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.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If GW made 40k like AoS, I'd have no problem. Except for the fact that I still can't buy a 3rd edition BRB in a brick and mortar non GW store.

I think if GW was smart they would allow you to soup like AoS.

Soup doesn't work in 40k because it leaves factions like T'au and Necrons out being Johnny Nomates while the Imperiums gets to cherry pick from like 50% of the factions in the game.

Tau seem really easy to justify souping with, between the covenant motif and already having accepted humans in the lore.

Necrons? I desperately want a Necron/Digganob army. Not sure if they'd be human models painted like orks or orks painted like humans, but I want it anyway.

I understand the appeal of monofactions for balancing. However, as evidenced by this thread and those alike, GW can't really be trusted to actually balance and blatantly imbalance for profit; *cough* codex creep *cough cough*. So why not just give us some soup; it's good for the soul.

Edit:
I just double checked, one is supposed to us Wulfen models since they are misnamed Digganobz.

TreeSparr wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If GW made 40k like AoS, I'd have no problem. Except for the fact that I still can't buy a 3rd edition BRB in a brick and mortar non GW store.

I think if GW was smart they would allow you to soup like AoS.

Soup doesn't work in 40k because it leaves factions like T'au and Necrons out being Johnny Nomates while the Imperiums gets to cherry pick from like 50% of the factions in the game.

Tau seem really easy to justify souping with, between the covenant motif and already having accepted humans in the lore.

Necrons? I desperately want a Necron/Digganob army. Not sure if they'd be human models painted like orks or orks painted like humans, but I want it anyway.

I understand the appeal of monofactions for balancing. However, as evidenced by this thread and those alike, GW can't really be trusted to actually balance and blatantly imbalance for profit; *cough* codex creep *cough cough*. So why not just give us some soup; it's good for the soul.

Edit:
I just double checked, one is supposed to us Wulfen models since they are misnamed Digganobz.

Member when soup was the boogie-man of 8th which was ruining the game? Cause I member arguing against this mindset.

Here’s the thing people somehow never learn for whatever reason, When you have a game with 20+ factions with unique units and rules, it makes it very hard for things to be balanced. This is doubly true when the company making these rules knows that good rules sells models, and need ways to get product off of their inventory shelves.

So the main complaint of soup was that it hurt list diversity because people would just pick and choose the best units from armies they could soup from. But here’s the thing; people pick and choose the best units they have access regardless of restrictions. It’s just without soup people will pick and choose armies that are the best rather than units. So rather than seeing various imperial soup builds, vs various chaos soups builds, vs various aeldari soup builds, we now see custodes vs thicc city, vs crusher stampedes.

In a way soup was the best equalizer in the games. By playing a few OP units any bad army could at least post an ok winrate. For example, in 8th if you where playing Blood angles you could at least soup a Castellan and all of sudden have at a least semi-competitive list with a chance against many things. if you play blood angles now against the power armies like custodes or crusher stampede, well sorry you will just lose against somebody who’s even a slightly worse player than you. Better buy a new army or pretend you’re a different marine chapter. Which, incidentally, is a big reason why so many people play marines. Other armies like CSM don’t get this chapter changing Luxury. Right now you just need to buy a new army to win if you play CSM.

You can even see in this stats. During 8th LVO’s most armies sat in a range of 45%-55% win-rates. Armies above 60% where considered problematic, whereas armies under 40% where considered very bad and in need of an update. Generally, there were maybe 4-5 factions under 40%, but only 1-2 heavily played armies usually posted above 60%. Ynnari for example had around a 63% winrate and people where screaming “Broken!” While Castellan soup lists posted around a 57% rate post initial nerfs. Nowadays, you’re seeing all good armies post above 55% win rates, all real contenders above 60%, and most of the rest of the field posting sub-50% winrates,

This a long way of saying; Soup wasn’t the reason armies where similar in 8th, people wanting to play the best units/armies where the reason armies where similar in 8th (and now). It was just easier for everyone to play the best units back in 8th, now you need to be playing the best armies to stand a chance. So rather than seeing less unit variety, we see less army variety.

Spoletta wrote:


- Big nerf to the dark kin. Talos and Cronos lose CORE and artist of flash no longer works on vehicles.
- Minor nerf to sisters. You can use only one armorium cherub per turn.
- Nerf to orkz. Truckboyz can't charge after disembark. Also, 2 killsaws only provide 1 additional attack.
- Nerf to Grey Knight. Like above, 2 falchions only provide one additional attack.
- Nerf to drop pods. Units disembarking from drop pods (and bug pods) count as arriving from reserves.

So basically nothing.

Pair of weapons granting +2A was an obvious mistake, it needed to be fixed. Not sure how many players were exploting that mistake though. Trukk boyz are unaffected by the FAQ, re-read their rules and the changes. Talos and Cronos losing CORE is almost irrelevant, we're talking about very minor buffs here.

One cherub per turn doesn't really change anything and why is the change to the pods an actual nerf?

 the_scotsman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Welp, looks like Talos are dead.

Can you explain why, exactly? Sincerely I think there must be something Im missing. They're a monster, not a vehicle, so the AotF restriction doesn't hit them, and CORE as far as I can find is literally only a thing that maters in 2 places: 1 stratagem "cull the weak" or something which I've never used, and the +1T aura from the Haemie which does next to nothing for them. A bump from T6 to T7 is extremely slight.

AotF caught a nerf, which I think nobody is surprised by, but the nerf to talos/cronos strippign core honestly confused me. pourquoi? what does it do?

In terms of Talos losing Core, it means:
- They can no longer benefit from the Haemonculus' aura.
- They can no longer benefit from Urien's aura (so no more S8).
- They can no longer benefit from the Prey on the Weak stratagem.
- They can no longer use the An Esoteric Kill, Delivered from Afar stratagem (despite being specifically referenced by it ).
- They can no longer benefit from the Cronos' aura.
- They can no longer be healed or revived by the Cronos.
- They can no longer benefit from a RSR Archon's aura.
(Not an exhaustive list but you get the idea.)

Also, the AotF nerf isn't that it no longer affects vehicles but that it no longer works on S8+ weapons. Maybe not too bad on its own but then when you start to combine it with the loss of the Haemonculus' aura, I think the effects will start to compound.

However, even if you think Talos are still good enough for tournaments even with almost no synergy, I think the real loss will be for more casual players trying to build fun lists. Want to build a list that aims for that one-in-a-thousand game where a Cronos gets to resurrect a Talos? Tough, it doesn't work anymore. Want to build a Dark Creed list that hopes to Deliver an Esoteric Kill from Afar with a Talos' Heat Lances? Sorry, can't use that stratagem on them anymore. Want to build a RSR with an Archon leading a cluster of Talos? Nope, can't do that either. Nor even can Urien, the Master of Flesh, buff a unit of his Talos or Cronos creations.

Even if you think they're not competitively crippled by this change, it's just such an anti-fun way of going about it (especially in a book that's already lacking in synergies), compared to just raising their points.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Guard need just a whole bunch of rules to get on par...

"A whole bunch of rules". So, to put it another way, they need 10 pages of bloat to make them viable?

That doesn't sound like fixing to me...

There’s actually a bunch of smaller buffs you could give Guard literally just by changing numbers and adding/removing words in the Balance Dataslate and the FAQ.

Balance Dataslate:
- When using the Tank Orders ability of a <Regiment> Tank Commander model, you can select one friendly <Regiment> Vehicle unit (excluding Titanic units) within 18” of that <Regiment> Tank Commander model, instead of selecting a <Regiment> Leman Russ unit.

All we’ve done here is change the Tank Commander order range to 18 inch. The same as a vox-caster. It’s a tank, it has a radio.

Astra Militarum FAQ:
- Page 86 – Grinding Advance
Change to read:
‘If this model Remains Stationary or moves half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic) it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following Shooting phase (the turret weapon must target the same unit both times). The following weapons are turret weapons: battle cannon; eradicator nova cannon; exterminator autocannon; vanquisher battle cannon; demolisher cannon; executioner plasma cannon; punisher gatling cannon.’

All we’ve done is remove the word under. No more awkward 4.9” moves.

- Page 95 – Master of Ordnance, Master of Ballistics
Change to read:
‘Master of Ballistics: You can re-roll any hit rolls of 1 made
for friendly <Regiment> Basilisks, Wyverns, Manticores or Deathstrikes when they target enemy units over 18” away in the Shooting phase, if they are within 6" of this model.’

Just changing this to 18” from 36” immediately makes the MoO more viable.

- Page 104 – Ratlings, Find the Best Spot
Change this ability to read:
‘When you set up this unit during deployment, it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9” away from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models.’

Again, just another distance change. Making Ratlings actually usable in a forward deployment role.

- Page 134 – Aerial Spotter
Change the second sentence to read:
‘Select a Basilisk, Colossus Bombard, Medusa, or Wyvern model from your army.’

We’ve now just made this stratagem and the FW artillery more viable.

* * * * *

Done. That’s 5 simple changes, talking about 5 minutes of work to do. Would it make Imperial Guard OP or even top tier? No, but every bit helps.

 Blackie wrote:
Pair of weapons granting +2A was an obvious mistake, it needed to be fixed.

Is it though? I mean, is it fair to call it an 'obvious mistake' when there are weapons taken in pairs that do give more than one extra attack, whereas this ruling fixed (or 'fixed') weapons that come in pairs?

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We just got CA and new missions. We just had subfactions cut out. Custodes and GSC are barely out in the wind.

Making another set of sweeping changes is unnecessary and potentially foolish. This hits Thicc City - the worst list in the game. Are there any other specific lists that are particularly egregious right now? I don't think so.

Let people process the changes and new codexes and we'll get another dataslate in 3 months.

For fun, pretend you are sitting in a GW rules writers meeting as they are preparing Chapter Approved and mid tier designer Daedalus just finished saying something similar to the above to the room. Then sitting beside you the lead game designer stops chewing on his crayons for a moment and adds "but lets make sure we take a huge dump on Death Guard right now for no reason whatsoever".

Death Guard are my fourth choice faction in terms of power and fifth choice faction in terms of coolness, I'm not salty about them being bad, I just keep track of their rules and I can't comprehend why they keep beating on them.

In fairness it's probably not for no reason. They were probably beating Cruddace's Imperial Guard too much so he made sure they suck forever. Welcome to Nerftown, population you and Tyranids.

 vipoid wrote:
Also, the AotF nerf isn't that it no longer affects vehicles but that it no longer works on S8+ weapons. Maybe not too bad on its own but then when you start to combine it with the loss of the Haemonculus' aura, I think the effects will start to compound.

Something that is S7 D2 is about 50% better and MM is about 40% better. It certainly isn't insignificant.

The real question surely is what did Autocannons did in a former life.

Salt donkey wrote:

In a way soup was the best equalizer in the games. By playing a few OP units any bad army could at least post an ok winrate. For example, in 8th if you where playing Blood angles you could at least soup a Castellan and all of sudden have at a least semi-competitive list with a chance against many things. if you play blood angles now against the power armies like custodes or crusher stampede, well sorry you will just lose against somebody who’s even a slightly worse player than you. Better buy a new army or pretend you’re a different marine chapter. Which, incidentally, is a big reason why so many people play marines. Other armies like CSM don’t get this chapter changing Luxury. Right now you just need to buy a new army to win if you play CSM.

You can even see in this stats. During 8th LVO’s most armies sat in a range of 45%-55% win-rates. Armies above 60% where considered problematic, whereas armies under 40% where considered very bad and in need of an update. Generally, there were maybe 4-5 factions under 40%, but only 1-2 heavily played armies usually posted above 60%. Ynnari for example had around a 63% winrate and people where screaming “Broken!” While Castellan soup lists posted around a 57% rate post initial nerfs. Nowadays, you’re seeing all good armies post above 55% win rates, all real contenders above 60%, and most of the rest of the field posting sub-50% winrates,

This a long way of saying; Soup wasn’t the reason armies where similar in 8th, people wanting to play the best units/armies where the reason armies where similar in 8th (and now). It was just easier for everyone to play the best units back in 8th, now you need to be playing the best armies to stand a chance. So rather than seeing less unit variety, we see less army variety.

Except that isn't true. You have Necrons, Tau and Orkz with a grand total of....0 Allies. So when Soup was in ascendance those factions were FETHED. You also have Tyranids with 1 ally GSC. Same thing is mostly true for them. So of all the Xenos armies, the only one which could "soup" was Eldar/DE/Harlies. Soup was terrible for the game because the balance factor went to hell. And at LVO it was just the same 2-3 lists appearing all the damn time with slight variations. LVO this year wasn't much better but it was better.

 Blackie wrote:

So basically nothing.

Pair of weapons granting +2A was an obvious mistake, it needed to be fixed. Not sure how many players were exploting that mistake though. Trukk boyz are unaffected by the FAQ, re-read their rules and the changes. Talos and Cronos losing CORE is almost irrelevant, we're talking about very minor buffs here.

One cherub per turn doesn't really change anything and why is the change to the pods an actual nerf?

In fairness though, wtf! Right now a Meganob is 30pts Its 3 attacks at S10 -3AP 2dmg. if you pay 10pts you LOSE your ranged weapon and gain....1 extra attack and upgrade (kind of) your attacks from -3AP 2dmg to -4AP D3dmg. So in reality you are gaining +1 attack and -1AP while LOSING your ranged weapon. Honestly it only makes sense that this upgrade would give +2 attacks instead of +1. Mind you, I don't play meganobz so it was irrelevant to me, it just seems rather stupid that they have to pay 10pts or 33% their cost to gain 33% more attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
The real question surely is what did Autocannons did in a former life.

What did they do? 8th edition Ork Loota bomb. It was ok, not super OP competitive, but for orkz it gave us a chance at being a gunline. And in typical Competitive 40k Fashion, the entire non-ork community flipped out. "ORKZ CAN'T HAVE GOOD THINGS!" And shortly thereafter they were nuked from orbit. In 9th they made them worse somehow. Another great example of orkz not getting nice things, Kommandos just took a 20% nerf in the face while Drukhari, you know the faction thats dominated for most of a year, yeah they took a 10pt nerf to Incubi, but than got a 10pt BUFF on the damn transport they most often ride in ridiculous.

SemperMortis wrote:

In fairness though, wtf! Right now a Meganob is 30pts Its 3 attacks at S10 -3AP 2dmg. if you pay 10pts you LOSE your ranged weapon and gain....1 extra attack and upgrade (kind of) your attacks from -3AP 2dmg to -4AP D3dmg. So in reality you are gaining +1 attack and -1AP while LOSING your ranged weapon. Honestly it only makes sense that this upgrade would give +2 attacks instead of +1. Mind you, I don't play meganobz so it was irrelevant to me, it just seems rather stupid that they have to pay 10pts or 33% their cost to gain 33% more attacks.

I think with the Tau point brackets it shouldn't be beyond them to make Killsaws +5/+0 after this nerf.

@Semper Mortis except that both Tau and orks had strong showings during periods of 8th (in fact Tau where strong most of the edition post codex).

In 8th we had; pure knights, Castellan imperial soup, Tau, orks, GSC, hivemind soup, bash brother list, Tson + plague bearer soup, Space marine 2.0, custodes gunline, IG, Ynnari, DE soup, and cultists spam. This doesn’t even mention all the degenerate stuff Wild West early 8th had (G-man with assassins/stormravens, malefic lord spam, triple exalted FW demon builds, conscript spam).

9th we have had salamanders, Tyranids, DE, Harliquins, ad-mech, and now custodes be OP. Last LVO you needed to play either hivemind, Drukhari, or custodes in order to have >50% winrate (orks where at 52%, but lost against any of these big 3. These 3 factions where also by far the most played, meaning it wasn’t just a few good players propping up their stats.

So we went from most armies sitting at a 50% with a few outliers at 60% and 40% to most armies sitting at a 45% with a few heavily played armies sitting at 60%. Not great balance at all.

Salt donkey wrote:
@Semper Mortis except that both Tau and orks had strong showings during periods of 8th (in fact Tau where strong most of the edition post codex).

In 8th we had; pure knights, Castellan imperial soup, Tau, orks, GSC, hivemind soup, bash brother list, Tson + plague bearer soup, Space marine 2.0, custodes gunline, IG, Ynnari, DE soup, and cultists spam. This doesn’t even mention all the degenerate stuff Wild West early 8th had (G-man with assassins/stormravens, malefic lord spam, triple exalted FW demon builds, conscript spam).

9th we have had salamanders, Tyranids, DE, Harliquins, ad-mech, and now custodes be OP. Last LVO you needed to play either hivemind, Drukhari, or custodes in order to have >50% winrate (orks where at 52%, but lost against any of these big 3. These 3 factions where also by far the most played, meaning it wasn’t just a few good players propping up their stats.

So we went from most armies sitting at a 50% with a few outliers at 60% and 40% to most armies sitting at a 45% with a few heavily played armies sitting at 60%. Not great balance at all.

Harlies haven't been OP in the same sense that DE are OP. Same with Salamanders. Custodes -- we'll see. It's really hard to suss out the data for everything, because BCP recording was a little bit of the wild west back then so "Astra Militarum" can be Castellan, IG, and Marines in 2018.



Anyway...I can't really agree with your assertion. The 70+ column is highlighted to show higher numbers in red and the 50+ column is higher numbers in green - so the more 70 is bad. This gets real sketchy now when you have multiple varieties of DE that show at this level of detail. I can join stuff to make one Drukhari listing, but then the history gets skewed when Ynnari gets eaten by Asuryani.

Certainly more people can fall below 40 or 30% in 9th, because we're dealing with an entirely different dynamic that puts old books at a disadvantage.

No offense to the above poster but, I have no idea of what you are trying to say with your colorful chart. The only thing that is clear is that it is a tracking of something or things within a specified date. There is no telling what the chart represents. For all I know it could be the TV ratings for the Beverly Hill Billies as seen by people in Ulan Bator.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No offense to the above poster but, I have no idea of what you are trying to say with your colorful chart. The only thing that is clear is that it is a tracking of something or things within a specified date. There is no telling what the chart represents. For all I know it could be the TV ratings for the Beverly Hill Billies as seen by people in Ulan Bator.

Just hit that ignore button and you'll never see those stupid charts again.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No offense to the above poster but, I have no idea of what you are trying to say with your colorful chart. The only thing that is clear is that it is a tracking of something or things within a specified date. There is no telling what the chart represents. For all I know it could be the TV ratings for the Beverly Hill Billies as seen by people in Ulan Bator.

Just hit that ignore button and you'll never see those stupid charts again.

It's a considerable amount of data that is quite difficult to process and display so you guys will have to grant me a little leniency for taking the considerable amount of time to put the data together. I'm quite happy to answer questions to less condescending donkey-caves.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No offense to the above poster but, I have no idea of what you are trying to say with your colorful chart. The only thing that is clear is that it is a tracking of something or things within a specified date. There is no telling what the chart represents. For all I know it could be the TV ratings for the Beverly Hill Billies as seen by people in Ulan Bator.

Its Daed. I'm honestly not sure if he thinks meaningless charts are useful answers, or if its an intentional effort to bury conversations he doesn't like in garbage.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I mean sure, thicc city needed to go. But this feels so thin it was scarcely worth releasing.

Yeah. Just like the "balance updates" in CA. They apparently think everything is "A-OK" I guess. Or they just aren't trying very hard.

Let's be a little more reasonable here.

We just got CA and new missions. We just had subfactions cut out. Custodes and GSC are barely out in the wind.

Making another set of sweeping changes is unnecessary and potentially foolish. This hits Thicc City - the worst list in the game. Are there any other specific lists that are particularly egregious right now? I don't think so.

Let people process the changes and new codexes and we'll get another dataslate in 3 months.

I didn't say anything about "sweeping changes". But as Unit said, nerfing a strong tournament list doesn't help casual players. As more and more new codexes come out, older factions and units in older books keep falling further behind, and it gets less and less fun for anyone playing those. As you yourself said:

Daedalus81 wrote:Certainly more people can fall below 40 or 30% in 9th, because we're dealing with an entirely different dynamic that puts old books at a disadvantage.

Gw needs to stop just focusing on the "tournament meta" and a few hand picked units here and there and start looking at how everything compares to the new stuff. And when we're talking about "old books", that doesn't just mean 8th edition codexes, early books like Death Guard need some help, not nerfs. Between CA and the balance dataslate they can address the codex creep through either points or rules updates, but they didn't seem interested in doing either this time around.

Edit: Well that's bad timing. Ok, I am NOT part of whatever argument you're having with those other posters up there.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No offense to the above poster but, I have no idea of what you are trying to say with your colorful chart. The only thing that is clear is that it is a tracking of something or things within a specified date. There is no telling what the chart represents. For all I know it could be the TV ratings for the Beverly Hill Billies as seen by people in Ulan Bator.

Just hit that ignore button and you'll never see those stupid charts again.

It's a considerable amount of data that is quite difficult to process and display so you guys will have to grant me a little leniency for taking the considerable amount of time to put the data together. I'm quite happy to answer questions to less condescending donkey-caves.

The issue, I think, is that it's very hard to tell what we're actually looking at.

Some labels on the respective axes might help to clarify matters.

The Y axis appears to be months. Okay. But I have absolutely no idea what the X axis is supposed to be. We have numbers ranging from 70+ to <30, then a COUNT column that doesn't appear to correspond to anything (I initially thought that it was the total of the preceding columns, yet the total for the very first line is 93, whilst the COUNT is 60). Then we have percentages that might or might not be the same data presented in a different way.

I'm not trying to be obtuse - I genuinely have no clue what this data is or what it's supposed to show.

Even if you think it's obvious and I'm just an idiot, I strongly recommend properly labelling both the axes and also including a summary of exactly what the chart is about.

Salt donkey wrote:
@Semper Mortis except that both Tau and orks had strong showings during periods of 8th (in fact Tau where strong most of the edition post codex).

In 8th we had; pure knights, Castellan imperial soup, Tau, orks, GSC, hivemind soup, bash brother list, Tson + plague bearer soup, Space marine 2.0, custodes gunline, IG, Ynnari, DE soup, and cultists spam. This doesn’t even mention all the degenerate stuff Wild West early 8th had (G-man with assassins/stormravens, malefic lord spam, triple exalted FW demon builds, conscript spam).

9th we have had salamanders, Tyranids, DE, Harliquins, ad-mech, and now custodes be OP. Last LVO you needed to play either hivemind, Drukhari, or custodes in order to have >50% winrate (orks where at 52%, but lost against any of these big 3. These 3 factions where also by far the most played, meaning it wasn’t just a few good players propping up their stats.

So we went from most armies sitting at a 50% with a few outliers at 60% and 40% to most armies sitting at a 45% with a few heavily played armies sitting at 60%. Not great balance at all.

That just isn't true though. Tau were garbage in 8th. Tau finished in the top 8 in 2019 at LVO and the entire community was FLOORED by this. Orkz were played at the highest level by several of the biggest names in 40k like Nick Nanavati and Steve Pampreen and both failed to make it into the top 10 at LVO (16th and 17th overall, next ork player was Matt Root in 80th place). And that is before Lootas got beaten to death with the nerf stick

That same LVO that Tau somehow made it to the top 8 was heavily IG/Castellans and Eldar Flying circus builds in the top placings. 6 of the top 10 were IG/Eldar.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No offense to the above poster but, I have no idea of what you are trying to say with your colorful chart. The only thing that is clear is that it is a tracking of something or things within a specified date. There is no telling what the chart represents. For all I know it could be the TV ratings for the Beverly Hill Billies as seen by people in Ulan Bator.

Its Daed. I'm honestly not sure if he thinks meaningless charts are useful answers, or if its an intentional effort to bury conversations he doesn't like in garbage.

Oh hey! Another donkey-cave!

Its not exactly the first (or even 25th) time you've posted a pile unlabeled numbers with no commentary or analysis and passed it off as a legitimate response to a (tangentially) related topic.
It tends to lead threads down a deadend discussion of what's basically... nothing. So its really better if people are encouraged to skip past it. Stats without context are either worthless or (un)intentionally misleading, and its not worth giving the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No offense to the above poster but, I have no idea of what you are trying to say with your colorful chart. The only thing that is clear is that it is a tracking of something or things within a specified date. There is no telling what the chart represents. For all I know it could be the TV ratings for the Beverly Hill Billies as seen by people in Ulan Bator.

Its Daed. I'm honestly not sure if he thinks meaningless charts are useful answers, or if its an intentional effort to bury conversations he doesn't like in garbage.

Oh hey! Another donkey-cave!

Its not exactly the first (or even 25th) time you've posted a pile unlabeled numbers with no commentary or analysis and passed it off as a legitimate response to a (tangentially) related topic.
It tends to lead threads down a deadend discussion of what's basically... nothing. So its really better if people are encouraged to skip past it. Stats without context are either worthless or (un)intentionally misleading, and its not worth giving the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Yea, well, I often post things really quickly and I sort of intend for the information to flow from the previous post so I get where it can be confusing and I'll try to spend more time elaborating. Sometimes it's just quick, because there's a lot going on in my head.

This is the insanity I'm looking at and the numbers previously reference the factions with win rates in those particular brackets.



So I'll try to be more clear in the future, but I'd also appreciate people just ask clarifying questions without being insulting.