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.

No.

Martel732 wrote:
No.

Congrats on 21k posts!

I mean, I probably would have celebrated with a post with more than 2 letters, but hey, to each their own.

Bharring wrote:
Fun fact: a Tac Marine killed the same number of Termies as a Banshee inside 12", per model. Twice the shots vs twice as deadly per shot. More if they had SS/TH. You probably were either not part of that conversation, or not remembering it. Same thing for the AC Termie conversation, which was per-model: it was proposed rules where they were the same points per-model.

As for the dentists, you're conflaiting proof with evidence again. Studies provide evidence, not proof. Reliable evidence, done well.

Consuming large amounts of data requires time and expertise. Hence why I ask a doctor for any medical question. This appeal to authority is more in line with that than panels and studies: people are making claims, and other people are pointing to those with a greater record of knowing what they're talking about (tourny winners) making a counterclaim.

Tourny winners aren't a proper board of experts for debating the merits for large amount of data. But they are a set of people who, most likely, understand what they should take to a tourny better than the average forum poster.

If one person runs numbers on (non rigerous) data (and isn't peer reviewed), but his conclusions don't match those of people who have had success "in the field", you don't discount either theory, you investigate further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines with Bolters don't kill things off objectives as fast as other things. Marines with specials clear most things off objectives about as fast as many glass-cannon troops, but that's half the quesiton.

The other half, which you seem to miss, is that Marines with Bolters are harder to clear off objectives than the average troop. And, while being cleared off, don't lose much firepower until the last 1-3 guys.

1. You're saying a shooty unit inside rapid fire range killed as many Terminators as a melee unit not designed for shooting nor designed for charging Terminators. And you don't think there's something a little off about that? Terminators weren't even good 6th/7th edition, but that thread was more about the point that even bad Eldar units functioned mildly better than the mediocre to good units of other Codices. So yeah I remember those threads, like the one where you created an illegal loadout for Chaos Marines and they barely won a firefight vs Dire Avengers not using Battle Focus (when done and actually using the legal loadout for Chaos Marines they lost handily). So yeah forgive me if I don't take kindly to Eldar apologists. Next.

That said, the thing about Scatterbikes that was probably Martel. He had every right to be butthurt about Scatterbikes but he was not costing them correctly.

2. Studies do provide proof and evidence at the same time. Hence why there's proof of evolution not just evidence.
So yes you can ignore the doctors that say they have proof or evidence that vaccines cause autism, or the dentists that say they have proof of sugarless gum causing even more cavities. That is because you have so much to ignore them if you're being realistic. It isn't even worth the time to acknowledge them, even though they're supposedly experts.

3. 1 special/heavy and a Combi-Weapon is not offensively powerful. If it were, Crusader squads would actually be considered good and you'd see lists with Helbrecht + an Lt for a Rowboat aura for significantly less cost. Less CP, but not a lot of the Marine Strategems are that good so not much is lost.
For the same list, a better idea would be minimum Devastators squads with 2 Lascannons and the Cherub. You have to kill 3 dudes instead of 4, but the damage output is MUCH better that the Anti-Infantry tanks will likely be dead.

1)
If by "illegal loadout", you mean I didn't know CSM had to pay 10 points for a sarge, so ran 140 points of CSM vs 130 points of DA, yeah, my bad. And by 'Didn't use battlefocus' you meant used battlefocus every round, otherwise the DAs got wiped out fast. And by the corrected values meant the Chaos lost handily you meant it would take only 10 full rounds for the DAs to finish off the CSM model-for-model... I really have to question your memory.

Everyone had every right to be butthurt about scatterbikes. That was just wrong.

2)
Cogni ergo sum. Anything else isn't actually proven. Read up on mathematical proofs, scientific methods, and confidence levels.

You can ignore one doctor telling you medicine X will kill you if you want. I wouldn't ignore them because some random poster on the internet said otherwise. But if most doctors said otherwise - which isn't the case here - then I'd revisit it.

3)
So you say. If I had to choose to trust a random poster without solid logic to base it upon, or people who win GTs, I know who I'm more likely to believe.

As I said, I'd have been more likely to bring some devs over more Tac squads, but I didn't win a GT.

Fact remains, most troops do worse than Tacs with 1 special/heavy and/or combi. So either almost all troops are garbage, or Tacs aren't garbage.

To be fair, after 10k posts you really don't have a reason to keep track.

Bharring wrote:

2)
Cogni ergo sum. Anything else isn't actually proven. Read up on mathematical proofs, scientific methods, and confidence levels.

You can ignore one doctor telling you medicine X will kill you if you want. I wouldn't ignore them because some random poster on the internet said otherwise. But if most doctors said otherwise - which isn't the case here - then I'd revisit it.

There is a copious amount of tournament data out there, if you would just look for it. This tournament specifically is more of an outlier than anything else, as AM has been dominating for some time across a wide variety of events, and event sizes.

Telling someone to read a mathbook doesn't really do anything for your argument.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Fact remains, most troops do worse than Tacs with 1 special/heavy and/or combi. So either almost all troops are garbage, or Tacs aren't garbage.

You simply have not proven this. And your conclusion is just ridiculous.

 Marmatag wrote:


There is a copious amount of tournament data out there, if you would just look for it. This tournament specifically is more of an outlier than anything else, as AM has been dominating for some time across a wide variety of events, and event sizes.

You've made this claim in the IG thread too without providing any actual sources, or you know, data.

Blood of Kittens data on 8th edition tournaments has Marines tied with Guard.

So if IG is dominating, then surely you admit that Marines are equally dominating, right?

That last comment was intellectually lazy of me; I apologize.

The subject I"m asking him to read up on in *specifically* interplay between logical proofs, logical fallacies, data-based evidence, and the scientific process. He continually states that the data "proves" something, while also "disproving" appeal to authority as a logical fallacy. There are some fallacies in that, and I'm hoping he can read up on what he's talking about.

I haven't followed many tournaments. The title of the thread was 'First Warhammer40 GT'. I (apparently wrongly) inferred that we were just starting to get relevant GT data.

As for 'Tacs are garbage' and 'Most troops do worse than troops' - claims I have supported, but not overwhelmingly - I think that those statements are accurate. If AM have been dominating as you suggest, that suggests Tacs don't perform as well as most AM units. But do most of the other dozen + armies out there also regularly outperform Tac-backed armies? Does the tourny data show kalabites as superior? Fire Warriors? Kroot? Gaunts? I actually haven't seen the data, so don't know.

Gotta jet for a few mins - but i was starting to assemble as requested.

here's the top rated for each faction, for the best players in the world in 2017.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

There is a lot more data out there.

 Marmatag wrote:
Gotta jet for a few mins - but i was starting to assemble as requested.

here's the top rated for each faction, for the best players in the world in 2017.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

There is a lot more data out there.

Thanks for the link. Didn't know ITC was that thorough.

I can't see a way to sort by faction, unfortunately. Manually clicking through the top 10 only shows 3 predominantly IG players (some players seem to switch often or back and forth), with one or two generic Imperium 'soup' lists and some Chaos (with one dedicated Sisters player).

I'll keep sorting through, but it doesn't seem like IG are some towering monstrosity of dominating every single tournament, and that Chaos and Marines are doing just as fine.

*Edit* Top 20 players shows a bunch more Eldar and Chaos, no additional Guard.

Here's the list that won the NOVA GT.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/goatboys-40k-nova-open-winner-andrew-gonyos-killer-list.html

Good luck beating this one.

And that is already sorted for you. You can see the top performers by faction.... with AM head and shoulders above the field. Ultramarines like i said do well because of Guilliman. BA are rated high because this still includes pre-ravenspam nerf results.

And what do you have to say for armies that have a top placed scorer below 400? Just sod off because <insert here?> Admech and GK have a codex and still suck righteously.

I brought that specific article because we were talking about "experts." And the best way to see how the best of the best fare is with that link...

I mean for real though if your head isn't buried in the sand you've seen the non stop barrage of AM slaughterfests rolling in tourny after tourny... I can't remember the last GT where AM finished 1,2,3 and 5 or something ridiculous.

So I definitely missed the section for faction rankings and was going individually by player. Bit of a facepalm, but still relevant data. Seems like the best individual players aren't running a lot of IG.

 Blacksails wrote:
So I definitely missed the section for faction rankings and was going individually by player. Bit of a facepalm, but still relevant data. Seems like the best individual players aren't running a lot of IG.

Not sure how you drew that conclusion since it's absolutely the opposite of what's actually happening but sure.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
So I definitely missed the section for faction rankings and was going individually by player. Bit of a facepalm, but still relevant data. Seems like the best individual players aren't running a lot of IG.

Not sure how you drew that conclusion since it's absolutely the opposite of what's actually happening but sure.

I drew that conclusion by looking at the top 30 players and the factions they ran.

Most did not run IG.

And if we're going by the faction rankings, are we using total points, average points, or a best three...or? Because it doesn't seem like IG are leagues beyond the likes of Marines and Chaos.

 Marmatag wrote:
Here's the list that won the NOVA GT.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/goatboys-40k-nova-open-winner-andrew-gonyos-killer-list.html

Good luck beating this one.

That was the one I was looking for earlier. Guess it's invalid now on account of the max size change on conscripts.

 daedalus wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Here's the list that won the NOVA GT.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/goatboys-40k-nova-open-winner-andrew-gonyos-killer-list.html

Good luck beating this one.

That was the one I was looking for earlier. Guess it's invalid now on account of the max size change on conscripts.

I wouldnt call it 'invalid' when there is little difference between 3 squads of 40 or 4 squads of 30.

Ordana wrote:

I wouldnt call it 'invalid' when there is little difference between 3 squads of 40 or 4 squads of 30.

Fine. But we can't pretend that it doesn't have some significant drawbacks:

- Increases max number of conscripts lost per round by 33%.
- Decreases the number of conscripts available for the "magic tail".
- Creed can't order all the conscripts anymore.
- Adds an additional squad to have to cover with only two commissars.

Also, it's going to be 36 points over if FW plasma ever gets a FAQ.

I feel like if people want marines to be true to the fluff, where they slaughter 100 men solo, then they need to cost the price of 100 men.

How's 400pts per model sound? A squad of five should be able to table your list because they're Space Marines.

Wow. This thread is shocking to read.

I... don't even have words. The sheer amount of doublethink, talking past people, and unthinking unbending conviction - it is like watching a friend argue with an antivaxxer.

text removed
Reds8n

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

The fact anyone feels the need to create a sockpuppet account here is crazy. Discussions about Tacticals should not rise to that level where someone feels the need to mask their identity.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The fact anyone feels the need to create a sockpuppet account here is crazy. Discussions about Tacticals should not rise to that level where someone feels the need to mask their identity.

I mean, I COULD be wrong. Matches behavior I've seen moderating other places though.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

Oh don't worry, I'm not. This particular sockpuppet account was just so on the nose I felt I had to point it out.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

If you think they are a sockpuppet account, report them. Sockpuppeting is a bannable offense.

 Melissia wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

If you think they are a sockpuppet account, report them. Sockpuppeting is a bannable offense.

The only creatures lower than sockpuppets are Mods. Don't see why the community needs protection from this person.

Anyone who feels a need to hide his / her identity to discuss plastic toys has problems beyond what a Mod could address. As a community, we need to be encouraging that person to find help from a trained professional.

OTOH, if the sockpuppet turns out to be Tom Kirby, this requires a solution beyond what any Mod could do.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
So I definitely missed the section for faction rankings and was going individually by player. Bit of a facepalm, but still relevant data. Seems like the best individual players aren't running a lot of IG.

Not sure how you drew that conclusion since it's absolutely the opposite of what's actually happening but sure.

I drew that conclusion by looking at the top 30 players and the factions they ran.

Most did not run IG.

And if we're going by the faction rankings, are we using total points, average points, or a best three...or? Because it doesn't seem like IG are leagues beyond the likes of Marines and Chaos.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the ITC lists matches in 2017; not all of them were 8th edition tourneys.

Anyone know what the 3rd place Daemon list was?

Kdash wrote:


Can’t give the exactly details but it was –

Primaris Captain + Primarch Librarian
3 (I think) units of 5 Intercessors
1 unit of 5 bolter Aggressors
2 Contemptor Dreads (1 CC weapon)
1 Contemptor Mortis Dread
1 Mortis Dread
1 Stormtalon with Lascannons.
1 unit of Hellblasters (at least)

Can’t remember anything else off the top of my head for now, but I can always check later.

I really appreciate it. I am happy to see the Primaris marines did decent. Been really enjoying playing them lately, hoping this trend continues.

Took a look at the 2017 list. About half of 2017 was 7th ed. About a quarter of 2017 hasn't happened yet. Wouldn't that mean about two thirds of that 2017 list would be 7th ed?

Looked at Blood of Kittens, and it showed a similar story to what's been talked about in this thread:
-SM lists are common in the top 5, and tend to be headed by something broken (Robout or Dante + StormRavens)
-IG is up there, but not always dominating the scene
-Demons showed up more than I expected
-Eldar is on the list a couple times - mostly Ynari

Seems a little more diverse than 7th. Not a huge fan of super-special characters (Primarchs, mostly) defining so many lists. But at least it's not leafblower spam (whether that be AM or CWE or anyone else).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other comment I missed: Most factions don't even show up on that list at all. Like, probably 80% of factions aren't on the list (didn't crunch the numbers).

So sucks to be GK. Or BA. Or DE. Or Harlies. Or Tau. Or Orks. Or ...