Brothererekose wrote: oni wrote:
Your sample size and scope of application are far too small. Wayniac's statement cannot possibly be deemed invalid, based on two (2) games that [i}you[/i] played. It's insufficient data.
Yes, my sample is singular and logically not representative, per a real survey/data gathering, etc.
Then again, when highway patrol tries to convince teen drivers that speed kills, and they only show one example of a wrecked car & the fatality (and all the facts it was speeding, etc), the kids' claim that "speed doesn't kill" still takes a hit. One car wreck from the highway patrol is insufficient data. However, you can't ignore it. It is a valid example supporting the argument, not invalidated just because it is *one* anecdote.
I could type out a long list of anecdotes, but after 6+ years of RTTs
(monthly) and GTs
(3 to 6 annually), I think I have valid expertise or experience in citing trends and facts of results.
Experience after experience, it's the players in southern (and northern) Calif. that play different lists and win, because they're good. Better players than me modify their armies and switch codexes and usually defeat me, because I play poorly. Sometimes good players *do* stick with one thing for a long time, e.g. Brandon Grant & AM
. However, Geoff Robinson plays Custodes and 'Nids and usually finishes at the top of tourneys. Nanavati & Nayden bring different lists to LVO
Perhaps I have not made Wayniac's point invalid, but it still is wrong when placed up to my experiences and the rankings in the ITC. Players' names, not their armies.
Let's look at the failures instead of the successes. There's valid info there.
I see the same Baby Seals in the kiddie pool, event after event, because we aren't that good. We play 'Net lists; we play fluffy lists. The consistent facts are the names of the dudes at the bottom. Not our armies. We're at the bottom tables because we forget to secure objective points, forget to 'kill one more', have poor target priority, we get "deer in the head lights" logic flinches: "Crap! I was gonna place this unit *there* but then I forgot and did that to protect this unit *here*. Damn-it! There goes Line Breaker!"
What we can look to as a juxtaposition are the results of GW
Grand Tournaments. The armies that perform well and win at these events (and similar) are much different than those at ITC and Nova.
True, those army compositions may be different, but it doesn't have any bearing on our point, unless you'd like to point out some examples of "the results of GW
Grand Tournaments." What GSC
a top dog? Did Tau dominate the top tables? Did Sisters and GK
shoulder out A.M. and the pure IK lists? Where were the elves?
Here's the Broadside Bash's top armies (from last weekend, April 13/14):
Imperium (Tallarn, an assassin & Grey Fax, no Imperial Knight)
Imperium (~85% Custodes & ~15%Admech)
Imperium (3 IKs and minimum A.M. battalion)
& orks for places 9 and 10.
There are 3 Imperial lists, but each is vastly different (I have direct access to the list compositions on BestCoastPairings cuz I attended the event). The names in those top places are: G. Robinson, R. Ahumada (local top aeldari), D. Hooson (BAO
'18 winner), Waddel's 'Nids. And Mr. Raspy voice himself, Reece won it all with those Tallarn, an inquisitor and assassin.
It is still my 6+ years of tourney experience that I lose to the Brandon Grants whether he's playing Dark Angels, Sisters or A.M. Carlos Kaiser (some GT
on the east coast) wallops me with Custodes, Blood Angels, CSM
A local guy finishes 4 and 1 a lot, Jon Starks, druhkari. I beat him once, because *I* have been playing drukhari since last summer and and knew precisely what needed to be done to his drukhari. I went first, Doomed and snuffed the first set of Talos, wacked his ravagers next, etc. He's defeated me 2 other times.
I play "net lists" like Doom-farseer supported drukhari.
It's not necessarily the lists. It's the doods. And their Skillz.
If you're not winning, it's cuz you gotta git gud.