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.

Asmodios wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
So, of the top 16 lists from Adepticon 2018, 2 of the were Guard lists, and another 2 (including the top list) had healthy Guard components. Guard were better represented in the top 16 than Eldar or most of the Space Marine chapters - Dark Angels did about as well with 3 lists where they were primary, but no lists where they were secondary. Chaos only did better if taken as a whole, and the only army that unarguably was better represented was Tyranids - and one of those Nid lists was one of the ones that had a Guard component.

Yeah once again nobody is arguing that guard combined with other stuff is strong. Just like if you lump chaos all together they had more lists. But "guard" get called out as broken while constantly ignoring that is something+guard that does well. So yeah 2 guard lists made top 16 (I'm not even sure if they were pure guard but let's just say they were because I don't remember) that's not broken. Like you said Chaos 4, tyrnids 5, other imperium including either minority guard or no guard 4 and eldar 1. Yeah, I don't see where Guard is an issue there especially considering how Imperium is always the largest amount of armies taken and guard are popular. Like I said previously simply take away the ability to have a sub-faction generate CP for the rest of the army and guard is fine, heck just remove soup altogether because factions that can soup with others will always be impossible to balance.

Having had a look, not one of the 4 lists containing guard spent 50% or more of their points on guard, in both "pure" guard lists you're looking at a detachment of around 700-800 points of guard with the rest being spent on blood angels and custodes, of the other 2 lists the winning list had around 400 points of guard while the tyrannid list containing them took around 800 points worth (the bulk of which is on a shadowsword).

Asmodios, I have some very blunt news for you: your data is every bit as worthless as Xenomancer’s.

Tournament results can be used as (inherently flawed) data to make some estimates on the state of balance solely and specifically within the narrow confines of similar tournaments. Saying that this data has any merit whatsoever in any environment that isn’t a similar tournament is analogous to measuring the heart rates of pregnant middle-aged women to determine a baseline heart rate for teenaged males. It’s worthless. If you’re going to appeal to data to give your argument weight over Xenomancer’s, then apply the basic standards of how data is collected.

It is entirely valid to argue that the Guard Codex is the most overpowered Codex even if it’s not topping tournament listings.

I happen to agree with that assertion. For argument’s sake let’s create an arbitrary measure of ‘percentage tournament efficiency’. Things like Flyrants and Dark Reapers are right at the pointy end near 100%, less epic but still good things like Jetbike Shield Captains are 90%, Mortarion might be 80% and say a Fellblade is a solid 2%. The actual numbers don’t matter but you get the idea.

Tournament players want to use things that are primarily 100% efficient, with maybe a few 90%ers and some 80%ers or even high 70%ers to fill out Detachments and make the army legal. They only care about things that are the most efficient.

I think it’s fair to say that the Guard Codex has a majority of units that are at the higher end. I’m not saying every unit operates at 90+%, but most of their units probably get a good 60-70% or better. Not good enough to be top-tables-spam-worthy, but strong. There’s a couple of stinkers in there that might get 30% but the bulk of the Codex sits well ahead of 50%. Not that it matters for tournaments, since they’re only concerned with the 4 or 5 units that operate at 80% or better.

Contrast that to the Space Marine Codex. They also have 4 or 5 units that operate at 80%+ (Fire Raptors, Guilliman, maybe Assbacks etc). From a tournament standpoint, the Marine Codex is therefore on a similar level to the Guard one - both have enough 80%+ers to make a list, so the rest of the Codex is broadly irrelevant.

Now consider every other environment that isn’t a tournament. The Guard player decides to shelve the cheese and only takes one or two of the 80+%ers, picks up a couple of stinker 30%er units and makes the bulk of their army out of the 60-80%er middling units for a less-competitive game. The Marine player does the same, taking one or two of their most efficient, a couple of terrible units, and the bulk from their middlling units.

This is where the inherent imbalance of the Guard Codex lies. Both players have 2 awesome units, 2 terrible units, and 10 middling units. However, the Guard’s middling units operate at 60-80%, whereas the bulk of the Marine Codex operates at say 40%. (Again, the exact numbers are meaningless, they’re just to show the point.) So while both players are going in with the same intent of using a balanced, middle of the road army, since most of Guard’s middlling units are so much stronger than the Marines’ middling units, the Guard army is way, way stronger.

That’s why the Guard Codex is overpowered: most Codexes have an even spread of units from terrible to fantastic. Guard have one or two fantastic units, one or two terrible ones, and then the rest is above average. This makes exactly zero difference to tournament rankings, but it makes a world of difference to the rest of the community. That, in my eyes, is why there is so much angst about the Guard Codex. Even if you play a fluffy, friendly list with a cool theme, you’re always packing a strong, near-tournament list. Most other Codexes simply can’t.

I just had a battle. Space Marines versus Dark Eldar. So, the first codex to come out versus the latest.

I had 8 command points. 3 base, 3 from battalion, 2 from having 2 vanguard. Playing Iron Hands with lots of dreadnoughts.

He started the game with 12. 3 base, and the rest from Patrol Detachments. He also got two more for having Urien Rakarth, plus the ability to 'steal' command points on a 6+, which he used to gain another 4 through the course of the game. That means he effectively had 18 command points that he was able to use for lots of stratagems and re-rolls across the board.

Most of his stratagems were very good, tailored to his list, like the ability to replenish a unit of wracks or give two other HQ's warlord traits.

The best thing I had going for me was the Counter Offensive, which every army has. Didn't get a chance to use the Auspex scan this game. Everything else I spent on just re-rolls.

There's a massive difference between command point effectiveness, especially when we're talking about my 'elite' army that got tabled, and his 'totally not horde' army that I just couldn't pin down.

kombatwombat wrote:
Asmodios, I have some very blunt news for you: your data is every bit as worthless as Xenomancer’s.

Tournament results can be used as (inherently flawed) data to make some estimates on the state of balance solely and specifically within the narrow confines of similar tournaments. Saying that this data has any merit whatsoever in any environment that isn’t a similar tournament is analogous to measuring the heart rates of pregnant middle-aged women to determine a baseline heart rate for teenaged males. It’s worthless. If you’re going to appeal to data to give your argument weight over Xenomancer’s, then apply the basic standards of how data is collected.

It is entirely valid to argue that the Guard Codex is the most overpowered Codex even if it’s not topping tournament listings.

I happen to agree with that assertion. For argument’s sake let’s create an arbitrary measure of ‘percentage tournament efficiency’. Things like Flyrants and Dark Reapers are right at the pointy end near 100%, less epic but still good things like Jetbike Shield Captains are 90%, Mortarion might be 80% and say a Fellblade is a solid 2%. The actual numbers don’t matter but you get the idea.

Tournament players want to use things that are primarily 100% efficient, with maybe a few 90%ers and some 80%ers or even high 70%ers to fill out Detachments and make the army legal. They only care about things that are the most efficient.

I think it’s fair to say that the Guard Codex has a majority of units that are at the higher end. I’m not saying every unit operates at 90+%, but most of their units probably get a good 60-70% or better. Not good enough to be top-tables-spam-worthy, but strong. There’s a couple of stinkers in there that might get 30% but the bulk of the Codex sits well ahead of 50%. Not that it matters for tournaments, since they’re only concerned with the 4 or 5 units that operate at 80% or better.

Contrast that to the Space Marine Codex. They also have 4 or 5 units that operate at 80%+ (Fire Raptors, Guilliman, maybe Assbacks etc). From a tournament standpoint, the Marine Codex is therefore on a similar level to the Guard one - both have enough 80%+ers to make a list, so the rest of the Codex is broadly irrelevant.

Now consider every other environment that isn’t a tournament. The Guard player decides to shelve the cheese and only takes one or two of the 80+%ers, picks up a couple of stinker 30%er units and makes the bulk of their army out of the 60-80%er middling units for a less-competitive game. The Marine player does the same, taking one or two of their most efficient, a couple of terrible units, and the bulk from their middlling units.

This is where the inherent imbalance of the Guard Codex lies. Both players have 2 awesome units, 2 terrible units, and 10 middling units. However, the Guard’s middling units operate at 60-80%, whereas the bulk of the Marine Codex operates at say 40%. (Again, the exact numbers are meaningless, they’re just to show the point.) So while both players are going in with the same intent of using a balanced, middle of the road army, since most of Guard’s middlling units are so much stronger than the Marines’ middling units, the Guard army is way, way stronger.

That’s why the Guard Codex is overpowered: most Codexes have an even spread of units from terrible to fantastic. Guard have one or two fantastic units, one or two terrible ones, and then the rest is above average. This makes exactly zero difference to tournament rankings, but it makes a world of difference to the rest of the community. That, in my eyes, is why there is so much angst about the Guard Codex. Even if you play a fluffy, friendly list with a cool theme, you’re always packing a strong, near-tournament list. Most other Codexes simply can’t.

I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

We have actual data/numbers/statistics from tournament play to make game balancing with and our other option is random guy on internet said that x army is broken because reasons. Yet somehow using tournament data is ignoring data and listing to random guy x complain on dakka is the way to make major changes to the game. Seriously the tournament scene is taking huge amounts of time to compile data and then gets torn apart on dakka for not “encompassing the real game” how about you guys start to world wide surveys of players and collecting hard data to make your claims with?

The funniest thing about this whole thing is I haven’t played in a tourney in 8th yet but my local gaming group has had roughly the same rankings as tournaments for power level, I simply don’t bring this up because it’s non scientific and too small of a sample size to push a narrative with yet everyone else hops on dakka the second they lose to an army containing any guard and wants them nerfed into dust




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gbghg wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
So, of the top 16 lists from Adepticon 2018, 2 of the were Guard lists, and another 2 (including the top list) had healthy Guard components. Guard were better represented in the top 16 than Eldar or most of the Space Marine chapters - Dark Angels did about as well with 3 lists where they were primary, but no lists where they were secondary. Chaos only did better if taken as a whole, and the only army that unarguably was better represented was Tyranids - and one of those Nid lists was one of the ones that had a Guard component.

Yeah once again nobody is arguing that guard combined with other stuff is strong. Just like if you lump chaos all together they had more lists. But "guard" get called out as broken while constantly ignoring that is something+guard that does well. So yeah 2 guard lists made top 16 (I'm not even sure if they were pure guard but let's just say they were because I don't remember) that's not broken. Like you said Chaos 4, tyrnids 5, other imperium including either minority guard or no guard 4 and eldar 1. Yeah, I don't see where Guard is an issue there especially considering how Imperium is always the largest amount of armies taken and guard are popular. Like I said previously simply take away the ability to have a sub-faction generate CP for the rest of the army and guard is fine, heck just remove soup altogether because factions that can soup with others will always be impossible to balance.

Having had a look, not one of the 4 lists containing guard spent 50% or more of their points on guard, in both "pure" guard lists you're looking at a detachment of around 700-800 points of guard with the rest being spent on blood angels and custodes, of the other 2 lists the winning list had around 400 points of guard while the tyrannid list containing them took around 800 points worth (the bulk of which is on a shadowsword).

Thank you for taking the time to look that up I simply didn’t have time today but that’s about what I thought I remembered. Guard is being taken for nothing but a few cheap bodies and CP generation and pure guard players shouldn’t be thrown to the bottom of the power curve for being included in soup

Asmodios wrote:

I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

We have actual data/numbers/statistics from tournament play to make game balancing with and our other option is random guy on internet said that x army is broken because reasons. Yet somehow using tournament data is ignoring data and listing to random guy x complain on dakka is the way to make major changes to the game. Seriously the tournament scene is taking huge amounts of time to compile data and then gets torn apart on dakka for not “encompassing the real game” how about you guys start to world wide surveys of players and collecting hard data to make your claims with?

Saying you can’t be bothered to try reading my point because you so vehemently disagree isn’t an argument. But I’ll rephrase it more directly in any case.

You’re taking a sample from Group A and using it to assume that the results will apply to Group B when you know there are relevant variables that differ between the groups. That is, you’re taking data from an environment where only the top 5 or 6 units in any given Codex appears (top tables at tournaments) and using it to make judgements on game balance in an environment where every unit in any given Codex appear. The variable - number of units making an appearance - is different between the two environments, so the data becomes every bit as worthless as having no data. Worse, it gives a dangerous false belief of the existence of data.



If the rest of my argument is beyond you, well... that’s unfortunate. I think there’s a reasonably coherent argument being made so I’m happy for it to stand up to the scrutiny of other readers.

As for your general attitude in your response, well, if you’re Australian you might remember what Christopher Pyne infamously said to Bill Shorten a couple of years ago. If you don’t know the reference, google Christopher Pyne Bill Shorten and watch the 30-second YouTube clip. It’s worth a giggle.

 gbghg wrote:

Having had a look, not one of the 4 lists containing guard spent 50% or more of their points on guard, in both "pure" guard lists you're looking at a detachment of around 700-800 points of guard with the rest being spent on blood angels and custodes, of the other 2 lists the winning list had around 400 points of guard while the tyrannid list containing them took around 800 points worth (the bulk of which is on a shadowsword).

Yeah. The designation is based on warlord. Is army that has 300 pts of guards and 1700 on others REALLY guard army?

Don't look just title of army. Look at the ARMY LIST. Token guard for CP does not guard army make.

Better idea would be to have name designated by what is WIDEST faction that covers all the force. so army that has just cadians is cadian. Army has cadians and catachan is IG. Army that has IG and space marines is Imperium. And even THAT isn't completely truthful. Only way real way ¨would be to actually look at the army list and see composition.

kombatwombat wrote:
Asmodios, I have some very blunt news for you: your data is every bit as worthless as Xenomancer’s.

Tournament results can be used as (inherently flawed) data to make some estimates on the state of balance solely and specifically within the narrow confines of similar tournaments. Saying that this data has any merit whatsoever in any environment that isn’t a similar tournament is analogous to measuring the heart rates of pregnant middle-aged women to determine a baseline heart rate for teenaged males. It’s worthless. If you’re going to appeal to data to give your argument weight over Xenomancer’s, then apply the basic standards of how data is collected.

It is entirely valid to argue that the Guard Codex is the most overpowered Codex even if it’s not topping tournament listings.

I happen to agree with that assertion. For argument’s sake let’s create an arbitrary measure of ‘percentage tournament efficiency’. Things like Flyrants and Dark Reapers are right at the pointy end near 100%, less epic but still good things like Jetbike Shield Captains are 90%, Mortarion might be 80% and say a Fellblade is a solid 2%. The actual numbers don’t matter but you get the idea.

Tournament players want to use things that are primarily 100% efficient, with maybe a few 90%ers and some 80%ers or even high 70%ers to fill out Detachments and make the army legal. They only care about things that are the most efficient.

I think it’s fair to say that the Guard Codex has a majority of units that are at the higher end. I’m not saying every unit operates at 90+%, but most of their units probably get a good 60-70% or better. Not good enough to be top-tables-spam-worthy, but strong. There’s a couple of stinkers in there that might get 30% but the bulk of the Codex sits well ahead of 50%. Not that it matters for tournaments, since they’re only concerned with the 4 or 5 units that operate at 80% or better.

Contrast that to the Space Marine Codex. They also have 4 or 5 units that operate at 80%+ (Fire Raptors, Guilliman, maybe Assbacks etc). From a tournament standpoint, the Marine Codex is therefore on a similar level to the Guard one - both have enough 80%+ers to make a list, so the rest of the Codex is broadly irrelevant.

Now consider every other environment that isn’t a tournament. The Guard player decides to shelve the cheese and only takes one or two of the 80+%ers, picks up a couple of stinker 30%er units and makes the bulk of their army out of the 60-80%er middling units for a less-competitive game. The Marine player does the same, taking one or two of their most efficient, a couple of terrible units, and the bulk from their middlling units.

This is where the inherent imbalance of the Guard Codex lies. Both players have 2 awesome units, 2 terrible units, and 10 middling units. However, the Guard’s middling units operate at 60-80%, whereas the bulk of the Marine Codex operates at say 40%. (Again, the exact numbers are meaningless, they’re just to show the point.) So while both players are going in with the same intent of using a balanced, middle of the road army, since most of Guard’s middlling units are so much stronger than the Marines’ middling units, the Guard army is way, way stronger.

That’s why the Guard Codex is overpowered: most Codexes have an even spread of units from terrible to fantastic. Guard have one or two fantastic units, one or two terrible ones, and then the rest is above average. This makes exactly zero difference to tournament rankings, but it makes a world of difference to the rest of the community. That, in my eyes, is why there is so much angst about the Guard Codex. Even if you play a fluffy, friendly list with a cool theme, you’re always packing a strong, near-tournament list. Most other Codexes simply can’t.

This. The average power level of the IG codex is at an entirely diffirent level.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:



Just because you only have data for that, doesn't mean its meaningful data. If you need the proper data, it needs to be collected.

If you only had data on the exercise habits of Olympic Athletes, that data would still be useless to make judgments about good/bad/typical exercise habits of the entire population. Just because it's the only data doesn't magically make it useful data.

I don't debate any of that. However, that doesnt change the fact that its the only hard data we have available, and that we have no data to to really support the other conclusion. The gap between tournament 40k and pickup 40k, while obviously existent, also isnt the same thing as comparing your average joe to an Olympian.

It's not a question of how big or small the difference is, but that the sample you're using is skewed/biased on the very variable you're looking at (exercise for Olympians, balance for tournaments).

The worst / most ineffective armies ever taken to tournaments are struturally still more powerful, because tournaments incentivise players to pick the stronger, more powerful stuff. It also creates a "sub-meta" just for tournaments, where a given unit might be "too weak/underpowered" in the sub-sample of tournament play (i.e. you won't see it often) but "too powerful/strong" in the entirety of 40K, once playtesting with some of the mathematically weakest possible lists out there is taking into account (pure Imperial Guard, Magnus and Mortarion, etc.. are likely current examples of units that fall into this category: Still far too strong for the majority of games/armies, but enough below the worst balance-offenders as to not be very tournament-relevant at the moment).

That is not totally accurate it would come down to how you use the data. Exercise habits of olympians could be used to determine what exercise habits are universally bad, so if there is something being done and a bunch of people are routinely injured doing it you can draw the conclusion that this is a bad practice.

The same can be said for tournament play. Top OP units or combos can be spotted and addressed. It will never create perfect balance, but it still helps.

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

We have actual data/numbers/statistics from tournament play to make game balancing with and our other option is random guy on internet said that x army is broken because reasons. Yet somehow using tournament data is ignoring data and listing to random guy x complain on dakka is the way to make major changes to the game. Seriously the tournament scene is taking huge amounts of time to compile data and then gets torn apart on dakka for not “encompassing the real game” how about you guys start to world wide surveys of players and collecting hard data to make your claims with?

Saying you can’t be bothered to try reading my point because you so vehemently disagree isn’t an argument. But I’ll rephrase it more directly in any case.

You’re taking a sample from Group A and using it to assume that the results will apply to Group B when you know there are relevant variables that differ between the groups. That is, you’re taking data from an environment where only the top 5 or 6 units in any given Codex appears (top tables at tournaments) and using it to make judgements on game balance in an environment where every unit in any given Codex appear. The variable - number of units making an appearance - is different between the two environments, so the data becomes every bit as worthless as having no data. Worse, it gives a dangerous false belief of the existence of data.



If the rest of my argument is beyond you, well... that’s unfortunate. I think there’s a reasonably coherent argument being made so I’m happy for it to stand up to the scrutiny of other readers.

As for your general attitude in your response, well, if you’re Australian you might remember what Christopher Pyne infamously said to Bill Shorten a couple of years ago. If you don’t know the reference, google Christopher Pyne Bill Shorten and watch the 30-second YouTube clip. It’s worth a giggle.

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

I don't know about anyone else but I don't care about an argument over data collection or methodology. This thread is about opinions. Whenever the word "fair" comes into play it's all subjective.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I don't know about anyone else but I don't care about an argument over data collection or methodology. This thread is about opinions. Whenever the word "fair" comes into play it's all subjective.

Opinions are fine.... opinions backed by data are better. I could have the opinion that pre codex necrons were amazing and that they should have been nuked in their new codex but it would have been a poor opionion because people could show data that necrons were not broken.

Asmodios wrote:
I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

Jesus Christ.

This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

Jesus Christ.

Really solid post addressing the issues with making rules changes based on “feeling” units are OP while simultaneously ignoring hard data from tournaments. I’m really glad we have posts like yours that add incredible depth and thought to conversations


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

^exactly. While I don’t believe they are an amazing way to gather data (wouldn’t say terrible but that more subjective then based in fact) they are certainly better then making changes based on.... well nothing

Stratagems should be limited to only the faction of your Warlord's Stratagems.

It's like you're actively trying not to understand.
KombatWombat made an incredibly simple point.

Premise - The playstyle of, nature of, and the gameplay of tournaments is drastically different to most people's experience of the game, so much so that you may as well be playing a different game.

Conclusion - Don't draw conclusions about most people's experience of the game from tournament data.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
It's like you're actively trying not to understand.
KombatWombat made an incredibly simple point.

Premise - The playstyle of tournaments is drastically different to most people's experience of the game.

Conclusion - Don't draw conclusions about most people's experience of the game from tournament data.

And I made an incredibly simple point that he has failed to address over and over

Premise-we shouldn’t make changes to a game based on no data while the only data we have (tournament results) points to there being no issue with a faction

Conclusion- don’t ignore the only data we have when making changes

At no point have I argued that tournament data was perfect or infallible.... but I is 100% better then making changes based on no data at all other then random people arguing on dakka saying X is broken because I say so

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
It's like you're actively trying not to understand.
KombatWombat made an incredibly simple point.

Premise - The playstyle of, nature of, and the gameplay of tournaments is drastically different to most people's experience of the game, so much so that you may as well be playing a different game.

Conclusion - Don't draw conclusions about most people's experience of the game from tournament data.

So where do you draw conclusions from? Youtube battle reports where they routinely get rules wrong? Forum anecdotes?

The only alternative is to not draw conclusions at all, and just let the game rot. Is that a better alternative?

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

You don't need to gather data. You run simulations with equations. If the math fits the units will be fair. This is very -very easy to do. Kind of like doing statistics homework - which I managed to do without trying really hard.

Also - bad data is actually worse than no data. Bad data leads you to draw crappy conclusions that aren't any better than an educated guess. I'm not suggesting we just guess at how to balance the game. I'm suggesting we make point reflect actual unit performance by mathing out the probabilities of a d6. This is not rocket science. Stop treating it like it is.

Like seriously - arguing against my point is kind of like saying "math doesn't work".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
It's like you're actively trying not to understand.
KombatWombat made an incredibly simple point.

Premise - The playstyle of, nature of, and the gameplay of tournaments is drastically different to most people's experience of the game, so much so that you may as well be playing a different game.

Conclusion - Don't draw conclusions about most people's experience of the game from tournament data.

So where do you draw conclusions from? Youtube battle reports where they routinely get rules wrong? Forum anecdotes?

The only alternative is to not draw conclusions at all, and just let the game rot. Is that a better alternative?

Math bro - Math.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

You don't need to gather data. You run simulations with equations. If the math fits the units will be fair. This is very -very easy to do. Kind of like doing statistics homework - which I managed to do without trying really hard.

This isn't actually possible, as positioning matters very much. Just to go to the age old example:

"Conscripts have too much firepower. They get 101002u9857u3817 lasgun shots with <ability X>"
"Conscripts are too good at screening. They take up 193409 inches of table space when all spread out."

Those two things are both mathematically provable and true, but are also useless on the actual tabletop, because this fabricated unit of conscripts couldn't do both at the same time. Therefore, any conclusion drawn from the math is ignoring the table state.

Another example, which you like to harp on, is the Manticore. The manticore's utility compared to its partner, the Russ, varies drastically with the table state. A manticore is less durable than a russ, but has more firepower for the first 4 turns, then runs out, for a comparable price. That's a fairly priced unit - except for indirect fire, which suddenly makes it AMAZING. Until there's nowhere to hide, then it's just a gakky russ with an ammunition limit. If the game is <4 turns, then it's AMAZING, until it goes 5+ turns, then it's just a gakky russ that can hide.

There are non-mathematical factors to this game that exist.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

You don't need to gather data. You run simulations with equations. If the math fits the units will be fair. This is very -very easy to do. Kind of like doing statistics homework - which I managed to do without trying really hard.

This isn't actually possible, as positioning matters very much. Just to go to the age old example:

"Conscripts have too much firepower. They get 101002u9857u3817 lasgun shots with <ability X>"
"Conscripts are too good at screening. They take up 193409 inches of table space when all spread out."

Those two things are both mathematically provable and true, but are also useless on the actual tabletop, because this fabricated unit of conscripts couldn't do both at the same time. Therefore, any conclusion drawn from the math is ignoring the table state.

Another example, which you like to harp on, is the Manticore. The manticore's utility compared to its partner, the Russ, varies drastically with the table state. A manticore is less durable than a russ, but has more firepower for the first 4 turns, then runs out, for a comparable price. That's a fairly priced unit - except for indirect fire, which suddenly makes it AMAZING. Until there's nowhere to hide, then it's just a gakky russ with an ammunition limit. If the game is <4 turns, then it's AMAZING, until it goes 5+ turns, then it's just a gakky russ that can hide.

There are non-mathematical factors to this game that exist.

Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

So, if there are non-math factors, presumably you should be balancing the game around the people who understand those factors, rather than pure math that ignores those factors?

Context is important. How good, or not good, a unit is depends entirely on the context in which it exists. Math inherently lacks context. Math is a good place to get started (e.g. based on your example I think we should take a strong look at shining spears) but pure math without context should never be used to balance a game.

Otherwise the Manticore would either be cheap as chips for what it does (because Indirect Fire is free and there's tons of LOS blocking terrain), too expensive (because Indirect Fire is priced but there's no LOS blocking terrain), or you put it at an average and then it seems OP when it works and isn't OP when it doesn't - an average which can't really be determined by pure math, imo.

So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

So, if there are non-math factors, presumably you should be balancing the game around the people who understand those factors, rather than pure math that ignores those factors?

Context is important. How good, or not good, a unit is depends entirely on the context in which it exists. Math inherently lacks context. Math is a good place to get started (e.g. based on your example I think we should take a strong look at shining spears) but pure math without context should never be used to balance a game.

Otherwise the Manticore would either be cheap as chips for what it does (because Indirect Fire is free and there's tons of LOS blocking terrain), too expensive (because Indirect Fire is priced but there's no LOS blocking terrain), or you put it at an average and then it seems OP when it works and isn't OP when it doesn't - an average which can't really be determined by pure math, imo.

Well heres the thing - it doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to be better than what we have now. Which it would be - significantly. Then we can make small adjustments to points/rules/ect because that is all that will be required. In regards to indirect fire sometimes being useless - this isn't a problem specific to manitcores - lots of units abilities are useless vs certain opponents but you still have to pay for them. Indirect fire is extremely powerful in 95% of the game you will play though - even if you can't hide you tank you can shoot things that are hiding...actually - it's useful in just about every game you will play in 40k - what are you talking about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:
So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

Puretide is auto include because it is literally free. It gives you a reroll during the game (which costs 1 CP) and you can get an additional relic for 1 CP. It is essnetially free and might get you a few command points back during the game. There is no reason not to take it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:
So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

Puretide is auto include because it is literally free. It gives you a reroll during the game (which costs 1 CP) and you can get an additional relic for 1 CP. It is essnetially free and might get you a few command points back during the game. There is no reason not to take it.

I don't appreciate that, as that seems like a poor design; to make something Essential to the point it becomes a tax.

You are right, inasmuch that it doesn't cost me a -Lot- to take it, but if it's going to be an auto-include make it a warlord trait or something, or just an Ethereal's ability. I can only take 3 Signature Systems, and with that in mind the Puretide engram absolutely costs me Something, that is the ability take another Tau system, leaving many of them underutilized. It's such a powerful artifact that I hope the Tau Earth Cast backed Puretide up on a Zip drive somewhere, because they better be producing his chips pretty fething flat out, given how many people use them

I'd think a lot of the Tau Signature systems are just kind of Meh (The weapons are pretty good, but I've never felt a need to take the 3" move item for a charged ethereal)... but that isn't a static set of items, there will be more presumably. Also we'll get adjustments to systems we've got in time, I'm sure all armies will. But assuming that engram is Still being taken, and suddenly Tau armies are -1 and -3 to their base CP...

I don't think I'm saying something unreasonable that CP Taxes are kind of crap. The system itself is Fine, but a tax should just be rolled over to be a rule for the army or a unit therein.

Relics being free was easily the worst decision GW made with these Codices.

That's all the value some Relics have (0 worth).

Ash87 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:
So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

Puretide is auto include because it is literally free. It gives you a reroll during the game (which costs 1 CP) and you can get an additional relic for 1 CP. It is essnetially free and might get you a few command points back during the game. There is no reason not to take it.

I don't appreciate that, as that seems like a poor design; to make something Essential to the point it becomes a tax.

You are right, inasmuch that it doesn't cost me a -Lot- to take it, but if it's going to be an auto-include make it a warlord trait or something, or just an Ethereal's ability. I can only take 3 Signature Systems, and with that in mind the Puretide engram absolutely costs me Something, that is the ability take another Tau system, leaving many of them underutilized. It's such a powerful artifact that I hope the Tau Earth Cast backed Puretide up on a Zip drive somewhere, because they better be producing his chips pretty fething flat out, given how many people use them

I'd think a lot of the Tau Signature systems are just kind of Meh (The weapons are pretty good, but I've never felt a need to take the 3" move item for a charged ethereal)... but that isn't a static set of items, there will be more presumably. Also we'll get adjustments to systems we've got in time, I'm sure all armies will. But assuming that engram is Still being taken, and suddenly Tau armies are -1 and -3 to their base CP...

I don't think I'm saying something unreasonable that CP Taxes are kind of crap. The system itself is Fine, but a tax should just be rolled over to be a rule for the army or a unit therein.

Help me understand what you are saying because you are calling puretide a tax. It is the opposite - puretide is a free command point generator. You are going to use a reroll in the game (the majority of my command points go to rerolls) so spending 1 command point to get puretide is just spending that command point to get the reoll up front (which you would have used anyways) plus it give bonus CP through the game. I feel like it will generate about 2 on average. Sometimes none - sometimes like the last game I used it youll end the game with more CP than you started with - because it even works on opponents stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Relics being free was easily the worst decision GW made with these Codices.

I think 1 free relic is kind of cool.