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.

 Marsyas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs IG: Eldar Win
Eldar vs Knights: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Tau: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Imperial Fists: Eldar Win

Knight vs Orks: Knight win
Knight vs Imperium (IG, Assassins, Guilliman): Knight Win

To date I've seen/played Knights 7 times, and they've lost twice. The opponent in both those games was another pure Knight army.

What's so difficult about fighting Knights?

Take 3 big tank-like units, and place them in a game where you need over 3x the points cost of the target in AT firepower to cripple or destroy it, or equivalent points over three or four turns to do the same. One must possess an army dedicated almost entirely to armour destruction to render the Knights useless at some point in the game, or just have so many bodies that the dice just do it for you.

 Marsyas wrote:


What's so difficult about fighting Knights?

They always get to go first, and with knight shooting power the opponent simply has a much smaller army by the bottom of turn 1. It's like starting with a 300-500 point deficit. Plus the knights get to pick and choose any target they want, so naturally they kill the AT stuff leaving nothing left that can harm them. Its rock-paper-scissors on steroids.

This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.

Updated.

zerosignal wrote:
This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.

Two to three items minimum.

Got another couple

Dark Eldar vs Blood Angels (the flyer spam list) Dark Eldar victory
Dark Eldar vs Guard. DE Victory
Eldar vs Guard. Guard Victory
Eldar vs Sisters: Sisters Victory
Dark Eldar vs Eldar. DE Victory.

Maybe I need to get better at Eldar....

Oh and I forgot!

Dark Eldar vs Knights: DE Victory.

Going first against Knights is useful.

 mrhappyface wrote:
So we have seen the ITC results from the first week but how about we get a Dakka results going? See if we can't compile our own data since the ITC results only covered 100 games.

Post the name of the armies that have played so far in your local group and how many games they have won so far, here are my additions:

Astra Militarium - 36W 26L
Tyranids - 34W 28L
Space Marines - 31W 50L
Eldar - 23W 18L
Orks - 19W 37L
Chaos Space Marines - 18W 18L
Necrons - 17W 18L

So... Thus far AM and Nids have been kicking bubblegum and chewing ass (and they're all outta bubblegum), as we expected. Though, not as much as some of the hyperbole would have you believe (unless all the losses are just people who didn't use conscripts).
Space Marines are... probably doing the "can't/won't adapt" to the new edition...
Eldar are evening out a little more at a little over an 11/9 W/L ratio.
Orks have been getting massacred, sadly.
CSM are holding out with a 1/1 W/L, possibly because Khorne got gud this edition. He swole.
And Necrons aren't yet the unbeatable mess people have been complaining about...

A quick bit of stats taking into account random variance. I'm assuming that if everything was balanced things would be evenly distriburted. Conclusion: We don't know anything yet, not enough data/trends not strong enough to make statements. I think the outcome is pretty interesting though take a look.



I excluded any armies with so littel data that they couldn't be analysed at all.

How did you get that percentage range? Percentage shown here, taken at +-20% ?

Aye, is that standard varience plucked from thin air is +/-20% calculated?

Calculated. It's just a standard deviation of the data at this point. It is actually 19.975%, but you can't quite see that cause of the rounding. Like I said I assumed normalcy for a perfectly balanced game. It's very rough stats, but good enough to give an indication that the ranges are pretty braod at the moment.

Here's a version using a 95% CI instead. for people not that into stats, a 95% C.I. indicates that the real value is somewhere within the range given to a 95% certainty.


95% certainty is pretty low so here is 99% as well.

What are you taking as your mean in this set of data? The average win rate?

Yep. After excluding the armies for which the data is so minimal I can't use it. It's, as I said, a very rough guide.

zerosignal wrote:
This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.

Yeah - realistically each army should be able to hide their most valueable stuff. If you can't you aren't playing 40k - you are playing who goes first wins.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if this set of data can evaluated using standard varience as it does not under go a normal distrabution. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I did statistics.

I assumed a normal distribution would be present if all armies were balanced. Is there a reason to think this is incorrect? The mean win% is 52.4% so this seemd more approriate than a T style analysis. There are other techniques I could use, but assumption of rough normalcy seems reasonable for a quick look.

That's the problem, this data is trying to give a rough idea of whether the armies are balanced or whether we'll be getting army tiers again. So assuming they are balanced is kind of jumping the gun.

So one assumes they would be normal if things were balanced, then you look at the deviation from that normal pattern. It's a pretty common technique. We certainly use it with biological populations, even when we know they are not perfectly normal. I'm a scientist, not a mathematician, so I don't require perfect mathematical data, as that generally doesn't exist. Essentially what the stats are saying is at this point we don;t have a high confidence of either none normalcy nor tiering.

Makes sense, see how much your values are altering from the normal.

As I said, it's been a while since I did statistics.

That's cool. Hopefully, an actual statistician can do some stuff if they feel like it. I only had like 15 minutes so just threw this together, but I think it's important not to just take flat percentages into account as that is almost always quite misleading.

Well these results aren't going define the meta, that's for certain: there aren't enough values recorded, we don't know the specifics of each game (whether new players were playing, whether it was friendly or comp, etc.) and the data itself was entered by me which doesn't bode well for it's accuracy.

 Xenomancers wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.

Yeah - realistically each army should be able to hide their most valueable stuff. If you can't you aren't playing 40k - you are playing who goes first wins.

Welcome to my experience of 40k in the last 10 years. I don't think I have met a player who would let me use LOS-block unless I set up the table well in advance. And it's usually met with objection >.<

 Selym wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.

Yeah - realistically each army should be able to hide their most valueable stuff. If you can't you aren't playing 40k - you are playing who goes first wins.

Welcome to my experience of 40k in the last 10 years. I don't think I have met a player who would let me use LOS-block unless I set up the table well in advance. And it's usually met with objection >.<

I for one love LoS blocking terrain, as do my Basilisks.

But yeah, I kind of wish one of the fortification options was just a cheap palisade. Nothing fancy, no weapons or special rules, just a cheap piece of terrain tall enough to hide something the size of a Leman Russ (not that I would actually put one of those behind it, just a size comparison) so that you can carry your own LoS blocking terrain with you. Something like 30 points for a 6" section, that'd be pretty nice.

Sorry guys, maybe a little out of topic but...i see The Fallen listed.. does it means that someone can play/ has played exclusively with cyper and fallen "chosen" units? or are there more "Fallen" units i have missed? i don't get this.

 Neferhet wrote:
Sorry guys, maybe a little out of topic but...i see The Fallen listed.. does it means that someone can play/ has played exclusively with cyper and fallen "chosen" units? or are there more "Fallen" units i have missed? i don't get this.

Probably meens they have played with Cypher, Fallen and filler units from either the Chaos Index or the Imperial Codex. Or maybe some mad man is running lists with nothing but Fallen and Cypher.

 Selym wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.

Two to three items minimum.

Gonna want a lot more than that. Knights have very good LoS, and you have to make sure not a single bit of any model in the squad is blocked by LoS.

 Melissia wrote:

 Selym wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
This is why you must have LOS blocking terrain on the table.

Two to three items minimum.

Gonna want a lot more than that. Knights have very good LoS, and you have to make sure not a single bit of any model in the squad is blocked by LoS.

What if each item has a 48" by 48" footprint, and is 48" tall?

Four of those should do nicely xD

Space Marines win percentage: 38%
Orks win percentage: 34%

Community on Space Marines players: "Mostly noobs, aren't skilled, that's why they lose."

Community on Orks players: "Orks are underpowered, that's why they lose."

 Marmatag wrote:
Community on Space Marines players: "Mostly noobs, aren't skilled, that's why they lose."

The various Space Marine armies have a combined winrate of around 46% last I checked (sometime early yesterday; this may have changed of course as people add more results in), just shy of 50/50. Also, Space Marines placed 2 of the top 3, and 5 of the top 10, of the only major tournament so far, where Orks didn't even make one in the top ten-- one of them made 11, the rest were in the bottom five. So arguing Space Marines are weak is kinda silly, if anything, you can't really compare the strength/weakness of Marines vs the strength/weakness of Orks at all right now, they're in very very different situations.

One thing that does skew Space Marine results is that each named chapter is treated as its own separate army in the stats. So the only things left in the "generic Space Marines" bucket are "Space Marines, minus the cool chapter toys".

Space Marines have so much invested in their named chapters, especially the ones that have tons of exclusive units, that playing generic Space Marines instead of a named chapter is kind of handicapping yourself.

It would be like if the IG had almost all of its best toys locked to the Cadia keyword, and then the stats of IG and Cadia were tracked separately. Though of course, a certain Blood Angels list that nonetheless mostly used generic Space Marine units did recently do quite well, so perhaps the army is suffering from an identity crisis: the Space Marine units that are good are not the ones that the players picked up the army for.