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.

Carnage43 wrote:Interesting read, but I really wish he had more data to work with. A few dozen players and armies isn't going to prove anything overall.

Until he can put together some manner of database with hundreds if not thousands of tournament games, all run with the same style of mission, with similar terrain, this type of math hammering will be limited.

To be fair, Kirby himself has said that it isn't conclusive since it is a small dataset. What he did say is that because he ran it and collected the data he has an unprecedented dataset to play with and analyze. He looks to be a bit of an analysis/numbers geek, so that's what he's doing.

Unfortunately, the type of setup you're talking about is unlikely. The closest you will get is Nova, since they have pretty established terrain and missions.

pretre wrote:Back on topic... Kirby did a bunch of analysis on 3++ Con's results for DE and GK vs different types of players (winning and losing players).

Interesting stuff to read through and relevant to what we were talking about:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3-con-statistics-deeper-look-at-dark.html

Several variables hurt this data.
9 GK players will have a harder time keeping an average then 6 Dark Eldar players
Anyone taking Dark Eldar to a GT is usually a very experienced player as they are made of glass
GK's are cheap and easy to get and more friendly to players. Some players win with them effortlessly so when thrown against good opponents they are not used to having to use strategy. They are OP not auto-win
Point level for the tournament
Missions for the tournament
Table set up (ie terrain)
Match-ups (how many of each player got to beat up on nids or csm more then the other )
etc....

That's also the same tournament where IG had a 1-1 W/L and space wolves had like a 1-2 W/L. Taking examples from what is clearly a very aberrant set of data is at best misleading and at worst intentionally so.

This will give ammo to the "GKs are just fine camp" but it's the kind of ammo that's just going to misinform in a general sense. The evaluation of the results isn't really misleading, but the results themselves aren't a good representation of common tournament results which makes the entire endevour somewhat unhelpful.

Tomb King wrote:good opponents they are not used to having to use strategy. They are OP not auto-win

What definition are we using of OP then?

Tomb King wrote:

pretre wrote:Back on topic... Kirby did a bunch of analysis on 3++ Con's results for DE and GK vs different types of players (winning and losing players).

Interesting stuff to read through and relevant to what we were talking about:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3-con-statistics-deeper-look-at-dark.html

Several variables hurt this data.
9 GK players will have a harder time keeping an average then 6 Dark Eldar players
Anyone taking Dark Eldar to a GT is usually a very experienced player as they are made of glass
GK's are cheap and easy to get and more friendly to players. Some players win with them effortlessly so when thrown against good opponents they are not used to having to use strategy. They are OP not auto-win
Point level for the tournament
Missions for the tournament
Table set up (ie terrain)
Match-ups (how many of each player got to beat up on nids or csm more then the other )
etc....

The problem I see with most of the criticisms of the data that has been posted throughout the thread is this:

-When someone takes the time to parse out data from a large event where many games were played which demonstrates, albeit with a small sample size, that GK's are not outperforming similar books, the response is: the data set isnt big enough, this tournament wasn't a good example for xyz reason, there are too many variables, etc. etc. And some of these are valid concerns or 'grains of salt' to take in the data with.

Yet those same peoples evidence for the contrary, why GK's ARE OP is purely their own personal (and usually anecdotal) experience, which is a far, far, far smaller sample size.

To sum up:

Tournament with 50 players and analysis of data of all of the games played: sample size is too small, means nothing!
Handful of games I've personally observed, played in, or heard about: They're OP! It's irrefutable!

Target wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

pretre wrote:Back on topic... Kirby did a bunch of analysis on 3++ Con's results for DE and GK vs different types of players (winning and losing players).

Interesting stuff to read through and relevant to what we were talking about:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3-con-statistics-deeper-look-at-dark.html

Several variables hurt this data.
9 GK players will have a harder time keeping an average then 6 Dark Eldar players
Anyone taking Dark Eldar to a GT is usually a very experienced player as they are made of glass
GK's are cheap and easy to get and more friendly to players. Some players win with them effortlessly so when thrown against good opponents they are not used to having to use strategy. They are OP not auto-win
Point level for the tournament
Missions for the tournament
Table set up (ie terrain)
Match-ups (how many of each player got to beat up on nids or csm more then the other )
etc....

The problem I see with most of the criticisms of the data that has been posted throughout the thread is this:

-When someone takes the time to parse out data from a large event where many games were played which demonstrates, albeit with a small sample size, that GK's are not outperforming similar books, the response is: the data set isnt big enough, this tournament wasn't a good example for xyz reason, there are too many variables, etc. etc. And some of these are valid concerns or 'grains of salt' to take in the data with.

Yet those same peoples evidence for the contrary, why GK's ARE OP is purely their own personal (and usually anecdotal) experience, which is a far, far, far smaller sample size.

To sum up:

Tournament with 50 players and analysis of data of all of the games played: sample size is too small, means nothing!
Handful of games I've personally observed, played in, or heard about: They're OP! It's irrefutable!

That same data said says that Space wolves are underpowered and that imperial guard are perfectly normal by that kind of broken logic.

Are they? Are you going to sit there in front of your typer and tell me that? Go ahead. Do it. See how it feels.

Sigh, I had hoped that with several days of no new posts this thread had finally died the death it deserved weeks ago.

The data is critically inconclusive at best.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Target wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

pretre wrote:Back on topic... Kirby did a bunch of analysis on 3++ Con's results for DE and GK vs different types of players (winning and losing players).

Interesting stuff to read through and relevant to what we were talking about:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3-con-statistics-deeper-look-at-dark.html

Several variables hurt this data.
9 GK players will have a harder time keeping an average then 6 Dark Eldar players
Anyone taking Dark Eldar to a GT is usually a very experienced player as they are made of glass
GK's are cheap and easy to get and more friendly to players. Some players win with them effortlessly so when thrown against good opponents they are not used to having to use strategy. They are OP not auto-win
Point level for the tournament
Missions for the tournament
Table set up (ie terrain)
Match-ups (how many of each player got to beat up on nids or csm more then the other )
etc....

The problem I see with most of the criticisms of the data that has been posted throughout the thread is this:

-When someone takes the time to parse out data from a large event where many games were played which demonstrates, albeit with a small sample size, that GK's are not outperforming similar books, the response is: the data set isnt big enough, this tournament wasn't a good example for xyz reason, there are too many variables, etc. etc. And some of these are valid concerns or 'grains of salt' to take in the data with.

Yet those same peoples evidence for the contrary, why GK's ARE OP is purely their own personal (and usually anecdotal) experience, which is a far, far, far smaller sample size.

To sum up:

Tournament with 50 players and analysis of data of all of the games played: sample size is too small, means nothing!
Handful of games I've personally observed, played in, or heard about: They're OP! It's irrefutable!

That same data said says that Space wolves are underpowered and that imperial guard are perfectly normal by that kind of broken logic.

Are they? Are you going to sit there in front of your typer and tell me that? Go ahead. Do it. See how it feels.

Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. -- Sherlock Holmes

SVDM Results: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/433040.page

1 GK, got 2nd. Wraithwing got 1st.

Dear TC: Please change the title of this thread to "Purifiers are the most overpowered unit GW has put out in a decade."

Thanks.

TedNugent wrote:Dear TC: Please change the title of this thread to "Purifiers are the most overpowered unit GW has put out in a decade."

Thanks.

Who's TC?
Also, No.

I have noticed that any information that says no gk are not op gets stamped with the label useless data but if they win it means theyre op. This thread is beyond ridiculous.

Draigo wrote:I have noticed that any information that says no gk are not op gets stamped with the label useless data but if they win it means theyre op. This thread is beyond ridiculous.

And yet, you keep posting in it, which keeps it at the top of the forum, where more people are reminded to post in it.

Draigo wrote:I have noticed that any information that says no gk are not op gets stamped with the label useless data but if they win it means theyre op. This thread is beyond ridiculous.

It would if you just skim the thread and don't bother to actually look at the data.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Dear TC: Please change the title of this thread to "Purifiers are the most overpowered unit GW has put out in a decade."

Thanks.

Who's TC?
Also, No.

Change the name of the thread to "Space wolves are the most underpowered codex released in a decade" to accurately reflect this new and clearly relevant data please!

pretre wrote:SVDM Results: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/433040.page

1 GK, got 2nd. Wraithwing got 1st.

Lolz, and that GK, was me I'm afraid.

I used a super broken double raven and one redeemer list....with only 2 dreads, 3 psybacks, and no purifiers, warpquake, paladins, etc...

Ravens are broken! It's those damn frag blast missiles, BA only got str 8 ap 1 missiles. Codex creep!

Necrons won templecon and now SVDM, they're broken! (tongue in cheek on all of this of course)

(edit: and I think there were 2 GK's, Tim H. was playing a GK-GK build, ie, he used actual silver guys, while i went full-on inquisition)

target wrote:
The problem I see with most of the criticisms of the data that has been posted throughout the thread is this:

-When someone takes the time to parse out data from a large event where many games were played which demonstrates, albeit with a small sample size, that GK's are not outperforming similar books, the response is: the data set isnt big enough, this tournament wasn't a good example for xyz reason, there are too many variables, etc. etc. And some of these are valid concerns or 'grains of salt' to take in the data with.

Yet those same peoples evidence for the contrary, why GK's ARE OP is purely their own personal (and usually anecdotal) experience, which is a far, far, far smaller sample size.

To sum up:

Tournament with 50 players and analysis of data of all of the games played: sample size is too small, means nothing!
Handful of games I've personally observed, played in, or heard about: They're OP! It's irrefutable!

Looking at the data from another point of view....GKs had the most wins. Not the best win/loss percentage, but the most wins period. It's a combination of perceived strength of the codex (via threads like this), how cheap and easy they are to collect and paint, and the ACTUAL power of the book that make them insanely popular with players. Those 3 factors combined are making them the (pardon made up word) winning-est win ATM.

GKs look good not through being OP by itself, but by the fact the army is unbelievably popular and it's wracking up a huge quantity of wins.

Target wrote:Lolz, and that GK, was me I'm afraid.

Gratz on second! I think that Necrons are really underestimated by a lot of folks and are showing they can compete, which is nice.

@Carnage43: You misquoted. I didn't say that, I believe Target did.

pretre wrote:

Target wrote:Lolz, and that GK, was me I'm afraid.

Gratz on second! I think that Necrons are really underestimated by a lot of folks and are showing they can compete, which is nice.

@Carnage43: You misquoted. I didn't say that, I believe Target did.

Thanks! The guy who took first with 'crons is a good friend, we actually rode up to the tournament together, and the wraith list was a brainchild of our drive back from Conflict GT a month earlier. It's not a list i ever want my GK's to have to face. While not screwed, it's definitely pretty miserable. You know what makes DCA look like children in close combat? Wraiths. with lash coils reducing them to I1, tons of attacks, wound allocation, and 3+ invuls...oy vey!

My prediction is that within the next couple months, Necrons will continue their rise of domination, and pretty soon we'll have this thread, for Crons. They really are that good.

(And yup, that quote was me)

Carnage43 wrote:Looking at the data from another point of view....GKs had the most wins. Not the best win/loss percentage, but the most wins period. It's a combination of perceived strength of the codex (via threads like this), how cheap and easy they are to collect and paint, and the ACTUAL power of the book that make them insanely popular with players. Those 3 factors combined are making them the (pardon made up word) winning-est win ATM.

GKs look good not through being OP by itself, but by the fact the army is unbelievably popular and it's wracking up a huge quantity of wins.

Looking at it from yet another point of view, they also had the most losses. So from that, we can conjecture that people that are good at warhammer win more and people that are not as good win less. My conclusion therefore is that people that are good at warhammer are OP and need to be banned.

Dok wrote:

Carnage43 wrote:Looking at the data from another point of view....GKs had the most wins. Not the best win/loss percentage, but the most wins period. It's a combination of perceived strength of the codex (via threads like this), how cheap and easy they are to collect and paint, and the ACTUAL power of the book that make them insanely popular with players. Those 3 factors combined are making them the (pardon made up word) winning-est win ATM.

GKs look good not through being OP by itself, but by the fact the army is unbelievably popular and it's wracking up a huge quantity of wins.

Looking at it from yet another point of view, they also had the most losses. So from that, we can conjecture that people that are good at warhammer win more and people that are not as good win less. My conclusion therefore is that people that are good at warhammer are OP and need to be banned.

Sounds good. You're banned from GE, we'll ban Andy too, and I get to win all the tournaments for the next 2 months at which point I will be OP and banned too. Want to play in my garage in 3 months?

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Dok wrote:

Carnage43 wrote:Looking at the data from another point of view....GKs had the most wins. Not the best win/loss percentage, but the most wins period. It's a combination of perceived strength of the codex (via threads like this), how cheap and easy they are to collect and paint, and the ACTUAL power of the book that make them insanely popular with players. Those 3 factors combined are making them the (pardon made up word) winning-est win ATM.

GKs look good not through being OP by itself, but by the fact the army is unbelievably popular and it's wracking up a huge quantity of wins.

Looking at it from yet another point of view, they also had the most losses. So from that, we can conjecture that people that are good at warhammer win more and people that are not as good win less. My conclusion therefore is that people that are good at warhammer are OP and need to be banned.

Sounds good. You're banned from GE, we'll ban Andy too, and I get to win all the tournaments for the next 2 months at which point I will be OP and banned too. Want to play in my garage in 3 months?

Then we can start to have garage tournaments and ban whoever wins there too. I'm sure it will be grey knights.

Hmm, but then you will have home-field advantage! We'll have to ban you from the garage, sorry man. Maybe you can come watch sometime?

If anyone wants to provide the data from tournaments they run, I'd be more than happy to put them into pretty graphs.

The more information the better - round match-ups, number of players (including armies W/L record obviously), points, missions, etc. Obviously keeping in line with the NOVA format is going to produce the most robust results but I cannot get 15 tournaments worth of data unless it is given to me.

I'd done NOVA, 3++con and what data we have from 'Ard Boyz and will be doing Event Horizon, Centurion (2 more NOVA events from Australia) and NOVA this year - hopefully can grab the BFS data and perhaps wargamescon/adepticon but that's a different format.

Regardless, if you want to send some tourney info in with say 30+ players, we can get a better picture.

Edit: working on some more overall statistics for 3++con, i.e. win % of who went first, winning based upon parameters, etc.

Awesome to hear, Kirby! Keep it up.

To answer the top question.

Nope not overpowered in the least, their equipment is right where you'd think an Imperial Codex would be.

They do however suffer from IG syndrome, that being what they get they don't really pay all that many points for creating an illusion of overpower.

Overpowered, no. Undercosted, yes.


But it's Imperial, so you'd be fooling yourself if you expected it not get special treatment.

I would like to see the full results from the major tournaments. Anything to give hope to the lesser races.

Overpowered, no. Undercosted, yes.

I don't understand how people differentiate these. It's happened so many times in this blistering hellscape of a thread. They are intrinsically linked.

Kirby wrote:If anyone wants to provide the data from tournaments they run, I'd be more than happy to put them into pretty graphs.

The more information the better - round match-ups, number of players (including armies W/L record obviously), points, missions, etc. Obviously keeping in line with the NOVA format is going to produce the most robust results but I cannot get 15 tournaments worth of data unless it is given to me.

I'd done NOVA, 3++con and what data we have from 'Ard Boyz and will be doing Event Horizon, Centurion (2 more NOVA events from Australia) and NOVA this year - hopefully can grab the BFS data and perhaps wargamescon/adepticon but that's a different format.

Regardless, if you want to send some tourney info in with say 30+ players, we can get a better picture.

Edit: working on some more overall statistics for 3++con, i.e. win % of who went first, winning based upon parameters, etc.

I will see if I can get the results for this weekends INDY GT for you. I sincerely hope GK dont win though as I am not bringing them

The 56th Mechanized Company of the VIII regiment rides out once more.

IDK, Hulk's list looks pretty mean.

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:IDK, Hulk's list looks pretty mean.

Is he bringing grey knights? If so then I concede upon match-up. lol

Tomb King wrote:

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:IDK, Hulk's list looks pretty mean.

Is he bringing grey knights? If so then I concede upon match-up. lol

If you're playing mech guard (which by the look of your last comment you are) you're one of his worst matchups possible if he's doing the all-footsy grey knights again. Psybolt ammo is pointless versus chimeras, and psycannons are suddenly just autocannons.

Target wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:IDK, Hulk's list looks pretty mean.

Is he bringing grey knights? If so then I concede upon match-up. lol

If you're playing mech guard (which by the look of your last comment you are) you're one of his worst matchups possible if he's doing the all-footsy grey knights again. Psybolt ammo is pointless versus chimeras, and psycannons are suddenly just autocannons.

Autocanons that can kill land raiders.