Switch Theme:

Tournament Results Does Not Equal Power Level of Codex  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest






Why do people look at recent tournament results and use that to determine if a codex is broken? Before you look at factions look at the names of the people who win or place in the top 8. After you have eliminated the pro-players and take them out of the equation, look at the representation then.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/gauv32ax

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

It is the same players on the same teams winning these tournaments. If every Art of War and Team Battle-Brother player were to go to events for an entire month straight using only Tau, you would see nothing but Tau winning tournaments. Do Tau need to be nerf following the domination of Tau?

Am I the only one who gives more credit to the players as oppose to the codex they use?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/14 00:26:08


   
Made in ca
Dour Wolf Priest with Iron Wolf Amulet






Canada

Players who want to win are going to pick the codex that best gives them that opportunity. They could win with otherbarmies, sure, but the odds are less likely. The fact that they are consistent shows that they know what armies to win with in the meta.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





In a highly competitive setting, players that are the best are incentivized to take the best list. They want to win, and if faction X gives them a better chance to win than faction Y, they will play it. There ARE exceptions to this, where there are some pro players that make a name for themselves by being devoted to a specific faction. The fact that these players often still do very well with their factions is a huge show of how important player skill is.


Here's how I see the game's determinants of success:

60% List Design
24% Player Skill
16% Luck

While 60% may be list design though, the differences between army strengths are often not as wide as people think. It's 60% because, if you have a PERFECT counter to your opponent's list, but your opponent is just WAY BETTER than you, then you still probably have somewhere between 50-60% chance of winning. That's just not great.

Of course, if your list is really good, and their list is just a bit better, then the list kind of stops being the main determinant of winning. At that point, you're at the 24% for player skill. Now, since the list strengths are closer, the stronger player is going to have the better chance of winning. At a tournament, most of even the worst factions can bring *something* that will tip the balance in the favour of the better player.

But then, at the end of the tourney, where the strongest players are running the strongest lists go up against each other... luck once again rears its head. It only does because both players are so good, and the lists are so strong.


So, if a single codex wins numerous top spots and numerous large events... then that suggests that the codex is OP. For us plebs, who are not good players like the pros are, that initial 60% list design kind of matters a lot more than it does to the pros. Still not impossible to overcome by a long shot, hence why even the most busted codex drops have a hard time bursting past 70% win rates in aggregate results, but still strong enough to say "maybe this is too good".

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Pick rates by top players is a good determining factor of what the best armies are, actually. Those guys have better access to a wide variety of models and are going to be better list builders than us schmucks. If you're chasing the meta that means that you want to stay in lockstep behind the players that are better than you are.

What really gets overexaggerated by this analysis is, as Yarium said, the gap between armies. If the eight best players in the world all decide that AdMech is the army that will give them the best chance to win then the ninth best is facing an uphill battle to sneak a placement in, even if they're placing the second best army.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/15 04:18:07


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Always been like that.

Simply because most tournament lists are skew, something that the majority of the players never see in real life.

At some point smash captain + loyal32 + castellan knight was apparently the only way to build a SM list, and yet I don't know a single guy who actually played or faced it.


 
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





 CKO wrote:
Why do people look at recent tournament results and use that to determine if a codex is broken? Before you look at factions look at the names of the people who win or place in the top 8. After you have eliminated the pro-players and take them out of the equation, look at the representation then.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/gauv32ax

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

It is the same players on the same teams winning these tournaments. If every Art of War and Team Battle-Brother player were to go to events for an entire month straight using only Tau, you would see nothing but Tau winning tournaments. Do Tau need to be nerf following the domination of Tau?

Am I the only one who gives more credit to the players as oppose to the codex they use?


Your theory would have some validity if players had random armies.

However they don't. Ergo best players bring best armies. Gw games suck balance wise so there' always good armies and bad armies. Obviously best players interested in winning tournaments will maximize odds by taking best armies.

Give bad army to best player and there's only so much he can do. It's not like player skill level between best and 5th best is huge. Give best army to 5th best plaver and worst to best and the 5th best wins short of dice miracle

2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 CKO wrote:
Why do people look at recent tournament results and use that to determine if a codex is broken? Before you look at factions look at the names of the people who win or place in the top 8. After you have eliminated the pro-players and take them out of the equation, look at the representation then.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/gauv32ax

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

It is the same players on the same teams winning these tournaments. If every Art of War and Team Battle-Brother player were to go to events for an entire month straight using only Tau, you would see nothing but Tau winning tournaments. Do Tau need to be nerf following the domination of Tau?

Am I the only one who gives more credit to the players as oppose to the codex they use?


You're thinking of these as separate when they're two sides of the same coin. The best players pick the best armies.


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

There are quite a few statistic methodologies to collect and validate data even when incomplete or entirely quantitative like those that inevitably have in WH40k.

I don't like very much to attribute proportion like 30% skills, 20% luck and 50% list because it's always more significative of the person's bias.

The best way In my opinion should use a more advanced methodology than mean and standard deviation (usually used in those ex-post analysis).
Specifically: hypothesis testing is what we should do... use the previous data (and expert opinion on new Codexes not used in play yet) to create forecasting of the results, and than update your estimation based on the results that you collect in practice.
(Any other approach that don't use conditional probability is mathematically wrong, to find out why check the Dutch Book argument).

So, to answer the OP question: "because people know squat of stats". Which is neither uncommon or a problem by itself, but become one when people inebriated by the power of math uses it wrongly and feel like it's a definitive argument.

To have another example of how our brains is tragically underdeveloped to manage real world statistics, check the Monthly Hall problem.

I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Because at the moment their are not enough aggregate events to use 40k stats to average them especially given the speed of change of meta

luck varies by list archetype in an army like IK luck is a huge factor much less in a horde list

It also ignores meta elements like terrain and the armies locals play. When marines are top meta they make 50-60% of the field when it's admech 5% huge difference. Not to mention exact missions play a role

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/15 16:23:59


 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch





Also even the FLG guys (Reece mostly I think) said a lot of folks show up to even the biggest events with the intention of just chucking dice with likeminded strangers and that breaking even or going Win > Loss by 1 or 2 is enough, the higher ranked players will always game the game for best outcome regardless of faction

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest






The best players bring the best codex is something I read more than once in the comments. So what does that really mean? You can go and see what the best players brought to the tournament and make the assumption that those codexes are the best ones. You can do this prior to the tournament results making the results mean nothing. Do you need tournament results at all? Is X codex the strongest because he picked it or is it the strongest because he won with it? The gap between pro-players and regular players is not determined by the power of the codex but by the ability of the players to get the most out of their armies and design list.

Power level is decided by the number of players using a hotlist! Pro-player sometimes creates a list that is easy to win with and strategies are easy to duplicate. Whenever that happens it is usually a balance issue. If you look at the tournament results and see the same list (not just the faction) that is when GW needs to do something and they usually do.

I believe what I am getting at is that the most powerful indicator of power level is list replication. Tournament results will always be the same (Art of War here, Team Battle-Brother there) but, list replication happens only when the power level of the list is too strong.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





No, it's not the best indicator of which codex is "best", but in aggregate it definitely points to which codexes are "amongst the best".

If in 10 tournies, Admech are in the top 3 at all of them, Drukhari in the top 3 at 9 of them, and the others are rather random, then it's a pretty fine assumption that Admech and Drukhari are "amongst" the top power of codexes.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Not really it might reflect the meta not having adjusted to combat a new codex

It might reflect one really good player having attended 5 tourneys and placed in each one

It might reflect localised metas in the areas of the world allowed to run tournaments

10 just isn't a big sample
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





U02dah4 wrote:
Not really it might reflect the meta not having adjusted to combat a new codex

It might reflect one really good player having attended 5 tourneys and placed in each one

It might reflect localised metas in the areas of the world allowed to run tournaments

10 just isn't a big sample


Sure, it's not a big sample, but one can still make the assumption, and just needs to balance that assumption against the possible margin of error.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

the possible margin of error is huge with such a small sample. There are so many reasons it could be wrong.

sure you can make the assumption from it but your more likely to be wrong than right
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






U02dah4 wrote:
the possible margin of error is huge with such a small sample. There are so many reasons it could be wrong.

sure you can make the assumption from it but your more likely to be wrong than right



See thats where you are techniqualy correct, but incorrect at the same time.

Scientifically speaking the sample size is definately too small to make assumptions. However, since we are talking about a game and not life or death, you dont need to get to a 5% margin of error to make an assumption.

In fact, just being within 17% accuracy is perfectly acceptable in a game that deals with six-sided dice.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Which your not going to get from a sample of 10 given the number of degrees of freedom
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





tneva82 wrote:
 CKO wrote:
Why do people look at recent tournament results and use that to determine if a codex is broken? Before you look at factions look at the names of the people who win or place in the top 8. After you have eliminated the pro-players and take them out of the equation, look at the representation then.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/gauv32ax

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

It is the same players on the same teams winning these tournaments. If every Art of War and Team Battle-Brother player were to go to events for an entire month straight using only Tau, you would see nothing but Tau winning tournaments. Do Tau need to be nerf following the domination of Tau?

Am I the only one who gives more credit to the players as oppose to the codex they use?


Your theory would have some validity if players had random armies.

However they don't. Ergo best players bring best armies. Gw games suck balance wise so there' always good armies and bad armies. Obviously best players interested in winning tournaments will maximize odds by taking best armies.

Give bad army to best player and there's only so much he can do. It's not like player skill level between best and 5th best is huge. Give best army to 5th best plaver and worst to best and the 5th best wins short of dice miracle


Your theory would have some validity if all armies costed the same. And had no lore. And had the exact same aesthetic. And incorporated every personal playstyle equally well. And had no history. And could be played by using any models regardless of personal collection. And equal availability. And equally difficult or time consuming to play. And players had no sentimental attachments to models they've spent hours painting. And if all humans didn't enjoy challenging themselves or figuring something out/sticking with it till it works. Or competing for title of best in a specific category. And if all best players had a flawless understanding of the game and agreed on the strength of everything, and never got anything wrong. And a million other reasons.


But none of these things are the case. There's a million reasons why the best players aren't all just bringing the best armies. People look at statistics and completely ignore the human factor. Pick rate is no less flawed a measure than win rate and both are pretty heavily flawed.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





If Nick Nanavati had a main army that he brought to every tournament then you'd have a point, but he doesn't; the top players change their list basically every major to whatever they feel gives them the best chance to win. The "Best X Player" category in ITC basically exists so that people who do have an army they really like and want to play all the time aren't left completely out in the cold.

Pick rate and win rate aren't perfect means of analysis but they're better than throwing your hands up in the air and saying that we can't analyze anything.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

 CKO wrote:
Why do people look at recent tournament results and use that to determine if a codex is broken? Before you look at factions look at the names of the people who win or place in the top 8. After you have eliminated the pro-players and take them out of the equation, look at the representation then.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/gauv32ax

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

It is the same players on the same teams winning these tournaments. If every Art of War and Team Battle-Brother player were to go to events for an entire month straight using only Tau, you would see nothing but Tau winning tournaments. Do Tau need to be nerf following the domination of Tau?

Am I the only one who gives more credit to the players as oppose to the codex they use?


Kinda puts an exclamation point on the old saying "it's the general not the list!"

There's no single way to evaluate the relative power level of a Codex. Most discussions relate to what a manageable netlist can be constructed for use by an average person, not what an experienced pro-player can do.

   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




We don't eat stats raw

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Nitro Zeus wrote:


Your theory would have some validity if all armies costed the same. And had no lore. And had the exact same aesthetic. And incorporated every personal playstyle equally well. And had no history. And could be played by using any models regardless of personal collection. And equal availability. And equally difficult or time consuming to play. And players had no sentimental attachments to models they've spent hours painting. And if all humans didn't enjoy challenging themselves or figuring something out/sticking with it till it works. Or competing for title of best in a specific category. And if all best players had a flawless understanding of the game and agreed on the strength of everything, and never got anything wrong. And a million other reasons.


But none of these things are the case. There's a million reasons why the best players aren't all just bringing the best armies. People look at statistics and completely ignore the human factor. Pick rate is no less flawed a measure than win rate and both are pretty heavily flawed.


The best players aren't picking armies for the lore or the aesthetics (just look at some of the painting on top tables over the last few years). They're often not bothered by playstyle either. Most of the consistently successful players switch armies a lot. Just look at Nick Nannavati as an example. He started out playing Harelquins in 9th then switched to Death Guard when they were considered the new hotness. Then, one week later after not doing as well as expected with DG, he switched to Sisters.

I think success in 40k is in large part down to the ability to switch armies quickly. Yes, every now and then the player who only plays Necrons will get lucky and GW will produce a broken Necron Codex, but if you really want to do well you need to be able to take whatever is the most broken thing, often at a moment's notice. It then follows that watching what the top players are taking is a good indicator of which set of Codices are currently able to build the strongest army.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





 Arachnofiend wrote:
If Nick Nanavati had a main army that he brought to every tournament then you'd have a point, but he doesn't; the top players change their list basically every major to whatever they feel gives them the best chance to win. The "Best X Player" category in ITC basically exists so that people who do have an army they really like and want to play all the time aren't left completely out in the cold.
Slipspace wrote:
The best players aren't picking armies for the lore or the aesthetics (just look at some of the painting on top tables over the last few years). They're often not bothered by playstyle either. Most of the consistently successful players switch armies a lot. Just look at Nick Nannavati as an example. He started out playing Harelquins in 9th then switched to Death Guard when they were considered the new hotness. Then, one week later after not doing as well as expected with DG, he switched to Sisters.

And Nick Nanavati ran Space Marines pre-2.0 for a few events. He ran low-tier Ynnari post nerf. He ran Orks PRECODEX. He is possibly the greatest example you could have given to counter your own point, because he literally runs whatever he feels like for the event and rarely ever picks "the strongest army" going. He's walking proof that plenty of the best players aren't just picking the best armies. That doesn't mean none of them are. But that does mean theres a very strong human element that your interpretation of such a statistic completely ignores.


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Pick rate and win rate aren't perfect means of analysis but they're better than throwing your hands up in the air and saying that we can't analyze anything.


Lol. Why is that the alternative? Are we that braindead? Whatever happened to just building an understanding of the game, from experience and critical analysis. No 40k statistic you point at will ever trump someone who is genuinely skilled and has a thorough understanding of their topic. Plenty of opinions have been completely contrary to what the stats say... and yet were definitely right.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Nitro Zeus wrote:

And Nick Nanavati ran Space Marines pre-2.0 for a few events. He ran low-tier Ynnari post nerf. He ran Orks PRECODEX. He is possibly the greatest example you could have given to counter your own point, because he literally runs whatever he feels like for the event and rarely ever picks "the strongest army" going. He's walking proof that plenty of the best players aren't just picking the best armies. That doesn't mean none of them are. But that does mean theres a very strong human element that your interpretation of such a statistic completely ignores.


I was giving an example rather than a proof. Specifically, thinking about how he switched form Death Guard to Sisters from one weekend to the next, specifically because the DG codex turned out not to be as powerful as expected but Sisters absolutely were (and still are) extremely good. That ability to switch between meta-viable armies within a week is often a key factor in player performance. The vast majority of the top players have access to a large array of armies and can switch at a moment's notice. Given that the balance between Codices is so atrocious in 40k that gives them a massive competitive advantage over someone who has 1 or 2 armies.

It also means that tracking which factions are consistently doing well at tournaments will give you a good idea of which faction is the most powerful.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Pick rate and win rate aren't perfect means of analysis but they're better than throwing your hands up in the air and saying that we can't analyze anything.


Lol. Why is that the alternative? Are we that braindead? Whatever happened to just building an understanding of the game, from experience and critical analysis. No 40k statistic you point at will ever trump someone who is genuinely skilled and has a thorough understanding of their topic. Plenty of opinions have been completely contrary to what the stats say... and yet were definitely right.


The level of skill and understanding required to be successful is massively undermined by the extreme lack of balance between factions. Further, the fact top players almost always have access to multiple factions exacerbates this problem because the top players will almost always play the top armies.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





Slipspace wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:

And Nick Nanavati ran Space Marines pre-2.0 for a few events. He ran low-tier Ynnari post nerf. He ran Orks PRECODEX. He is possibly the greatest example you could have given to counter your own point, because he literally runs whatever he feels like for the event and rarely ever picks "the strongest army" going. He's walking proof that plenty of the best players aren't just picking the best armies. That doesn't mean none of them are. But that does mean theres a very strong human element that your interpretation of such a statistic completely ignores.


I was giving an example rather than a proof. Specifically, thinking about how he switched form Death Guard to Sisters from one weekend to the next, specifically because the DG codex turned out not to be as powerful as expected but Sisters absolutely were (and still are) extremely good. That ability to switch between meta-viable armies within a week is often a key factor in player performance. The vast majority of the top players have access to a large array of armies and can switch at a moment's notice. Given that the balance between Codices is so atrocious in 40k that gives them a massive competitive advantage over someone who has 1 or 2 armies.

It also means that tracking which factions are consistently doing well at tournaments will give you a good idea of which faction is the most powerful.

It can give you a quick look of what factions are performing well. Just because something is lower on the stats or even mid range doesn't mean that they are in balance wise, theres a ton of reasons why those stats can be wrong, and we've seen that proved time and time again.

Nick Nanavati is in the absolute minority in the amount of models he has access to due to his career literally being 40k, and he STILL doesn't play "only top tiers", he plays literally everything, sometimes thats top tier, sometimes that isn't. He experiments with the meta and sees what he can do, and Nick Nanavati himself has absolutely had strong opinions that disagree entirely with the stats, and if you listen to his podcast you'd know that. He's one off, and yet still an example that runs contrary to your argument

Slipspace wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Pick rate and win rate aren't perfect means of analysis but they're better than throwing your hands up in the air and saying that we can't analyze anything.


Lol. Why is that the alternative? Are we that braindead? Whatever happened to just building an understanding of the game, from experience and critical analysis. No 40k statistic you point at will ever trump someone who is genuinely skilled and has a thorough understanding of their topic. Plenty of opinions have been completely contrary to what the stats say... and yet were definitely right.


The level of skill and understanding required to be successful is massively undermined by the extreme lack of balance between factions.

Okay, so there is balance issues, I don't see how that's in any way a response to what I said about using our brains to determine whether something is strong, rather than stats which are an absolutely flawed measure.

Slipspace wrote:
Further, the fact top players almost always have access to multiple factions exacerbates this problem because the top players will almost always play the top armies.

But... they don't. I just gave all the reasons they don't, when I do that you can't just respond and say "well the top players have access to multiple factions and will always play them", because it simply isn't true and doesn't answer anything I said. I can think of plenty of top tier minds who are playing lower tier armies, and I struggle to think of any player who hasn't played an army considered low tier in the past. In fact, it's often these great players performances that change the general opinions the community has of an armies level of competitiveness.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/21 09:56:24


 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest






 Nitro Zeus wrote:
But... they don't. I just gave all the reasons they don't, when I do that you can't just respond and say "well the top players have access to multiple factions and will always play them", because it simply isn't true and doesn't answer anything I said. I can think of plenty of top tier minds who are playing lower tier armies, and I struggle to think of any player who hasn't played an army considered low tier in the past. In fact, it's often these great players performances that change the general opinions the community has of an armies level of competitiveness.


Nitro gets it! Losing because you played against a certain codex is simply an excuse. We lose games because our list may have a disadvantage against a codex play style. You may have to tweak your list to counter the shift in the meta due to new codexes coming out. Whenever a codex causes a shift in meta in 40k internet land that codex is busted! When something forces you to change your playstyle/list it isn't overpowered. There is a skill in 40k called adaptability, which isn't talked about enough.


This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/21 17:11:50


   
Made in us
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin





Livermore, Ca

In one of the Ard Boyz events back in the day, in the Semifinals, I lost to Eldar, but I was playing Eldar too!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/21 23:28:27


 
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




London UK

U02dah4 wrote:
the possible margin of error is huge with such a small sample. There are so many reasons it could be wrong.

sure you can make the assumption from it but your more likely to be wrong than right


A tournament result isn't sufficient to assess the strength of a codex but when you assess games played by a codex across all available data the sample size gows over time and could be relevant.

The actual dataset I have got from BCP for last weekend shows tournament games with Admech having played 61 games with 41 wins at approximately 7% of the total field over the past weekend. I know this sample size is still way too small but given that an analysis of the codex strength by experts looking at the book and its relative perceived strength compared to other books going in to this weekend predicted win rates in excess of previous unbalanced books. Such that we can assume a generalised hypothesis of Admech are the strongest faction currently. The initial data supports this albeit far too small a sample size. The sample size will get bigger but this data cannot control for newer codexes coming in, changes in terrain, local house rules etc. In 40k competitive environment given the number of games played and the ever changing ruleset and codexes and points and faq's etc the data will never be accurate enough.

but its all we have and its better than nothing and it can support hypotheses as the sample size improves.I would suggest that tracked tournament games can be a tool in assessing the power level of a codex.

But even if you disagree with me on that, anyone can see that admech are leagues above the early 9th codexes.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 CKO wrote:
Why do people look at recent tournament results and use that to determine if a codex is broken? Before you look at factions look at the names of the people who win or place in the top 8. After you have eliminated the pro-players and take them out of the equation, look at the representation then.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/gauv32ax

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

It is the same players on the same teams winning these tournaments. If every Art of War and Team Battle-Brother player were to go to events for an entire month straight using only Tau, you would see nothing but Tau winning tournaments. Do Tau need to be nerf following the domination of Tau?

Am I the only one who gives more credit to the players as oppose to the codex they use?


If specific factions are winning over 60% of their games over a series of hundreds of recorded games, that's a problem. You can then investigate deeper into those specific lists and see if there's any common trends.

Take Ad-Mech for example, it's Skitarii spam. So Skitarii should probably get a points nerf, I'd make them 11 points these days with all those stacking buffs. That puts them in-line with Battle Sisters.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





 Nithaniel wrote:


But even if you disagree with me on that, anyone can see that admech are leagues above the early 9th codexes.


That's the only argument you need to be driving. The fact that critical analysis shows how busted the army is. Sometimes the stats will mirror this, sometimes they won't, for a bunch of different reasons. Arguing from this angle is so much stronger than posting a statistic.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Tactics
Go to: