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.

Tyel wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
That's not "removing an outlier" and my post above shows why it would incredibly skew data in such a small sample size. For example, the DG would shoot up to a 100% win rate. To do it correctly too you would need to repeat the exact tournament with the same opponents over and over while having them play all available army so that way you could get a true "player skill". Even then under perfect conditions, you are changing the definition of "best army/ faction" To "best army/ faction while being played by top 10%" meaning that the data would really only be useful when taken by top 10-20%. You also run into the issue of the top 10-20% not even bringing certain factions so losing data on where those fall.

At the end of the day skewing this sample in any of those ways is going to give you a worse picture of the data.

You don't base everything on one tournament. That's one example of badly sampling the data. Flukes do happen.

We know there are good and bad units and better or worse factions and soups as a result. We know there are good and bad players.
Theoretically therefore good players, with a list you have worked out should be good, would be expected to place high.
Testing: Do they, at multiple events. Oh look yes.
Conclusion - these units are good.

This sort of "we can't really know anything" is reading like Eldar in 7th.

This is the only tournament to date that BCP has provided a statistical breakdown like this. Obviously, if there were more data it could change our conclusions but until we receive more data this is the best we have to offer. The only other similar data is total points earned per week in ITC vs the total of that army. I personally feel that's a weeker data set though and the IG haters wont like the numbers that come out of it either


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm not interested in discussing poorly chosen analogies.

We all understand what's happening here, and what you're doing: You deflate the success rate of good armies by including bad lists. That's your entire post chain on this topic here, in a nutshell.

seriously have you ever taken a stats class...... you are literally arguing for artificially inflating the win % of guard for it to fit your narrative

"high I know we are comparing win percentage but if you exclude the games x army loss they do better"

Considering i have a degree in mathematics i think i have it covered. Also before I changed careers i had passed the first several actuarial exams, the first of which is comprehensive of pretty much undergrad statistics.

And it's not inflating the win percentage, because you've defined win percentage in such a broad and inaccurate way. But i'm tired of explaining this to you, and going back and forth. Do what you want.

It's incredibly easy to look at a data set and draw whatever conclusion you'd like. Since we're examining each other now, i'll offer one piece of wisdom: Read the book "how to lie with statistics." Lastly, you need to agree to a set of terms and controls with the people in the discussion. You're so hard core arguing "the data this the data that," but we don't fundamentally agree on the original experiment and the controls you've created. Jesus

 Marmatag wrote:
Considering i have a degree in mathematics i think i have it covered. Also before I changed careers i had passed the first several actuarial exams, the first of which is comprehensive of pretty much undergrad statistics.

And it's not inflating the win percentage, because you've defined win percentage in such a broad and inaccurate way. But i'm tired of explaining this to you, and going back and forth. Do what you want.

It's incredibly easy to look at a data set and draw whatever conclusion you'd like. Since we're examining each other now, i'll offer one piece of wisdom: Read the book "how to lie with statistics." Lastly, you need to agree to a set of terms and controls with the people in the discussion. You're so hard core arguing "the data this the data that," but we don't fundamentally agree on the original experiment and the controls you've created. Jesus

Not sure what school gave you your degree but you should ask for your money back. The fact that you didn't immediately know that you were asking it inject survivorship bias into your equation is scary. The fact you don't even know what you would need to properly hold variables constant.... i mean all your posts are just awful on this subject. If you tried to treat a data set like what your proposing here you would have failed Stats 101 at most schools

There is no simple solution. Or a way to get a quick and correct conclusion.

If you drop all but the 20% best scoring lists. You're not taking 80% of them into the equation to create your balance. Excluding 80% (or more) of the population as irrelevant is dangerous.

In marmatags scenario you're gna mostly give everyone one viable build at minimum.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Considering i have a degree in mathematics i think i have it covered. Also before I changed careers i had passed the first several actuarial exams, the first of which is comprehensive of pretty much undergrad statistics.

And it's not inflating the win percentage, because you've defined win percentage in such a broad and inaccurate way. But i'm tired of explaining this to you, and going back and forth. Do what you want.

It's incredibly easy to look at a data set and draw whatever conclusion you'd like. Since we're examining each other now, i'll offer one piece of wisdom: Read the book "how to lie with statistics." Lastly, you need to agree to a set of terms and controls with the people in the discussion. You're so hard core arguing "the data this the data that," but we don't fundamentally agree on the original experiment and the controls you've created. Jesus

Not sure what school gave you your degree but you should ask for your money back. The fact that you didn't immediately know that you were asking it inject survivorship bias into your equation is scary. The fact you don't even know what you would need to properly hold variables constant.... i mean all your posts are just awful on this subject. If you tried to treat a data set like what your proposing here you would have failed Stats 101 at most schools

My goodness, to be so sure of yourself, and yet so wrong at the same time. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's that simple.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Considering i have a degree in mathematics i think i have it covered. Also before I changed careers i had passed the first several actuarial exams, the first of which is comprehensive of pretty much undergrad statistics.

And it's not inflating the win percentage, because you've defined win percentage in such a broad and inaccurate way. But i'm tired of explaining this to you, and going back and forth. Do what you want.

It's incredibly easy to look at a data set and draw whatever conclusion you'd like. Since we're examining each other now, i'll offer one piece of wisdom: Read the book "how to lie with statistics." Lastly, you need to agree to a set of terms and controls with the people in the discussion. You're so hard core arguing "the data this the data that," but we don't fundamentally agree on the original experiment and the controls you've created. Jesus

Not sure what school gave you your degree but you should ask for your money back. The fact that you didn't immediately know that you were asking it inject survivorship bias into your equation is scary. The fact you don't even know what you would need to properly hold variables constant.... i mean all your posts are just awful on this subject. If you tried to treat a data set like what your proposing here you would have failed Stats 101 at most schools

My goodness, to be so sure of yourself, and yet so wrong at the same time. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's that simple.

Even the poster above you realizes how big of a mistake what your suggestion is. I am sure of myself because what your doing is the wrong way to handle a data set like this.

This is actually getting kind of funny. You fundamentally don't even understand why i disagree with what you're doing. It's not that you can't do the math, or plug it into Wolfram, excel or whatever and get the results you want.

Two lists can be defined as "Guard" and be nothing like each other. Your experiment doesn't take into account how widely lists can vary. As i've said a million times now. And as i'll continue to repeat.

The math in any of these calculations is simple. Very simple.

You should stop for a moment and consider what it is you're looking at, and if that even answers the question fairly. I disagree with that basic premise, which you assume as true before you begin your analysis. So of course we disagree. But you seem incapable of seeing that.

So let's continue to spin in a big loop. It's like Nascar, but with fingers!

Here, i'll try to illustrate it.

One player runs ADEPTUS ASTARTES. He is using Guilliman, and 3 fire raptors. Another player is running ADEPTUS ASTARTES. He is using Iron Hands, and has terminators in a land raider, and a few other nonsense things. One of these players will win games. The other won't win a single game. Can we draw a conclusion about factional balance based on the percentage of wins and losses between these two players?

 Marmatag wrote:
This is actually getting kind of funny. You fundamentally don't even understand why i disagree with what you're doing. It's not that you can't do the math, or plug it into Wolfram, excel or whatever and get the results you want.

Two lists can be defined as "Guard" and be nothing like each other. Your experiment doesn't take into account how widely lists can vary. As i've said a million times now. And as i'll continue to repeat.

The math in any of these calculations is simple. Very simple.

You should stop for a moment and consider what it is you're looking at, and if that even answers the question fairly. I disagree with that basic premise, which you assume as true before you begin your analysis. So of course we disagree. But you seem incapable of seeing that.

So let's continue to spin in a big loop. It's like Nascar, but with fingers!

Here, i'll try to illustrate it.

One player runs ADEPTUS ASTARTES. He is using Guilliman, and 3 fire raptors. Another player is running ADEPTUS ASTARTES. He is using Iron Hands, and has terminators in a land raider, and a few other nonsense things. One of these players will win games. The other won't win a single game. Can we draw a conclusion about factional balance based on the percentage of wins and losses between these two players?

You should go back and read my posts. I have acknowledged that we have a limited data set and our results will vary. I have also said that it is our only dataset like it and thus what I was going to analyze (i have stated in this thread and others i know you have been a part of that if presented with new or better data i am more then willing to adjust the findings). Limited data out of the way it does not change the fact that your idea to drop the lists that dont do well from the statistical analysis is the textbook definition of survivorship bias and the wrong way to analyze the data.

What you are asking for now is to hold a variable constant (in this case being the list). Holding a variable constant is fine and all if you have the data to do it. We would require a data set with something like the top 3 lists of each faction piloted by players of identical skill over multiple tournaments. We could then control all types of variables and remove them from our regressions....... We don't have this information available in this data set so we cannot hold variables like that constant.

In truth I don't think there is a way, at the moment, to report on the data and get meaningful insights. This is why we look at the top X lists - it gives a way of seeing potential, as that's the most concrete thing we can realistically pin down. It's like defining an upper bound in math. I don't have a good bead on the result, but i know it has to be less than Y.

There are broader data sets and analysis out there, but it's not freely available and accessible. BCP has done incredible amounts of analysis and data mining - but it includes all RTTs, and also is not publicly available.

The best case scenario would be BCP refactoring their list entry feature to allow for analysis that extends beyond "faction" and "score." Then we could run a report and see what percentage of Guard players are winning with a Knight, and what percentage are winning without them, as an example.

The state this thread has descended to highlights exactly how toxic the tournament scene is. It needs separating from the casual game and given its own rule set.

Andykp wrote:
The state this thread has descended to highlights exactly how toxic the tournament scene is. It needs separating from the casual game and given its own rule set.

Actual tournament players are actually busy playing the game.

 Marmatag wrote:
In truth I don't think there is a way, at the moment, to report on the data and get meaningful insights. This is why we look at the top X lists - it gives a way of seeing potential, as that's the most concrete thing we can realistically pin down. It's like defining an upper bound in math. I don't have a good bead on the result, but i know it has to be less than Y.

There are broader data sets and analysis out there, but it's not freely available and accessible. BCP has done incredible amounts of analysis and data mining - but it includes all RTTs, and also is not publicly available.

The best case scenario would be BCP refactoring their list entry feature to allow for analysis that extends beyond "faction" and "score." Then we could run a report and see what percentage of Guard players are winning with a Knight, and what percentage are winning without them, as an example.

Yes, a true data set would make analysis easier and hopefully, BCP incorporates more statistical information into the app.

looking at the upper bounds are good as well but the only thing the show currently is that Soup is king and offer almost no insight into anything that is not running soup. All this data is also useless as off a couple days ago because it is all pre-big FAQ

Personally, I think an easy change to add to their app would be a win percentage tracker per unit (so unit X increase or decreases a list win percentage by Y). This is one of the most useful ways of tracking cards power levels in games like Hearthstone. It also helps track external factors by seeing the change in win percentage in different seasons as combo cards cycle in or out, get rebalance, or the meta simple shifts

On a different note, I have to say I'm not particularly pleased by how GW handled Genestealer Cults in this update. They could have easily updated with a new version of Cult Ambush in this release to keep them playable but they were left being kicked in the pants and left untouched otherwise.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
In truth I don't think there is a way, at the moment, to report on the data and get meaningful insights. This is why we look at the top X lists - it gives a way of seeing potential, as that's the most concrete thing we can realistically pin down. It's like defining an upper bound in math. I don't have a good bead on the result, but i know it has to be less than Y.

There are broader data sets and analysis out there, but it's not freely available and accessible. BCP has done incredible amounts of analysis and data mining - but it includes all RTTs, and also is not publicly available.

The best case scenario would be BCP refactoring their list entry feature to allow for analysis that extends beyond "faction" and "score." Then we could run a report and see what percentage of Guard players are winning with a Knight, and what percentage are winning without them, as an example.

Yes, a true data set would make analysis easier and hopefully, BCP incorporates more statistical information into the app.

looking at the upper bounds are good as well but the only thing the show currently is that Soup is king and offer almost no insight into anything that is not running soup. All this data is also useless as off a couple days ago because it is all pre-big FAQ

Personally, I think an easy change to add to their app would be a win percentage tracker per unit (so unit X increase or decreases a list win percentage by Y). This is one of the most useful ways of tracking cards power levels in games like Hearthstone. It also helps track external factors by seeing the change in win percentage in different seasons as combo cards cycle in or out, get rebalance, or the meta simple shifts

I proposed something very much like this.

I think we all want better data honestly. My personal preference? GW releases a list building app & app for tournaments. Or, BCP finds a way to integrate with Battlescribe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note, I have to say I'm not particularly pleased by how GW handled Genestealer Cults in this update. They could have easily updated with a new version of Cult Ambush in this release to keep them playable but they were left being kicked in the pants and left untouched otherwise.

Cults are rapidly becoming the new Inquisition. This last update just ruined them. Their best use case is a small detachment to get a Shadowsword in with your Tyranids.

I can agree with that. Battle Brothers messed up taking neat vehicle choices in a single detachment for Inquisition due to a lack of shared keywords, and the reserve rules broke the one thing making GSC functional.

I'm not against these changes, but rather how poorly they're implemented for certain subfactions who need them to make their "one weird trick" work.

 Continuity wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The state this thread has descended to highlights exactly how toxic the tournament scene is. It needs separating from the casual game and given its own rule set.

Actual tournament players are actually busy playing the game.

Agreed, this thread says more about Dakka than the tournament scene.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note, I have to say I'm not particularly pleased by how GW handled Genestealer Cults in this update. They could have easily updated with a new version of Cult Ambush in this release to keep them playable but they were left being kicked in the pants and left untouched otherwise.

What if the change requires more context that can't be covered by just the FAQ?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note, I have to say I'm not particularly pleased by how GW handled Genestealer Cults in this update. They could have easily updated with a new version of Cult Ambush in this release to keep them playable but they were left being kicked in the pants and left untouched otherwise.

What if the change requires more context that can't be covered by just the FAQ?

Well, they have been saying that they are working on Codex GSC, so there is that.

The Cult codex is going to be out by December at the very latest. Given that changing/replacing Cult Ambush is an extremely fundamental piece of the army I don't blame them for wanting to save it for the full context of the codex rather than coming out with a sloppy stopgap and then having people complain about that.

 Marmatag wrote:
Screening, Holding objectives, psychic denial, these are all more valuable than people give them credit for. And I don't agree in regards to the minimum guard. Look at the top 5 BAO.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/07/40k-knights-dominate-top-5-placings-at-bao.html

These? 2nd: minimum, 3rd unknown, 4th minimum, 5th minimum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The Cult codex is going to be out by December at the very latest. Given that changing/replacing Cult Ambush is an extremely fundamental piece of the army I don't blame them for wanting to save it for the full context of the codex rather than coming out with a sloppy stopgap and then having people complain about that.

When was last time GW gave codex in december? That's month of deals.

Also note how FAQ referred to "in development". This means codex is still months ahead. Lead times makes it so that if that statement is true it CANNOT come in november, would be super dodgy even for late december and with GW's tradition of discount boxes in december impossible.

January would be earliest I would expect them. January is pretty common month also for codex releases.

Sooo I know it's pre effect of the FAQ but IG were yet again in the top 3 for factions in the month of September (second highest placed, to Ynarri) as far as performance goes.

This is factions that include more points of IG than any other faction in their entire army list, not mono IG lists.

Its interesting, if people believe that the problem is 'soup' I don't understand why you're so unwilling to change the key ingredients of the soup?

I always hear the argument "but you'll hurt a mono Guard player too tho!" Which is entirely true. But it might be time to consider that if you're an Imperial player who isn't taking soup you might as well be a fluff bunny. People would laugh at me as an Ork player if I came on the tactics thread and asked why my pure biker list wasn't winning any GTs. The response would literally be 'you aren't going to and you shouldn't expect to'. Why should the response be so vastly different for the Imperium player who doesn't want to take soup? They have made a decision to play fluffy so need to accept those consequences in the competitive scene (not that the issue is anywhere near as bad as it would be for me playing only bikes).

The factions of the game that need to be balanced against each other are now; Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Tyranid, Tau, Orks and Necrons. This means the single Tau, Necron and Ork codexes need units and abilities that can stand up to the myriad of Imperium or Chaos codexes.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I always hear the argument "but you'll hurt a mono Guard player too tho!" Which is entirely true. But it might be time to consider that if you're an Imperial player who isn't taking soup you might as well be a fluff bunny. People would laugh at me as an Ork player if I came on the tactics thread and asked why my pure biker list wasn't winning any GTs. The response would literally be 'you aren't going to and you shouldn't expect to'. Why should the response be so vastly different for the Imperium player who doesn't want to take soup? They have made a decision to play fluffy so need to accept those consequences in the competitive scene (not that the issue is anywhere near as bad as it would be for me playing only bikes).

I get your point, but I think it's a bit of a false equivalence.

First off to make my position clear: I think it's ok if Guard aren't top tier on their own if that allows us to reign in soup. What wouldn't be acceptable though is making mono Guard dumpster tier.

What I take issue with in your comment is that your example of a Biker Ork list is really more equivalent to something like a Guard Ogryn list.

I feel there is a responsibility given the nature of the game for it to be balanced such that every mono faction is up to a minimum passable standard. Not necessarily every build within that faction (Ork bikes for example), but the faction as a whole needs SOMETHING decent.

Not every skewed gimmick build within a faction should be viable, but to lump together the entirety of Imperium which includes about a dozen factions and say 'lets just call this one thing' for balance purposes just feels like a massive copout.

Frankly I'd rather I lost soup entirely and got proper faction balance then have Imperium balanced with that mindset.

(Despite my current profile pic, I collect multiple Imperium factions including Guard fyi)

 Stux wrote:
I get your point, but I think it's a bit of a false equivalence.

First off to make my position clear: I think it's ok if Guard aren't top tier on their own if that allows us to reign in soup. What wouldn't be acceptable though is making mono Guard dumpster tier.

What I take issue with in your comment is that your example of a Biker Ork list is really more equivalent to something like a Guard Ogryn list.

I feel there is a responsibility given the nature of the game for it to be balanced such that every mono faction is up to a minimum passable standard. Not necessarily every build within that faction (Ork bikes for example), but the faction as a whole needs SOMETHING decent.

Not every skewed gimmick build within a faction should be viable, but to lump together the entirety of Imperium which includes about a dozen factions and say 'lets just call this one thing' for balance purposes just feels like a massive copout.

Frankly I'd rather I lost soup entirely and got proper faction balance then have Imperium balanced with that mindset.

(Despite my current profile pic, I collect multiple Imperium factions including Guard fyi)

I only used the Ork bike list because it's something I use and is pretty universally considered garbage tier.

I completely disagree it's false equivalence though, why is my Ork Biker army "fluffy" but a player who wants to go mono IG in a game where we can take any unit from any Imperium codex for no real cost not? They are exactly the same thing. If you want to compete at the top tables you need to be open to taking everything at your disposal to win. IG players need to be open to taking other units from other Imperium codexes just as I have to be open to taking units that make no sense (and I don't want to take) in the context of my army (Boyz on foot). There is no difference between these comparisons, only that the IG player has a much broader scope from which to pick units.

I'm not sure why you think lumping all "Imperium" into one thing for balance purposes is in any way a copout? It's a fact given the game as it stands now. Imperium has become a faction, like it or not. It is played as a faction at the top tables, the same goes for all the other soup options.

The other solution, as far as I can see and as you have said but people seem even less keen on, is the removal of soup. I didn't suggest this because it seems to be a less popular solution.

I guess what I'm trying to ask for in my post is a change in mindset from "mono" players who have the option to take soup. They need to consider than their faction is not only going to be balanced as a mono faction but also as part of a soup list that can and will go against pure armies that have no option to soup.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I get your point, but I think it's a bit of a false equivalence.

First off to make my position clear: I think it's ok if Guard aren't top tier on their own if that allows us to reign in soup. What wouldn't be acceptable though is making mono Guard dumpster tier.

What I take issue with in your comment is that your example of a Biker Ork list is really more equivalent to something like a Guard Ogryn list.

I feel there is a responsibility given the nature of the game for it to be balanced such that every mono faction is up to a minimum passable standard. Not necessarily every build within that faction (Ork bikes for example), but the faction as a whole needs SOMETHING decent.

Not every skewed gimmick build within a faction should be viable, but to lump together the entirety of Imperium which includes about a dozen factions and say 'lets just call this one thing' for balance purposes just feels like a massive copout.

Frankly I'd rather I lost soup entirely and got proper faction balance then have Imperium balanced with that mindset.

(Despite my current profile pic, I collect multiple Imperium factions including Guard fyi)

I only used the Ork bike list because it's something I use and is pretty universally considered garbage tier.

I completely disagree it's false equivalence though, why is my Ork Biker army "fluffy" but a player who wants to go mono IG in a game where we can take any unit from any Imperium codex for no real cost not? They are exactly the same thing. If you want to compete at the top tables you need to be open to taking everything at your disposal to win. IG players need to be open to taking other units from other Imperium codexes just as I have to be open to taking units that make no sense (and I don't want to take) in the context of my army (Boyz on foot). There is no difference between these comparisons, only that the IG player has a much broader scope from which to pick units.

I'm not sure why you think lumping all "Imperium" into one thing for balance purposes is in any way a copout? It's a fact given the game as it stands now. Imperium has become a faction, like it or not. It is played as a faction at the top tables, the same goes for all the other soup options.

The other solution, as far as I can see and as you have said but people seem even less keen on, is the removal of soup. I didn't suggest this because it seems to be a less popular solution.

I guess what I'm trying to ask for in my post is a change in mindset from "mono" players who have the option to take soup. They need to consider than their faction is not only going to be balanced as a mono faction but also as part of a soup list that can and will go against pure armies that have no option to soup.

If I need to be of the mindset that I can't take mono Guard, frankly that's the same as saying you need to be of the mindset that you can't take mono Orks at all and be competitive.

An army with a minimum battalion of Guard is not a Guard army. I am not playing Guard at that point.

 Continuity wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The state this thread has descended to highlights exactly how toxic the tournament scene is. It needs separating from the casual game and given its own rule set.

Actual tournament players are actually busy playing the game.

Very good.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Sooo I know it's pre effect of the FAQ but IG were yet again in the top 3 for factions in the month of September (second highest placed, to Ynarri) as far as performance goes.

This is factions that include more points of IG than any other faction in their entire army list, not mono IG lists.

Well, spending 973 points on a Guard Brigade to fuel Blood Angels and a Castellan, isn't what i'd say as proof that mono guard are viable, or are in a position to do well.

Its interesting, if people believe that the problem is 'soup' I don't understand why you're so unwilling to change the key ingredients of the soup?

Change the soup "ingredient" to what though? Certainly won't be Space Marines or Custodes. Maybe, maybe Admech? But, pre-faq there was no other option if you wanted an easy 12CP, 2 sets of CP farming and enough points left over to bring the required "big boyz".

I always hear the argument "but you'll hurt a mono Guard player too tho!" Which is entirely true. But it might be time to consider that if you're an Imperial player who isn't taking soup you might as well be a fluff bunny. People would laugh at me as an Ork player if I came on the tactics thread and asked why my pure biker list wasn't winning any GTs. The response would literally be 'you aren't going to and you shouldn't expect to'. Why should the response be so vastly different for the Imperium player who doesn't want to take soup? They have made a decision to play fluffy so need to accept those consequences in the competitive scene (not that the issue is anywhere near as bad as it would be for me playing only bikes).

The factions of the game that need to be balanced against each other are now; Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Tyranid, Tau, Orks and Necrons. This means the single Tau, Necron and Ork codexes need units and abilities that can stand up to the myriad of Imperium or Chaos codexes.

Sure, mono factions should be able to compete, and, I still think in some cases they can compete.
The only reason why we don’t see mono factions taking the top spots at big events like Nova etc, is because people want to win. The more people that want to win (or get close to winning) the more of the “meta” lists will be taken. This then has a negative impact on mono faction representation, as you’re more likely to see soup at the top if 75% of the players take it, than see someone from the 25% making it up there (percentages are there as an example).

As for Orkz, well, we know that 2 things hamper them currently. Chess clocks and no codex.

I’d also argue that the decision to play “fluffy” doesn’t exactly mean mono-faction. How many novels have you read – or even codex timeline events, that DON’T contain instances of “soup” forces taking on the enemy? And by this, you have to take into account that Blood Angels and Ultramarines fighting together (for example) is still “soup”. For example, the vast majority of codex timeline events in the Craftworlds codex tells of events where either several craftworlds have worked together, Drukari have helped, Harlequinns have helped or Ynnari have helped (sometimes all of them together).

In order to balance T’au etc against “soup” you need to define “soup”. Because, T’au can certainly beat a soup list of say, Guard, SoB and Salamanders. Necrons can beat a list of BA, DA and Guard etc etc. Just because T’au etc -currently- struggle to kill a 3++ Castellan that is buffed by 5 CP a turn, doesn’t mean they can’t compete with soup.

 Stux wrote:
If I need to be of the mindset that I can't take mono Guard, frankly that's the same as saying you need to be of the mindset that you can't take mono Orks at all and be competitive.

Lol well to be fair Orks have lived with this for quite some time. It's on the welcoming pamphlet I think - "Oi, so yoo joined Da WAAAAAGGGGHHH!!!, git. I 'ope yoo loike lozin, cus we aint winnin nuttin!"

They aren't the same thing though anymore. Orks are forced to be mono. We have no choice. IG aren't and there is no negative or downside to souping. That's the big difference. I didn't say you "can't take mono Guard", what I said was that you don't take a fluffy list and expect to win a major event. A mono Guard army is, by the way that soup exists and an Imperium player is encouraged to take units from other lists, a fluffy army now.

 Stux wrote:
An army with a minimum battalion of Guard is not a Guard army. I am not playing Guard at that point.

I agree but as my original post that you quoted; people are taking more points of Guard than any other faction in their army and winning. They are winning a lot. So much that they are the second highest performing faction last month and have had one of (if not the) best streak since their codex dropped.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
If I need to be of the mindset that I can't take mono Guard, frankly that's the same as saying you need to be of the mindset that you can't take mono Orks at all and be competitive.

Lol well to be fair Orks have lived with this for quite some time. It's on the welcoming pamphlet I think - "Oi, so yoo joined Da WAAAAAGGGGHHH!!!, git. I 'ope yoo loike lozin, cus we aint winnin nuttin!"

They aren't the same thing though anymore. Orks are forced to be mono. We have no choice. IG aren't and there is no negative or downside to souping. That's the big difference. I didn't say you "can't take mono Guard", what I said was that you don't take a fluffy list and expect to win a major event. A mono Guard army is, by the way that soup exists and an Imperium player is encouraged to take units from other lists, a fluffy army now.

 Stux wrote:
An army with a minimum battalion of Guard is not a Guard army. I am not playing Guard at that point.

I agree but as my original post that you quoted; people are taking more points of Guard than any other faction in their army and winning. They are winning a lot. So much that they are the second highest performing faction last month and have had one of (if not the) best streak since their codex dropped.

I don't really have the option if I want to be competitive though, that's my point. It's not an option in a competitive game if it's a bad option. Fluffy choices WITHIN a faction, fair enough. But taking a faction mono shouldn't be just written off as a fluff choice.

Yes, Orks are in a bad place right now hah. But I'm talking about balance philosophy going forward. Also hopefully you'll get some good toys in the new book to help that!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
An army with a minimum battalion of Guard is not a Guard army. I am not playing Guard at that point.

I agree but as my original post that you quoted; people are taking more points of Guard than any other faction in their army and winning. They are winning a lot. So much that they are the second highest performing faction last month and have had one of (if not the) best streak since their codex dropped.

Again though, 970 points of Brigade and then the rest of the points split between 2 other “powerhouse” factions isn’t an indication of Guard themselves being the reason why they are in the top 3. They simply provide the CP and bodies required for the Castellan and BA to carry the game.
If Admech could supply the same, for the same cost (costs them 1032 points if you go cheapest everything – for 42 models lol) then you’d see them appearing as well. But, prior to the FAQ you can’t get an Admech brigade alongside a Blood Angels battalion and a Castellan.

If you took away the 3++, alongside the faq changes, then, I’d argue that you’d see Guard drop out of the top 3 list pretty quickly.

Kdash wrote:
Well, spending 973 points on a Guard Brigade to fuel Blood Angels and a Castellan, isn't what i'd say as proof that mono guard are viable, or are in a position to do well.

I didn't say it did but we have examples of mono Guard doing well at the highest competitive level. Even though at the most competitive level players are 'encouraged' to take soup.

Change the soup "ingredient" to what though? Certainly won't be Space Marines or Custodes. Maybe, maybe Admech? But, pre-faq there was no other option if you wanted an easy 12CP, 2 sets of CP farming and enough points left over to bring the required "big boyz".

Make it weaker? Not change it from Guard to something else as such but just bring it more in line with other options in other soup lists.

Sure, mono factions should be able to compete, and, I still think in some cases they can compete.
The only reason why we don’t see mono factions taking the top spots at big events like Nova etc, is because people want to win. The more people that want to win (or get close to winning) the more of the “meta” lists will be taken. This then has a negative impact on mono faction representation, as you’re more likely to see soup at the top if 75% of the players take it, than see someone from the 25% making it up there (percentages are there as an example).

As for Orkz, well, we know that 2 things hamper them currently. Chess clocks and no codex.

I’d also argue that the decision to play “fluffy” doesn’t exactly mean mono-faction. How many novels have you read – or even codex timeline events, that DON’T contain instances of “soup” forces taking on the enemy? And by this, you have to take into account that Blood Angels and Ultramarines fighting together (for example) is still “soup”. For example, the vast majority of codex timeline events in the Craftworlds codex tells of events where either several craftworlds have worked together, Drukari have helped, Harlequinns have helped or Ynnari have helped (sometimes all of them together).

Chess clocks are only a problem for a player who relies on the time running out to win games, not that this discussion is around Orks.

You missed my point here but I can see why, poor wording on my part. 'Fluffy' might be the wrong word so let's change that. Let's change the word 'fluffy' to 'not optimal'. My point is that, if you decide to take a list that is not optimal (because you want to run mono Guard and don't want to ally in any of the other factions' units at your disposal) you should understand that you are not playing an optimal list. Orks, Tau, and Necrons cannot ally with anyone. The rules of the game don't allow it in matched play. So those factions who cannot ally need to be balanced, not against "Codex: Adeptus Astartes" or "Codex: Astra Millitarum" or "Codex: Heretic Astartes" but against "Imperium", "Chaos", "Aeldari" and "Tyranid". This is to achieve actual game-wide balance. OR soup needs to be removed from the game.

In order to balance T’au etc against “soup” you need to define “soup”. Because, T’au can certainly beat a soup list of say, Guard, SoB and Salamanders. Necrons can beat a list of BA, DA and Guard etc etc. Just because T’au etc -currently- struggle to kill a 3++ Castellan that is buffed by 5 CP a turn, doesn’t mean they can’t compete with soup.

By "soup" I mean "the most competitive soup list that can be brought to the table for Aeldari, Chaos, Imperium and Tyranids".

 Stux wrote:
I don't really have the option if I want to be competitive though, that's my point. It's not an option in a competitive game if it's a bad option. Fluffy choices WITHIN a faction, fair enough. But taking a faction mono shouldn't be just written off as a fluff choice.

Yes, Orks are in a bad place right now hah. But I'm talking about balance philosophy going forward. Also hopefully you'll get some good toys in the new book to help that!

I was referring more to past editions. Orks are better now (as bad as that is) than they have been in a long time.

Apologies, as I've said above I think "fluffy" is probably the wrong terminology. It has too many other and existing connotations. What I mean is that, as above, you're choosing not to take the most efficient option for the points if you go mono (most likely, currently), for that reason, you shouldn't expect to win every GT you attend with your "fluffy" (might not actually be fluffy) IG list. In the same way that if I took a Warbiker spam list to a GT, I wouldn't expect to win.