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.

It has two meanings. As a word it once originally only meant average. In a world where everything has to be great, it has gotten the connotation of meaning worse than average. It has two separate definitions. Why is everyone focusing on this one word anyway rather than the actual content?

Fearspect wrote:(Adepticon was not a 40k tournament)

Stop Trolling.

Disagree with me all you like, when you make up rules and change the army structure, you are no longer playing 40k and all the previous balances go right out the window.

Fearspect wrote:Disagree with me all you like, when you make up rules and change the army structure, you are no longer playing 40k and all the previous balances go right out the window.

So in your mind, any tournament that uses any missions not from the main rulebook is not a "40k tournament". Any tournament that uses the very popular Primary/Secondary/Tertiary objective system is not a "40k tournament". Any tournament held at a venue with defined house rules of any sort are not "40k tournaments".

Your idea of a "40k tournament" is getting matched up with an opponent, and then dicing off for the mission and deployment type that you'll play (as instructed to do in the rulebook)?

Danny just give it up. You have lost all credibility with your ceasless whining.

G

I have no problem with (balanced) custom scenarios. Take the Nova Open's scenarios and contrast them with the 'Ard Boyz prelims.

Team games and changes to the FOC however drastically change what is good compared to the normal game. You are no longer talking about 40k at this point, but a new game with different codices as the strongest. The same thing happens when you start enforcing comp rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All of that being said, your list is only a smaller part of what contributes to a win. A player given the best list without any tactical acumen will lose every time.

Oh and just for fun, back to the graph.

Danny what equation did you use to obtain the wonderful reverse Sigmoid curve?
Where did your data come from?
What is the scale?
What are we actually measuring?
Does this grap actually end at the boundaries or continue forever this isn't clear...
What was your sample size?
Am I to understand that if a player of X skill plays no-ork opponents then their performance will fit a liner model, I'm struggling with the as there is again no scale and we could be looking at an apparently straight section of a larger graph?
If we were to differentiate your S-curve what would the rate of change of orkish success against players of varying skill be at various points be?
Again no scale makes this hard.
One could conclude however that if one's performance with orks was already high then playing opponents of higher and higher skill would not influence ones success, that we can conclude without scale but we can't conclude at what levels of success or skill this happens.

Please read the thread before posting. I already explained to GBF that this is not based on data, but is a visual aid used to describe the thesis of the article in an alternative way, hence the lack of numbers and the use of purely qualitative labeling. Is the scroll wheel on your mouse broken?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Danny - except mediocre does NOT mean average, it means poor to average.

Stop complaining of reading comprehension problems with others when you're unable to express yourself correctly.

Let's read that again. "Mediocre doesn't mean average, it means poor to average." Maybe if I had clarified 5 or 6 times that I am, in fact, referring to the upper part of that range, the AVERAGE part, it might be more clear. Oh wait! That's exactly what I've done!

And yet you people still keep insisting that I think Orks suck...

Danny just give it up. You have lost all credibility with your ceasless whining.

GBF lecturing me on credibility? Pot, meet kettle.

Except if the Orks are in the top 5 of a list that includes twelve army lists, then they are not average, are they?

Shouldn't you be busy fluffing on YesTheButtHurts about now?

I think you should all just come to the NOVA Open, hug it all out, and play some games built for *everyone* to enjoy.

I only say this b/c someone mentioned the open here ... and man, being a pretty impartial peruser and poster across the web, seeing the ytth/dakka/etc stuff go back and forth is tiring.

Orks are not one of the worst army books at all ... so, yea.

Top 5:

SW, IG, SM, BA, Eldar.

Other codices that are better balanced than Orks:

Tyranids, Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar, Tau (the last two because they provide strong obvious choices in each FOC slot).

Still, some good players play Ork armies and thus get wins. Using Orks has nothing to do with you as a player, and more the unfortunate reality of the money barrier being an issue to people continually getting an army from the current best codex (min $500 investment, I imagine). Furthermore, the attachment people develop from painting up their miniatures makes it doubly difficult to give up on your old army.

I saw somewhere else on the Internets that Danny is spouting he is an E-celeb. Hee! Funny that!

G

Guys, we all really need to calm down in here.

That's what I really want to say.

Of course, generalizations are bad, as seen here:

http://www.baldandscreaming.com/

Dakkaitis?

Main Entry: Dak·ka·i·tis
Pronunciation: \’da-kə-ī-təs\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: circa 2010

: inflammation of the stupid

Really?

Bad form there.

I mean, how are we to know that your mouth isn't foaming, and that your fingers are not, in fact, also sausage shaped?

I have no problem with (balanced) custom scenarios. Take the Nova Open's scenarios and contrast them with the 'Ard Boyz prelims.

There are some people that don't think those missions are balanced either. The Nova event is just another GT style event. Thinking it's anything more than that is ridiculous. People really need to get over the fact that you can never truly create the perfect "competitive" environment for 40k. The game simply isn't designed for it.

Karuthors - what may differentiate us is that when I notice a comment like this anywhere on the web, I take the time to inquire about its origins and glean meaningful input from people to better refine the approach we take.

I don't think 40k is a game rendered homogenous across codices to be a perfect competitive environment, or even be the average/quasi-competitive environment of most professional sports.

That said, it's a good thing to pursue as fair and balanced an approach possible within a given format or game system.

I would argue that you have to define what a GT style event is before you brand something as one ... our system/format bears no similarity to Adepticon, for example, in terms of how the event itself is graded/scored/competed in. That said, it's also not a "pure" competitive event either, given the hefty prize support given to "soft" or non-competitive scores.

In any event, if you have some input/critique - especially if it's well thought out and delivered with a positive intent - from those people you refer to as not seeing the NOVA Open missions as "balanced," I'd love to hear it - we've been visibly and openly taking input and critique from the global community of players for months now leading up to the event - more the merrier!

- Mike

PS - Feel free to e-mail/pm to me instead of derailing this thread, if you'd prefer. This is a genuine set of comments from me, not a retort or subtle attack. Just to make sure our unfamiliarity with each other does not combine with the tonelessness of the web to create a firestorm.

Janthkin wrote:

Fearspect wrote:Janthkin: When the only tactical option your army has is to run every single unit forward, of course you don't need practice with it.

Oh yes. Because THAT'S exactly how we played it. It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the volume of fire shoota boy units put out, or the counter-assault flexibility provided by Killa Kans, or the durability of Ork units under KFF coverage. Nope, it's all just "Run straight at 'em!"

The Kan Wall is a SHOOTING list.

And you seemed to have missed the point, with your snide one-liner - a "mediocre" army book shouldn't perform that well, regardless of how simplistic the tactics, over a series of 8 games, now should it?

Oh Janthkin, we all know why your ork list won, because you are a complete genius. Of course.

It's to bad this thread degenerated into Orks; are they good or not? from the discussion of the hardboy scenarios. It's pretty glaring that they wrote a hardboy scenario explicitly to handicap mech armies. It's pretty obvious that a lot of ork builds are walking. It's not outlandish to claim this is an intentional handicap for armies that are not doing so well, like:

Orks

Also, for those who need a justification why army X did so well at whatevercon how about:

Luck?
Matchups?
Missions?
Players?
Team Synergy?
Collusion?

Lots of possible reasons, besides the codex quality or a player being a genius.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:...I don't think 40k is a game rendered homogenous across codices to be a perfect competitive environment, or even be the average/quasi-competitive environment of most professional sports.....

Uh? What

Steroids
Salary Caps
Blood Doping
Pinch hitter
Shot clocks

Pro sports is so full of loop holes and cheats, it isn't worth idolizing. Sorry had to throw this rock. I venture 40k is probably a more fair environment, hey at least anyone could sign up?

@Fear-
I don't see how orks can even be remotely considered worse than Eldar. How many truely workable eldar units and builds are there compared to orks? Plus, lets face it, even with Eldratar a single 100 point rune priest pretty much kills your entire army when you are eldar, mech or not.

Sisters fair a lot worse against the top dogs than Orks, both in theoryhammer and in tourney results. Tau are so one dimensional and beatable that I can barely believe you put that up there. Tyranids are not even in the same ball park as orks, hurting even worse in mechanized environments.

Not calling you an idiot, but I seriously doubt that many would agree with your view of their comparitive ranking and the tournamnent results of the last two years certainly does not seem to back you up, either.

Augustus - that would be precisely why I said "average/quasi-competitive" instead of competitive for pro sports!

Augustus wrote:Oh Janthkin, we all know why your ork list won, because you are a complete genius. Of course.

Hey, if you're going to toss out anecdotes as evidence, be prepared to receive them as well. And the Team Tournament is a useful example, as it's an 8-game tournament. (The overall Team Tourney winners played Orks, too.)

It's to bad this thread degenerated into Orks; are they good or not? from the discussion of the hardboy scenarios. It's pretty glaring that they wrote a hardboy scenario explicitly to handicap mech armies. It's pretty obvious that a lot of ork builds are walking. It's not outlandish to claim this is an intentional handicap for armies that are not doing so well, like:

Orks

While Scenario 3 was fairly blatant in its potential effects, what about Scenario 1? That triangular deployment zone, coupled with a mandatory 5 objectives AND a fixed game length was hellish on foot armies. Not only do you have to travel large distances on foot, your opponent also knows exactly when to swoop in with vehicles to contest.

The general philosophy behind 5e "core" missions is that they're NOT balanced individually, but come closer to balance when taken as a whole. Armies with an advantage in Seize Ground (lots of fast-moving/transported scoring units) have things a bit more difficult in KP missions. Low KP armies, contrariwise, have a harder time claiming multiple objectives.

So, for the Ard Boyz, whoever wrote the scenarios tried to achieve similar patterns, while removing "random" elements like game length & objective count. Given the spread of winners reported here, it's reasonable to conclude that scenario 3 did not automatically result in every mechanized list losing their event, any more than scenario 1 automatically cost Ork & Tyranid players the tournament.

What's that leave, then? Are we left arguing the "degree" to which scenario 3 disadvantaged mechanized players, versus the degree to which scenario 1 cost all-foot players?

Also, for those who need a justification why army X did so well at whatevercon how about:

Collusion?

I like this one. So, the reason you beat Orks is that you bribe/threaten your opponents to take falls?

MVBrandt wrote:Augustus - that would be precisely why I said "average/quasi-competitive" instead of competitive for pro sports!

OK, heh.

Phazeal, I have to give you that one, how few eldar builds there are (limited). If thats the judge of a codex, perhaps you are right. There is a lot of junk and overload in that codex to be sure. There is some greater variety in the Ork Dex for builds.

I think it's just a matter of the few mechdar builds being more capable overall and having less vulnerabilities than the ork builds.

I played a lot of mechdar V Ork games, I won them all. Several were in hardboys last year and this year at adepticon, and I can honestly say, it wasn't because of my genius.

I felt like my opponent was playing at a handicap regardless of their build.

Wouldn't you admit, mechdar vs Orks in S3 hardboy this year was a slanted game?

Why was that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:The general philosophy behind 5e "core" missions is that they're NOT balanced individually, but come closer to balance when taken as a whole....

Interesting, collectively, I see your point, collectively the 1st match was harder than the last. taken to another level this makes matchup even worse, as in those who played mech v mech in R 3 were likely playing an even game while those who played foot v foot in game 1 were likewise equally penalized. So pairing becomes key then...

Is that the best player then? A random pairing determining how much handicap someone gets? I don't think so. a Mech player and a foot player could have the similar stats going into round 3 and the foot player would have be at a significant advatage.

Wheres the sport in that?

Do you think the first scenario was equally bad for foot armies as S3 was for mech? Not a lot of threads about how punishing S1 was.

Obviously S3 penalized more players as mech armies are more common now, isn't this obvious slanting of the grounds, even given your pov?

Also, for those who need a justification why army X did so well at whatevercon how about:

Collusion?

I like this one. So, the reason you beat Orks is that you bribe/threaten your opponents to take falls?

My only issue with the Nova Open is the removal of KP's which MVB and I have talked about. I'm just not a huge fan removing one of the main victory conditions that the rule book gives us but it's their event and I'm still gonna attend if I can. That being said it could easily be pointed out that it isn't a competitive event because it removes one of the key victory conditions given to us by GW.

Oh and Orks are one of the few armies I fear with my Wolves. Which, i think, does say something.

Augustus wrote:
Interesting, collectively, I see your point, collectively the 1st match was harder than the last. taken to another level this makes matchup even worse, as in those who played mech v mech in R 3 were likely playing an even game while those who played foot v foot in game 1 were likewise equally penalized. So pairing becomes key then...

Has this ever not been the case? Matchups in specific missions has always been a huge factor in tournament play.

A couple of years ago, I got the random luck to play Bill Kim in round one of the Adepticon Gladiator and we knocked each other out of the running. If either of us had a different first-round opponent, who knows what would happen. The next year, I was running a mech-eldar list (at the tail-end of 4th, when they were insane with clown wagons), and going into round three, I was somewhere on the top tables, and got matched up with the necron destroyer list that was about as perfect a scissors to the eldar's paper as you could get. It was the only necron list on the top five tables, and looking over the others, I had a shot to win the event if I'd been paired against any of the others.

These things happen. And, they're why 40k simply isn't designed for determining things like who the absolute best player is.

I've seen these things happen time and again. I've been on the winning side of playing against a green tide list with a shooty army and a corner deployment, and I've been on the losing side of missions that rewarded a player with a HtH HQ over a support HQ when I fielded a near-naked inquisitor. That doesn't mean I'm a good player one day and a lousy one the next.

That's why "competitive 40k" is such a misnomer, and why tournaments should be considered an opportunity to get together with friends (or at least acquaintances) and play a few games over a day or two, rather than as something that needs to be addressed with the utter ruthlessness seen in the competitive lists espoused by Danny, Stelek, and their ilk. Because at some point, you're going to benefit from a mission at the right time, and at some point, you're going to get hammered by the mission/matchup nightmare that is simply beyond your control, that you have no answer for.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:My only issue with the Nova Open is the removal of KP's which MVB and I have talked about. I'm just not a huge fan removing one of the main victory conditions that the rule book gives us but it's their event and I'm still gonna attend if I can. That being said it could easily be pointed out that it isn't a competitive event because it removes one of the key victory conditions given to us by GW.

Not only isn't it a competitive event, it's not even a 40k event, according to some of the other posters here. Rules change!!

If Hulksmash fears the green horde then that says something. He is a solid tourney player with a solid record to back it up. I think the main thing about Orks is in reality they have all the tools needed to matchup well against any army if properly designed. Personally I think Battlewagon orks it the best way to go with some deffkoptaz. Thrakka is still very potent.

G

Danny Internets wrote:
Please read the thread before posting. I already explained to GBF that this is not based on data, but is a visual aid used to describe the thesis of the article in an alternative way, hence the lack of numbers and the use of purely qualitative labelling. Is the scroll wheel on your mouse broken?

Yes and graphs being precise mathematical tools used to present data in visual form - They display relative sizes of numerical quantities - Ie an easy ways to compare numbers.
Means that your attempt to 'visually illustrate' a point with a 'graph' that's only accurate features are the positions of the labels for the axis - which lets face it was a 50/50 chance anyway.

I found a great quote for you "Other times, a graph or chart helps impress people by getting your point across quickly and visually." from http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/default.aspx They have a nifty tutorial on how to create a graph with all the necessary elements.

Next time you want to use 'a visual aid used to describe the thesis of the article in an alternative way' try not to use a mathematical tool incorrectly and use something like this instead, you might just communicate your point visually and effectively.

Augustus wrote:

Janthkin wrote:The general philosophy behind 5e "core" missions is that they're NOT balanced individually, but come closer to balance when taken as a whole....

Interesting, collectively, I see your point, collectively the 1st match was harder than the last. taken to another level this makes matchup even worse, as in those who played mech v mech in R 3 were likely playing an even game while those who played foot v foot in game 1 were likewise equally penalized. So pairing becomes key then...

This is eternally the case. I don't see a fix for it, either - barring absolute balance between the armies, ANY mission will have some bias.

Is that the best player then? A random pairing determining how much handicap someone gets? I don't think so. a Mech player and a foot player could have the similar stats going into round 3 and the foot player would have be at a significant advatage.

Wheres the sport in that?

Going into round 1, a Mech player and a foot player WILL have similar stats, and the mech player likely has a significant advantage. *shrug* You're never going to find the "best" player in a 3 round event, anyway. That's just par for the course; most RTTs are 3 round tournaments. (Note that hockey, soccer, baseball, and basketball all use a series of games between the same teams, when trying to winnow the field down to "best.")

Do you think the first scenario was equally bad for foot armies as S3 was for mech? Not a lot of threads about how punishing S1 was.

Obviously S3 penalized more players as mech armies are more common now, isn't this obvious slanting of the grounds, even given your pov?

As to thread distribution, S1 was a fairly standard 5 objective mission, with some goofy deployment. Anyone playing a "foot" army has to have a plan for those by now, be it outflanking units, or turbo-boosting bikes, Deep Striking units, or something. There's no tolerance for complaints about that mission type any more, as 5e has made it common.

As to PLAYER distribution, I'm not convinced mech armies ARE more common. In a vacuum, sure, mechanized lists are better. At a major tournament, sure - the people who choose to travel for 40k are also the ones most likely to assemble an army that fits the paradigm. But Ard Boyz tend not to see nearly so much optimization at the preliminary level. (Same goes, to a lesser extent, at local RTTs.) People show up with what they have, and the "normal" 40k hobbiest, in my experience, has 1-2 armies, built up over years, and doesn't make drastic changes very often.

Less than half the armies at my prelim round were mechanized. The top 3 tables in round 3 had foot orks, 2 Tyranids, 1 mech Guard, 1 mixed Guard, and dual-lash oblit spam (with 4 rhinos, and 2 foot CSM squads).

The problem wasn't that Mech could win the first easier but lose the third easier, it was that Mech, if good, had a better chance at a major win. Footslogging had a huge advantage to massacre in the third. Very few games that I've heard about weren't massacres in mission 3, which is at least some evidence that it was a lousy mission.

And I think it was a lousy mission. 'Ard boys has always rewarded the player with a deep bench, that can bring 2500pts of steak without resorting to sizzle. This years was an extreme version: if you could bring a solid 2500 foot slogging list, you had a big advantage.

While I find the position that the missions were "balanced" untenable, it was fair. Everybody had the same opportunities, nobody was surprised, and if some of use spent a week building a loganwing instead of running Mech IG, well, that's part of being 'Ard.

Something interesting... I was perusing the net & discovered that Danny came in 2nd place behind an ork army at his Ard Boyz preliminary. Kind of funny.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Something interesting... I was perusing the net & discovered that Danny came in 2nd place behind an ork army at his Ard Boyz preliminary. Kind of funny.

G

You have way too much time on your hands if you're taking time out of your day to research how other people who live across the country from you perform in tournaments.

2/10 for trolling, only because some of the more gullible people here will jump on your "research"

It would appear then that the actual discussion of the relevant scenarios ended some time ago and we are, astonishingly enough, re-hashing old disagreements and taking cheap shots at each other. Which means this thread has served it's purpose kudos to those who stayed on topic.