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.

Ice_can wrote:

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.

So I'm not allowed to point to this data but somehow people in this thread can definitively draw that IG is broken because they were included in the soup that did well at tournaments..... I smell a double standard

ALso if these are for full tournaments results, you ALSO need to look at, is there a best painting reward? or best conversion rewards? B.c some players will dont take tournament lists but just general list to win best painting.

And how many of them its there 1's or are newer to tournaments and just not a very good player in general.

You should only look at the top 10 results due to these, plus other reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

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.

So I'm not allowed to point to this data but somehow people in this thread can definitively draw that IG is broken because they were included in the soup that did well at tournaments..... I smell a double standard

Im just saying we need less variables in data to use it. If you have a 100man tournament and use all 100 results thats not good data, what if a person wanted best painting and didnt even try to win his games? w/e army he is playing just skewed the results, if you have 5 people doing that, well, your data is pointless now.


I like to add, its only b.c there is so little data with 100 people that when you spread out that list into 10+ different armies you might only have 5 players in 1 faction, and if that faction had 1 of the players not in it to win it, that really is a huge %, 20% skewed data is really bad.

Asmodios,
I think that data has value. I think the concerns you're responding to detract, but do not invalidate, the data.

My point is that certain other data may be of more use. That doesn't mean there's no use in the data.

There is good reason to believe the top, say, 10% of participants are more serious about competing than the bottom 10% of participants. I would expect the primary army of the list that got dead last at each tournament to *not* be more biased towards what is OP than the general distribution of armies taken - some people who play either aren't that smart or aren't playing competitively.

As such, a reasonable cutoff on placement to consider relative faction strengths would be ideal - provided the cutoff were selected before the results of the tourny were known. Hence why I threw out "top 10" - I don't actually know who/what placed where.

As for a specific claim, I think that what all this data points to is that IG are more broken as an ally than as a monofaction. Not necessarily conclusive, but certainly suggestive. That doesn't mean Guardsmen would be less balanced at 5ppm. But it does suggest moving Guardsmen to 5ppm won't fix the biggest imbalances relating to the IG codex.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
ALso if these are for full tournaments results, you ALSO need to look at, is there a best painting reward? or best conversion rewards? B.c some players will dont take tournament lists but just general list to win best painting.

And how many of them its there 1's or are newer to tournaments and just not a very good player in general.

You should only look at the top 10 results due to these, plus other reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

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.

So I'm not allowed to point to this data but somehow people in this thread can definitively draw that IG is broken because they were included in the soup that did well at tournaments..... I smell a double standard

Im just saying we need less variables in data to use it. If you have a 100man tournament and use all 100 results thats not good data, what if a person wanted best painting and didnt even try to win his games? w/e army he is playing just skewed the results, if you have 5 people doing that, well, your data is pointless now.

Firstly it was an FLG ITC event so painting is only used as a tiebreaker in very rare instances and the "hobby track" is separate from things like win % and points earned per round.

Secondly, I said way back in this post that people need to look at the results of an army over time before yelling for changes but people wanted to point at the BAO as a reason to nuke guard (even though knight soup dominated the event). But I find it amusing that when the actual tournament data does not support the hypothesis that guard is busted we now can't look at the tournament data because its not conclusive.

Also some people lose one game and drop out. At the *very least* you should look at people who played all of their games. This should be an absolute minimum.

I would personally restrict it to the top 20 or so. Because you're still seeing really good lists, with really good players. One bad matchup or dice roll can drop you from top 5 to 18th.

 Marmatag wrote:
Also some people lose one game and drop out. At the *very least* you should look at people who played all of their games. This should be an absolute minimum.

I would personally restrict it to the top 20 or so. Because you're still seeing really good lists, with really good players. One bad matchup or dice roll can drop you from top 5 to 18th.

Then please, post the top 20. I posted the top 5, and the Guard were batteries, excepting the number one player, who didn't take Guard at all.

Bharring wrote:
Asmodios,
I think that data has value. I think the concerns you're responding to detract, but do not invalidate, the data.

My point is that certain other data may be of more use. That doesn't mean there's no use in the data.

There is good reason to believe the top, say, 10% of participants are more serious about competing than the bottom 10% of participants. I would expect the primary army of the list that got dead last at each tournament to *not* be more biased towards what is OP than the general distribution of armies taken - some people who play either aren't that smart or aren't playing competitively.

As such, a reasonable cutoff on placement to consider relative faction strengths would be ideal - provided the cutoff were selected before the results of the tourny were known. Hence why I threw out "top 10" - I don't actually know who/what placed where.

As for a specific claim, I think that what all this data points to is that IG are more broken as an ally than as a monofaction. Not necessarily conclusive, but certainly suggestive. That doesn't mean Guardsmen would be less balanced at 5ppm. But it does suggest moving Guardsmen to 5ppm won't fix the biggest imbalances relating to the IG codex.

Oh yes it 100% shows that guard is OP when being taken in soup. I haven't argued against this at all. The issue is 5ppm guardsmen does next to nothing to change this issue but does hurt mono guard that is not an issue. The faction that was most prevalent in the top 10 was knights (renegade and imperial). Now I personally don't think knights are broken either but I do believe that knights were never balanced around having infinite CP. The funny thing is the only mono faction to place in the event was a mono knight list that lost on the second table in the final round to a knight soup player. Yet somehow mono guard has been bashed repeatedly in this thread and not mono knights

Hilariously, wouldn't fixing IG CP shenanigans address both IG and IK?

Bharring wrote:
Hilariously, wouldn't fixing IG CP shenanigans address both IG and IK?

Yes and its what should happen

It would fix one of the biggest issues with imperial soups in general.

Still think soup should be banned in matched.

 Earth127 wrote:
It would fix one of the biggest issues with imperial soups in general.

Still think soup should be banned in matched.

Even though I don't like soup I wouldn't want to limit the way people play, but there needs to be a downside of taking soup. Soup is also just way to good of an idea from a selling point so its not going anywhere

There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.

The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.

The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.

Limiting to 2 books is a way, this lets you still have 3 subfactions for things like Aeldari and SM, but you can have something like IG, IK, BA

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.

The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.

Limiting to 2 books is a way, this lets you still have 3 subfactions for things like Aeldari and SM, but you can have something like IG, IK, BA

Still solves nothing.

IG get command points too easily. This is a core problem. Whether you guys want to see it or not.

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.

The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.

CP can only be utilized by the detachments that have the same keyword as the detachment that generated it. <imperial guard> CP cannot be used by <imperial knights> ect.

Simple fix that still gives people the tactical flexibility to use soup to plug gaps in their army but does not allow them to share CP around.

So you agree that the CP battery is the problem, and not Guardsmen themselves? Because I'll agree to that.

I'm not sure there's wide agreement that 4ppm Guardsmen *aren't* a problem. But I think we are seeing just how widespread the agreement is that the CP battery is the bigger problem.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you agree that the CP battery is the problem, and not Guardsmen themselves? Because I'll agree to that.

I'll agree that *a* problem is the CP battery.

I would also go further, and say that Guard is a top-tier faction and should be adjusted, relative to the mid-tier.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.

The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.

CP can only be utilized by the detachments that have the same keyword as the detachment that generated it. <imperial guard> CP cannot be used by <imperial knights> ect.

Simple fix that still gives people the tactical flexibility to use soup to plug gaps in their army but does not allow them to share CP around.

I'm in the camp of "when there is an obvious problem with 1 faction, adjust that faction, rather than fundamentally changing the entirety of the rest of the game." Your suggestion hoses a few smaller armies pretty hard.

 Marmatag wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you agree that the CP battery is the problem, and not Guardsmen themselves? Because I'll agree to that.

I'll agree that *a* problem is the CP battery.

I would also go further, and say that Guard is a top-tier faction and should be adjusted, relative to the mid-tier.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.

The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.

CP can only be utilized by the detachments that have the same keyword as the detachment that generated it. <imperial guard> CP cannot be used by <imperial knights> ect.

Simple fix that still gives people the tactical flexibility to use soup to plug gaps in their army but does not allow them to share CP around.

I'm in the camp of "when there is an obvious problem with 1 faction, adjust that faction, rather than fundamentally changing the entirety of the rest of the game." Your suggestion hoses a few smaller armies pretty hard.

The problem is you have failed to provide any evidence that there is "an obvious problem with faction 1" (I'm assuming you mean IG). Mono IG does not only not place high but even taking it as your primary faction statistically lowers your average win % and points per round compared to other imperial primary factions (when looking at recent ITC data). Actually, the most consistent thing across all recent tournaments is the prevalence of soup in all factions that can take it. Thus there is more data to suggest the issue is soup and CP vs any one specific faction.

For the purpose of CP battery mono or soup IG doesn't matter. Mono IG are still winning GTs, and some of the best players in the world run Mono-Guard. But it doesn't matter for the purpose of this specific discussion.

Regardless, you can't look at one tournament and try and draw sweeping conclusions, which is exactly what you're doing. Also, you're discounting Guard as being just soup when in reality they are a big contributor because you can get a lot done with lesser points.

For instance, your answer to IG generating way too many CP is to nerf ynnari, harlequins, assassins, knights, and any faction that depends on allies to function. Enough already.

 Marmatag wrote:
For the purpose of CP battery mono or soup IG doesn't matter. Mono IG are still winning GTs, and some of the best players in the world run Mono-Guard. But it doesn't matter for the purpose of this specific discussion.

Regardless, you can't look at one tournament and try and draw sweeping conclusions, which is exactly what you're doing. Also, you're discounting Guard as being just soup when in reality they are a big contributor because you can get a lot done with lesser points.

For instance, your answer to IG generating way too many CP is to nerf ynnari, harlequins, assassins, knights, and any faction that depends on allies to function. Enough already.

Please post the GT and full list for mono IG guard that won

Marmatag,
What do you mean by "CP Battery mono or soup"?

Do you consider IG armies with nothing but IG that use those strats CP Battery IG? I had assumed that term was used to reference IG used to generate CP for another faction. Which, obviously, mono-anything can't do.

To my knowledge, mono-IG have never won a single GT. Mono-IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

w1zard wrote:
To my knowledge, mono-IG have never won a single GT. Mono-IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

There are more GTs then ever but other than the pre-rule of 3 16 hellhound list I haven't seen a mono guard list win anything. Or you have to go all the way back to before the conscript and earthshaker nuke

w1zard wrote:
To my knowledge, mono-IG have never won a single GT. Mono-IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

It is well documented that mono-Guard won the Boise GT recently. The same one that was won by ravenspam in early 8th, if memory serves.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Marmatag,
What do you mean by "CP Battery mono or soup"?

Do you consider IG armies with nothing but IG that use those strats CP Battery IG? I had assumed that term was used to reference IG used to generate CP for another faction. Which, obviously, mono-anything can't do.

My point is the ability to generate volumes of CP is a problem whether it's present in soup or not.

 Marmatag wrote:

w1zard wrote:
To my knowledge, mono-IG have never won a single GT. Mono-IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

It is well documented that mono-Guard won the Boise GT recently. The same one that was won by ravenspam in early 8th, if memory serves.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Marmatag,
What do you mean by "CP Battery mono or soup"?

Do you consider IG armies with nothing but IG that use those strats CP Battery IG? I had assumed that term was used to reference IG used to generate CP for another faction. Which, obviously, mono-anything can't do.

My point is the ability to generate volumes of CP is a problem whether it's present in soup or not.

Can you please post the full list from this GT. Also, it would help to have more than a single example to call an entire faction "broken". If we use that as an indicator for OP then we need to nuke blightlord terminators as they are obviously running rampant

In this *particular* case, he's countering that it's *never* happened (which will be countered by sharing the list, if it's pure).

As to the 'is mono-IG OP' question, a single win by a single list over a wide period of time is not very supportive of mono-IG being OP.

 Marmatag wrote:

w1zard wrote:
To my knowledge, mono-IG have never won a single GT. Mono-IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

It is well documented that mono-Guard won the Boise GT recently. The same one that was won by ravenspam in early 8th, if memory serves.

I tried googling Boise GT 2018 and only got the flyer for the event saying it took place in June of this year. I couldn't find any lists of the winners, so can you please post a link so we can all see it?

Wizard's claim could be adjusted to "Mono-IG rarely ever win GTs", and it would certainly be true. (His original was specificly to his knowledge, so is technically true anyways.)

Would the stronger point of evidence be:
-Out of the past 10 GTs, how many mono-IG lists were top 10?
-Out of the past 10 GTs, how many monofaction lists were top 10 - and of which factions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could find rankings, and top was listed as IG. But it did not have their lists or an indicator of pure/not (that I saw).

I found this... https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3

Which only seems to say that the winning list was "Asta Militarum" but doesn't specify what the criteria for that is. It could be primary detachment only... We need the actual list to see if it is mono-IG.

1,800 points of guard and 200 points of something else is still not mono-IG.