Yeah, but looking at those barest bones of numbers shows you that an IH levi dread is nearly unkillable.
I think a lot of us just didn't recognize how having an unkillable model at the front of your army that can't be wrapped, can escape combat before you can try to fully wrap it combined with an army that is impossible to score secondaries off would allow you to basically hide for 4 rounds and then table your opponent in the final 2 rounds of the game.
The numbers let you know that IH model shouldn't be in the game. The stats show you that IH are able to dominate without even using that broken combo.
The same way the numbers show you that Mani Cheemas list should beat that list 7/10 times but because he got unlucky/the IH player got lucky the internet isn't on fire about IF.
The numbers are how the IH list was created and playtesting was how it was refined. I mean you can't just ignore the numbers completely but only relying on them will have you overlooking some outliers.
Nitro Zeus wrote: before this tournament the stats would have said otherwise though.
Just another reason why blindly following stats are dumb. There is a very real human element even at the tippest top of comp play.
This is why posts that sceam about tournament data and mathshammer frustrate me so much. There are so many other variables to consider beyond the bare bones of numbers.
Like what? Ironhands players are winning 70% of their games and only a few are using leviathans...so IH leviathans are balanced?
Heck - There are other OP marines too like IF and RG turn 1 charge-assault cents. It's pretty easy to see when you read the rules that they are over the top.
Holy hell, every post of yours makes my head hurt, but I might need painkillers after this one.
him:
"hey guys I don't think statistics are reliable because there's so many other factors, like the example just given"
you: "THIS GUY SAYING IRON HANDS ARE BALANCED??"
Have a look at what he wrote. Have a look at your response. See where you went wrong. This sort of strawman bs is so much more transparent than I think you realise
.
But what really did it for me is your last sentence... at the very end of it, you're reason for why we should recognise them to be OP? "READING THE RULES" and nothing to do with stats. Yes, that's exactly what's being said. Ooof.
Automatically Appended Next Post: SM as a whole are busted. Reading the rules and not blindly following stats like this ridiculous thread is trying to do, makes that unbelievably clear. Iron Hands are just extra busted on top of that.
Nitro Zeus wrote: before this tournament the stats would have said otherwise though.
Just another reason why blindly following stats are dumb. There is a very real human element even at the tippest top of comp play.
If you go look at the Ironhands reveal thread here on dakka. You'd see that this very strategy was theorized and everyone (including me) said it would be broken then.
Yes and you can see the very same people decide it's not very good after the tournament 'stats' said other things were best. And maybe they still are, and something else will come out and top it. This is the folly with following stats blindly. It only shows us what has done well, not what CAN do well in the future.
Your view seems to be the stats are meaningless. The stats tell us something. They tell us the players are making these choices and getting these results. The data doesn't tell us why they made those choices. Probably the real reason he decided to go with this list is the new apoth buff (assuming he made him a chief apoth) Which pretty much ensures your getting your monies worth on those intercessor bodyguards. IDK and I don't care. The IH supplement makes every unit better to a large degree. You could probably win most your games bringing 100 sniper scouts. Even IH land-speeder squadrons are viable. It takes a so so stormhawk and turns it into one of the best flyers in the game. It's just not hard to figure out man. The love tap they got did nothing to make IH win less.
that's just another strawman. My view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all, my view is that you misunderstand their meaning. Their meaning is what has done well in the past. We don't have stats on what can do well in the future, trying to substitute that with stats of the past is a highly flawed approach. That doesn't mean it's never right. It does mean however that stats don't accurately reflect balance, as even today's results demonstrate quite nicely.
Nitro Zeus wrote: before this tournament the stats would have said otherwise though.
Just another reason why blindly following stats are dumb. There is a very real human element even at the tippest top of comp play.
This is why posts that sceam about tournament data and mathshammer frustrate me so much. There are so many other variables to consider beyond the bare bones of numbers.
Like what? Ironhands players are winning 70% of their games and only a few are using leviathans...so IH leviathans are balanced?
Heck - There are other OP marines too like IF and RG turn 1 charge-assault cents. It's pretty easy to see when you read the rules that they are over the top.
Holy hell, every post of yours makes my head hurt, but I might need painkillers after this one.
him:
"hey guys I don't think statistics are reliable because there's so many other factors, like the example just given"
you: "THIS GUY SAYING IRON HANDS ARE BALANCED??"
Have a look at what he wrote. Have a look at your response. See where you went wrong. This sort of strawman bs is so much more transparent than I think you realise
.
But what really did it for me is your last sentence... at the very end of it, you're reason for why we should recognise them to be OP? "READING THE RULES" and nothing to do with stats. Yes, that's exactly what's being said. Ooof.
Automatically Appended Next Post: SM as a whole are busted. Reading the rules and not blindly following stats like this ridiculous thread is trying to do, makes that unbelievably clear. Iron Hands are just extra busted on top of that.
Help me out here. Cause in your previous post it seemed to me that you were saying because the Ironhands winner at LVO didn't use the cookie cutter list - that the stats are misleading. Sorry If I misunderstood you but that is what I was getting out of it. Plus I'm not accusing him of saying that ironhands are balanced. I am just calling it out that just because a unit isn't being used often doesn't mean it's not REALLY good. In fact with Ironhands you have multiple broken ways to play. I
I think stats are important to examine the meta and what is being played.
Agree with NZ that they don't tell us what is going to be played but they do give us a jumping off point to try to theorize why things are being played at the rate they are being played and performing at the rate they are.
It helps bring people outside of their small meta bubbles and see what is being played at a birds eye view. And then we can make our baseless logical leaps about why...
@xenomancers At no point was a statement made about Iron Hands being balanced. You absolutely did ask him if he was saying that Iron Hands are balanced, when you specifically asked, "what, so you are saying Iron Hands are balanced??"
The rest of your questions are pretty easily answered by you re-reading through my posts over this page and the prior.
Nitro Zeus wrote: that's just another strawman. My view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all, my view is that you misunderstand their meaning. Their meaning is what has done well in the past. We don't have stats on what can do well in the future, trying to substitute that with stats of the past is a highly flawed approach. That doesn't mean it's never right. It does mean however that stats don't accurately reflect balance, as even today's results demonstrate quite nicely.
IMO the stats are pretty good at reflecting balance or imbalance. If an armies WR% is lower or higher - it is a pretty strong indicator of faction power overall. I'm glad I understand what you are saying now. I think you said facetiously that that stats were meaningless earlier in the thread. Now that it's clear. I just don't understand the statistics...maybe...I did predict them though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: @xenomancers At no point was a statement made about Iron Hands being balanced. You absolutely did ask him if he was saying that Iron Hands are balanced, when you specifically asked, "what, so you are saying Iron Hands are balanced??"
The rest of your questions are pretty easily answered by you re-reading through my posts over this page and the prior.
"Like what? Ironhands players are winning 70% of their games and only a few are using leviathans...so IH leviathans are balanced?"
This was intended to be funny. As I say everyone knows that IH levi and combos is broken. The fact they didn't show up in a lot of tournament lists didn't change that fact. It seemed to me you were suggesting that the stats couldn't have predicted this. The stats didn't need to. The math-hammer was sufficient.
You predicted the strength of Iron Hands dreadnoughts, by reading the rules - the stats didn't even exist then. However, if one was to blindly followed the stats of what units Iron Hands were winning with, as many did after that, they would have come to the conclusion that your prediction was wrong about this being one of the strongest ways to play the army - as many did. My point is that the stats are flawed - not that Iron Hands are balanced they are wildly OP, and both the stats and the amazing power of critical thought agrees on this in almost every example - this doesn't however, exclude the possibility that this isn't even the strongest way to play Iron Hands, or other armies in the game, as we should be able to recognise by the fact that the exact same flaw has shown itself today, and so many times in the past.
Nitro Zeus wrote: before this tournament the stats would have said otherwise though.
Just another reason why blindly following stats are dumb. There is a very real human element even at the tippest top of comp play.
If you go look at the Ironhands reveal thread here on dakka. You'd see that this very strategy was theorized and everyone (including me) said it would be broken then.
Yes and you can see the very same people decide it's not very good after the tournament 'stats' said other things were best. And maybe they still are, and something else will come out and top it. This is the folly with following stats blindly. It only shows us what has done well, not what CAN do well in the future.
Your view seems to be the stats are meaningless. The stats tell us something. They tell us the players are making these choices and getting these results. The data doesn't tell us why they made those choices. Probably the real reason he decided to go with this list is the new apoth buff (assuming he made him a chief apoth) Which pretty much ensures your getting your monies worth on those intercessor bodyguards. IDK and I don't care. The IH supplement makes every unit better to a large degree. You could probably win most your games bringing 100 sniper scouts. Even IH land-speeder squadrons are viable. It takes a so so stormhawk and turns it into one of the best flyers in the game. It's just not hard to figure out man. The love tap they got did nothing to make IH win less.
There's a whole world of meaning between "Stats tell us nothing" and "Stats tell us everything". He's not arguing the stats are worthless. He's arguing that they don't answer every question with 100% certainty.
"Blindly following $thing [is] dumb" =/= "following $thing [is] dumb".
The stats tell us something. They don't tell us everything. That was his point.
Yeah well I get that and I and not claiming that the stats tell us everything. NZ has stated on many occasion that "marines in general are busted - Iron-hands are just more busted" to paraphrase NZ a little bit.
The stats clearly show us that is not true. Unless you can somehow prove that Ultramarine and Salamanders players are just worse players? This is what bothers me. It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
Successor step it up a notch ofc but if you removed MOA (another obvious problem)(did they not realize this is just the salamanders old trait?....oh yeah pick another...)...
The stats (the ones you consider conclusive - December's) certainly do not "clearly show us" that Marines are not stronger-than-average. IF and RG are both over 50% if only by a little, and UM and WS are barely under 50%.
With the number of events being so small, if each subfaction were truly independent, you're left with the suggestion that Marines outside IH are decent. But subfactions are not independent. As shown upthread, players tend to swap factions around within macro-faction, hedging to the strongest.
Further, there is massive flocking within specifically Marine subfactions to the perceived strongest (unclear if this applies more or less to other factions; the only subfaction evidence discussed upthread was Marine-specific). Something to the tune of ~25% of all Marine subfactions appeared to shift with the preception of "strongest". So it's been heavily demonstrated that Marine subfactions are *not* independent - when one subfaction gets stronger, people leave the other subfactions.
So we have a roughly 50% winrate for non-Iron Hands Marines, with very little confidence on where the actual expected mean should be. But we also have very strong numbers suggesting that that 50% is artificially skewed substantially lower.
So the stats are either saying nothing, or they're saying Marines are good. A case can be made that the stats say Marines are OP, or that the stats are inconclusive, but there's no case to be made to say Marines are bad.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah well I get that and I and not claiming that the stats tell us everything. NZ has stated on many occasion that "marines in general are busted - Iron-hands are just more busted" to paraphrase NZ a little bit.
The stats clearly show us that is not true. Unless you can somehow prove that Ultramarine and Salamanders players are just worse players? This is what bothers me. It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair...
Not entirely. It's much easier for an Ultramarines player to field their army as an Iron Hands army (all they need to do is not paint anything as a specific First Founding Chapter) than it would be for, say, a Knights player to start running an Eldar army, so it could be that all the Astartes players who would otherwise be playing Salamanders or Ultramarines are running Iron Hands because they're just that bit more busted than the rest of the Marines.
(I don't know if that's true, but it does seem to me that the data could support either conclusion.)
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah well I get that and I and not claiming that the stats tell us everything. NZ has stated on many occasion that "marines in general are busted - Iron-hands are just more busted" to paraphrase NZ a little bit.
The stats clearly show us that is not true. Unless you can somehow prove that Ultramarine and Salamanders players are just worse players? This is what bothers me. It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair...
Not entirely. It's much easier for an Ultramarines player to field their army as an Iron Hands army (all they need to do is not paint anything as a specific First Founding Chapter) than it would be for, say, a Knights player to start running an Eldar army, so it could be that all the Astartes players who would otherwise be playing Salamanders or Ultramarines are running Iron Hands because they're just that bit more busted than the rest of the Marines.
(I don't know if that's true, but it does seem to me that the data could support either conclusion.)
Feb:
UltraMarine lists: 31
Iron Hands lists: 0
Feb-Sept:
UltraMarine lists: 295
Iron Hands lists: 15
Dec:
UltraMarine lists: 15
Iron Hands lists: 45
It is *very* clear that the subfaction skew was *heavily* in UM's favor when they were top dog, and is now heavily in IH's favor now that they are top dog.
Bharring wrote: The stats (the ones you consider conclusive - December's) certainly do not "clearly show us" that Marines are not stronger-than-average. IF and RG are both over 50% if only by a little, and UM and WS are barely under 50%.
With the number of events being so small, if each subfaction were truly independent, you're left with the suggestion that Marines outside IH are decent. But subfactions are not independent. As shown upthread, players tend to swap factions around within macro-faction, hedging to the strongest.
Further, there is massive flocking within specifically Marine subfactions to the perceived strongest (unclear if this applies more or less to other factions; the only subfaction evidence discussed upthread was Marine-specific). Something to the tune of ~25% of all Marine subfactions appeared to shift with the preception of "strongest". So it's been heavily demonstrated that Marine subfactions are *not* independent - when one subfaction gets stronger, people leave the other subfactions.
So we have a roughly 50% winrate for non-Iron Hands Marines, with very little confidence on where the actual expected mean should be. But we also have very strong numbers suggesting that that 50% is artificially skewed substantially lower.
So the stats are either saying nothing, or they're saying Marines are good. A case can be made that the stats say Marines are OP, or that the stats are inconclusive, but there's no case to be made to say Marines are bad.
There is a case that you can say portions of marines are bad. Salamanders are 42% when IH are 66%. UM are 50% while CF are 45%. IF are "only" 55%.
Would IF take more wins if the other players used them instead of IH or are they objectively worse? Does the large number of mirror matches have a chilling effect on Sallies and CF and others?
And similarly, with IH centralising the meta, would the way non-Marine factions build their list change if Iron Hands were no longer the list to beat, promoting or demoting other Chapters?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah well I get that and I and not claiming that the stats tell us everything.
Oh good! That's great news t-
Xenomancers wrote: The stats clearly show us that is not true. Unless you can somehow prove that Ultramarine and Salamanders players are just worse players? This is what bothers me.
Nevermind. Sigh.
You don't understand stats. You don't understand balance. You don't understand what's being said on this very page. The stats don't clearly show you this at at all.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
Yeah I don't really think anyone was under illusions that this was anything but a thread to downtalk your personal faction.
LVO top lists were dominated by marines of different stripes. It doesn't matter if you're a blue, silver, black or yellow marine, you were well represented.
Nerfing IH would not "fix" the marine issue. Marines need a global nerf of some of their most egregious units and a potential reworking/removing of their Doctrines. That'd be a good start.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah well I get that and I and not claiming that the stats tell us everything. NZ has stated on many occasion that "marines in general are busted - Iron-hands are just more busted" to paraphrase NZ a little bit.
The stats clearly show us that is not true. Unless you can somehow prove that Ultramarine and Salamanders players are just worse players? This is what bothers me. It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair...
Not entirely. It's much easier for an Ultramarines player to field their army as an Iron Hands army (all they need to do is not paint anything as a specific First Founding Chapter) than it would be for, say, a Knights player to start running an Eldar army, so it could be that all the Astartes players who would otherwise be playing Salamanders or Ultramarines are running Iron Hands because they're just that bit more busted than the rest of the Marines.
(I don't know if that's true, but it does seem to me that the data could support either conclusion.)
Feb:
UltraMarine lists: 31
Iron Hands lists: 0
Feb-Sept:
UltraMarine lists: 295
Iron Hands lists: 15
Dec:
UltraMarine lists: 15
Iron Hands lists: 45
It is *very* clear that the subfaction skew was *heavily* in UM's favor when they were top dog, and is now heavily in IH's favor now that they are top dog.
I am sure there are some floppers. Or some people that even have both armies. Overall how much did marine representation go up though? Plus ultimately I chose not to go to LVO this year because the army I want to play is going to get Spanked by any of the OP marine factions...IF or IH....Like seriously...how does +1 LD hold up against ignore cover and exploding bolt weapons? Or 6+ FNP and 5+ overwatch and ignoring degrading profiles by half. It doesn't.
Marine representation went up substantially: 55 in Feb, 132 in Dec. But the increase is nowhere close to explaining the subfaction swaps:
-UltraMarines went from 31/55 (56%) lists in Feb to 15/132 (11%) in Dec.. The pool of Marine lists more than *doubled*, but the UM actually *halved*. Down to roughly a fifth of it's previous percentage, even.
-Iron Hands went from 0/55 in Feb (0%) to 45/132 (34%). While an observed 0/55 suggests we don't have confidence in their expected frequency, it *does* strongly suggest there nowhere close to a 1/3 ratio.
There is plenty of data to suggest the growing field was not a meaningful factor in the subfaction swaps.
I'd argue that there are many different types of players, and that you see much of the inelasticity in subfaction selections from players who want to play their specific subfaction and/or those who just want to throw dice, and most of the elasticity either in those who will only show up if they're OP (like you say) and those who see subfaction selection as part of the game and challenge (as we hear from many of the top contenders).
This would track quite closely with what we're seeing in the numbers:
-Some macro-faction swaps, but not as many (Eldar vs IoM vs Chaos, etc)
-More intra-macro-faction swaps than macro-faction swaps (IG to Marines or CWE to DE)
-More subfaction swaps than faction swaps (UM to IH)
-But a fairly stable base of representation even of the "trash tier" books
LVO top lists were dominated by marines of different stripes. It doesn't matter if you're a blue, silver, black or yellow marine, you were well represented.
Nerfing IH would not "fix" the marine issue. Marines need a global nerf of some of their most egregious units and a potential reworking/removing of their Doctrines. That'd be a good start.
So in the top 8 lists which I just looked at. 3 of them have ironhands/successors. 1 had blood angels (and admech+ironhands so they aren't even getting doctrines), 2 have RG/successors, 1 Ork, 1 Eldar soup. Havn't seen the other data yet. Half the top 8 lists are Ironhands. It's no surprise.
LVO top lists were dominated by marines of different stripes. It doesn't matter if you're a blue, silver, black or yellow marine, you were well represented.
Nerfing IH would not "fix" the marine issue. Marines need a global nerf of some of their most egregious units and a potential reworking/removing of their Doctrines. That'd be a good start.
So in the top 8 lists which I just looked at. 3 of them have ironhands/successors. 1 had blood angels (and admech+ironhands so they aren't even getting doctrines), 2 have RG/successors, 1 Ork, 1 Eldar soup. Havn't seen the other data yet. Half the top 8 lists are Ironhands. It's no surprise.
Conversely, drop all the IH lists from consideration, and you're left with 2 Marine lists 1 Ork list and 1 Eldar list. In a Marine-skewed meta. Being 50% of the top lists even after IH are ignored is statistical suggestion that maybe Marines are better than others even without IH.
LVO top lists were dominated by marines of different stripes. It doesn't matter if you're a blue, silver, black or yellow marine, you were well represented.
Nerfing IH would not "fix" the marine issue. Marines need a global nerf of some of their most egregious units and a potential reworking/removing of their Doctrines. That'd be a good start.
I see no sign of WS (first @ 62nd), UM (55th), BT (can't find so far), or Sallies (163) for quite some distance. Any mention of BA is attached to some soup.
IH is smothering the gak out of everything. Sallies might be really good, but can't compete in a mirror match. We just can't determine anything with certainty if IH is warping the stats so much.
Spoiler:
IH RG IH IH BA / Admech / IH RG IH IF
RG IF
IF
IH IH IH IH RG IH IF
RG IH IH IH BA / RG
If stats don't give the whole picture (and I agree they don't), what metric are you using to declare SM "as a whole" broken? You've demonstrated the possibility that this is the case, but that isn't the same as proving that it is the case.
Before anyone accuses me of bias (as usual), yes I'm going to use Black Templars as an example. Feel free to substitute in Salamanders if that makes you feel better.
First stop, the stats: there's not enough people playing Black Templars to get a decent sample. The stats are, in this case, useless other than to indicate that very few people are playing Black Templars competitively. Whether this is due to weak rules, strong-but-overshadowed by IH rules, synergies with units that aren't the typical ones in other Marine lists, a hypothetical higher skill floor, or any of a myriad other reasons is not discernable from the stats alone.
Second stop, differences in unique rule power. The big elephant in the room. Take the unkillable Leviathan dreadnought combo as an example. You cannot pull that off as a Black Templars player. Same with a bunch of the other top combos. What pushes the top units over the top is their interaction with Chapter-specific special rules. Imagine being a World Eaters player and having your Lord Discordant nerfed because it's too strong in GWs eyes when played as Alpha Legion, or having Hellwrought Leviathans nerfed because Iron Hands push them over the top. Same deal here: remove the rules interactions that make a unit top-tier and it's no longer top-tier unless you add new, equally strong rules.
Third stop, quantity of rules. Doctrines and super doctrines are not inherently broken any more than any rule is, what matters is what they do. As an absurd example, consider "all friendly Black Templates infantry are T8 while in the tactical doctrine" compared to "all friendly Black Templars unit may add 1 to their hit rolls when firing Pistol weapons while within 1" of enemy models while in the assault doctrine". One is ridiculously busted, while the other is so niche as to be nearly useless. In both cases it is the content of the rules that are bad, not the form the rule itself takes. All having more rules does is increase the likelihood of having strong rules combinations, but the actual content of the rules matter.
Thus, by what metric so we judge Black Templars, or Salamanders, "busted"? We can't use the stats, because the sample sizes are too small. What rules specifically make these two broken? After all, if we cannot find that each Chapter is broken, the statement that the entire Codex is busted cannot be said to be supported. That is not the same thing as it being false; it is entirely possible that it is, but I'd like to see some proof beyond "it's obvious" or the like.
As a final note, please don't strawman this as me somehow saying anything in the Codex is fine.
LVO top lists were dominated by marines of different stripes. It doesn't matter if you're a blue, silver, black or yellow marine, you were well represented.
Nerfing IH would not "fix" the marine issue. Marines need a global nerf of some of their most egregious units and a potential reworking/removing of their Doctrines. That'd be a good start.
I see no sign of WS (first @ 62nd), UM (55th), BT (can't find so far), or Sallies (163) for quite some distance. Any mention of BA is attached to some soup.
IH is smothering the gak out of everything. Sallies might be really good, but can't compete in a mirror match. We just can't determine anything with certainty if IH is warping the stats so much.
Spoiler:
IH RG IH IH BA / Admech / IH RG IH IF
RG IF
IF
IH IH IH IH RG IH IF
RG IH IH IH BA / RG
We can't be conclusive, but there are some hints. For instance, if the faction still places top 8 more than any other faction *after* ignoring all IH lists, it suggests that the faction is strong even without IH. It is not conclusive, but is suggestive.
That said, RG placing twice in the top 8 doesn't mean WS, UM, etc are any good. Only that there are Marine builds that don't use IH that are doing well, not that every subfaction is fine.
After so many whines about how orcs can't compete and tau are OP turns out that orcs are more powerful than Chaos and are the second most OP Xeno faction outside of eldar!!! (I feel gross writing this).
Outliers going to outlie but orks are pretty strong and if they get too much in PA who knows where we will end up.
GW screwed up the game and until they finish with PA we won't know how badly. Even if everything comes up to marine levels being able to table 2k points in 2 turns GW has effectively broken 8th. I don't think there is any way to balance our way out of that.
LVO top lists were dominated by marines of different stripes. It doesn't matter if you're a blue, silver, black or yellow marine, you were well represented.
Nerfing IH would not "fix" the marine issue. Marines need a global nerf of some of their most egregious units and a potential reworking/removing of their Doctrines. That'd be a good start.
I see no sign of WS (first @ 62nd), UM (55th), BT (can't find so far), or Sallies (163) for quite some distance. Any mention of BA is attached to some soup.
IH is smothering the gak out of everything. Sallies might be really good, but can't compete in a mirror match. We just can't determine anything with certainty if IH is warping the stats so much.
Spoiler:
IH RG IH IH BA / Admech / IH RG IH IF
RG IF
IF
IH IH IH IH RG IH IF
RG IH IH IH BA / RG
IH are only hiding how OP other marine sub factions are, that is all. There seem to be quite a few IF and RG lists at the top. WS made up only 5% of the meta, arguably their best player (Nanavati) lost early and stopped playing (round 2). Sallies were something like 7% of the meta. Not sure on the BT numbers. I am only discussing Codex Marines.
As Xeno has stated above - Marines even manage to compete at the top level when they make no use of their super doctrine. That's how bad it is. Some units are so wildly under-priced it's no wonder they are so prevalent.
After so many whines about how orcs can't compete and tau are OP turns out that orcs are more powerful than Chaos and are the second most OP Xeno faction outside of eldar!!! (I feel gross writing this).
Outliers going to outlie but orks are pretty strong and if they get too much in PA who knows where we will end up.
GW screwed up the game and until they finish with PA we won't know how badly. Even if everything comes up to marine levels being able to table 2k points in 2 turns GW has effectively broken 8th. I don't think there is any way to balance our way out of that.
Not sure if this is a joke?
Orks had 3 players in the top 50 and 5 in the top 100.....how can you call this OP?
Chaos had 8 players in the top 50, including a mono RK list for comparison.
why are you comparing top 50 to top 8 lmao? orcs got top 8, chaos didn't even make it once. Top 8 is a common metric for evaluating the top cut at larger events, top 4 at smaller ones. Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game. I wouldn't call them OP or draw that conclusion at all from just a statistic, but to the people complaining they can't win games at their local with Orcs while Orcs are out here top 8'ing LVO... well, thats a problem with the player, not the army.
Accidentally edited post - Nitro simultaneously claiming stats cannot be used to measure something definitely while using stats to measure something definitively.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
You can’t simultaneously claim that ‘stats don’t mean anything' while drawing a conclusion from stats
Me, this very same page of this thread:
Nitro Zeus wrote: My view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all
Me, the very same post you quoted:
Nitro Zeus wrote: I wouldn't call them OP or draw that conclusion at all from just a statistic
Orcs coming top 8 LVO doesn't mean Orcs are OP, you can settle down. It does however mean that they are an army capable of getting top 8 LVO, a claim a large amount of Orc players said was specifically untrue, that Orcs couldn't compete like that.
A good metric is gathering the data from all the lists that went 6-0 or 5-1, those are the lists which have shown a good competitivity and were one game away from making it. Top 8 or top 50 doesn't men anything.
Nitro, I'm just going to post all of the times you use stats to claim something definitively in the post I quoted, to make it clearer to you;
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game
...but to the people complaining they can't win games at their local with Orcs while Orcs are out here top 8'ing LVO... well, thats a problem with the player, not the army.
You also said this, ironically;
here's another example of why stats are a stupid measure to use definitively
One list making the top 8 of an event means sweet FA. It's an outlier, as I said in my previous post, and therefore not a good representation of anything.
You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO. Clearly they can go the distance, the stats show this.
It seems to me that you only believe stats that suit your argument.
Nitro Zeus wrote: You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO.
I claimed no such thing, at any point, and never would. I have Chaos as a significantly stronger faction than Orcs, without a doubt. The stats for LVO might say otherwise today, and that's fine, it doesn't change my opinion here, and I doubt it changes yours. Just more reason that stats aren't a definitive measure of balance. You can still make statements based off stats however, such as "Orcs are still a faction capable of getting top 8 at LVO" and you would be indisputably correct. There is no hypocrisy between these two take-aways. The problem isn't with my statements, it's with you conflating two very different things into one. As I said to Xenomancers, my view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all, it's just that people misunderstand their meaning and try to make them say something they don't.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
I think he is saying that IH have some rules which feel unfair. If you have ever played against the functionally immortal IH Leviathan then you would know what he means. Even when you manage to play around it and win on the mission it just feels unfair that a unit of that cost should be so completely dominating. Nothing short of a Titan should be able to do what that unit can easily do.
Nitro Zeus wrote: You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO.
I claimed no such thing, at any point, and never would. I have Chaos as a significantly stronger faction than Orcs, without a doubt. The stats for LVO might say otherwise today, and that's fine, it doesn't change my opinion here, and I doubt it changes yours. Just more reason that stats aren't a definitive measure of balance. You can still make statements based off stats however, such as "Orcs are still a faction capable of getting top 8 at LVO" and you would be indisputably correct. There is no hypocrisy between these two take-aways. The problem isn't with my statements, it's with you conflating two very different things into one. As I said to Xenomancers, my view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all, it's just that people misunderstand their meaning and try to make them say something they don't.
And you seem to be putting far too much weight on going top 8 at LVO as opposed to number of finishers in the top 50 or top 100. Yes you can say Orks are a faction capable of going top 8 of LVO. That is factually correct. I'm not sure what else you're trying to infer though, particularly when you add a piece effectively stating "gid gud bro", other than 'Orks are way better than their own players believe, as evidenced by the 8th place LVO finish'. We don't need a top 8 finish to prove that Orks can win games (if that was the point you were trying to dispute). We have plenty of evidence of that throughout LVO.
I wouldn't dream of telling you to git gud because I don't believe you are capable of it.
I had considered adding to the end of my last post, the fact that I've seen how you argue in the past, and that I'm going to bow out before you hit me with a third strawman you've invented to serve your arguments. I decided instead to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for letting me down, but I guess the fault is my own, so I'ma do it now instead. Have a nice day. I already know your response is going to be how this means you 'won', so you can have that, and I can have the peace of mind of this not going on for another 20 posts of your dishonesty.
As Xeno has stated above - Marines even manage to compete at the top level when they make no use of their super doctrine. That's how bad it is. Some units are so wildly under-priced it's no wonder they are so prevalent
Which bears out that it isnt really super docs and docs that are the direct issue. Its strats allow SM to use low cost (arguably not undercosted) units at their peak.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Nitro, I'm just going to post all of the times you use stats to claim something definitively in the post I quoted, to make it clearer to you;
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game
...but to the people complaining they can't win games at their local with Orcs while Orcs are out here top 8'ing LVO... well, thats a problem with the player, not the army.
You also said this, ironically;
here's another example of why stats are a stupid measure to use definitively
One list making the top 8 of an event means sweet FA. It's an outlier, as I said in my previous post, and therefore not a good representation of anything.
You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO. Clearly they can go the distance, the stats show this.
It seems to me that you only believe stats that suit your argument.
There's a miss between the two.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
I think he is saying that IH have some rules which feel unfair. If you have ever played against the functionally immortal IH Leviathan then you would know what he means. Even when you manage to play around it and win on the mission it just feels unfair that a unit of that cost should be so completely dominating. Nothing short of a Titan should be able to do what that unit can easily do.
He's assuming balance should be aimed at a particular point, instead of balancing everything towards whatever is currently most OP. Like the claim that the WraithKnight was given balanced rules, despite being clearly subpar compared to IoM knights. And that UM hit that point.
The deficiency is that he probably doesn't realize this, and assumes everyone else shares his view of what the appropriate "balance point" is.
The facts can't shift such an argument. Anything stronger than his army is "OP". Anything weaker is "trash". Nothing he has needs a nerf. Anything that beats it needs a nerf. Anything that it beats was because he chose right. Any event is self-evidently proof of the argument based on this assumption.
I wholeheartedly support not balancing around the top of the meta. But with some clarity around it.
He's assuming balance should be aimed at a particular point, instead of balancing everything towards whatever is currently most OP. Like the claim that the WraithKnight was given balanced rules, despite being clearly subpar compared to IoM knights. And that UM hit that point.
The deficiency is that he probably doesn't realize this, and assumes everyone else shares his view of what the appropriate "balance point" is.
The facts can't shift such an argument. Anything stronger than his army is "OP". Anything weaker is "trash". Nothing he has needs a nerf. Anything that beats it needs a nerf. Anything that it beats was because he chose right. Any event is self-evidently proof of the argument based on this assumption.
I wholeheartedly support not balancing around the top of the meta. But with some clarity around it.
You're knocking it out of the park with posts today. This is particularly good insight into the minds of some positions.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
Now i'm dizzy!
Then let me try again:
Spoiler:
If 1 Ork list places in the top 8, that's not enough numbers to be conclusive about how good Orks are, statistically. About as likely to be a fluke as it is to represent just how good Orks are.
Some players make the claim that their army cannot possibly place in the top 8. It's a claim that's rooted in the conclusion that their faction is bad. Being unable to place in the top 8 is then evidence that the faction is bad.
If 1 Ork list places in the top 8, it means that an Ork list *can* possibly place in the top 8. It definitively disproves the claim that it cannot happen (because it did happen). It's not stats - you're not running percentages, averages, etc. It's a single event. It's a counterexample, not a statistical rejection. So it's an argument, but not one based on statistics (and counterexamples to absolute claims are actual proofs - hence why most absolute claims are wrong when talking statistics).
If the claim that Orks cannot possibly place in the top 8 is evidence supporting the conclusion that Orks are bad, disproving that claim removes said support. Removes an argument that we shouldn't doubt it. Ergo, it casts doubt on "Orks are bad", but is not definitive.
Put abstractly:
I believe $X, you believe not-$X.
I claim $X is true because $Y.
Some accept that argument.
You disprove $Y.
$X has less support. It's more likely to be false than it was before you disproved $Y. But it's not conclusively false.
There's a related fallacy here, where "If $X then $Y" is countered by not-$Y, it's common for people to then believe not-$X. But that's not what's happening here. I was going to expand on this fallacy and what's different here, but I'm already getting far to academic - let me know if you want more details.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
If this
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game
isn't a definitive statement I don't know what is.
I'll break it down for you;
'Orcs placing top 8' [the stats] 'at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game' [the definitive statement, derived from said facts].
He's making a definitive statement, it's there in literal black and white.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
Now i'm dizzy!
Then let me try again:
Spoiler:
If 1 Ork list places in the top 8, that's not enough numbers to be conclusive about how good Orks are, statistically. About as likely to be a fluke as it is to represent just how good Orks are.
Some players make the claim that their army cannot possibly place in the top 8. It's a claim that's rooted in the conclusion that their faction is bad. Being unable to place in the top 8 is then evidence that the faction is bad.
If 1 Ork list places in the top 8, it means that an Ork list *can* possibly place in the top 8. It definitively disproves the claim that it cannot happen (because it did happen). It's not stats - you're not running percentages, averages, etc. It's a single event. It's a counterexample, not a statistical rejection. So it's an argument, but not one based on statistics (and counterexamples to absolute claims are actual proofs - hence why most absolute claims are wrong when talking statistics).
If the claim that Orks cannot possibly place in the top 8 is evidence supporting the conclusion that Orks are bad, disproving that claim removes said support. Removes an argument that we shouldn't doubt it. Ergo, it casts doubt on "Orks are bad", but is not definitive.
Put abstractly:
I believe $X, you believe not-$X.
I claim $X is true because $Y.
Some accept that argument.
You disprove $Y.
$X has less support. It's more likely to be false than it was before you disproved $Y. But it's not conclusively false.
There's a related fallacy here, where "If $X then $Y" is countered by not-$Y, it's common for people to then believe not-$X. But that's not what's happening here. I was going to expand on this fallacy and what's different here, but I'm already getting far to academic - let me know if you want more details.
Oops - sorry. You did a good job explaining the first time. I was just being silly.
The main problem people run into with stats is they expect the stats to say something definitive when they're really more of a puzzle to dissect and explore. Stats don't really tell you anything; you have to approach them with a question and see how the data supports or rejects your hypothesis. Even then, the answers you receive are sometimes only useful when compared to answers to other questions.
Where the "lies, dirty likes, and statistics" part of the problem comes into play is that this interesting, partial answers, often involve a lot of caveats. Comparing the winrate of Iron Hands with the winrate of Iron Hands with a Leviathan can support an argument; and often times you get interesting data along the way like "pure Tyranid lists did not beat an Iron Hands opponent with a Leviathan dreadnought after round 2" or some such nonsense (no idea if that's actually true). Those caveats are tedious though and that often gets turns into "tyranids cannot beat Iron Hands" or something similar.
As global as stats are, they're actually more useful on a personal level. You can see things like winrate at a macro level, but to get something useful, you need to focus on your personal interests and narrow your scope down to something you can learn from. Maybe you want to know every Necron list that went X-1 and from there compare them for successful trends or commonalities in where the -1 came from. The process of taking a dataset and iterating hypothesis to provide directions for future actions is where stats can be a powerful tool. Unfortunately, more often than not people simply read broad stroke conclusions and treat them as definitive because they're based on stats. There's a truth there, but its one of many. Understanding how those truths pertain to your own situation is what can make stats a very powerful tool in the right hands.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
Then how can Ultramarines be strong enough to win that match?
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
I think he is saying that IH have some rules which feel unfair. If you have ever played against the functionally immortal IH Leviathan then you would know what he means. Even when you manage to play around it and win on the mission it just feels unfair that a unit of that cost should be so completely dominating. Nothing short of a Titan should be able to do what that unit can easily do.
He's assuming balance should be aimed at a particular point, instead of balancing everything towards whatever is currently most OP. Like the claim that the WraithKnight was given balanced rules, despite being clearly subpar compared to IoM knights. And that UM hit that point.
The deficiency is that he probably doesn't realize this, and assumes everyone else shares his view of what the appropriate "balance point" is.
The facts can't shift such an argument. Anything stronger than his army is "OP". Anything weaker is "trash". Nothing he has needs a nerf. Anything that beats it needs a nerf. Anything that it beats was because he chose right. Any event is self-evidently proof of the argument based on this assumption.
I wholeheartedly support not balancing around the top of the meta. But with some clarity around it.
I am saying that the point they balanced Ultramarines too is a great point in the power level between armies currently in that game. Marines needed a fix. The point at where the Ultramarines are. A marine chapter that has a turn 2 superdoctrine and reasonable stratagems and relics even a reasonable superdoctrine (which requires a give and take - unless you aren't taking any heavy weapons - you are going that have some weapons not getting the -1 ap from doctrines).
I knew the moment I saw the Ironhands leaks that the game was basically doomed. They went way above the power curve with their rules. For example if I brought the same LVO winner list as Ultras - it would still be a really powerful list if I just subbed out feiros for a gravis captain and subbed out SBR for BR. The difference is - you could kill that levi in 1 turn no problem unless I make more 4++ than I should. The list is beatable then. I think there are other issues with the game too...like character protection is exceptionally busted too and it always has beeen. IMO in 9th they need to go back to units needing the join squads to get the protection. Which vehicles wont be able to do.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
Then how can Ultramarines be strong enough to win that match?
Are you being obtuse? Obviously I am talking about Ultras vs non marines. Not Ultras vs marines with clearly superior rules.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
Personally, I'd be happier if the less-OP space marine subfactions had their power rearranged to be more defensive than offensive. The games I've seen end in wins for the non-marine player and the games I've won versus the new marines have all revolved around a hugely crippling alpha strike destroying their ability to act like a deathball that rerolls everything and anything and ignores every save and just blows you away.
Every defensive ability besides just...having an invuln save new marines don't give a gak about, since rerolling all hits means they aren't affected as much by modifiers and even their basic guns can sport AP-1 and AP-2.
The thing that makes those wins possible is that space marines are still capable of being killed in droves by certain weapon types, especially when they all clump up around aurabubble characters as they are wont to do. big crazy close combat bombs can blow away 500-600 points of models in a turn easy, as can stuff like double tapping oblits or plasma chaos termies or admech wrath of mars mortal wound bombs.
I hesitate to think that what initially attracted people to play space marines was the idea of putting all their dudes down on the table within a couple 6" aura bubbles and never moving from their DZ while they hose enemy armies off the table in 3 turns. There aren't enough people who want to play Tau for that to be a fun playstyle. They want to be playing walking tanks that feel flexible and tactical so they can handle any threat and are no slouch in combat as well as shooting. That ain't what marines currently do. Even if you do have weirdo subfactions like black templars and salamanders who aren't pulling the crazy tournament wins, they still don't make for fun gameplay. I'd play almost anything before I'd play another game vs salamanders, can they possibly make the game take any longer than having to roll, then reroll, then roll, then reroll, then reroll 1, then roll, then roll saves, then roll damage, reroll 1 for a CP....OK now the next 5-man squad...
Nitro Zeus wrote: You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO.
I claimed no such thing, at any point, and never would. I have Chaos as a significantly stronger faction than Orcs, without a doubt. The stats for LVO might say otherwise today, and that's fine, it doesn't change my opinion here, and I doubt it changes yours. Just more reason that stats aren't a definitive measure of balance. You can still make statements based off stats however, such as "Orcs are still a faction capable of getting top 8 at LVO" and you would be indisputably correct. There is no hypocrisy between these two take-aways. The problem isn't with my statements, it's with you conflating two very different things into one. As I said to Xenomancers, my view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all, it's just that people misunderstand their meaning and try to make them say something they don't.
And you seem to be putting far too much weight on going top 8 at LVO as opposed to number of finishers in the top 50 or top 100. Yes you can say Orks are a faction capable of going top 8 of LVO. That is factually correct. I'm not sure what else you're trying to infer though, particularly when you add a piece effectively stating "gid gud bro", other than 'Orks are way better than their own players believe, as evidenced by the 8th place LVO finish'. We don't need a top 8 finish to prove that Orks can win games (if that was the point you were trying to dispute). We have plenty of evidence of that throughout LVO.
Orks don't match well with marines. It is just a bad matchup. Much like marines don't match up with tau. Orks aren't going to do well when 25% of the field is marines.
They are still one of the better armies in the game though. The SAG is one of the only weapons in the game that can actually kill this levi on a good roll...which is funny.
It would be useful to know whether the Ork Player won because *Orks* or because he was the better player, his opponents got the tactics wrong, fluffed secondary selection or dice rolls, were seized on etc.
Because on paper yes, I think Marine lists should just destroy that list. But they didn't (even if game 5 was won by a point). So maybe I'm wrong.
Tyel wrote: Wish I had seen the Ork list win games 5 and 6.
It would be useful to know whether the Ork Player won because *Orks* or because he was the better player, his opponents got the tactics wrong, fluffed secondary selection or dice rolls, were seized on etc.
Because on paper yes, I think Marine lists should just destroy that list. But they didn't (even if game 5 was won by a point). So maybe I'm wrong.
It should probably be noted that the Ork list was allowed to run some Legends units or at least FLG failed to enforce the no-Legends rules on the list. Not sure how much of a difference it made, but it should be noted.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game
isn't a definitive statement I don't know what is.
I'll break it down for you;
'Orcs placing top 8' [the stats] 'at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game' [the definitive statement, derived from said facts].
He's making a definitive statement, it's there in literal black and white.
'Keeping up with the rest of the game' means exactly what Bharring said it did, 'possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments', which is something that a great many Orc players on this board specifically swore up and down was impossible - hell, hear it from some people and Orcs can't place top 8 in a 16 man RTT
It's crazy that multiple people seem to be able to understand the difference between making a definitive claim about tiering extrapolated from a statistic, and just talking about what the data itself actually says, and in very broad terms at that. I get the vibe this isn't an accidental misunderstanding however, the difference has a portion of nuance to it but it's not this difficult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: The main problem people run into with stats is they expect the stats to say something definitive when they're really more of a puzzle to dissect and explore. Stats don't really tell you anything; you have to approach them with a question and see how the data supports or rejects your hypothesis. Even then, the answers you receive are sometimes only useful when compared to answers to other questions.
Where the "lies, dirty likes, and statistics" part of the problem comes into play is that this interesting, partial answers, often involve a lot of caveats. Comparing the winrate of Iron Hands with the winrate of Iron Hands with a Leviathan can support an argument; and often times you get interesting data along the way like "pure Tyranid lists did not beat an Iron Hands opponent with a Leviathan dreadnought after round 2" or some such nonsense (no idea if that's actually true). Those caveats are tedious though and that often gets turns into "tyranids cannot beat Iron Hands" or something similar.
As global as stats are, they're actually more useful on a personal level. You can see things like winrate at a macro level, but to get something useful, you need to focus on your personal interests and narrow your scope down to something you can learn from. Maybe you want to know every Necron list that went X-1 and from there compare them for successful trends or commonalities in where the -1 came from. The process of taking a dataset and iterating hypothesis to provide directions for future actions is where stats can be a powerful tool. Unfortunately, more often than not people simply read broad stroke conclusions and treat them as definitive because they're based on stats. There's a truth there, but its one of many. Understanding how those truths pertain to your own situation is what can make stats a very powerful tool in the right hands.
Nitro Zeus wrote: 'Keeping up with the rest of the game' means exactly what Bharring said it did, 'possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments', which is something that a great many Orc players on this board specifically swore up and down was impossible - hell, hear it from some people and Orcs can't place top 8 in a 16 man RTT
.....And that is still a definitive statement.... but either way, "keeping up with the rest of the game" does not indicate to me "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments". If you meant "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments", why didn't you write this?
In fact, I find it incredible that you're trying to claim your entire point was; "Orks finishing in the top 8 at LVO shows that Orks can finish top 8 at a big event". No gak. That is literally the data, raw. Either your point was entirely moot, or you're backtracking because you've proven yourself a bit of a hypocrite.
Tyel wrote: Wish I had seen the Ork list win games 5 and 6.
It would be useful to know whether the Ork Player won because *Orks* or because he was the better player, his opponents got the tactics wrong, fluffed secondary selection or dice rolls, were seized on etc.
Because on paper yes, I think Marine lists should just destroy that list. But they didn't (even if game 5 was won by a point). So maybe I'm wrong.
Tyel wrote: Wish I had seen the Ork list win games 5 and 6.
It would be useful to know whether the Ork Player won because *Orks* or because he was the better player, his opponents got the tactics wrong, fluffed secondary selection or dice rolls, were seized on etc.
Because on paper yes, I think Marine lists should just destroy that list. But they didn't (even if game 5 was won by a point). So maybe I'm wrong.
Speaking very broadly, I'd say that the ability of orks to pull off outlier performances is representative of their general status. I.e., that they can be powerful, but their performance is dependant on some very unreliable systems coming up in the ork player's favor. I.e., win first turn, Da Jump goes off successfully, a jumped mob makes their charge, the loota bomb rolls maximum shots on their first shooting phase, etc. And of course making absolutely no player mistakes on top of it.
So while a person might conclude that orks are secretly powerful and it's only this one guy who figured out the ONE WEIRD TRICK that SPACE MARINE PLAYERS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW... it's far more likely that out of many ork armies present, he just happened to be the one to have enough of his coinflip-based abilities work to put him into a competitive position.
Or in short: an army that requires you to win ten coinflips in a row to win games isn't actually powerful, even if it occasionally exhibits far-above-average results.
Nitro Zeus wrote: 'Keeping up with the rest of the game' means exactly what Bharring said it did, 'possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments', which is something that a great many Orc players on this board specifically swore up and down was impossible - hell, hear it from some people and Orcs can't place top 8 in a 16 man RTT
.....And that is still a definitive statement.... but either way, "keeping up with the rest of the game" does not indicate to me "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments". If you meant "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments", why didn't you write this?
In fact, I find it incredible that you're trying to claim your entire point was; "Orks finishing in the top 8 at LVO shows that Orks can finish top 8 at a big event". No gak. That is literally the data, raw. Either your point was entirely moot, or you're backtracking because you've proven yourself a bit of a hypocrite.
Somehow everyone seems to recognise what I was saying in both posts bar you, but I suspect that's an iq problem. If you misunderstood it to begin with, okay I guess, it's not that difficult but alright, however if you still don't get it after all this explanation from like three different people, you're either nitpicking because you have literally nothing else and you're incapable of backing down, or you're just beyond help. Either way this is done because it's been clearly explained, nothing you ever say makes sense, you just deliberately take things out of context and pretend that you are completely bamboozled to the meaning! that you've conciously obscured from your elaborate recounts of what happened, and it's not even frustrating to watch, its just... sad.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
Then how can Ultramarines be strong enough to win that match?
I've seen my buddies' Ultramarine army go absolutely bonkers, I don't understand why people don't run them more. They're such a huge gunline army, Hellblasters + Characters (reroll) + Impulsors + Scout Redemptors seems to be uber strong.
Nitro Zeus wrote: 'Keeping up with the rest of the game' means exactly what Bharring said it did, 'possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments', which is something that a great many Orc players on this board specifically swore up and down was impossible - hell, hear it from some people and Orcs can't place top 8 in a 16 man RTT
.....And that is still a definitive statement.... but either way, "keeping up with the rest of the game" does not indicate to me "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments". If you meant "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments", why didn't you write this?
In fact, I find it incredible that you're trying to claim your entire point was; "Orks finishing in the top 8 at LVO shows that Orks can finish top 8 at a big event". No gak. That is literally the data, raw. Either your point was entirely moot, or you're backtracking because you've proven yourself a bit of a hypocrite.
Somehow everyone seems to recognise what I was saying in both posts bar you, but I suspect that's an iq problem. If you misunderstood it to begin with, okay I guess, it's not that difficult but alright, however if you still don't get it after all this explanation from like three different people, you're either nitpicking because you have literally nothing else and you're incapable of backing down, or you're just beyond help. Either way this is done because it's been clearly explained, nothing you ever say makes sense, you just deliberately take things out of context and pretend that you are completely bamboozled to the meaning! that you've conciously obscured from your elaborate recounts of what happened, and it's not even frustrating to watch, its just... sad.
Righto. It’s me that has an iq problem (rule 1 mate) because I didn’t interpret when you said one thing as actually meaning a completely different thing that is also entirely moot. Makes sense.
I’m not interested what others who jumped to your defence think. I want to hear it from the horses mouth. You’re sticking with the claim that your entire point in that previous, deep statistical analysis was; “Orks finishing in the top 8 at the LVO shows that Orks can finish at the top 8 of a large event”. THAT was your entire point was it? Well please excuse me while I sit down to take in this incredible statistical revelation. Wow. Mind blown.
You’ve proven yourself a hypocrite; as I said you’re happy to use stats to make sweeping statements about one faction when it suits despite your own claims that stats shouldn’t be used to make sweeping assumptions about a faction. Your mental gymnastics are astounding but the damage is done I’m afraid.
Hankovitch wrote: Speaking very broadly, I'd say that the ability of orks to pull off outlier performances is representative of their general status. I.e., that they can be powerful, but their performance is dependant on some very unreliable systems coming up in the ork player's favor. I.e., win first turn, Da Jump goes off successfully, a jumped mob makes their charge, the loota bomb rolls maximum shots on their first shooting phase, etc. And of course making absolutely no player mistakes on top of it.
So while a person might conclude that orks are secretly powerful and it's only this one guy who figured out the ONE WEIRD TRICK that SPACE MARINE PLAYERS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW... it's far more likely that out of many ork armies present, he just happened to be the one to have enough of his coinflip-based abilities work to put him into a competitive position.
Or in short: an army that requires you to win ten coinflips in a row to win games isn't actually powerful, even if it occasionally exhibits far-above-average results.
Thanks to Daedalus for posting the lists.
I think the above is an easy way to look Orks - but note Poole took no lootas. It might by controversial but I dont think they are that good. If you can get 6 shots off with 5+ D^3 and somehow your opponent cant just gun down any grot screen and then the lootas themselves then fine. But as you say its a succession of coinflips. Against marine lists with easy 2/3+ saves its just not that great.
I think da Jump is almost always critical and so yes, dice can abandon you. As said though, especially that first marine list should I think be expecting to kill at least 90~ boys a turn. More if you got even a bit lucky. You cant hide that many models.
