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.

Nurglitch: What we have here, I'm afraid is a failure to communicate. I like what you're doing, and I do sincerely apologize for coming off adversarial while accusing you of being pompous and stiff. Here's why: you're an academic, schooled in a language for determining truth that I don't speak. I'm a law student, schooled in using evidence and rhetoric to sway a trier of fact that my assertion is more correct.

I think you've got some great ideas percolating, but alas none of us can hang with you while discussing them, especially since so many of them appear, at least, to be counterintuitive (I get what you mean about terminator's 5++ not always being an advantage, but let's be colloquial: the unit got a buff.)

I'll doff my hat and admit that it probably can't be shown with any rigor that composition has an effect on outcome. The question, of course, is what can be shown to be true with any rigor?

People don't assume they're being condescended to when physicists and mathematicians politely ask them to go study up a bit when they get asked why quantum-loop gravity rather than M-theory or why a 26-place polynomial is required to compute prime numbers.

Wanna bet? My first reaction would be to question their motives. After all my math teacher taught me that (that whole damn lies and statistics rearing its ugly head again). If you can’t boil your argument down to a clear, concise point, then that’s your fault, not the listener.

jfrazell wrote:

People don't assume they're being condescended to when physicists and mathematicians politely ask them to go study up a bit when they get asked why quantum-loop gravity rather than M-theory or why a 26-place polynomial is required to compute prime numbers.

Wanna bet? My first reaction would be to question their motives. After all my math teacher taught me that (that whole damn lies and statistics rearing its ugly head again). If you can’t boil your argument down to a clear, concise point, then that’s your fault, not the listener.

to be fair it's often hard to pare down a doctrine or theory to the point where it can be easily understood without losing some of it's flavor and complexity. It's possible to make something look simple, but you can't make something be simple.

Blackmoor’s Beliefs II

I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong.
I believe that you can build an army from any codex and win.
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT.
I believe that there are no bad armies, only bad match ups.

I have seen all kinds of armies out there that do well, and everyone is surprised by there success. Take for example GTs. There are a lot of armies at the top or win, and you see the list and wonder how they did it.

Blackmoor wrote:Blackmoor’s Beliefs II

I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong.
I believe that you can build an army from any codex and win.
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT.
I believe that there are no bad armies, only bad match ups.

I have seen all kinds of armies out there that do well, and everyone is surprised by there success. Take for example GTs. There are a lot of armies at the top or win, and you see the list and wonder how they did it.

QFT. I agree with all of these. The rub, of course, lay in belief #4.

Is Nidzilla simply better than IG, or does it match up better with a great % of tournament lists? Since the Ork codex was finally disposed of, I doubt there are any truly bad codices out there (Even DH can take IG. Pure Grey Knights isn't a codex, it's a build).

Blackmoor wrote:
I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong. [1]
I believe that you can build an army from any codex and win. [2]
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT. [3]
I believe that there are no bad armies, only bad match ups. [4]

1- Most likely, this is the case.
2- Sure you will win, but how often will you win? 1/10 games? 1/20?
3- Sure, you absolutely could take any army and have a non-zero chance of doing well. But if you took that list to 20 gt's, how many could you reasonably expect to do well at? It definitely CAN happen. It almost definitely will not happen very often.
4- I agree- how could something be bad in a vacuum? There's no such thing as bad when there's nothing better it's compared to.

There's a new rule rumor posted about 5th edition, it states that the winner of every game of 40k is to be decided by who has the most Monstrous Creatures in play at the end of the game.

Do all codexes have an equal chance of winning now?

Polonius wrote:Nurglitch: What we have here, I'm afraid is a failure to communicate. I like what you're doing, and I do sincerely apologize for coming off adversarial while accusing you of being pompous and stiff.

So don't apologize, work with me on building lines of communication.

Polonius wrote:Here's why: you're an academic, schooled in a language for determining truth that I don't speak. I'm a law student, schooled in using evidence and rhetoric to sway a trier of fact that my assertion is more correct.

Being clever with rhetoric does not mean one cannot employ the methods of truth.

Polonius wrote:I think you've got some great ideas percolating, but alas none of us can hang with you while discussing them, especially since so many of them appear, at least, to be counterintuitive (I get what you mean about terminator's 5++ not always being an advantage, but let's be colloquial: the unit got a buff.)

It is untrue that you can't discuss these things. If you can do arithmetic than you are familiar with the methods I'm employing here. The subject is wide and deep and difficult, not impossible. One reason for doing it this way is to avoid the error that build up via colloquial modes of conversation. Take the example of the Terminators. They got a 5++ save. Not a buff, an advantage, an improvement, or anything but an additional 5++ save. Truth is easy. All it takes is patience and care.

Polonius wrote:I'll doff my hat and admit that it probably can't be shown with any rigor that composition has an effect on outcome. The question, of course, is what can be shown to be true with any rigor?

Well just bowing out having been bullied into accepting a position without argument is worse than bullying someone into agreeing with you. Either way you're accepting something fallaciously, via an appeal to authority.

As for the second question: All statements about mathematical structures such as games that are made according to logics that admit truth.

Nurglitch wrote:[The tournament data is not a representative sample, and it's hardly been rigorously tracked (we could not, for example, google up the board arrangements from past grand tournaments).

Of course it is, you're just not willing to accept the ramifications of those results. You're revealing your own bias.

The results would be representative of tournament results in a given period of time. By analyzing those results trends can be shown. Simply put, holding the rules constant will yield a certain number of GT tourneys. If Eldar have greater scores per game than Kroot Mercs, then on its face its an indicator that Eldar are superior in tournaments. Obviously more games would lead to a greater confidence level, but nevertheless it is an indicator.

Will it reflect if Mech eldar are better than troopy guard? No, in that instance you are correct-we do not have enough granularity for that. Would it reflect onto standard RTTs? No, although conclusions could be drawn in that direction. would it stand up against a much larger sampling of games? Again no, however the conclusion is not designed to.

jfrazell wrote:Wanna bet? My first reaction would be to question their motives. After all my math teacher taught me that (that whole damn lies and statistics rearing its ugly head again). If you can’t boil your argument down to a clear, concise point, then that’s your fault, not the listener.

I'd bet money on that, seeing as it's a sure thing. If it wasn't then your math teacher wasted your time by not distilling the essence of mathematics down into a pithy phrase for you to memorize and instead requiring you to learn a variety methods and practice them.

That's the entire point of computer science, that some mathematical structures are so complex that they require mechanical assistance to compute. There was a philosophical myth that Alan Turing dispelled when he formalized computer science, that went something like: Given any problem the power of the mind is such that it will admit succinct solution, which is balderdash. Still, imposing an aesthetic sense of parsimony in young math students is always a good thing, if only to make marking easier. Incidentally that's also why there's an argument in the mathematics right now (well, for a while now) about the validity of computer-assisted proofs like the one about the four-colour theorem. Basically these proofs are too long to be humanly checked, but if you check them with a computer you're just begging the question about whether the method of computation will produce a valid proof.

Anyhow, the point is that communication requires a transmitter, a medium, and receiver (to put it crudely), and where miscommunication occurs the error can be attributed to between 1 and 3 of those things.

How is this still on topic? Well, an interesting thing about statements is that you can typically predict the value of their "abstract nonsense" by figuring out how you think about them. Incidentally that's the motivation for category theory, in case anyone was interested...

Blackmoor’s Beliefs II (Amended)

I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong.
I believe that a good player can make a winning list out of any codex that suits their play style.
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT. (70+ battle points)
I believe that there are not bad codexes, only bad match ups.

Amended for clarification.

Blackmoor wrote:Blackmoor’s Beliefs II (Amended)

I believe that there is a groupthink about power lists that is wrong.
I believe that a good player can make a winning list out of any codex that suits their play style.
I believe that I can take DA, IA and DH and do well with them at a GT. (70+ battle points)
I believe that there are no bad pizza pies, only bad fillings
Amended for clarification.

Fixed your belief system

I'd bet money on that, seeing as it's a sure thing. If it wasn't then your math teacher wasted your time by not distilling the essence of mathematics down into a pithy phrase for you to memorize and instead requiring you to learn a variety methods and practice them.

I do believe I've just been insulted. My opinion of you, well stayed the same.

jfrazell wrote:Of course it is, you're just not willing to accept the ramifications of those results. You're revealing your own bias.

Okay, how is it a relevant sample? What is it a relevant sample of? Or, surprise surprise, did you misunderstand the scope of my statement?

jfrazell wrote:The results would be representative of tournament results in a given period of time. By analyzing those results trends can be shown. Simply put, holding the rules constant will yield a certain number of GT tourneys. If Eldar have greater scores per game than Kroot Mercs, then on its face its an indicator that Eldar are superior in tournaments. Obviously more games would lead to a greater confidence level, but nevertheless it is an indicator.

Yup, it turns out you did. I was pointing out that the tournament data was not a representative sample of the games played in total. If you're going to play statistics then you need to state the confidence level, explain how you're holding the dice factor constant, and then explain the algorithm you're using to filter out that noise. I recommend a recent one that a friend of mine developed to track sea turtles, which is very very handy for dealing with the sort of deviation that the GW dice will impose. Supposing that you're going to limit your conclusions to the tournament circuit you're also going to have to find a way of tracking the configurations of terrain and figuring out a way to hold this variable steady when its abstraction results in a net loss of information about the armies acting over it.

jfrazell wrote:Will it reflect if Mech eldar are better than troopy guard? No, in that instance you are correct-we do not have enough granularity for that. Would it reflect onto standard RTTs? No, although conclusions could be drawn in that direction. would it stand up against a much larger sampling of games? Again no, however the conclusion is not designed to.

So yes, what I said seems to be true then, because if the scope of the conclusion is limited to tournaments and not the entire game then the tournament data is not mere an un-representative sample of the tournament games, it is unrepresentative of the state of the Game.

jfrazell wrote:Will it reflect if Mech eldar are better than troopy guard? No, in that instance you are correct-we do not have enough granularity for that. Would it reflect onto standard RTTs? No, although conclusions could be drawn in that direction. would it stand up against a much larger sampling of games? Again no, however the conclusion is not designed to.

jfrazell wrote:I do believe I've just been insulted. My opinion of you, well stayed the same.

Your belief is false, and your opinion of me is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

As is yours to the topic.

I've posted my beliefs?

Which distract from the topic, "who's going to be top tier in 5th,"

Nurglitch wrote:

Asmodai wrote:We are? You should have said that three pages ago.

In the real world it tends to go without saying, unless one is currently at a meeting of the debate club...

Asmodai wrote:When the advantage comes for free, it's hard to argue that it's not an advantage (e.g. with Terminators).

It's not hard. It's a simple matter of not presuming it to be an advantage, and then not presuming what it is to be universalized. Somewhat easier to do when one employs first-order logic and the predicate and quantity is explicit.

Asmodai wrote:Answering your question from above, I think it depends. In some situations army composition will be overwhelming (e.g. a tournament played without terrain using VPs only to evaluate the winner).

Other times it will be almost irrelevant (Tau vs. Space Marines in a mission where Skimmers can't move because of 'windshear' and the surface is a toxic goo causing each unit to take a S3 AP4 hit at the start of every turn).

Sure, but whether those statements are true is what we are trying to figure out. It might be that while the sentence in the first paragraph is false, the one in the second may be true, or both can be true, and so on.

Asmodai wrote:In a typical tournament army composition probably very influential on the results, but not determinative.

I love these kinds of statements. They're so carefully vague, and loaded with truisms. I don't want to sound insulting (though having said that someone has to be insulted, you, you there, you're insulted right?!), but how could we say that it is true that in a typical tournament army (what given value of "typical"?) composition is probably (what probability?) very influential (influential how? how much is 'very'?), but not determinative (what, so if it wasn't probably very influential, but improbably very influential, or probably not very influential, would the results would be the same?).

I use all of those words in their ordinary everyday meaning. That's more than sufficient precision for the topic at hand.

I sell computers. I sell them to system Techs, IT Co-ordinators, and on the rare occaision, a little old lady who wants to try 'that internet thingie'.

It is my assertion that I communicate for a living, if I cannot communicate effectively with the Client, in terms they understand, I am an idiot, NOT THEM.

So, if 'jargon' makes me feel more 'intelligent'-I am decieving myself. Al the person hears at the other end of the conversation is"Blah/waffle/Rhubarb"

Which makes me an Idiot, for wasting thier time and mine.

Oh, as for top-tier lists in 5th Ed-just look for loopholes in the main rulebook, and pick your army list accordingly.

So no DS, 2 flamers per squad, no missile launchers, 10 man squads, no assault cannons(nerfed-FTW)!

It only really matters to me if they release 'Redux'-and have not taken the 5th Ed rules into account*shudder*............

To the topic. I'd posit that lists which maximize infantry power and speed will be more effective (yes a duh moment). I'm thinking pack born BA's as an example. I'm not convinced that rhino rush will necessarily make a combat, and bolter rush only slightly gains. How does this impact chaos forces?

I foresee the pending demon codex to be much stronger than previously thought: plethora of troops; fast attack units that may potentially be able to deepstrike in the army; otherwise nurglings or less expensive demons can hide their more powerful brethren.

jfrazell wrote:Which distract from the topic, "who's going to be top tier in 5th,"

So the absence of posting my beliefs distracts from the topic? Curious. I have posted some facts about reasoning to support the contention that the answer to the topic is always: "No one". Perhaps that is what you are erroneously referring to.

Asmodai wrote:I use all of those words in their ordinary everyday meaning. That's more than sufficient precision for the topic at hand.

No, unfortunately it's not. That's why mathematics and logic use symbols, because the use of words in their ordinary everyday meaning is informal and hence imprecise, even (especially) for the topic at hand. That is, of course, supposing we're interested in the truth rather than mere opinions of the colonic variety.

akira5665 wrote:It is my assertion that I communicate for a living, if I cannot communicate effectively with the Client, in terms they understand, I am an idiot, NOT THEM.

You are neither my clients nor my students and I refuse to talk down to you.

Nurglitch wrote:

Asmodai wrote:I use all of those words in their ordinary everyday meaning. That's more than sufficient precision for the topic at hand.

No, unfortunately it's not. That's why mathematics and logic use symbols, because the use of words in their ordinary everyday meaning is informal and hence imprecise, even (especially) for the topic at hand. That is, of course, supposing we're interested in the truth rather than mere opinions of the colonic variety.

I normally don't seek truth in assessing what miniatures armies are competitive. A wide-range of informed opinions is fine. I suggest that you're taking this way too seriously.

OK. We get it Nurglitch. You think there is balance between codexes (on its face is absurd with new rules coming out). Thats great and good for you.

Now back to the topic. Asmodai, how do you envision this potentially impacting BA and the rumored Demon codex?

jfrazell wrote:OK. We get it Nurglitch. You think there is balance between codexes (on its face is absurd with new rules coming out). Thats great and good for you.

Now back to the topic. Asmodai, how do you envision this potentially impacting BA and the rumored Demon codex?

Demons will be released with 5th edition in mind. I don't think anyone disputes that. From the rumours they'll have some shooting troops and some nice close combat units as Troops. This should make them competitive in the scoring units category.


Daemonettes initially seemed to be a no-brainer Troops choice, but with the changes to rending, I think they'll be about even with Bloodletters. I don't know enough of the details on the other units to comment. It's awfully hard to say how the 5th ed rumours will effect the Daemon rumours.

Blood Angels is an easier question to answer. I think they'll be extremely competitive. Assault Marines are great for displacing the enemy off the objective and it won't hurt to lose them as much in KP missions as most other races' assault units. The Furioso being able to run makes it more useful - although it'll still be a marginal choice. The Baal stays even - it's rending got worse and it can't move and fire, but it will benefit from cover. I think, overall, BA are right where they should be in 5th edition. (The current vogue build focusing on 5 man Veteran Assault Squads with tons of Powerfists probably will fall by the wayside.)

That was highly entertaining. But at least I now understand a bit more where Nurglitch is coming from. I can sorta see his point, but I think that in selecting a theory you've got to use whatever evidence you've got, as a proper, rigorous analysis is impossible or at least highly unfeasable in certain situations.
But I'm going to go read up on theory selection anyway.
(What confuses me the most is how a free situational advantage cannot be considered a power boost for the purposes of determining whether a unit has gotten better or worse. Is it about some unknowable context, where that situational advantage is cancelled out by another situational disadvantage to some other aspect of the list?)

Also, Nurglitch, I think you might have a nicer time discussing these issues if you refrained from using terms like groupthink and implying that we are all monkeys. That's just going to piss people off.

Asmodai wrote:I normally don't seek truth in assessing what miniatures armies are competitive. A wide-range of informed opinions is fine. I suggest that you're taking this way too seriously.

I don't think your suggestion has merit. Posting on an internet forum is pretty recreational. Serious would be writing a paper for an academic journal, or writing a grant proposal to study the topic. I'm just chattin' with my peeps, as it were. Opinions are nice, but truth is something you can work with, y'know?

Take this discussion of who's going to be the top tier army. Some people, perhaps clever people, are going to carefully note the consensus and buy accordingly. Other people are going to simple satisfy their own prejudices, and others might change their own opinions. It seems useful for all involved that their opinions be reckoned against the truth so that they buy well, are disabused of their prejudices, or change their opinions to something true rather than simply more convincing (which tends to mean whoever shouts the loudest or appeals to the favourite prejudices).

Baal's rending got worse?

Hmm it's twin linked BS4. Anytime you hit with 4 shots (which is most of the time) you still get 4 tries at rending.

Minutely worse, but it's still a great tank.

Think of 18" ram attacks. Yeah, sign me up!

Wow, you go away to work for a day and return to find a thread has evolved beyond all recognition. I'm really pleased about that because I love people intellectualising my hobby. I began as a kid because I loved the cool toy soldiers but as i grew older the reason I'm in the hobby is the huge mental stimulation it offers on every level (if you look for it).
I appreciate the discussion but my original question has perhaps been rendered slightly obsolete by the debate it spawned. Let me alter the question slightly then.

Whether or not they exist, many people percieve that there is a tier system in 40k in 4th ed. Based on what we hear that 5th ed might be, what do you think people might percieve those new tiers will become?

Da Boss wrote:That was highly entertaining. But at least I now understand a bit more where Nurglitch is coming from. I can sorta see his point, but I think that in selecting a theory you've got to use whatever evidence you've got, as a proper, rigorous analysis is impossible or at least highly unfeasible in certain situations.

It's traditional to abstain from applying a theory under conditions of insufficient evidence. Otherwise you're basically cutting the evidence to fit your theory. Which is generally considered bad. In a sense that's my argument why the top tier army won't exist. It won't exist for the same reason ghosts don't exist: despite many people holding strong opinions about ghosts and their existence there simply isn't enough information about them to start on a science of "ghostology" that isn't about all the things that people mistake for ghosts.

Da Boss wrote:But I'm going to go read up on theory selection anyway. (What confuses me the most is how a free situational advantage cannot be considered a power boost for the purposes of determining whether a unit has gotten better or worse. Is it about some unknowable context, where that situational advantage is cancelled out by another situational disadvantage to some other aspect of the list?)

Something you might want to read is "Faster than the Speed of Light" (http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257). Not directly applicable, but it's fun to see how these things actually play out (as opposed to the theories of how they should play out). It'll also give your reading some broader context beyond gaming. What you're calling a "free situational advantage" is just that, only an advantage in some situations. If something is not an advantage in some situations, it is not free (it's easy to put a price on nothing), and if something is an advantage in a situation its cost may be measured against a theoretical commiserate decrease in cost. In other words the cost of giving Terminators a 5++ save is equal to the difference between the points value of a Terminator without the 5++ in all of the situations, both where the 5++ save takes effect, and where the 5++ save does not take effect and a reduced points cost would have been preferable.

Da Boss wrote:Also, Nurglitch, I think you might have a nicer time discussing these issues if you refrained from using terms like groupthink and implying that we are all monkeys. That's just going to piss people off.

But 'groupthink' is the term used to describe what tends to go on in these forums. Someone says something, and in order to get along other people either agree or they disagree in a polite way that will allow them to maintain social standing. There's fascinating research out there showing how monkeys are incredibly stupid about analytic thinking but incredibly smart when it comes down to social thinking.

Monkeys and monkey-like animals such as humans, unless they do really weird things like learn how to count or have congenital deformities like autism and autism spectrum disorders, engage in groupthink for the most part because the sensitivities of the group are what is most apparent, and the truth is less important than getting along. Fortunately by applying principles of patience, care, and charity we can get along by not taking offense at attempts to grasp the truth and constructively criticize each other's attempts. Life is simply better where you don't take offense even when you could.

I mean sure, it'll piss people off, but people take offense at damn near everything unless you act like a properly servile beta monkey. In academia, at least, productivity is only possible where people grit their teeth and charitably suppose that not everyone has a team of writers to make their speeches pleasing and soothing to the listener's ear.

MrJones wrote:Whether or not they exist, many people percieve that there is a tier system in 40k in 4th ed. Based on what we hear that 5th ed might be, what do you think people might percieve those new tiers will become?

I think it will be less well defined. The current leaders get bumped down, and others get bumped up. As the game goes on, Orks comparative inability to deal with heavy armour will become more recognized. The boost to ordnance will also hurt them most.

Necrons will be very powerful out of the gate - but they'll be redone sooner rather than later so any dominance would be short-lived.

Marines will get both boosted and suffer drawbacks at the same time, so I'd expect them to remain equally popular. The recent Codexes seem remarkably balanced internally, so that's a positive sign. When Orks came out people complained about the lack of a Gretchin screen. Now it's back. The Eldar Elite choices for close combat troops make sense now with each of them bringing a unique element to the table. (And so on, it's all been discussed in other threads.)

I'm sure there'll still be tiers, but I hope they'll be less rigid and defined than they are currently.