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.

 mrhappyface wrote:


Misleading people how? Will people look at this and go "Guard are OP!" without even looking at any other sources? No one is taking these results as gospel.

That's exactly what is going to happen.

Honestly, you've got to pick one. If the data tells us something, you need to argue why it's reliable. If all you want to say is that the data are not crazy given what we already think is true, then, yeah, as I've said a few times I don't have a problem with that. You can't bootstrap by saying that we should believe the data because they match what we already think is true and then the data should make us much more confident in what we already believed.

You're being misleading by presenting the data as being useful for much at all. The way that you yourself defend the reliability of the data demonstrates this.

But also, yes, people are absolutely bringing up win rates from here as if they're evidence for faction balance. I've seen them posted in several threads.

http://bloodofkittens.com

Here you go. More or less confirms what a lot of people have been saying in here. Ultimately the data in here has to be given some skepticism, but until time passes or an alternate data set appears this is the framework we have. So far it's working pretty well.

Itc rankings on frontline gaming give an overview of the top players per faction and how much points they have relative to others. Granted the season is fresh.

Soon a big tournament will be happening that will confirm a lot of speculation in this thread or disprove it. Given my own experience I am inclined to believe this data will be approximately accurate.

There was also the big Caledonian deathwatch a few weeks back as well with 100 people. Then the wet coast which had a few hundred. These trends have more or less been shown to be correct.

Played a couple of games at 1K today with my Imperial Fists Space Marines. I wanted to try out some units I've never got to the table so my list was:

Captain Lysander
Crusader with all weapon options
2 x 5 Intercessors
10 Tac Marines with combi-plas, flamer and heavy bolter
5 Devs, 2 ML and 2 LC

Orks vs Space Marines = Marines win

I managed to take the anti tank out early with some lucky lascannon shots and some devastating firepower from the Crusader. The two clouds of 30 orks with their respective HQ escort just got whittled down, ending with the primaris squads finishing them off in CC. Lysander just wandered around the board one shotting a Warboss, clearing out a bike squad and then the Big Mek.

Adeptus Sororitas + Imperial Guard vs Space Marines = Marines win

First turn the Crusader wiped a squad + weapon team and put hurt on a sister squad. My opponent was very unlucky on his AT rolls and didn't manage to drop the LRC down a profile. The Intercessors on my left flank got charged by some Seraphim, who they seemed to handily clean up in combat and stay on their objective. Lysander managed to avoid being burned to death by the Immolator and one shot that before taking on the Cannoness.

After some reflection I had a bit of a terrain advantage on my side of the board, which we didn't realise until toward the end of the game. Not sure if it'd have made a difference with the LRC tearing up the army.

All in all, very impressed with the Land Raider and Lysander. The Intercessors are super handy when put in cover and are extremely hard to shift, they don't put out much damage at range but dish out a surprising amount in combat.

The data is reliable enough to establish a norm. This is because we have no reason to believe people are conspiring to change the results and enough people have posted for a general idea of faction strength, especially when their W/L position doesn't change over several weeks. If the data matches what is being established as the norm in other threads/forums/etc. then we can assume the data is farely reliable since it's results are being repeated.

What we can now do with this data is look to where it doesn't fit the norm and, as I said, ask "why?".
We've had discussions as to why IG are doing so well since they were below average in the previous editions norm.
We've had discussions as to why Tau were doing so bad since the norm from 7th was that they were very good.
We've had discussions as to why Tau started getting better since our new norm was telling us they were doing very badly.
And in all of our discussions it has been mentioned that the change from the norm could just be an outlier because people in this thread are learned enough to understand that statistics aren't fact.

It is useful for establishing the norm. See above.

And if they are? It encourages discussion: someone says Imperial Guard are OP because they are going 125W to 74L in this thread, it is then up to the people in this thread to discuss why this result is what it is. Are Imperial Guard doing well in this thread because they are OP (is there more evidence to corroborate these claims) or is it because of bias in the results? That is what we do on this site. We discuss: we discuss why Dakkanaughts are getting beaten by certain armies or why they are cerb stomping with another army and we discuss why certain armies are dominating tournaments. (What this set of data does that tournament data doesn't do is show how well the entire index is doing, not just the most competitive builds)

To be clear, though, you're not addressing any sort of sampling bias there and so what you're getting is just information about the people who are reporting. And as I said you plausibly have this problem with a bias towards reporting armies which could throw things off substantially. You're just wrong that your data is "reliable enough to establish a norm" for the game as a whole. Asserting this doesn't make it so. You probably have enough from individual players that you're getting a good idea of how those specific players do with particular armies, but you're really just confusing things by lumping together reports from multiple players. This has nothing to do with whether people are "conspiring to change the results" and I haven't seriously proposed that as a problem. You're just consistently failing to address the real sources of potential bias.

So, regarding your examples:
You're not adding anything to the Guard discussion. People figured out that Guard got much stronger pretty quickly, and you still don't appear to have an actual argument that your results are good evidence that Guard are winning a lot.

Likewise the overall Tau discussion.

I will give you that there's something interesting to talk about with why you saw Tau results change over time. Though this depends. If it's different players doing the reporting, you have nothing interesting to say about this. You have no reason to think that that's a real effect. But if it's the same players reporting then it plausibly reflects those specific players improving. You don't have anything interesting to say about Tau overall, for people who are not reporting.

To the extent that you think you have something interesting to say about the game overall and not particular players who are reporting lots of games, you're proving my point that people are terrible at evaluating this kind of information. That you mention in all of your discussions that maybe this is an outlier doesn't help and certainly doesn't demonstrate that people are actually evaluating this information appropriately. That's like saying that the "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer that psychics use means that clearly everyone involved is being responsible about how this is actually all just a sham.

What would you have me do then? What would satisfy your idea of reliable data that can be applied to this thread?

Dionysodorus wrote:
To be clear, though, you're not addressing any sort of sampling bias there and so what you're getting is just information about the people who are reporting. And as I said you plausibly have this problem with a bias towards reporting armies which could throw things off substantially. You're just wrong that your data is "reliable enough to establish a norm" for the game as a whole. Asserting this doesn't make it so. You probably have enough from individual players that you're getting a good idea of how those specific players do with particular armies, but you're really just confusing things by lumping together reports from multiple players. This has nothing to do with whether people are "conspiring to change the results" and I haven't seriously proposed that as a problem. You're just consistently failing to address the real sources of potential bias.

So, regarding your examples:
You're not adding anything to the Guard discussion. People figured out that Guard got much stronger pretty quickly, and you still don't appear to have an actual argument that your results are good evidence that Guard are winning a lot.

Likewise the overall Tau discussion.

I will give you that there's something interesting to talk about with why you saw Tau results change over time. Though this depends. If it's different players doing the reporting, you have nothing interesting to say about this. You have no reason to think that that's a real effect. But if it's the same players reporting then it plausibly reflects those specific players improving. You don't have anything interesting to say about Tau overall, for people who are not reporting.

To the extent that you think you have something interesting to say about the game overall and not particular players who are reporting lots of games, you're proving my point that people are terrible at evaluating this kind of information. That you mention in all of your discussions that maybe this is an outlier doesn't help and certainly doesn't demonstrate that people are actually evaluating this information appropriately. That's like saying that the "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer that psychics use means that clearly everyone involved is being responsible about how this is actually all just a sham.

I see your avoiding the evidence presented in the links I presented that show some correlation. Also there are 29 currently tracked factions, and only three big exceptions and one of them is an example twice. I would say that is well within normalcy for the data. It is even represented as the Tau tournament data itself. I have links that show early tournaments were Tau adapting their armies and using lots of Riptides and the usual old 7e lists that no longer worked. As they adapted they seem to be stabilising a little, but still not in great shape. The Space Marines have been covered by his posts before. So we have answered why the statistical anomalies exist in the first place.

Your hitting circular logic territory now.

 Gamgee wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
This is innumerate nonsense. This data is essentially useless. Yes, it is "better than nothing". It is far, far worse than a competent person playing a few games and seeing how units feel to them, supplemented by lots of mathhammer.

Then is it your belief that Imperial Guard aren't top level this edition? Do you think that Sisters are bad too? Do you believe that Tau and Orks are in fact great armies this edition? And if you don't believe any of that then hasn't the data shown quite clearly which armies are doing well and which aren't?

By saying that this data is useless you are denying what is so blatantly true and supported by this data.

Welcome to the world of pain I had in 7th trying to show Tau was only mid tier other then riptide wing, stormsurge spam, and some formations. Data and logical analysis means nothing to some people. I will make one point for my opponent since he is doing rather poorly in the debate himself. While this data shows which armies are weak it doesn't really specify how they are weak. That would take more in depth analysis and more time. Thankfully as more and more battle reports come in we will be able to get a better picture.

Some like the Tau are well understood where their problem lies. Others like the Deathwatch is a little harder just due to the small sample size and player base. So far the rough consensus seems to be the army is simply a little too expensive for some things.

Edit
Okay I seen your new post. You do make a point. The data is not professional level of data that will survive scrutiny from a university professor. At least right now. Dakka's sample size is more or less equalling other websites sample size as well and we're seeing a fairly similar distribution in actual tournament winners ect ect. Where your point is most valid is not the obvious extremes but the middle of the ground since it's easier for bias to creep into the data when it's all a lot closer in value.

Was there other Tau in 7th? Because I sure as hell never saw it.

 mrhappyface wrote:
What would you have me do then? What would satisfy your idea of reliable data that can be applied to this thread?

I mean, I gave you one suggestion that I think would maybe get you to the point of being able to say something interesting about at least the performance of armies among people on this forum. You could try to adjust for any bias in favor of reporting players' armies. I'm not sure you have enough data for this, but as a first pass you might go through and look at the win rate for reporting armies vs other armies (you would want to split out games that did not involve a reporting army as their own thing too, since obviously those will always be 50/50). See if that result looks really weird -- do reporting armies win 60% of their games? You could then look at the distribution of faction choices among reporting players vs non-reporting players -- how much correlation is there between factions with overall high win rates and factions favored by reporters? Ideally you could look at this on a faction by faction basis, but I don't think you have enough data for this. You could just see if reporting Space Marines do much better or worse than non-reporting Space Marines. If there's significant reporting bias of this sort, you could use the results of this to try to adjust your calculated win rates for their popularity among reporting players to obtain a better measure of a faction's win rate that isn't reflecting reporter preference.

A second thing you should probably do is look at how many actual people are responsible for your results. I pointed out earlier that the very low Ork win rate is basically entirely due to a single player who reported on page 2. It is possible that this player reported even more games later. Surely you can agree that in light of that, the Ork results are simply not reliable -- you have never had the slightest reason to look at your results and say that they provide any real evidence that Orks are underpowered. Your results are due to a single player getting poor results with Orks. Obviously there are many possible explanations for this besides something inherent to the faction. Anyway, there are a couple more complex measures you could look at for this, but what you're looking for is something like: how many individual players do I need to eliminate from consideration in order to drive the calculated win rate to something more normal, or before I have too few data points to draw conclusions? This is difficult to work out in some cases where people are reporting watched games or may be playing against multiple opponents, but you can probably do okay here. If you can quantify that 2 or 3 Sisters players are basically wholly responsible for their results, then that's why we shouldn't really trust that. If the Marine results are really robust even after you get rid of quite a few people, then that one's a lot more likely to be telling you something real. I think you've mentioned before something like a raw number of people who are contributing to this, but there's a big difference between 100 people reporting 2 games each and 99 people reporting 1 game each and 1 person reporting 101 games -- in this case your results are probably more reliable if you just ignore the person who's reporting 101 games, since otherwise basically all you're telling me is how well that person did.

But yeah, there are pretty serious limitations to how solid of conclusions you can draw doing something like this. You're simply never going to be able to be really confident that you're on to something. I'm not trying to say that you're doing it wrong, really, it's just that finding stuff out is hard and you have limited tools available unless you go to unrealistic lengths. There's a limit to what I can tell you about the Moon using binoculars, but that's not really a criticism of my trying to look at the moon with binoculars because I don't want to spend a ton of money on a telescope. But I should be careful not to think that my information is actually very useful -- if you really want to know about the Moon you need a lot more than binoculars. What you're doing is largely a "for entertainment purposes only" sort of statistics gathering. It's a neat thing to do to see how stuff is working for dakka. Like how you could ask dakka what they think of pineapple pizza and that would tell you something interesting about dakka, which lots of people (on dakka, at least) might find interesting, but you'd want to be really careful about applying that more broadly because of course dakka-ites are not representative of the general population, perhaps not even in their tastes in pizza toppings.

You argue as though you think we're trying to use this dataset as a be-all-end-all final word on discussions in 40k. We're not. We knew the limitations of this from the start. The data is limited, but has the level of reliability and usefulness we need for a simple internet discussion. We're well aware of this thing's faults, and we know where we can or cannot draw conclusions from it.

Seriously man, you're blowing this whole damn thing out of proportion. I would quite like it if we could just go back to the topic of the darn thread.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
What would you have me do then? What would satisfy your idea of reliable data that can be applied to this thread?

I mean, I gave you one suggestion that I think would maybe get you to the point of being able to say something interesting about at least the performance of armies among people on this forum. You could try to adjust for any bias in favor of reporting players' armies. I'm not sure you have enough data for this, but as a first pass you might go through and look at the win rate for reporting armies vs other armies (you would want to split out games that did not involve a reporting army as their own thing too, since obviously those will always be 50/50). See if that result looks really weird -- do reporting armies win 60% of their games? You could then look at the distribution of faction choices among reporting players vs non-reporting players -- how much correlation is there between factions with overall high win rates and factions favored by reporters? Ideally you could look at this on a faction by faction basis, but I don't think you have enough data for this. You could just see if reporting Space Marines do much better or worse than non-reporting Space Marines. If there's significant reporting bias of this sort, you could use the results of this to try to adjust your calculated win rates for their popularity among reporting players to obtain a better measure of a faction's win rate that isn't reflecting reporter preference.

A second thing you should probably do is look at how many actual people are responsible for your results. I pointed out earlier that the very low Ork win rate is basically entirely due to a single player who reported on page 2. It is possible that this player reported even more games later. Surely you can agree that in light of that, the Ork results are simply not reliable -- you have never had the slightest reason to look at your results and say that they provide any real evidence that Orks are underpowered. Your results are due to a single player getting poor results with Orks. Obviously there are many possible explanations for this besides something inherent to the faction. Anyway, there are a couple more complex measures you could look at for this, but what you're looking for is something like: how many individual players do I need to eliminate from consideration in order to drive the calculated win rate to something more normal, or before I have too few data points to draw conclusions? This is difficult to work out in some cases where people are reporting watched games or may be playing against multiple opponents, but you can probably do okay here. If you can quantify that 2 or 3 Sisters players are basically wholly responsible for their results, then that's why we shouldn't really trust that. If the Marine results are really robust even after you get rid of quite a few people, then that one's a lot more likely to be telling you something real.

But yeah, there are pretty serious limitations to how solid of conclusions you can draw doing something like this. You're simply never going to be able to be really confident that you're on to something. I'm not trying to say that you're doing it wrong, really, it's just that finding stuff out is hard and you have limited tools available unless you go to unrealistic lengths. There's a limit to what I can tell you about the Moon using binoculars, but that's not really a criticism of my trying to look at the moon with binoculars because I don't want to spend a ton of money on a telescope. But I should be careful not to think that my information is actually very useful -- if you really want to know about the Moon you need a lot more than binoculars. What you're doing is largely a "for entertainment purposes only" sort of statistics gathering. It's a neat thing to do to see how stuff is working for dakka. Like how you could ask dakka what they think of pineapple pizza and that would tell you something interesting about dakka, which lots of people (on dakka, at least) might find interesting, but you'd want to be really careful about applying that more broadly because of course dakka-ites are not representative of the general population, perhaps not even in their tastes in pizza toppings.

Yet if we never bothered to learn with binoculars and even less than that first we would not have the tools for more in depth analysis to even get there. Science is a clumsy affair of trial and error and you should know that by now. We make a hypothesis based on what we have and know and test it. Then if it is wrong try again. The very corner stone of science. What you seem to want is magical fool proof data which simply doesn't exist in any field of science and never will. Your analogies are beginning to fall apart. We want to look at the moon and you want to land us on it. Two completely different tasks. Nothing you have said has refuted anything we have said in this entire topic. Not one of us said this data was solid metric with which we should place the gold standard above all. That is purely on yourself.

We are now talking about the fundamentals of science. We are so far off topic of discussion now I can't help but think your doing this to troll us on purpose.

 Selym wrote:
You argue as though you think we're trying to use this dataset as a be-all-end-all final word on discussions in 40k. We're not. We knew the limitations of this from the start. The data is limited, but has the level of reliability and usefulness we need for a simple internet discussion. We're well aware of this thing's faults, and we know where we can or cannot draw conclusions from it.

Seriously man, you're blowing this whole damn thing out of proportion. I would quite like it if we could just go back to the topic of the darn thread.

Right, this is exactly the kind of mistake I'm talking about. This data does not have the level of reliability and usefulness you need for a simple internet discussion, except to the extent that for simple internet discussions no one cares about what's actually true (which, maybe). You are clearly not aware of the limitations of this kind of data, as presented, if you think it can tell you anything at all interesting about the broader game. Once again, I am not saying that people are trying to use this as the be-all end-all. I'm saying people are using it as if it constitutes more than incredibly weak evidence of the sort that we ordinarily would dismiss out of hand as not worth our time in considering a question.

You can insist all you like that you're aware of your parachute's limitations, but when I'm pointing out that the pack is full of silverware instead of an actual parachute, and you're fixing to jump out of the plane anyway, I'm going to question whether you're really aware, or whether even though you say you're aware, you're actually still overestimating it. And, to be clear, I'm not intending that to be exactly analogous in every way to this situation, since apparently my binocular analogy in the last post was misunderstood.

 Selym wrote:
You argue as though you think we're trying to use this dataset as a be-all-end-all final word on discussions in 40k. We're not. We knew the limitations of this from the start. The data is limited, but has the level of reliability and usefulness we need for a simple internet discussion. We're well aware of this thing's faults, and we know where we can or cannot draw conclusions from it.

Seriously man, you're blowing this whole damn thing out of proportion. I would quite like it if we could just go back to the topic of the darn thread.

Just report him he is trolling us now going around in circles. Don't feed him.

Eldar vs Space Marines: Space Marines win

One new game at my shop today. Wooo lots of debate.

Tyranids vs. Necrons - Tyranid win.

I am almost hesitant to play this because the necron player is very new. However I'm really new to Tyranids (maybe my 4th game) so it mostly washes out. After the game we discussed ups and downs and we both agreed he needs some good heavy support to hurt my my big units like Hive Tyrand and Carnifex.

Space Marines Vs. Orkz - Space Marine Win
Space Marines Vs. Orkz/Eldar - Space Marine Win
Ad Mech Vs. Orkz - Ad Mech Win.

The Dice Godz betrayed me today.

Morphuess wrote:
One new game at my shop today. Wooo lots of debate.

Tyranids vs. Necrons - Tyranid win.

I am almost hesitant to play this because the necron player is very new. However I'm really new to Tyranids (maybe my 4th game) so it mostly washes out. After the game we discussed ups and downs and we both agreed he needs some good heavy support to hurt my my big units like Hive Tyrand and Carnifex.

Necrons struggle with big stuff in general, his best bet is probably to invest in a couple Doomsday Arks. FW has a few more solutions but it's probably not the best idea for a new player to be jumping right into FW models.

Ork VS Eldar - Orks WIN!!

Orks Vs Ynnari - ORKs WIN!!

Ork VS Eldar - Eldar win... darn, Kill points.

- The era of the the Big Choppa nob is at hand!

29 pages and I'll be the first one to say it.

Please can we correct it to 'Adepta Sororitas'?

Dark Angels: 4W and 1L (three of those wins were in a tournament)

 Rubenite wrote:
29 pages and I'll be the first one to say it.

Please can we correct it to 'Adepta Sororitas'?

I prefer SoB. It's their real name, and it's the sound they make when GW passes them over for updates.

AM scionspam loss against Eldar mechspam.

Notes going in the AM tactica thread for those interested.

We are seeing as more results come in ever greater homogeneity and balance. This is good right?

Orks vs. DE = Orks win
Orks vs. Eldar = Close but Orks win
Blood Angels vs. Eldar = Very close BA win.

Of note, for the ork wins I was playing relatively boyz heavy lists and found everything but the warboss, wierdboy and boyz to be quite lacklustre. (I miss my old cheap deffkoptas)

Had 2 matched play ITC rules games this weekend at 2000 points.

Grey Knights vs Eldar - Grey Knights win
Grey Knights vs Eldar - Grey Knights win

Rough Lists:

Me: 2 Purgation Squads (incinerators, psilencers), a dakka NDK, 2 Strike Squads, 1 terminator squad, 2 dakka ravens /w melta, kaldor draigo, saint celestine. 6 command points.

Him: hemlock wraithfighter, dakka wraithknight, a few squads of shuriken jetbikes, 1 squad of wraithguards + wave serpent, farseer, quite a bit of fire prisms, another HQ i forget. 5 command points.

The FAQ released the morning of this game, so i had to re-do my drops. Previously the strike squads would deep-strike in, but that isn't possible anymore, since Ravens don't count for your 50% on the ground requirement. This made my strike squads far less valuable in these games. I may give up on the battalion, and either combine them into 1 squad and try for a deep strike, or switch them to interceptors and try to get the points back elsewhere. All in all they proved to be wasted points on the table. But, we were playing eternal war. They could have done much more in an objective based game.

Celestine is still strong as ever. I was dumb not to be using her this entire time. Acts of Faith are absurdly good. Oh look. I moved 24" turn 1. Now i'm assaulting you. I love this model and i will exploit it for victories. I might even add more Ministorum / Sisters simply because their mobility is outstanding and they're fighty and shooty as hell, with low cost. I can't see much of a downside to them as a compliment for GK. I feel dirty using acts of faith. It just feels unfair.

Draigo is still the MVP in every game. Providing rerolls, and also being tanky as hell, denying 2 spells, and manifesting 2, is really solid at 240 points. I can't decide if he's on par with Marneus, who gives +2CP, or Dante, who has an inferno pistol and a 12" move, but he's really solid, and he's one of my favorite models. I know for a fact that stormshield came up big against the Wraithknight. I don't believe Dante or Marneus could tank a WK like Draigo did.

Psilencers proved to be really solid against jetbikes. Gating them into a key ruins or cover on turn 1, with a 24" range on 24 D3 damage shots, is nothing to sneeze at. They chewed through bikes like it was going out of style. I have found that psilencers do more than incinerators in my games so far, simply because I've encountered shooty armies. I do have my squad of incinerators, riding in the bird, just waiting to body block a charge...

The NDK seems like a bad unit. He seems like he's got overall weak melee and mediocre shooting. But he's really much better than you'd think. 18 shots per turn, and they all are 2 damage or d3 damage, you can't ignore him. Also, his melee is 4 attacks, D6 damage, ignoring most tank armor. With 12 wounds, and a 2+/5++, with a manifest & deny, he can deep-strike right into the heart of the fighting, and just get absolutely pummeled and keep on trucking. The 5++ came up big in both games. He survived game 2 with 1 wound remaining, saving 2 stomps with a 5 and a 6. Not typical, I know, but you can't get lucky on invulns if you don't have an invuln. I prefer him to dreadnoughts.

Terminators seem to be a target whenever I run them. They've got falchions and a nemesis warding stave (for the 4++ in melee). 2 wounds isn't super durable, but the mass of falchion swings at d3 a pop scare people. In one round of combat they did 6 wounds to the WK. That's not amazing, but it's also not shabby, considering he denied my hammerhand.

On the Eldar side, hemlock wraithfighters are really, really good. You can give them conceal, and you're looking at a -2 to hit them. Also, they fire 2D3 shots that auto-hit, and are strength 10, -2. A psyker wraithfighter can cast conceal on himself. They did solid damage. Wraithguard are good too, but they were my primary target. I killed them first in every game. Their weapon kit is too scary to let them live. The dakka wraithknight was a boss. Considering it can receive fortune & guide, I would say that it's probably better overall in the context of the Eldar army, than an imperial knight. Is it worth the points? I don't know. But it handled the dreadknight in melee, and only lost 12 wounds with a full squad of terminators, draigo, celestine, and the NDK punching it for a turn. For comparative purposes, an imperial knight would have been riggidy wrecked by that in 1 turn. Fortune gave it a 3+/5++/5+++ statline on defense. Wow.

In any case, our second game was more competitive and actually made it to turn 4. Pretty rare in 8th edition. It was a really good game, but I pulled out the victory. I lost much of my list, but was still en-route to pulling off a tabling.

 Marmatag wrote:

Celestine is still strong as ever. I was dumb not to be using her this entire time. Acts of Faith are absurdly good. Oh look. I moved 24" turn 1. Now i'm assaulting you. I love this model and i will exploit it for victories. I might even add more Ministorum / Sisters simply because their mobility is outstanding and they're fighty and shooty as hell, with low cost. I can't see much of a downside to them as a compliment for GK. I feel dirty using acts of faith. It just feels unfair.

Nah, that's probably just skill. ©This thread

 Selym wrote:
I prefer SoB. It's their real name, and it's the sound they make when GW passes them over for updates.

ROFL I'd never thought of it like that....

Tau vs SW: Tau win

Space Wolves vs. Ynarri SW win