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.

Martel732 wrote:
Stelek had pretty good builds for 5th ed. Don't know about since then.

LOL.

If a good build is taking the units with the biggest kill ratio and spamming them, then sure. Eh. I guess? I mean a lot of those lists could have been written in Crayon, they were so simple. Every single list he posted was THAT. Triple "redundancy" until he had no points left. That was his claim to fame. "I can spam and you are a mental midget if you don't". Basically. "heavy Bolter Retributors are the future". Sigh.

...which didn't make them bad lists.

You can dislike them, but they were good at their intended purpose.

 Jancoran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Stelek had pretty good builds for 5th ed. Don't know about since then.

LOL.

If a good build is taking the units with the biggest kill ratio and spamming them, then sure. Eh. I guess? I mean a lot of those lists could have been written in Crayon, they were so simple. Every single list he posted was THAT. Triple "redundancy" until he had no points left. That was his claim to fame. "I can spam and you are a mental midget if you don't". Basically. "heavy Bolter Retributors are the future". Sigh.

Spamming was power in 5th. It still is, actually for certain lists.

 Ailaros wrote:

Jancoran wrote:Through a preponderance of the evidence

I'm sorry, but what preponderance? Or, rather, what evidence? All we have is a pile of anecdotes, nothing rigorous or controlled. It's just an amalgamation of people's stories, which has never been real proof of anything.

Jancoran wrote:there probably IS a pecking order for the codex in terms of HOW easy it is to create a list good enough to compete.

And it's a tie for last place. The internet makes it very, very easy to create lists good enough to compete.

Jancoran wrote:Ask yourself an honest question. If you were generally respected as very good and there was pressure on you to perform, so to speak, to maintain that reputation, would you chance things by taking a less common build that ISN'T known to win? Maybe. But the odds on human behavior say no.

What? I do this all the time. So do several people I've known.

You're assuming that what a vast majority of people want is the easiest win. That's not even remotely true. There are a LOT of other reasons to play 40k.

Jancoran wrote:So the excellent General progressively grows less and less interested in creativity and more and more into absolute certainty.

Then what do you define as strategy? I'm pretty sure successful generals use creativity, even if it means taking risks.

I think what you're talking about is a bad general - someone who needs everything to go exactly according to a certain plan.

Thud wrote:because you'll simply end up getting shouted down by either anti-competitive nutters who have a quasi-religious attitude towards how 40k should be enjoyed and cling to the delusions that their favourite units are actually good, or by the eloquent Sun Tzu-quoting tossers who seemingly only play against 12 year olds, and thus get their Vypers to rule the tabletop alongside their totally underrated Howling Banshees, and have the time and willingness to repeat their arguments ad nauseum.

And, of course, the third category of positivists who believe 40k is a science like chess, and get all pouty when people point out that creative people can also prosper, and that a lot of 40k is based on the results of random number generators.

Believing there is a, one, the truth, isn't any more flattering on learn to play types as people who mindlessly knee-jerk against learn to play types.

Preponderance of the evidence means that the pile as you refer to it is more likely than not likely to be guilty (or true). it is not true "beyond a shadow of doubt", as would be needed in a true criminal proceeding. It is the way Civil suits are handled. the court understands that opinions are going to vary and the subject matter is subjective in the extreme so the court does its best through a preponderance of the evidence to determine that something was far more likely than not. It's how they got OJ Simpson to cough up money for a Criminal charge that could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but could be shown to be more likely than not. anywho.

The "internet" isnt an entity that gives advice. Individuals may give opinions and though that gestalt input sure. We can see a trend but we cannot take that as proof on its own that this was the only way it could be played which is what you have to know.

As for going the road less traveled: was i talking about you specifically? No. obviously not. But then you're also not at the top Table at NOVA or Adepticon every year either are you? So you're hardly who i am talking about. More than that, i myself if you've seen the blog, am one of those as well that is a bit unorthodox. So that wasn't a criticism of those who do. merely an observation that someone in that situation (see Lance Armstrong for extreme examples, but there are MANY others) would do much to stay on top. History is filled with examples of them.

I'm not talking about a bad general. This was all in the context of a good general and more specifically, on the list building side. You're jumping tracks on me here. the LIST such a successful person uses is going to be the one he knows he can win with and that means that in list building, he isn't going to get overly creative with "experimental" builds when the internet DENIZENS, as you point out, can so easily assist him with the data needed to find a winning path. And that means you DONT see them playing things the Denizens dont know as well or they themselves don't know as well. Ergo, Sisters of Battle and other interesting armies that just don't have a reputation or their piled up list of powers doesn't exactly jump off the page at you aren't the first weapon of choice of the top General. he cant trust uit enough and doesnt want to have to explain later why he did something NOT on the beaten path.

I define strategy as the game before the game. i define tactics as the game within the game, since you ask. In game, this General might be quite skilled and bright. After all, thats who this was referring to: the smart ones. but even the smart ones don't take their "new fun and fluffy" list to a big dance, now...do they? No. They don't.

i agree whole heartedly with your last comment. those who are willing to take risks are out here. again, you seemingly have not read my articles, but you can trust that I, among anyone here, will espouse the creative solutions. But I also am not attending Adepticon or NOVA (its just too far and too expensive for the Average Joe to pick up and go). I dont have a big name to protect and to be honest Ive never been one for painting so I don't have those issues in choosing what i will or wont play. I do play in a very competitive pool of people who DO DO those things though. A LARGE one that strings from Salem Oregon to Vancouver BC along I-5 and there are a large number of names you'd recognize from that group. So I do get to see the worst (meaning toughest) builds there and on the net like you. Fortunately i have a lot of exposure to good Generals to play.

The bottom line I was getting to is, these metrics fail to tell you the two things you really NEEDED to know.

The problem with Stelek lists is that they're these mindless shooting lists that show no actual listbuilding skill. Nor playing ability aside from target selection. And yet, he makes it seem like he's got some kind of miraculous insight, etc.

I bet he's a pure IK player in the current meta. Bandwagoning on the big guns that basically do it all, no subtletly or thought required.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Stelek had pretty good builds for 5th ed. Don't know about since then.

LOL.

If a good build is taking the units with the biggest kill ratio and spamming them, then sure. Eh. I guess? I mean a lot of those lists could have been written in Crayon, they were so simple. Every single list he posted was THAT. Triple "redundancy" until he had no points left. That was his claim to fame. "I can spam and you are a mental midget if you don't". Basically. "heavy Bolter Retributors are the future". Sigh.

Spamming was power in 5th. It still is, actually for certain lists.

Its one way to skin the cat. I instantly start tuning out when I hear someone tell me that there is only one way to skin a cat. You should too. Do you really think that person can teach you anything you hadn't already considered? I'm just saying. Think about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem with Stelek lists is that they're these mindless shooting lists that show no actual listbuilding skill. Nor playing ability aside from target selection. And yet, he makes it seem like he's got some kind of miraculous insight, etc.

I bet he's a pure IK player in the current meta. Bandwagoning on the big guns that basically do it all, no subtletly or thought required.

He kinda stopped playing 40K is what someone told me. he does gaming but maybe not 40K. That could be totally wrong. I havent been really anywhere near the fellas site in a dark age. he had quite a following though so maybe?

Yeah, nothing wrong with gunline spam, and it definitely wins a fair share of games. There are other ways to play, though.

Did he? I never followed him. It seemed like he was pretty committed to 40k, that a lot of his self-worth was invested in "winning" at 40k.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, nothing wrong with gunline spam, and it definitely wins a fair share of games. There are other ways to play, though.

Did he? I never followed him. It seemed like he was pretty committed to 40k, that a lot of his self-worth was invested in "winning" at 40k.

I don't know the story though I'd say you're right on one thing: he was definitely invested.

He started claiming a hatred for GW itself as time went on but i somehow feel like there was more to that than just simple Codex-creep. Maybe his favorite army build got nerfed or something? Ive seen rage quitters over that. Maybe someone important dissed him. I dont freaking know. I bet his site is still up though. You could ask him if it is.

I basically quit Fantasy when GW stopped supporting my Dogs of War, so I get the ragequit thing.

I don't think he'd have quit over someone dissing him - he craved attention, positive or negative. And I don't think I'd ever seen him acknowledge anybody else as "important". From previous interaction, no, I'm not going to his site. If he's out, he's out. No need to pester the guy.

His site is still active, and his most recent post was about Circle in Hordes, so I'm guessing, like many a competitive player, he's moved in to a system more structured for competitive play?

Oh, OK. That makes perfect sense.

 Azreal13 wrote:
His site is still active, and his most recent post was about Circle in Hordes, so I'm guessing, like many a competitive player, he's moved in to a system more structured for competitive play?

Of course he plays circle...

 Azreal13 wrote:
If he's going to cite tournament participation and/or wins/placing, that can be confirmed by public record or other participants.

Thud already seems to be in contact with the sort of people who would know him.

If he's citing public information, I don't see what other qualifications he needs. Both of you can make claims on the same evidence, I don't think he needs to be legally qualified to talk about a table top game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I basically quit Fantasy when GW stopped supporting my Dogs of War, so I get the ragequit thing.

I don't think he'd have quit over someone dissing him - he craved attention, positive or negative. And I don't think I'd ever seen him acknowledge anybody else as "important". From previous interaction, no, I'm not going to his site. If he's out, he's out. No need to pester the guy.

Probably best.

Akiasura wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
His site is still active, and his most recent post was about Circle in Hordes, so I'm guessing, like many a competitive player, he's moved in to a system more structured for competitive play?

Of course he plays circle...

Mind if I ask what that is?

Tau shouldn't be considered OP because they aren't in any way shape or form. Way too much hate stemming from 6 addition, people need to get over it.

Or you can just accept the fact people hate certain units in your army and get over it.

 Quickjager wrote:
Or you can just accept the fact people hate certain units in your army and get over it.

Like Dreadknights?

 Zewrath wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
His site is still active, and his most recent post was about Circle in Hordes, so I'm guessing, like many a competitive player, he's moved in to a system more structured for competitive play?

Of course he plays circle...

Mind if I ask what that is?

Circle is a faction in warmachine.
Up until two years ago, it was viewed as one of the hardest factions to play, but a very good faction. It was great at caster killing.
The two "easiest" factions were Cryx and Legion, due to special rules or casters they had.

Keep in mind that in WMH, factions are very balanced. Even minions, which isn't a real faction, has won a tournament. This would be like if the Harliequin codex (no allies) won a major tournament.

Then, 2 years ago, they got a really powerful caster. She had the ability to stay very far away from the fight and bring troops back to life. She also allowed re-rolls for every single trooper every turn (normally such spells are limited to Warmachine, which has weaker giant monsters. Now Hordes had it for their incredible beasts. Bringing people back to life is usually a warmachine only spell).
Last year, they got the most powerful tier list in the entire game, Wold war.

It features a caster, called Bradigus (you may have seen #bradforthegame or something similar, or any of the 10+ page threads on the faction forums, or the 46+ page thread on the main board...) using nothing but Golems and constructs.
These creatures can be teleported.
They have synergy, so when one attacks, they all get stronger.
They all have guns that have Remove from Play, so no bringing back from the dead.
They can create giant forests that you can't see through and create rough terrain.
They have shield guard, which allows the super tough golems to take hits for Bradigus.
Bradigus can be teleported 3 times, use synergy, and push enemies out of his way to kill the caster.

He's quite popular despite being brand new. Wolds have been sold out for some time now, most players are expecting a nerf relatively soon but are unsure what it will be.

Jreily89,
It's not that he's citing public information, it's that he's telling other posters that because they aren't playing in the most competitive atmosphere, their arguments are invalid and not worthy of discussion.
If he's going to say such, he had better be playing at such high levels or it looks very...awkward for him.
Granted, either way is a logical fallacy, I just want to see how hypocritical it is.

It seems like eldar players are always trying to justify their wins by saying their armies are not cheese-balls. Anybody if the you can play a straight up game, no allies or formations, with a team like the tyranids, orks, or Dark Angles, against the eldar and still win then ill consider your argument.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
If he's going to cite tournament participation and/or wins/placing, that can be confirmed by public record or other participants.

Thud already seems to be in contact with the sort of people who would know him.

If he's citing public information, I don't see what other qualifications he needs. Both of you can make claims on the same evidence, I don't think he needs to be legally qualified to talk about a table top game.

Akiasura has already pretty much covered it, but I didn't actually say he's citing public information I said if he were to cite tournament participation for his so-called insight, it would be relatively easy to verify as tournament results and participation are normally publicly available.

Realistically speaking, if he doesn't have a track record of tournament success to back up claims he's making which run counter to essentially everyone else with even a passing understanding of the subject, then he's essentially wrong or playing in such a skewed meta as to be irrelevant to any discussion of the game at large.

Nobody needs to be legally qualified about anything to talk about it on Dakka, but if one is going to post in a high-handed, dismissive, patronising or arrogant manner (as he has to me and other users) it really pays to have the chops to back it up.

morgoth wrote:

 Zande4 wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Deafbeats wrote:
I know in League of Legends (bear with me) when a player has +50% win rate, they move up in rank cause they're good. When a Champion has an overall winrate above 50% (like 52-59%), they usually get nerfed. Any higher and the player is either leagues ahead playing against lowbies, or the champ has a crazy game winning bug. 50% is just about where an army should be, above that i'd say it's a pretty strong army.

Then maybe LoL is not a good reference.

Starcraft Brood War would be a much better reference, and in SC:BW, many players had a lot more than 50% win rate.

Because that's how competition is, unless you want to go ahead and call for a nerf on Michael Phelps maybe ?

Champions win rates in LoL are a good comparison to Races win rates in 40K. Players in BW and completely unrelated Olympic athlete analogies are not. Why bring up BW anyway? How far out of the loop are you...

Because BW is a strategy game, like 40K, whereas LoL is a much simpler game with a lot less in common with 40K.

Exceptional people are exceptional people, whether they chose to focus on work, 40K (that generally doesn't happen because even the top of 40K is pretty low), SC:BW (and SCII when it stabilizes) and Olympics are all the same: people who give their all to one single discipline and compete with others who do the exact same.

Competition in Olympics (Usain Bolt anyone), BW (Flash) and anything else sees the best competitors with win rates far above 50%, because that's how competition is.
In LoL, it's surely the same thing except you didn't see it. The best LoL players are sure to have a lot more than 50% win rate, and cannot go any higher because they're the top of the ladder already.

How have you missed the point this hard? Comparing winrates of people to winrates of codices is a poor comparison. Comparing winrates to champions in LoL to Codices is not. It does not matter how much they have in common, it's just general statistics. A 5% swing in a somewhat balanced system is large. You tend miss the point on about 90% of your post and arguing with you is somewhat similar to arguing with a brick wall so I think I'll leave this for now.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
If he's going to cite tournament participation and/or wins/placing, that can be confirmed by public record or other participants.

Thud already seems to be in contact with the sort of people who would know him.

If he's citing public information, I don't see what other qualifications he needs. Both of you can make claims on the same evidence, I don't think he needs to be legally qualified to talk about a table top game.

Akiasura has already pretty much covered it, but I didn't actually say he's citing public information I said if he were to cite tournament participation for his so-called insight, it would be relatively easy to verify as tournament results and participation are normally publicly available.

Realistically speaking, if he doesn't have a track record of tournament success to back up claims he's making which run counter to essentially everyone else with even a passing understanding of the subject, then he's essentially wrong or playing in such a skewed meta as to be irrelevant to any discussion of the game at large.

Nobody needs to be legally qualified about anything to talk about it on Dakka, but if one is going to post in a high-handed, dismissive, patronising or arrogant manner (as he has to me and other users) it really pays to have the chops to back it up.

I get that. But I also feel like a lot of people "calling him out" could be called in other threads. If you want to disagree with him, go for it, but he's not the only I've seen post in a high-handed, dismissive, patronising or arrogant manner.

Ok, you get that if you're going to make controversial claims you probably need something to back them up if you wish to be taken seriously, cool.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, you get that if you're going to make controversial claims you probably need something to back them up if you wish to be taken seriously, cool.

Az, the irony is palpable, but okay, have it your way. Morgoth's wrong and should never be trusted on anything

If you'd like to point out to me any post I've made in any thread where I've made an outlandish claim without being able to substantiate it, or at least argue in a coherent way to support it, by all means bring it to my attention.

Otherwise, cut it out.

Morgoth is making claims that neither conventional wisdom nor mathematics supports - I am still willing to accept he may have a point, but I am asking for something to add substance to his claims, some sort of evidence to either lend credibility to his insight into the game or something where played games have borne out what he's saying.

Considering how contrary to accepted thinking his claims are, I don't feel it's unreasonable.

If you can fault my logic, irrespective of whatever (erroneous) ideas you may have about my own posts, please feel free to outline it to me.

 gmaleron wrote:
Tau shouldn't be considered OP because they aren't in any way shape or form. Way too much hate stemming from 6 addition, people need to get over it.

Says you. I think the Riptide still makes that army pretty OP.

 Azreal13 wrote:
If you'd like to point out to me any post I've made in any thread where I've made an outlandish claim without being able to substantiate it, or at least argue in a coherent way to support it, by all means bring it to my attention.

Otherwise, cut it out.

Morgoth is making claims that neither conventional wisdom nor mathematics supports - I am still willing to accept he may have a point, but I am asking for something to add substance to his claims, some sort of evidence to either lend credibility to his insight into the game or something where played games have borne out what he's saying.

Considering how contrary to accepted thinking his claims are, I don't feel it's unreasonable.

If you can fault my logic, irrespective of whatever (erroneous) ideas you may have about my own posts, please feel free to outline it to me.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/300/633991.page

This thread is full of it, especially the part where it gets locked

I asked you for examples of where I'd made outlandish claims and failed to back them up with evidence or a compelling argument, not threads where I was defending myself from a user who has taken any opportunity to jump down my throat for months.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I have to seriously question the validity of the data used in this graph.

Imperial Knights have a 70% win ratio? Daemons, Knights, and Dark Eldar being the top 3?

Where is the sample size drawn from?