Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 gbghg wrote:
So Field of Fire gaming just put out a blog post about the best armies at BAO, listing them via the average score. Of note to this discussion is the fact that Guard came in below the average score, behind Tau, Eldar, and Tyranid's. make of it what you will but it's a solidly mid tier result. https://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-bao-2018/

I linked these stats from FLG like 20 pages back and they were never replied to.

The fact is as a primary army (this includes soup that increases its competitiveness) IG did not make the top list in points earned per round or win percentage.

Asmodios wrote:

 gbghg wrote:
So Field of Fire gaming just put out a blog post about the best armies at BAO, listing them via the average score. Of note to this discussion is the fact that Guard came in below the average score, behind Tau, Eldar, and Tyranid's. make of it what you will but it's a solidly mid tier result. https://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-bao-2018/

I linked these stats from FLG like 20 pages back and they were never replied to.

The fact is as a primary army (this includes soup that increases its competitiveness) IG did not make the top list in points earned per round or win percentage.

But no mono army does, thats why i asked if they are mono, or fluff, or if they are soup but with the main army as IG. ?

Again, time limits hurt IG a lot, imo.

Martel732 wrote:
Again, time limits hurt IG a lot, imo.

But if those lists were mono faction then its not fair to compare against soup b.c almost no mono faction gets to top of tournaments.

List like these really needs to say how many points they are taking, those DA might be 700pts, but we dont know without looking many lists.

Martel732 wrote:
Again, time limits hurt IG a lot, imo.

The BAO has chess clocks for all tables with a winning record on day 2 and only one single game had a player run out of time and not make it to the natural conclusion.... did you even bother to watch the FLG video on the event?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Again, time limits hurt IG a lot, imo.

But if those lists were mono faction then its not fair to compare against soup b.c almost no mono faction gets to top of tournaments.

List like these really needs to say how many points they are taking, those DA might be 700pts, but we dont know without looking many lists.

Primary faction means the majority of points went into that faction. This means statistically the more IG you brought compared to things like DA your win percentage actually went down. The only pure army in the top 10 was a knight player next closest was 19th with Tau

No, I didn't watch the video. Chess clocks are still time limits.

Asmodios wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Again, time limits hurt IG a lot, imo.

The BAO has chess clocks for all tables with a winning record on day 2 and only one single game had a player run out of time and not make it to the natural conclusion.... did you even bother to watch the FLG video on the event?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Again, time limits hurt IG a lot, imo.

But if those lists were mono faction then its not fair to compare against soup b.c almost no mono faction gets to top of tournaments.

List like these really needs to say how many points they are taking, those DA might be 700pts, but we dont know without looking many lists.

Primary faction means the majority of points went into that faction. This means statistically the more IG you brought compared to things like DA your win percentage actually went down. The only pure army in the top 10 was a knight player next closest was 19th with Tau

Well according to ITC its what is the most points in 1 detachment, so you could have 2 detachments of IG and 1 Detachments of DA, the DA could be 700 points and the 2 IG detachments could be 650pts each., over all its more IG but its army type of DA.

If you remember the top five lists I linked, they all just used Guardsmen as a CP battery.

It's why I asked earlier-is this change intended for competitive play, or casual play?

That's why i say that guardsmen could probably go to 5 points but i suggest to wait for it. It's not ruining any one's game (it's only a small point difference in the majority of lists), and i want to wait for the soup CP fix before wielding the nerf bat. After guards are no longer used as CP batteries, we can have some clear and useful data. Before that, we only get some muddy informations that we don't know if they come truly from the IG codex or from some strange interaction.

Stux wrote:
Dude. I don't have a horse in this race. I don't really care which is better, I was just supplying numbers. You're seriously complaining about rounding 16.2 to 16 to get a whole number of points? That is ridiculous and shows your own bias quite frankly.

Bullgak. Your rounding totaled about half a point (both ways) which is actually a pretty significant margin considering that a wound for a commander is worth 7.5 "points". You spent the effort to get the original math right but then were dishonest about the numbers and got called on it.

Stux wrote:
How is a group of units that does 8.73pts of damage in a fight phase only doing 15.39pts if they fight twice exactly anyway?

Because fighting twice doesn't mean they get to shoot their pistols twice. You factored in the pistol shots for both the SM captain and the company commanders in the original calculation.

Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.

It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.

Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.

It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.

Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.

I don't think anyone is arguing against that. IMO CP regeneration all together should be taken out of the game. It gives such an insane advantage to any faction that has access to it and is always the "obvious" choice while list building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
No, I didn't watch the video. Chess clocks are still time limits.

Just to get the logic down.... All but 1 game not coming to its natural conclusion somehow hurt guard because there is a limit... even though only one guy managed to hit the limit in one game?

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.

It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.

Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.

Yes, in very small amounts, primarily as a CP Battery.

And I'd be down for removing Kurov's entirely and nerfing Grand Strategist to a 5+ per strat you spend, or even replacing it with something different entirely.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.

It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.

Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.

Yes, in very small amounts, primarily as a CP Battery.

And I'd be down for removing Kurov's entirely and nerfing Grand Strategist to a 5+ per strat you spend, or even replacing it with something different entirely.

It's too strong you either have to give every army an equivalent (which is boring and stifles creativity in builds) or just remove it completely. Removing CP regeneration also makes balance as a whole much easier

While I agree that a Guard player should be able to fit in their entire game in the time limit allowed, evidence that few, if any, were stopped by the clock does not necessarily negate the argument.

Players knew when selecting/building their list/army for this even that they would be timed. *If* the clock would hurt a way of building an IG army - or even IG as a whole - *then* players would not typically bring that build/army to the event.

I still think it's enough time to do everything the IG player needs to do, but the lack of scads of IG players failing to the chess clock doesn't necessarily mean IG players wouldn't be better off without it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.

It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.

Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.

Yes, in very small amounts, primarily as a CP Battery.

And I'd be down for removing Kurov's entirely and nerfing Grand Strategist to a 5+ per strat you spend, or even replacing it with something different entirely.

This is factually untrue, people bring more than the minimum of guard. They provide far more value than just CP.

What I've gleaned from this thread:
1) 5ppm Guardsmen *might* be an improvement, but its the CP combo that's really OP in the IG book. Fixing that would have more general agreement and impact on the game.
2) [Some negative things just shouldn't be said. So I'll filter myself before posting.]

Bharring wrote:
While I agree that a Guard player should be able to fit in their entire game in the time limit allowed, evidence that few, if any, were stopped by the clock does not necessarily negate the argument.

Players knew when selecting/building their list/army for this even that they would be timed. *If* the clock would hurt a way of building an IG army - or even IG as a whole - *then* players would not typically bring that build/army to the event.

I still think it's enough time to do everything the IG player needs to do, but the lack of scads of IG players failing to the chess clock doesn't necessarily mean IG players wouldn't be better off without it.

So if you follow this thread the BAO is being used as evidence that IG is broken

Then when presented with the fact that IG as a primary faction did not make the top of win percentage or points earned per round its now morphed into "you cant use this event because clocks hurt guard"

I mean seriously its got to be one or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.

It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.

Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.

Yes, in very small amounts, primarily as a CP Battery.

And I'd be down for removing Kurov's entirely and nerfing Grand Strategist to a 5+ per strat you spend, or even replacing it with something different entirely.

This is factually untrue, people bring more than the minimum of guard. They provide far more value than just CP.

People that brought more then minimum guard saw their win percentage and points per round fall on average

Asmodios wrote:

Bharring wrote:
While I agree that a Guard player should be able to fit in their entire game in the time limit allowed, evidence that few, if any, were stopped by the clock does not necessarily negate the argument.

Players knew when selecting/building their list/army for this even that they would be timed. *If* the clock would hurt a way of building an IG army - or even IG as a whole - *then* players would not typically bring that build/army to the event.

I still think it's enough time to do everything the IG player needs to do, but the lack of scads of IG players failing to the chess clock doesn't necessarily mean IG players wouldn't be better off without it.

So if you follow this thread the BAO is being used as evidence that IG is broken

Then when presented with the fact that IG as a primary faction did not make the top of win percentage or points earned per round its now morphed into "you cant use this event because clocks hurt guard"

I mean seriously its got to be one or the other.

I mean you're looking at a snippet of data and making an argument with 0 knowledge of how those games went though. Saying Guard had a bad showing at BAO because you read names and factions on BCP doesn't really mean anything, and it's also false.

Forcing them to play quicker hurts them too. Time limits hurt them, not just turn. My opponents have been known to make 30+ measurements per turn just to make sure my charges are all foiled perfectly.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Bharring wrote:
While I agree that a Guard player should be able to fit in their entire game in the time limit allowed, evidence that few, if any, were stopped by the clock does not necessarily negate the argument.

Players knew when selecting/building their list/army for this even that they would be timed. *If* the clock would hurt a way of building an IG army - or even IG as a whole - *then* players would not typically bring that build/army to the event.

I still think it's enough time to do everything the IG player needs to do, but the lack of scads of IG players failing to the chess clock doesn't necessarily mean IG players wouldn't be better off without it.

So if you follow this thread the BAO is being used as evidence that IG is broken

Then when presented with the fact that IG as a primary faction did not make the top of win percentage or points earned per round its now morphed into "you cant use this event because clocks hurt guard"

I mean seriously its got to be one or the other.

I mean you're looking at a snippet of data and making an argument with 0 knowledge of how those games went though. Saying Guard had a bad showing at BAO because you read names and factions on BCP doesn't really mean anything, and it's also false.

No what im doing is actually presenting Data while you don't have any to counter argue with. Guard had a great showing..... when taken in minimal amounts as CP regeneration for other armies


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Forcing them to play quicker hurts them too. Time limits hurt them, not just turn. My opponents have been known to make 30+ measurements per turn just to make sure my charges are all foiled perfectly.

>presented with actual data
>ummmmm chess clocks crushed guard

Do you have any relevant sources or data to back up that the reason guard had a lower win percentage and points per round then other factions was because of chess clocks? Is the necessary time to play any army not subjective?

It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.

Marmatag, I posted the top five lists. All of them that had Guard had Guard as a battery.

Was my source wrong? Are there, perhaps, a bunch of primary-Guard lists in the 6-20 area? If so, can you provide evidence?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Marmatag, I posted the top five lists. All of them that had Guard had Guard as a battery.

Was my source wrong? Are there, perhaps, a bunch of primary-Guard lists in the 6-20 area? If so, can you provide evidence?

None other than i've stood next to the list in bits form lol.

It's also worth pointing out that Geoff Robinsons list is beyond the minimum for a CP battery. He was at the final table.

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.

It's not weird really. You should expect it. Deep down they know - AM is going to get the nerf bat. Eldar players know it too.

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.

That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round

Of the top 10 lists, what % of their points were IG?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(of each list, not overall)

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.

That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round

The problem is, its the most points in a SINGLE detachment, if you have 700pts IG in 1 detachment and 650pts of Knights in 2nd detachments and the another 650pts in the 3rd detachment, that means you are still IG army, even tho you have 1300pts in Knights.

All these stupid lists should show how many points the "Main" faction has (or on average at least)

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.

That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round

Your also looking at avarage values which make the data (as its just data not information) a little more squeewed. All it takes is one or two players who go 0 and 5 and the 20 players achieve 4and 1 and 5 and 0 don't look so good.

While 4 tau players going 3 and 2 and 4 and 1 look better.
Avarages without context are nice but still don't tell the story.

I think the top 5 or top 10 or top 20 would be much more meaningful to analyse.

And it's more effective if you make the prediction before crunching the numbers.