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.

Orks v Deathwatch x2
1 Win, 1 Loss

AdMech v AM
1 Loss
(Actually a Baneblade + Knight with AdMech backup in 1500 pts, against a pure tank line)

AdMech v Orks
1 Loss

What even is this argument. The ITC and every single official organization observes a categorical distinction between CSM and the other chapters that have their own codices. It's organised BY CODEX.

"b-but I don't like that system"

No one cares. It's the system tournaments use, it's the system the OP seems to want to use. You don't have to like it, no one asked you to. You're entirely free to make your own thread or form your own system in which faction categories in tournaments are organized by fluff or whatever instead of something else.

Simple. Because of how similar they are, it's more useful to measure Space Marines as a whole than it is to measure them singly.

How ITC itself measures it is irrelevant; they don't do that for the purposes of accurate statistical analysis.

 Melissia wrote:
Your strawman argument is amusing, but still wrong, much like your opinions.

My argument was such:

 Melissia wrote:
There's not really all that much of a difference between the various marine armies at the moment due to the nature of the Index books; as such, combining them for statistical purposes is no different than combining a Guardian-heavy Eldar army and an Aspect-heavy Eldar army, or an Infantry regiment IG force vs an Armored regiment IG force.

And it still stands. I did not argue that all Space Marines are exactly the same. Just that they're so similar it's okay for the purposes of statistical analysis to combine them in order to measure the winrates of Space Marines overall. That this notion offends you really reflects more on you than me.

It's not a strawman argument. Formalize a way for us to quantify the difference between two armies, or you have no point, other than "this is how I feel," which in and of itself is an argument, just not a valid one. You have no case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
How ITC itself measures it is irrelevant; they don't do that for the purposes of accurate statistical analysis.

Are you suggesting we have less granular data for statistical analysis? Which statistical methods would benefit, or be harmed by, separating marine armies, rather than lumping them together?

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not a strawman argument.

Yes, actually, it is. You argued that I claimed that all space marines are the exact same, that there's no difference between them, which is not only wrong, but you know it's wrong-- and you said it anyway as if that's what I had actually said. My argue was simple, that there's a small enough difference that they can be lumped together to get a clearer picture.

Amusingly, your previous post basically passive-aggressviely agreed with my argument.

 Marmatag wrote:
Are you suggesting we have less granular data for statistical analysis?

It is misleading to claim "Space Marines are doing terribly bad!" when, on the whole, they are not really doing that much worse than a 50/50 split than you'd expect from a normal distribution.

There is no mechanical reason for the gap between BA and other marines. There must BE a reason, however, and figuring that out is worth keeping them separated.

For my part, I don't even particularly care how they are organized on the list. What's important is recognizing the effect that the organization has on the resulting numbers.

If you have regular Space Marines, and then you have Ultramarines that are basically Space Marines plus Reboot as a general, the Ultramarines' presence will skew the stats. Just got to keep in mind that the nature of Space Marine subfactions means that the subfactions will siphon wins from the "main" faction.

I'll wait for you to formalize how we can calculate the difference between two armies.

Just shoot me a PM when you have it and i'll come back. Then we can discuss the merits of the Melissa system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:

If you have regular Space Marines, and then you have Ultramarines that are basically Space Marines plus Reboot as a general, the Ultramarines' presence will skew the stats.

Ultramarines should be separate because they have access to Roboute.

If anything, the Rowboat should make Ultras better than BA.

With a quick glance (pardon if I make a mistake here, the list is kinda long):

Space Wolves, 1k sons Grey Knights, Emperor's Children, and World Eaters have a better than 1:1 win-loss ratio.

Blood Angels and Chaos Marines have exactly a 1:1 win-loss ratio.

Generic Marines, Death Guard, Dark Angels, and Deathwatch have a less than 1:1 win-loss ratio.

However, the numbers are so small for a lot of these sub-factions (some of which have less than ten games total) that it is more useful to look at the 120-138 split we currently have, which results in a 46.5% win ratio. Not ideal (48-52% or so would be best), showing a lack of internal balance between Marine sub-factions, but overall it's not showing that marines are cripplingly bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'll wait for you to formalize how we can calculate the difference between two armies.

I don't like you enough to put that much effort in to something you're not going to respect anyway. So don't bother waiting.

 Marmatag wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

If you have regular Space Marines, and then you have Ultramarines that are basically Space Marines plus Reboot as a general, the Ultramarines' presence will skew the stats.

Ultramarines should be separate because they have access to Roboute.

And that's fine if that's how you want to do it, but you then have to recognize that the Ultramarines' presence on the list will skew the Space Marines' stats because of the value that Reboot adds to their roster.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not a strawman argument.

Yes, actually, it is. You argued that I claimed that all space marines are the exact same, that there's no difference between them, which is not only wrong, but you know it's wrong-- and you said it anyway as if that's what I had actually said.

 Marmatag wrote:
Are you suggesting we have less granular data for statistical analysis?

It is misleading to claim "Space Marines are doing terribly bad!" when, on the whole, they are not really doing that much worse than a 50/50 split than you'd expect from a normal distribution.

Well, it is useful to know that Space Marines with Guilliman are doing better/worse than Space Marines with Grimnar, or Space Marines without either.

Similarly, it is useful to know that Imperial Guard with Pask may or may not be doing better than Imperial Guard with Harker, or Imperial Guard with a special order to turn all their weapons into "Assault" weapons. It may also be useful to know if Orks with Ghazskull are doing better than Orks with Baddrukk, etc.


But, if it's not deemed useful to know if the Imperial Guard brought Pask or Harker, it's not any more useful to know if the Space Marines brought Guilliman or Grimnar. It's easy to see how the separation can skew the data.

Amusingly, ultramarines are not shown as separate in this list.

 Melissia wrote:
Simple. Because of how similar they are, it's more useful to measure Space Marines as a whole than it is to measure them singly.

Sure, and it would also be fitting to categorize all Imperial armies under one banner now since they can freely borrow units from each other and essentially all count as one faction. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat.

How ITC itself measures it is irrelevant

It's entirely relevant because this thread is about the ITC results.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Sure, and it would also be fitting to categorize all Imperial armies under one banner now since they can freely borrow units from each other and essentially all count as one faction. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat.

If an army uses multiple Imperial factions at once (such as one listed above that's AdMech and Knights), "Imperial" is the only useful way to define it, as listing the combination would provide for far too many smaller (and thus less useful) results.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's entirely relevant because this thread is about the ITC results.

Uh... no. No, it is not. It's about the wins and losses Dakka users themselves are reporting, not ITC's results, which would be unchanging until their next tournament where this list is continually changing.

Did you click on the wrong thread?

 Melissia wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Sure, and it would also be fitting to categorize all Imperial armies under one banner now since they can freely borrow units from each other and essentially all count as one faction. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat.

If an army uses multiple Imperial factions at once, "Imperial" is the only useful way to define it, as listing the combination would provide for far too many smaller (and thus less useful) results.

Uh, yes?

Uh... no. No, it is not. It's about the wins and losses Dakka users themselves are reporting, not ITC's results, which would be unchanging until their next tournament where this list is continually changing.

Did you click on the wrong thread?

Sorry, I worded that in the absolute dumbest way possible.

The OP is using the ITC system to organize player results.

Eh, I don't have the heart to continue that argument. I made my point at any rate, and this has been going on for too long.

This little thang we got goin on has been going on for too long gurl.

Agreed. I was hoping to see continued updates. All I've seen on the last three pages is a lot of bickering. It would be great if you guys could move it else where.

Been out for a while but now I'm back, good to see everyones been keeping busy in this thread.

Updated.

New game result:
Craftworld Eldar vs Spehs Mehreens (space-puppy flavored) -----> Craftworld Eldar wins.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Astra Militarium - 38W 27L
Tyranids - 35W 28L
Space Marines - 35W 51L
Eldar - 23W 21L
Orks - 22W 39L
Dark Eldar - 19W 13L
Chaos Space Marines - 18W 19L
Necrons - 17W 18L
Space Wolves - 13W 11L
Daemons - 12W 5L
Ad mech - 11W 13L
Imperial Knights - 11W 6L
Thousand Sons - 10W 6L
Grey Knights - 10W 7L
Blood Angels - 10W 11L
Tau - 10W 21L
Dark Angels - 9W 14L
Adeptus Sororitas - 7W 3L
Harlequins - 6W 6L
Deathwatch - 6W 9L
Death Guard - 6W 12L

Right-ho! Now we're starting to see some real numbers of games, but I must wonder, is this including all X vs X games, or is it just the X vs Y games? Because including X vs X games is just adding 1 to each W/L stat every time it's done, and could skew some of the data. Recording the results of one army against itself tells us little about Codex vs Codex (Index vs Index, etc) balance.

It seems that several armies are seeing little use in this thread, but mostly the armies we wouldn't expect to have great proliferation.

Tau seem to be getting the gak kicked out of them, but whether this is because the army is weak or just because it changed so much that nobody has a viable list yet is uncertain.
Blood Angels are getting close to a 1/1 win/loss rate here, which is vastly improved over Martel's constant bellyaching for the last few years. What this means is hard to determine, and whether it holds out in a month's time is, as with everything here, unpredictable.
Sisters of Battle are doing okay, but 10 battles is hardly a trend-checker.
Death Guard, for all of GW's work, are trailing behind with a 1/2 w/l rate.
Imperial Knights are doing well with around a 2/1 rate, presumably because killing three superheavy vehicles in this edition is quite a feat of strength.
Guardsmen are doing about as well as the nids, but how much of this is to do with Conscript-spam is unknowable...
Necrons are still not being too curb-stomping...
Harley-davidsons are beng murderclowns. Scary to contemplate, but ultimately vulnerable to being shot in the face.
Tyranids are consuming several planet's worth of armies, this looks to be their edition.
Eldar are evening out, possibly because they aren't all that hard to kill.
Vanilla Marines are just getting punched in the face as one of the most popular armies. I'd put this down to them being extremely common. So common in fact, that my first question when making a list is "can it kill vanilla marines?"
Orks... Bein' GREEN

So far, an interesting collection of unreliable data.

 Selym wrote:
So far, an interesting collection of unreliable data.

Welcome to the world of statistics!

had a game today.

SM x SW - SM win

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Selym wrote:
So far, an interesting collection of unreliable data.

Welcome to the world of statistics!

Don't forget, 90% of statistics are made up, and I can only say that with a 70% level of certainty

 Selym wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Selym wrote:
So far, an interesting collection of unreliable data.

Welcome to the world of statistics!

Don't forget, 90% of statistics are made up, and I can only say that with a 70% level of certainty

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"

 Selym wrote:

Imperial Knights are doing well with around a 2/1 rate, presumably because killing three superheavy vehicles in this edition is quite a feat of strength.

I think that's largely me inflating that.

of the 11 wins, I'm pretty sure I'm 6 of those reported (and 2 of the losses).

My local still suffers from 7th edition "don't bother with heavy weapons" syndrome. In 4-5 of those wins, I've had to kill maybe 2 units that have big damage guns, and the rest of the field is a mix of anti-infantry stuff that can still get the job done, but... not well. I alpha strike 6 damage guns off the table (often first turn thanks to long movement and gun range), and then just sort of clean up.

People are finally adapting to 8th edition "vehicles and multiwound models are more commonplace" and are starting to bring more than then 1-2 units to solve that problem (especially because infantry variations of that are so cheap). Games are getting closer and closer.

I've personally played BA since 8th dropped. I've won 3 games vs Orks, won 1 vs White Scars, lost 1 to Ultramarines (more like his stupid land raider exploding), and won 1 vs Guard. All of these were 2k points games.

Some of the things I've learned. Stormravens are pretty dang good vs Orks, as they have no reliable shooting that can deal with them. Melee dreads are pretty junk because of how much they cost and how hard it is to get them there (even on a stormraven). Melee consolidating into things to shut down shooting really helps the durability of CC units.

New game this morning:
Chaos Marines VS Dark Angels - Chaos Marines win
1500 pts
fun game, dreadnought/helbrutes are a viable option again, wohoo!

 Mulletdude wrote:
Stormravens are pretty dang good vs Orks, as they have no reliable shooting that can deal with them.

Anyone tried to assault them with stormboyz yet?