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.

Yeah I think their going to I don't see any other match up point wise with more that would put them up against different opponents.

I'm super curious about that Imperial Knight list.

With only one Eldar and one Chaos Daemons undefeated after 3 rounds it looks like 7th is a whole new ball game from 6th.

I dunno what Vince is running now but in 6ed he had BA allied with 3 knights. Mephy and some other stuff I can't remember. He did very well with it at an event I ran in May.

Chaos Daemons didn't really make a huge showing there was only 4 players.

I think it's funny that out of 115 people 2 people play Imperial Knights one guy goes WWW and the other LLL.

The match up looks like it's going to be for the top 4

Tyranid
Tyranid
Space Marine
Necron

If they match up right you could see a Tyranid vs. Space Marine.

What's Strength of Schedule mean?

Is the BAO a 3 and 3 game perday event, or 4 and 2?

Hollismason wrote:
Chaos Daemons didn't really make a huge showing there was only 4 players.

I think it's funny that out of 115 people 2 people play Imperial Knights one guy goes WWW and the other LLL.

The match up looks like it's going to be for the top 4

Tyranid
Tyranid
Space Marine
Necron

If they match up right you could see a Tyranid vs. Space Marine.

What's Strength of Schedule mean?

Strength of Schedule is the points accumulated by your opponents. It's used as a tiebreaker.

Here's some data from day 1:

BAY AREA OPEN (BAO) GT TYRANID NEWSFLASH!!!

I apologize for not putting up my Dimachaeron report, but I've been busy with BAO GT. Anyways, here's a little update about the BAO. It is a 2-day 6-game GT and Day #1 is already done (3 games each day). It is about 128 players.

After Day #1, there are 3 Tyranid players in the Top 13!


At 13th is yours truly and his Hive Fleet Pandora, or should I say Sky Fleet Pandora. I am bringing Skyblight and so far, I am 2-0-1 (W-L-D).


At 2nd place is a Tyranid player who so far is a perfect 3-0. Guess what he brought? A converted Dimarchaeron!


And at 1st is Team Zero Comp's very own....Jeff "InControl" Robinson! He is running a Barbed Hierodule and he has been crushing his opponents. Part of the reason was because his Hierodule was on fire ! He had 5-6 stomp attacks where he rolled 's on the Stomp table!


My goal isn't really to win the tournament. It is to try to win Best Tyranids. But I really have my work cut out for me, since they are now at 1st and 2nd place overall. Heck, if I can get Best Tyranid player, perhaps I can even potentially win it all! But I dare not dream that far....


More updates tomorrow.

 jy2 wrote:



My goal isn't really to win the tournament. It is to try to win Best Tyranids. But I really have my work cut out for me, since they are now at 1st and 2nd place overall. Heck, if I can get Best Tyranid player, perhaps I can even potentially win it all! But I dare not dream that far....

I am sorry Jim, but I am not going to let that happen.

Frankly, kids, the bigger story might be that *I* am 2 and 1 at half time. Brush up on your apocalypse preparations, and binge watch that show where people prep for the end of the world.

And I got here while drinking throughout the day.

For those there , is that Imperial Knight player doing straight up Imperial knights all five or does he have a LOW or that special character? ( who I think has been released?)

I believe he is playing them with the adamantium lance formation

Someone mentioned to me in person that the Imperial Knight FAQ makes it so Imperial Knight CAD doesn't have to be minimum 3 Knights. Hence the Adamantine Lance formation is allowed in BAO.

I'm not familiar with that formation.

These results look quite cool. Unfortunately, I didn't attend the BAO this year. Too much going on and my army isn't even halfway painted yet.

I am currently working on my PhD in research psychology / cognitive neuroscience. When I see data I have unreasonable urges to do analyses. The Torrent of Fire database is too cool. I'd like to share a few analyses I ran on the games played today for fun. For my first pass, I decided to address the question of whether particular armies achieved more or less Battle-Points than each other. This is really an age old question in the gaming community. Are certain armies stronger than others? More likely to win games? To achieve more Battle-Points?

Methods

First, a bit about the methods I decided on. You are allowed to skip this part if you want. I included in my analyses every game (344 games) that was played today (3 games per individual). The structure of the data is nested and is therefore dependent. That is, one individual played three games and it is important that we maintain that information in our analyses and not collapse across individuals, or even avg. within an individual. This will allow us to account for some of the 'noise' between individuals. That is, some players might just be better than other players. The second consideration. was that my variable of interest was 'Battle-Points'. Battle points as a variable ranges from 0 to 10 (per game) and is therefore discrete (there are no values of 5.4 or 1.3 for example) and possibly non-normal. I thought it would be good to correct for the properties of this 'count-data' (that is, counts of battle points '1, 2, 3.. 5.. etc') using a Poisson distribution. In order to respect the structure of the data (mutli-level / nested) and the nature of the dependent variable (discrete values), I used a multi-level Poisson regression model estimated using maximum likelihood (estimated in SAS using PROC Glimmix).

Results

The first thing of note is that the random intercept was significant. σ02 = .06860, SE= 0.02021. What this means is that we can say that it is probably the case (in this data) that some individuals score more Battle-Points than others. This seems obvious on the one hand, but it could have been the case that something like player skill didn't matter - what mattered was the army you brought.

Now what is important is the estimates for each Army.



There was also a significant effect of 'Army'. That is, some armies did significantly better than others.
Here you can see the estimated Mean Battle Points a person is expected to achieve with a particular army on an average game during the BAO. The estimates are all significant, which is to say they are different than zero.
So, for example, if you played Grey Knights in the BAO, you are expected to achieve 5.923 Battle Points per game. If you played Orks, you are expected to only achieve 2.38 BP's per game.



Here are the plotted estimates. Unsurprisingly, the data is very similar to what chipstar1 posted.

Next, I ran mean comparisons between each of the armies to see whether some armies are expected to score more BP's than other armies. Given that is 120 different comparisons, I thought it was important to correct for multiple-comparisons because we are likely to have some significant differences between armies purely by chance. With the data 'thresholded' in this way, there are only a few significant differences between armies.



What this tells us is that Tyranids, Space Marines, Eldar, Necrons, and Grey Knights, did better than Orks and Guard. What this also tells us, just as importantly, is that there is no statistical difference between the top 14 armies. This is good news and suggests that some semblance of balance exists between armies (poor Guard and Orks :( What happened to you guys today?). Now, with more data, there may actually exist differences between a wider range of armies, but at least in the BAO, there was no statistical difference. So what this tells us is that it is unreasonable to say that Grey Knights are the best, or Tyranids, or that Blood Angels suck, or whatever, even though they scored the highest amount of Battle-Points.

Anyway, for next steps, I want to see if there are differences between using Battle-Points versus Win-Loss-Draw. Some armies might be favored by the Battle-Points format.

My fantasy is to get information about the lists used in tournaments such as these. That would allow us to see whether taking lots of Obj. Sec. troops helps you win games, or spending lots of points in Heavy Support is good, for example.

Hope you enjoyed the minor breakdown. I really should be working on my dissertation proposal instead, but it's too easy to procrastinate.

You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.

Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.

 winterman wrote:
You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.

Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.

If theres no way to run 5 how is he doing it?

The performance of those 2 DA players is interesting, what lists are they playing?

He's taking probably taking 2 as his Primary then 3 in the Formation.

That'd be my guess.

 winterman wrote:
You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.

Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.

At the BAO, you can self-ally. Thus primary of 3 and allies of 2. However you cannot take both primary and the Adamntine Lance formation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
The performance of those 2 DA players is interesting, what lists are they playing?

My guess is they all involve the Power Field Generator. Top DA player is taking PFG libbie in LR Crusader with 2 scout troops and I believe the Adamantium Lance formation with 3 Imperial Knights. The other one, I'm not quite sure.

 jy2 wrote:

 winterman wrote:
You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.

Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.

At the BAO, you can self-ally. Thus primary of 3 and allies of 2. However you cannot take both primary and the Adamntine Lance formation.

Was this specific to the BAO rules (i.e. they faq'd it this way)? I'm curious. A primary doesn't have to be 3 Knights. Hence you could take 2 as the "primary" if they are requiring a primary detachment and 3 in the Lance Formation. The warlord might have to be chosen be on of the two knights but that's depends on RAW that I don't really care to dive into

 Hulksmash wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 winterman wrote:
You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.

Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.

At the BAO, you can self-ally. Thus primary of 3 and allies of 2. However you cannot take both primary and the Adamntine Lance formation.

Was this specific to the BAO rules (i.e. they faq'd it this way)? I'm curious. A primary doesn't have to be 3 Knights. Hence you could take 2 as the "primary" if they are requiring a primary detachment and 3 in the Lance Formation. The warlord might have to be chosen be on of the two knights but that's depends on RAW that I don't really care to dive into

BAO may have slightly varied from NOVA in requiring a CAD instead of simply limiting the # of CAD to 1?

MVBrandt wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 winterman wrote:
You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.

Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.

At the BAO, you can self-ally. Thus primary of 3 and allies of 2. However you cannot take both primary and the Adamntine Lance formation.

Was this specific to the BAO rules (i.e. they faq'd it this way)? I'm curious. A primary doesn't have to be 3 Knights. Hence you could take 2 as the "primary" if they are requiring a primary detachment and 3 in the Lance Formation. The warlord might have to be chosen be on of the two knights but that's depends on RAW that I don't really care to dive into

BAO may have slightly varied from NOVA in requiring a CAD instead of simply limiting the # of CAD to 1?

I asked reeciuse about this here, he said you could have a complete knight army and i think the primary knight detachment substitutes for the CAD ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here it is

 Reecius wrote:

@Pizza

Yes, you can take a Knight Detachment as your CAD or your ally, or both.

How in the world did JY2 get paired against someone with a 4 Loss record.

That's weird. Unless I am reading it wrong or the rankings messed up.

Go Tyranids Go!!

Even that second DA without allies is now at 3/1. My curiosity is rising.

Someone messaged me but can't find it is the Space Marine , Imperial Knights guy playing the Adamantine formation as well?

Hollismason wrote:
How in the world did JY2 get paired against someone with a 4 Loss record.

That's weird. Unless I am reading it wrong or the rankings messed up.

Go Tyranids Go!!

No i noticed the same. How did 2W 1 D guy matched up with a 3L guy? Weird

i hope we can see some of these list i wanna see what space marine and imperial knight list and if the knight list just took 5 knights

Round 5 it's:
Space marines vs space marines (table 1)
Imperial knights vs necrons (table 2)

They're the only ones left on 4 wins and one other, but does not have enough battle points to have a chance by the looks of things. so it's out of those to win I guess. I don't know the lists.

On the jim (jy2) thing, yeah I noticed that, but on the bottom table of that round an eldar player on 3 wins played the stand in and is now on 4 wins, but only on table 9 for round 5. Might of been a mistake on the system.

 pizzaguardian wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
How in the world did JY2 get paired against someone with a 4 Loss record.

That's weird. Unless I am reading it wrong or the rankings messed up.

Go Tyranids Go!!

No i noticed the same. How did 2W 1 D guy matched up with a 3L guy? Weird

I've run back through the pairings, and talked to Jy2 to see what's up. His opponent didn't show until the round was half over, so he was paired against someone else without an opponent.

Oh that makes sense, I think JY2 is still in the running, hoping he makes it!!!!

It should be a top 10 slot for most of the WWWD people if they pull off a straight win, as the WWWWL people will be ranked lower.