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.

THIS IS ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL (Unless someone actually has the nerve/resources to pull this off) IF YOU SOMEHOW TAKE OFFENSE TO ANY CONTENT OF THIS THREAD (THAT WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE ORIGINAL TOPIC) THEN YOU ARE FOOLISHLY IMMATURE, AND I HATE YOU!

So, as I mentioned in Solon's thread about "Standard stat lines", I have been inspired to preform a theoretical social experiment (potentially in practice) to prove/show the diversity in CSM lists and how/why they would get there.

The basis of the experiment would be taking 21 people and handing them all copies of Codex: Chaos Space Marine(With all of the Fluff/Extra pics, including the "Starter Army" section that shows a 1500pt or so list, removed from the book), a Warhammer 40k 5th edition rule book, and 5-6 Standard competitve lists from other armies that exist in 40k (for instance, 3 meq 3 geq, none of the lists would be from Chaos Space Marines nor Codex Chaos Daemons).

Of the 21 people, there would be a sub-grouping of 3 seperate IQ levels

IQ115-129
IQ130-144
IQ145+

In these subgroups there would be 7 classifications:

1:Those with actual Warhammer 40k Experience

2:Those with Wargaming Experience (No Warhammer knowledge)

3:Those with Extensive Military Strategy Experience (No Warhammer knowledge)

4:Those with Extensive RTS Experience (No Warhammer knowledge)

5:Those who are die-hard Science Fiction fans (No Warhammer knowledge)

6:Those who are die-hard Fantasy fans (No Warhammer knowledge)

7:Those who have had no prior interest in anything remotely similar to Warhammer (Average Joe)

Give them their materials, and 2 hours to make a list.

What do you think the outcomes would be?

your study will be very underpowered with only 21 participants, any findings would be worthless.

Reaver83 wrote:your study will be very underpowered with only 21 participants, any findings would be worthless.

Studies with 20 randomly-selected participants are valid; you just won't have a terribly high confidence level (using that term in the statistical sense). More is better, but I would not underestimate a proper study that only had 20 randomly-selected participants.

Most would probably take either Abaddon or a Daemon Prince. Seeing the raw killing power would entice many players, I know I did when I saw the 4th Ed codex, *double daemon princes!? AWESOME* troop wise mostly cult troops as their statlines would appear better. Heavy Supports possibly Land Raiders or Defilers as their aesthetics of either giant killing machine or mobile fortress definitely wins points for those who haven't played before.

Over the years of going to a FLGS I base this knowledge on young ones starting chaos and their very first few games ALWAYS have these units so it potentially boils down to child fascination of something that looks cool without testing the units.

Kurgash wrote: troop wise mostly cult troops as their statlines would appear better.

this was the major aspect of the experiment, seeing which groups go with which cults.

Do the smart ones take Thousand sons (as the 4+ invul + ap 3 Bolters, as most things have armor 3+ or worse would be most appealing at face value) or the 4 attacks on the charge from Khorne Zerkers. Who would take the enhanced weaponry of the sound marines, or the stoic resilience of the Plague marines. Would any even bother with the risk assiociated with a Fabias Bile list? Would the power of Lash of Submission be present to the mind of a non-40k player.

What would the Military experts go with, etc. These are what I think would be most interesting. Something similar could also probably be done with Eldar (as they are also an EXTREMELY versitile army ((At least... on paper..........)))

To your average Joe, higher numbers (and greater quantities of numbers) would be more enticing. I think you'd see Daemon Princes, Plague Marines, Terminators, Dreadnoughts, and as many lascannons as you could fit into the army.

To your military man, synergy would be preferable. You'd see a solid mix of cult marines, each with a specific battlefield role. Redundancy would be apparent. Mobility would be a must - dedicated transports abound. Heavy weapons, which are less versatile, would be less prevalent.

To your RTS player, a calculated ratio of points to stats would be worked out. The units that could perceivably most easily pay for themselves would be used most often. Either decent numbers of survivable troops or large numbers of expendable troops. No glass cannons.

Die-hard Sci-fi fans would love vanilla Marines in Rhinos, Dreadnoughts, anything that screams "tech" and not "magic." Daemons would be a turnoff. Expect to see exactly zero Daemon Princes, zero Spawn, zero Summoned Lesser Daemons.

Die-hard Fantasy fans would be the polar opposite. 1k Sons would have some appeal, Daemons would find their way into their list pretty easily, and Sorcerors would make great HQs for them.

Those with wargaming experience, but no 40k experience, would be a crapshoot. It'd depend on the kinds of wargames they'd played. Mobility and mechanization might be their thing, footslogging infantry might be their thing, but do expect to see a themed army with very few deep strikers.

Finally, those with actual 40k experience would base their list on what they'd played and played against. It'd probably be a pretty competitive list, and they'd understand that you can't go wrong with plenty of firepower and mobility in a CSM army. They'd let the survivability of the troops speak for itself, and their upgrades would be mostly to increase their combat effectiveness. They'd have a balanced army with enough troops to hold objectives etc. etc.

That's what you'd see, in my opinion.

Chalk this up for what I said. Watched two youngsters *ages 13-15* going through my chaos codex as I played my game and asked me why I didn't take X unit or Y character, their reason for taking them was solely on the fact "they are awesome looking" units in question were Abbadon, Defilers and Possessed.

@Kurgash- Sometimes I miss feeling like that. :(

I (and most intelligence testers as well) would consider the division by IQ completely irrelevant. The idea of an IQ as a measure of intelligence has been losing validity for years. Intelligence Typing (Linguistic, Logical, Spatial, Body/movement, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalist) has been gradually replacing IQ as a measure of a person’s aptitudes. Where an IQ test may have, in part, been able to identify individuals capacity for logic (and may correlate strongly toward mathematical list optimization), there was almost no measure for Spatial intelligence (the capacity to understand how movement/unit footprint/cover would be of tactical/strategic value on the tabletop), Linguistic Intelligence (the ability to absorb written information in the form of special abilities, stat lines, grasping cost/benefit of being fearless, etc.) or Intrapersonal Intelligence (the ability to critically analyze the list creation process/outcome without bias)

I myself was tested to possess an extremely high IQ but I am completely inept in areas of musical composition and I have never been able to grasp the thinnest straws of a second language.

IQ is irrelevant as anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can build an army list but only people with in intuitive grasp of the game mechanics, strategy, tactics and unit optimization/balance can build a strong list.

I think the results of your test would be inconclusive because I believe the experimental technique is flawed from the onset.

Someone with an understanding of special concepts would be much more likely to comprehend the value in a dual lash list where someone with a mathematical intelligence might overlook the value of obliterators who, at first glance, appear to be over-costed for what they offer.

Incarna wins this thread.

incarna wrote:

IQ is irrelevant as anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can build an army list but only people with in intuitive grasp of the game mechanics, strategy, tactics and unit optimization/balance can build a strong list.

...

Someone with an understanding of special concepts would be much more likely to comprehend the value in a dual lash list where someone with a mathematical intelligence might overlook the value of obliterators who, at first glance, appear to be over-costed for what they offer.

Actually, based on what you have presented as your reasons why IQ alone would not make a successful test, the experiment would be far less inconclusive then if IQ remained out of the equation.

For starters, if you read the experiment, IQ is NOT the only variable on trail. IQ is a subcategory amongst the 7 primary categories of the sample base. If what you are saying about IQ is 100% correct, then the variances between the Higher IQ participants and the Lower IQ participants would yield quite substantial results.

I think the main assumption which lead to your misunderstanding was if "Higher IQ would = Better List" as a presumed outcome. Nowhere in my experiment do I make that miscalculation, to do so would place a strong bias on the experiment, and thus even if the results were conclusive, the tailored hypothesis would be meaningless to prove.

Also, if you do a bit of research, you will notice that the "Logical" centers of the brain and the "Creative" centers of the brain are in fact, separate entities, that rarely both function at the same capacity. This would infer that a "more logical" brain would lack the creativity of a "less logical" and conversely with a creative mind. (Barring of course, any sort of Mental deficiency, but even in these cases, some extraordinary creativity can be found in individuals suffering from such disabilities) IQ then would then be a decent vairible to test against based on your additional hypothesis of

"Someone with an understanding of special concepts would be much more likely to comprehend the value in a dual lash list where someone with a mathematical intelligence might overlook the value of obliterators who, at first glance, appear to be over-costed for what they offer."

which in itself is a good theory, but would require some testing to have any sort of actual backing (unless you have already done this, in which I would be interested to read your findings).

Now, moving on, @Reaver, while I COMPLETELY agree that 21 participants would be a rather small sample size, and thus, not nearly as conclusive as say... 210 participants. I would hardly say the findings would be "Worthless". I believe they would provide a base-line for further phases of experimentation, or even just a basic understanding of the concept in question. (Also, 21 is alot easier to do when you don't have; funding, facility, test subjects, etc. Basically, 21 is nicer to the Amateur Sociologist)

@Kurgash: Defilers not only look awesome, but they are a rather powerful unit, which I am sure you'd agree...

Anywho, I'm trying to convince work to "sponsor" me doing a small version of this "test" (I work for DoD, so maybe I could pass it off as combat tactics traning?) during some of my free time, if I can get them to agree, I will most certainly post results!

Any more proposed theoretical outcomes? (Or 'attempts' to show failure in experimental method?)

Hmm... DoD might classify your results if it proves awesome. However, as a former member of the military, I would love to see warhammer added to the strategy teaching methods haha.

I think that the Average Joe player may base their ideas on the aesthetics of the models rather than the stats. They would try to put the coolest looking models in their armies rather than the ones which would perform the best on the battlefield.
"Oh wow, these guys have Egyptian style helmets. Woah, look at this thing, it's like a giant mechanical spider!!"
Now don't get me wrong, this could possibly cause them to create an effective list, but it could have major downsides as well.

I agree with the above guy.
Average Joes would almost immediately go for stuff like the Defiler, based on it's badassery. I know I wanted to when I was a nipper.

themrsleepy wrote:Hmm... DoD might classify your results if it proves awesome. However, as a former member of the military, I would love to see warhammer added to the strategy teaching methods haha.

Even if they did, lol wikileaks

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

incarna wrote:
IQ is irrelevant as anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can build an army list but only people with in intuitive grasp of the game mechanics, strategy, tactics and unit optimization/balance can build a strong list.
...
Someone with an understanding of special concepts would be much more likely to comprehend the value in a dual lash list where someone with a mathematical intelligence might overlook the value of obliterators who, at first glance, appear to be over-costed for what they offer.

Actually, based on what you have presented as your reasons why IQ alone would not make a successful test, the experiment would be far less inconclusive then if IQ remained out of the equation.

For starters, if you read the experiment, IQ is NOT the only variable on trail. IQ is a subcategory amongst the 7 primary categories of the sample base. If what you are saying about IQ is 100% correct, then the variances between the Higher IQ participants and the Lower IQ participants would yield quite substantial results.

I think the main assumption which lead to your misunderstanding was if "Higher IQ would = Better List" as a presumed outcome. Nowhere in my experiment do I make that miscalculation, to do so would place a strong bias on the experiment, and thus even if the results were conclusive, the tailored hypothesis would be meaningless to prove.

It is the inclusion of IQ that invalidates the test as IQ only measures logic/mathematics in a limited way. Division by IQ is almost as meaningless as division by height or hair color.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Also, if you do a bit of research, you will notice that the "Logical" centers of the brain and the "Creative" centers of the brain are in fact, separate entities, that rarely both function at the same capacity. This would infer that a "more logical" brain would lack the creativity of a "less logical" and conversely with a creative mind. (Barring of course, any sort of Mental deficiency, but even in these cases, some extraordinary creativity can be found in individuals suffering from such disabilities) IQ then would then be a decent vairible to test against based on your additional hypothesis of

"Someone with an understanding of special concepts would be much more likely to comprehend the value in a dual lash list where someone with a mathematical intelligence might overlook the value of obliterators who, at first glance, appear to be over-costed for what they offer."

which in itself is a good theory, but would require some testing to have any sort of actual backing (unless you have already done this, in which I would be interested to read your findings).

That’s actually not accurate. While you are correct that logic is processed on the left side of the brain and creativity is processed on the right side of the brain and that one is usually dominant over the other, the corpus collosum keeps both halves in constant communication and both halves of a brain are used to interface with reality simultaneously through our senses. Your inference that a logic/creative preference correlates to a creative/logic deficiency has been long known to be invalid. To summarize, logical people are just as likely to be as creatively minded as anyone else despite their preference for logic and creative people are just as likely to be logically minded as anyone else despite their preference for creativity.

And, as a side note, of course I haven’t done any experimentation in regard to 40k and intelligence typing though my experience as a teacher and my education lead me to believe such an assumption is reasonable if untested. I have no interest in actually testing it but I can make the point in support of my argument because the inference is reasonable.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Anywho, I'm trying to convince work to "sponsor" me doing a small version of this "test" (I work for DoD, so maybe I could pass it off as combat tactics traning?) during some of my free time, if I can get them to agree, I will most certainly post results!

Any more proposed theoretical outcomes? (Or 'attempts' to show failure in experimental method?)

Please don’t take this as an insult but if you want anyone at the DoD to take your experiment seriously, you need to brush up on our modern understanding of how we use our brain, IQ, intelligence typing, and information processing. Another term for “creativity” is “abstract thought” and 40K is as much a game of abstraction as it is logic. Don’t take my input as attacking you or your hypothesis or your experiment (although I am questioning the validity of your experiment and its potential results), welcome it.