possibility, which depending on the coin can be significant enough to be allowed for in testing.
I believe Engligh pound coins - not sure if the current or old type, off the top of my head - are one example, ironically.
If you flip a coin and catch it before placing said coin on the back of your hand?
Is it possible for it to land on it's edge without a purposeful attempt?
Cool story though.
ValentineGames wrote: I love how people are throwing binary around to TRY and look smart
Ah, the old Ad Hominems. Did you ever consider that "binary" was simply the best descriptor? Of course you didn't. Also, do you think the word 'binary' makes people look smart?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: TIL that apparently, if you only provide two answers and neglect to include other options, any question can count as "binary".
Absolutely, 100% correct.
An Actual Englishman wrote:If a question has only 2 outcomes it is by definition a binary question, yes.
If you only put down two options for question that arguably needs three to four, it's a poor question, and a forced binary perspective.
It'd be like asking "what's your favourite food, pizza or cake?" - what if pizza or cake were neither someone's favourite? You either force them into giving an inaccurate answer, or you end up having a smaller sample size, reducing the validity of any study you were trying to conduct.
There absolutely are times for binary questions and answers, but this isn't it. A true binary would be "have you heard of Ragnar Blackmane before PA - yes or no?".
Right - a binary question is one with only 2 outcomes. As the OP set our outcomes as either "Ragnar Blackmane" or "Commissar Yarrick" and had no others, it is, by definition a binary question.
As to whether it is a "poor question" or not, well that really depends on a number of things, the most important of which is probably; 'what was the poster trying to find out from his question?'
I suspect that the OP wanted to find out the following, given his statement here;
This is purely a "who is more well known" poll. So even if you've heard of both, vote for the one you feel you are more familiar with off the top of your head.
Now you may legitimately have the exact same amount of knowledge of both Ragnar and Yarrick, possibly. If that is truly the case and you answer with "both", do you actually help answer the OPs question of "who is more well known"? No, you don't. As interesting as the feedback is (is it?), it doesn't actually help answer what the OP was trying to ascertain. It has not answered the question and provides no useful information, as far as "who is more well known".
I suspect that the OP has created the poll in a binary way on purpose so that voters are forced to decide which they know more about, and hence actually answer the question he/she was asking. Therefore I'd say it's a perfectly fine question and it was fine without the option for "both".
Voss wrote: Yeah, this isn't a binary question. It is an open ended question: 'How little do you know about the 40k setting and characters?'
That's actually a pretty deep question and the pool of people who know very little about 40k is a lot bigger than I thought it was.
Again, by definition, it is a binary question. The OP hasn't asked; "how little do you know about the 40k setting and characters", they've asked; "who do you know more about - this guy, or this guy?" Two choices. Binary. Three choices would be trinary. So on and so forth.
Genuinely bizarre that people are struggling with such a simple concept.
Well, if you asked me the series of questions about them you posed originally, I'd be more familiar with Yarrick
Signature weapon - Yarrick's got a claw
Signature battle/rivalry - Yarrick vs Ghazghkull at Armageddon
Describe them without describing their appearance or job - Obsessed, Fearless, Zealous but logical (i.e. understands enough about superstition to use the orks' superstitions about himself to his own advantage)
Ragnar
Signature weapon - it's like a chainsword. Also he's got wolfy pals
Signature battle/rivalry - no clue. IIRC his thing was drop pods?
Describe without appearance/job - young, impetuous, a little bezerk, shonen anime hero attack them head on type stuff.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: TIL that apparently, if you only provide two answers and neglect to include other options, any question can count as "binary".
Absolutely, 100% correct.
Clearly not. Or are you actually saying that an open ended question suddenly magically becomes binary just because other options are removed?
In a poll asking for the participant's ethnicity, and it only provides two options, does that make ethnicity binary? Obviously not - it means the poll is garbage.
Right - a binary question is one with only 2 outcomes. As the OP set our outcomes as either "Ragnar Blackmane" or "Commissar Yarrick" and had no others, it is, by definition a binary question.
But it's a poorly written question, because the metric the OP is testing (familiarity) isn't a binary metric. It is completely possible to have equal familiarity (aka, no knowledge at all) to both, therefore necessitating at least a third option (neither).
The fact that OP uses an inherently non-binary metric to measure (familiarity) is why trying to measure it as a binary state simply doesn't work.
As to whether it is a "poor question" or not, well that really depends on a number of things, the most important of which is probably; 'what was the poster trying to find out from his question?'
I suspect that the OP wanted to find out the following, given his statement here;
This is purely a "who is more well known" poll. So even if you've heard of both, vote for the one you feel you are more familiar with off the top of your head.
Now you may legitimately have the exact same amount of knowledge of both Ragnar and Yarrick, possibly.
Users who have heard of neither, for example. What OP is doing there is essentially asking users to pick out of two unknown options, and using that random arbitrary knowledge to come to some kind of result: does that sound like a poll with high validity?
If that is truly the case and you answer with "both", do you actually help answer the OPs question of "who is more well known"? No, you don't.
But by not providing a "both" or "neither" option, participants will feel obliged to make a binary decision SIMPLY BECAUSE ONLY TWO OPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. It's a false binary - it's only "binary" because two options are provided, and that may influence participants into picking one arbitrarily, therefore skewing the data.
As interesting as the feedback is (is it?), it doesn't actually help answer what the OP was trying to ascertain. It has not answered the question and provides no useful information, as far as "who is more well known".
But by encouraging otherwise neutral participants into having to choose, that risks skewing potential data. It would remove nothing from the options to have a "both/neither" option which can then be discounted, if only to make sure that participants aren't being pressured into skewing their decision.
Anything else is calling the results into question.
I suspect that the OP has created the poll in a binary way on purpose so that voters are forced to decide which they know more about, and hence actually answer the question he/she was asking. Therefore I'd say it's a perfectly fine question and it was fine without the option for "both".
I absolutely agree it was made binary on purpose, but I think it was done to artificially inflate the votes on certain characters based on popularity, not on "familiarity". I don't think it's a stretch to notice how some users, ones who outright admit they know plenty about both, choose certain options simply because of that being the character they like more. And the OP outright admittance of "you might have equal knowledge", their choice not to create a third option, and the rather passive-aggressive wording of the now-third option seem to stand in support of the idea that it's a forced "binary" decision of an otherwise more nuanced and complicated question.
TL;DR - Information generated by this poll lack a great deal of validity for presenting a more complex question as a binary one, potentially with the intention of manipulating participant biases.
Again, by definition, it is a binary question. The OP hasn't asked; "how little do you know about the 40k setting and characters", they've asked; "who do you know more about - this guy, or this guy?" Two choices. Binary. Three choices would be trinary. So on and so forth.
Genuinely bizarre that people are struggling with such a simple concept.
I ask again - "what is your favourite food?", but I only provide options for cake or pizza - is that a binary question? No, because "favourite food" isn't a binary term. Just because I've provided two options doesn't suddenly make it binary, it means I've biased the data to either cake or pizza, and therefore any results of my poll lack validity.
The response of 'both' is literally and definitively not an answer to the question posed. Look, an example;
'Was the coin toss heads or tails?'
'Both.'
'Kill me.'
Using an example of a binary question to illustrate a non-binary situation doesn't actually work.
It's also not a binary question - "edge" is an ignored third possibility, which depending on the coin can be significant enough to be allowed for in testing.
I believe Engligh pound coins - not sure if the current or old type, off the top of my head - are one example, ironically.
If you flip a coin and catch it before placing said coin on the back of your hand?
Is it possible for it to land on it's edge without a purposeful attempt?
Cool story though.
If you're talking about a specific sort of coin toss, it is generally a good idea to specify that in your description. Many coin tosses - for example, to determine who might kick off a sporting event - won't be caught, but would use the floor/ground as the surface the coin lands upon.
If you do not provide sufficient specificity when setting out your poll, expect people to point out the flaws in it.
Dai wrote: Or in other words AAE desperately wants this poll to be all good to suit his opinions. He is barely even trying to hide it!
yeah nevermind that this poll is so clearly biased that no one in their right mind you accept it as legitimate. it's like a political poll asking "do you support our canidate or the pedophile?"
Dai wrote: Or in other words AAE desperately wants this poll to be all good to suit his opinions. He is barely even trying to hide it!
yeah nevermind that this poll is so clearly biased that no one in their right mind you accept it as legitimate. it's like a political poll asking "do you support our canidate or the pedophile?"
Dai wrote: Or in other words AAE desperately wants this poll to be all good to suit his opinions. He is barely even trying to hide it!
Why do you think I care about the outcome of a poll concerning Ragnar and Yarrick at all?
Jesus enough weird strawmen please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: yeah nevermind that this poll is so clearly biased that no one in their right mind you accept it as legitimate. it's like a political poll asking "do you support our canidate or the pedophile?"
What is biased about this poll, exactly? Where are you getting this from? Is this part of your 'anti marine'/'hate marine' tinfoil hat theory?
The fact is Ragnar is a pretty well known character, and unless you hate space Marines you've proably read the books featuring him. and Yarrick is a well known character (although he's less well noted in the novels as he doesn't apper in any of the "first stop for faction X" books out there)
just judging from the responses here the over whelming response seems to be everyone knows about him.. unless they're part of the "anti-marine crowd" in which case yeah why would they know about him?
Dude do you realise how crazy this sounds? We're going to have to knock this outta you if you're gonna play Orks. There's not some secret society of marine haters. We don't have a secret handshake and we certainly aren't legion. feth I've said too much.
Been aware of both is not the same as familiar with both though. I have known about Ragnar Blackmane for as long as I have known about Yarrick, but I don't read the novels very much and Yarrick appeared in more game materials over the years.
I don't think Yarrick should have beheaded Ghaz particularly though. I think he should be dead by now if they are moving the timeline forward. May as well just kill off all the normal human characters and focus on the marines who can live long enough for this sort of advancing timeline to make sense.
Dai wrote: Or in other words AAE desperately wants this poll to be all good to suit his opinions. He is barely even trying to hide it!
Why do you think I care about the outcome of a poll concerning Ragnar and Yarrick at all?
Jesus enough weird strawmen please.
The rabid defence of a poorly-executed poll would imply that Dai's position might not be a strawman.
I'll need some sort or proof that the poll is poorly-executed. It seems to serve the OPs purpose just fine, based on his requirements laid out in the OP. The fact that it doesn't suit your rhetoric is not his problem.
Dai wrote: Or in other words AAE desperately wants this poll to be all good to suit his opinions. He is barely even trying to hide it!
Why do you think I care about the outcome of a poll concerning Ragnar and Yarrick at all?
Jesus enough weird strawmen please.
The rabid defence of a poorly-executed poll would imply that Dai's position might not be a strawman.
I'll need some sort or proof that the poll is poorly-executed. It seems to serve the OPs purpose just fine, based on his requirements laid out in the OP. The fact that it doesn't suit your rhetoric is not his problem.
For one the disqualifying criteria is long after the question so it's very easy to answer then discover you weren't supposed to at all.
Dai wrote: Or in other words AAE desperately wants this poll to be all good to suit his opinions. He is barely even trying to hide it!
Why do you think I care about the outcome of a poll concerning Ragnar and Yarrick at all?
Jesus enough weird strawmen please.
The rabid defence of a poorly-executed poll would imply that Dai's position might not be a strawman.
I'll need some sort or proof that the poll is poorly-executed. It seems to serve the OPs purpose just fine, based on his requirements laid out in the OP. The fact that it doesn't suit your rhetoric is not his problem.
Here's the thing - if you're building a poll, you want to ensure there are sufficient options that 100% of people viewing the options feel they have a valid option to select from, without being shoe-horned into a box that doesn't fit, Why is that important? Because you want as wide a number of respondents as possible for your poll to be statistically significant. If I present a poll to 10,000 people, and only 5 of them feel that the options presented are appropriate for them to select, then my results aren't valid.
You also need to ensure that you don't introduce bias into proceedings with how you word your options. If your options or question are leading people towards a given response, this is another way in which the results of your poll can be called into question. The tone of the third option - which wasn't present at the start of the poll - would fall under this heading.
We have here a scenario where the OP is trying to determine which of two characters people are more familiar with. He's given two exclusive options, but the two options selected definitely exclude people who aren't familiar with either character and haven't heard of them, have heard of the characters but wouldn't describe themselves as familiar with either (for example, someone who has seen the characters on the GW site, but not read up on the lore), and people who would describe themselves as equally familiar with both characters.
Expanding the poll to five options, with some re-phrasing, provides valid options for a wider pool of viewers. For example, phrasing it as follows:
Q - Which of the following characters would you rate yourself as more familiar with?
A1, I am more familiar with Commissar Yarrick than Ragnar Blackmane
A2, I am more familiar with Ragnar Blackmane than Commissar Yarrick
A3, I would describe myself as equally familiar with both characters
A4, I would describe myself as unfamiliar with either character, but am aware they exist
A5, I had never heard of either character prior to recent discussion on the forum
An alternative approach, if you wanted fewer options, would be to use the multiple-choice feature to indicate all characters the poster is familiar with. For example:
Q - Which of the following characters would you describe yourself as familiar with (select all which apply)?
A1 - Commissar Yarrick
A2 - Ragnar Blackmane
A3 - Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka
A4 - I am unfamiliar with any of the above characters
At this point, you can judge the relative familiarity by looking at the % of posters who describe themselves as familiar with the options, and have included an option for people who wish to respond, but are unfamiliar with the two characters.
