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.

edit: not worth my time please delete

Ozomoto wrote:
edit: not worth my time please delete

It's alright, no one is taking this seriously anyway.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
edit: not worth my time please delete

It's alright, no one is taking this seriously anyway.

I frequently forgot how toxic (and bad at 40k) dakka is and have to realign myself. A reflection of life i guess.

It's okay, go join some of the car forums I used to be on where we'd rile people up in one thread then go hang out in off topic and laugh about it.

Ozomoto wrote:
You think pulling lists from random places counts as data your delusional. Guess what I just found out necrons and GK are op, look at these wins….

Dude, i don't even know where to go with this one...

You tried to quote Adepticon results to me in some sad attempt to reinforce your argument, problem is i actually followed Adepticon last year and called you on your fake-stat FFS a simple google search could have told you as much.

Ozomoto wrote:
Pull up win %, lets' see them.

That's a hard pass, if you gave a about any of this you'd already know where to look.
I'm not going to hold your hand while you learn the ins and outs of competitive play or the current state of the meta.

Ozomoto wrote:
Oh but wait, you have confirmation bias *cough data* on your side so you are obviously right my bad..

I'm not going to spend all night cutting and pasting from Blood of Kittens tournament results just to prove some casual was wrong about the meta.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
You think pulling lists from random places counts as data your delusional. Guess what I just found out necrons and GK are op, look at these wins….

Dude, i don't even know where to go with this one...

You tried to quote Adepticon results to me in some sad attempt to reinforce your argument, problem is i actually followed Adepticon last year and called you on your fake-stat FFS a simple google search could have told you as much.

Ozomoto wrote:
Pull up win %, lets' see them.

That's a hard pass, if you gave a about any of this you'd already know where to look.
I'm not going to hold your hand while you learn the ins and outs of competitive play or the current state of the meta.

Ozomoto wrote:
Oh but wait, you have confirmation bias *cough data* on your side so you are obviously right my bad..

I'm not going to spend all night cutting and pasting from Blood of Kittens tournament results just to prove some casual was wrong about the meta.

There is no castellans in the top 8 as I said.A simple google search would have told you so. So no ur bs ing me. My comment on confirmation bias was specifically because I know you misinterpreted the stats for you own narrative on this one.

https://www.battle-report.com/2019/03/30/2019-adepticon-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Link(or pm) ur itc stats we will see if i'm the relative casual. Ill give it 50 -1 odds you are higher then me.

You bark pretty loud but do you have a bite?


(ps so no you dont actually have data rofl, as you cant even pull it up)

 ingtaer wrote:
Time to simmer down please people, we can have this discussion whilst remaining polite.

I couldn't care less about competitive 40k - I left that behind many years ago and now play for the fun of it.

All I hope for out of balance in 40k is for two people to be able to pick any faction they like the look of and have a game where at the beginning, either person has a chance of winning.

I dont understand why people say Chess is unbalanced because white have a slightly higher win rate. White and black arent 2 factions you choose before a game /tournament but just a way to distinguish the pieces. If it was a random die roll after each player set up the pieces and 50% of the time black went first the game would be perfectly balanced? Who gets to play what color is random, before its decided its 50-50 on who is favored. And you can play more than 1 game and changes who goes first to make it more fair. If you play a best of 7 in chess its pretty much 50-50.

Also skill is much more of a factor in chess than in 40k. You can easily overcome the tiny advantage of going first if you are slightly better player not to mention if the skill gap is higher.

If we see Black and White as 2 different factions then we can compare it to IH vs GK. Probably doesnt matter who starts or any slight skill differences the IH player is likely to win. Way less balanced than chess.

If we just see black and white as who goes first then we could do the same in 40k. Take a good IH list vs an equally good IH list in a format that favors going first. You think the player going first is gonna be less favored than white in chess? I dont think so.

People use chess as an example in a dishonest way. Its not white that is better because its white but because it goes first if you take 1000 games and just rotate who goes first its extremely balanced. Doesnt matter the amount of times you let GK choose(way better than altetnating) who starts IH will have an insane advantage.

Chess win% is also from mostly equal matches. 40k isnt. IH's winrate is from playing on top tables and other good armies, not from beating DA/Tyranids or GK at bottom tables. After 2-3 rounds the top armies and bottom armies arent really facing each other anymore so their winrates flattens out as they ate both facing more equal opposition. Marines facing other marines prevents high winrates at the top and DA gets to face equally bad armies at the bottom and start getting some wins as well stopping their fall in win%. If it was totaly random who you would face each round in a Tournament and not based on wins/losses you would see the new marines have much higher win rates and the bottom armies would look way worse. Now its mostly a 60-40 difference but if GK/DA/SW could meet IH in round 4 and 5 as well the difference would be above 70-30 and probably closer to 80-20 win rates and really show how badly balanced 40k is. A 55% winrate army against a 45% army isnt just slightly favored to win but overwhelmingly so. Might look like a 20% nudge to the 55% army but its more like 90-10 in actuality.

Looked up some stats. Space Marines have like 53% winrate and blood angels 38%, space marines vs blood angels have it at 90-10 on the other hand. Tyranids are at 44% overall but against marines they are only at 20%. 40k is way more unbalanced than people realise.

Ozomoto wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
edit: not worth my time please delete

It's alright, no one is taking this seriously anyway.

I frequently forgot how toxic (and bad at 40k) dakka is and have to realign myself. A reflection of life i guess.

IOW: you were proven wrong and in a way to avoid admitting you were wrong you make claims of toxic.

I've been thinking for a while now that GW are aiming firmly at the US tournament scene. Why else is there an emphasis in the brb on tournament rules (matched play?)?

That's not to say they balance and test their rules though - well they do to a certain extent, it's why we keep getting sold yearly FAQs, er I mean Chapter Approved...

Social media wise US meta-gamers seem to be the biggest slice of the market, Brits, their supposed home market, don't seem to feature much on social media at all, and even less so British tournament players. And we all know that social media is king these days, if "professional" Warhammer "journalists" (how did we end up with "professional" Warhammr "journalists" anyhow?!!) such as Rob Baer start deriding a particular unit/faction/ruleset GW get worried...

GW even have a patronising US woman for their "how to play" videos...

Don't know why GW don't up sticks and move to the US!

You know, at some point- someone's going to make a program that can calculate 40k armies against one another.

And that guy is going to get rich, and then strangled to death for not helping GW sell new Shinies.

Rob Lee wrote:
if "professional" Warhammer "journalists" (how did we end up with "professional" Warhammr "journalists" anyhow?!!) such as Rob Baer start deriding a particular unit/faction/ruleset GW get worried..

I was with you until this. If Rob Baer is a journalists then Spikey Bits is the National Enquirer of the Warhammer world, nothing but click bait with no real information, i get more reliable news from 4chan.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Rob Lee wrote:
if "professional" Warhammer "journalists" (how did we end up with "professional" Warhammr "journalists" anyhow?!!) such as Rob Baer start deriding a particular unit/faction/ruleset GW get worried..

I was with you until this. If Rob Baer is a journalists then Spikey Bits is the National Enquirer of the Warhammer world, nothing but click bait with no real information, i get more reliable news from 4chan.

When your staff consists of people who are permanently banned from major tournaments... yeah, not really reliable. And as I understand, SB doesn't have the best reputation among actual Games Workshop honchos.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
You know, at some point- someone's going to make a program that can calculate 40k armies against one another.

And that guy is going to get rich, and then strangled to death for not helping GW sell new Shinies.

Yeah people have said that before about all kinds of other E Sports and it never works, at least with any accuracy. I wonder if people really understand the complexity of what they are asking/dreaming of.
It took teams of code monkeys decades to come up with the current NOAA model and all that does is help us predict the weather and it doesn't even do that well.

MiguelFelstone wrote:
Yeah people have said that before about all kinds of other E Sports and it never works, at least with any accuracy. I wonder if people really understand the complexity of what they are asking/dreaming of.
It took teams of code monkeys decades to come up with the current NOAA model and all that does is help us predict the weather, and it doesn't even do that well.

So you're saying it's still safe to gamble on the Weather and it can't be forecast that easily...

Get me my bookie, stat.

Redacted

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So you're saying it's still safe to gamble on the Weather and it can't be forecast that easily...

Get me my bookie, stat.

I'm a Floridian. The NOAA model is complete when compared to the Europeans. Thats why on TV you'll see 50 different tracks for a hurricane.

If they had any kind of accuracy Trump wouldn't have needed a sharpy.

Most weather models are hilariously deprecated, but the Europeans actually invested in theirs and that's why they have the most accurate weather forecasts in the world.

MiguelFelstone wrote:
Most weather models are hilariously deprecated, but the Europeans actually invested in theirs and that's why they have the most accurate weather forecasts in the world.

Hurricane bets when?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IOW: you were proven wrong and in a way to avoid admitting you were wrong you make claims of toxic.

Ding ding ding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Hurricane bets when?

I make that bet every year, and i got to keep my house in 2019, i'd like to have it until at least 2035 when Orlando becomes beachfront property.

I think we are already seeing a shift at GW into a more tournament focused development. It is there in AoS despite the occasional blunders(HoS and OBR), Warcry was definitely made with tourneys in mind, and lest us not forget how both Warhammer Underworlds and even Kill Team have been very focused on it as they both received tourney kits.

However, 40k is lagging(or resisting depending on your view of tourneys) behind in that development most likely due to the fact that 40k is still being developed by the old vanguard of people who have been there for decades.

I am of the opinion that tourneys will become a bigger things as time goes on. Tourneys are a big thing and they tend to garner more revenue due to increased exposure of the product. Whether GW manages to capitalize on it is another matter entirely, but I would argue that in some extent they are moving towards this. Competitive scenes are big money which is why a lot of game companies are hoping to be the next eSport franchise. If GW is like any other company they will want to get in on the action.

In regards to testing I think the main issue of GW is that their processes are still not up to spec and I wouldn't be surprised if some of that aforementioned old vanguard is still very secretive about their entire process due to how GW ran things for over 10 years.

 Eldarsif wrote:
In regards to testing I think the main issue of GW is that their processes are still not up to spec and I wouldn't be surprised if some of that aforementioned old vanguard is still very secretive about their entire process due to how GW ran things for over 10 years.

Never played an ETC but if the European scene is anything like what it's been described in this thread - that wouldn't surprise me in the least
It's a shame because some of my favorite content creators are European, how do you up a game you created? That's like the US losing at BASEketball

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
edit: not worth my time please delete

It's alright, no one is taking this seriously anyway.

I frequently forgot how toxic (and bad at 40k) dakka is and have to realign myself. A reflection of life i guess.

IOW: you were proven wrong and in a way to avoid admitting you were wrong you make claims of toxic.

And how exactly was I proven wrong? All i've seen where people not following through with what they said and ghosting once they themselves have been proven wrong. In fact If you pay attention I actually did end up commenting on everything I redacted meaning there is no basis for your comment.
So ya, thanks for further demonstrating how toxic the community is. (as well as your conjecture and unfounded claims)

GW hasn't playtested in the past as we all know.
Can't say much about the current situation.
Playtesting in a competitive environment needs players that are more professional than the GW employees.
Its not hard to find those players but it appears that GW doesn't do so.
Just have a look at their battle reports in WD.

Ozomoto wrote:
And how exactly was I proven wrong? All i've seen where people not following through with what they said and ghosting once they themselves have been proven wrong. In fact If you pay attention I actually did end up commenting on everything I redacted. (but why would you ever do that??????)

So ya, thanks for further demonstrating how toxic the community is.

You just made a bunch of snide / sarcastic comments and then immediately, the very next sentence said it's the "community" that's toxic. Really?

Also i could keep going back and forth with you but it's not worth the effort to regurgitate the same thing again and again. If your still sticking to your guns on this "IKs did nothing wrong" crap then i'll just start quoting better players than I:
Abe Apfel from Bell of Lost Souls

The release of the Admech book gave them a boost, but it wasn’t until Codex Imperial Knights dropped that they really took off. With new units, powerful stratagems, and some fantastic soup options, Knight quickly shot up in the rankings, came to dominate the meta. As the star of the Ynnari waned, Knights took the top spot as the easy, go-to army, and became the list to beat.

Since last June, Knights have dominated the meta. When Imperial Knights faded a bit due to nerfs, Chaos Knights were quick to step in and take their spot. However, over the past few weeks, as Space Marine lists come into play, we’ve seen a dramatic shift, and it seems like the era of Knightly chivalry may be dead.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
And how exactly was I proven wrong? All i've seen where people not following through with what they said and ghosting once they themselves have been proven wrong. In fact If you pay attention I actually did end up commenting on everything I redacted. (but why would you ever do that??????)

So ya, thanks for further demonstrating how toxic the community is.

You just made a bunch of snide / sarcastic comments and then immediately, the very next sentence said it's the "community" that's toxic. Really?

Also i could keep going back and forth with you but it's not worth the effort to regurgitate the same thing again and again. If your still sticking to your guns on this "IKs did nothing wrong" gak then i'll just start quoting better players than I:
Abe Apfel from Bell of Lost Souls

The release of the Admech book gave them a boost, but it wasn’t until Codex Imperial Knights dropped that they really took off. With new units, powerful stratagems, and some fantastic soup options, Knight quickly shot up in the rankings, came to dominate the meta. As the star of the Ynnari waned, Knights took the top spot as the easy, go-to army, and became the list to beat.

Since last June, Knights have dominated the meta. When Imperial Knights faded a bit due to nerfs, Chaos Knights were quick to step in and take their spot. However, over the past few weeks, as Space Marine lists come into play, we’ve seen a dramatic shift, and it seems like the era of Knightly chivalry may be dead.

You should look in the mirror, We both had the same disposition. Im I also not part of the community for commenting by definition? That article is also irrelevant. It's just a historical take.and you are extrapolating a lot out of a fairly innocent quote again, unsurprisingly to fit your biased narrative.

You also didnt back out of a back and forth. You backed out of one thing, your itc record after you claimed I was a scrub.

Ozomoto wrote:
That article is also irrelevant. It's just a historical article.

It's an article discussing the meta over the last year, if you had bothered to read it you'd know that. Imperial Knights were released in June of last year, it's not a "historical article" it just doesn't support your point of view and you didn't want to read it.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
That article is also irrelevant. It's just a historical article.

It's an article discussing the meta over the last year, if you had bothered to read it you'd know that. Imperial Knights were released in June of last year, it's not a "historical article" it just doesn't support your point of view and you didn't want to read it.

I actually did read it. It is an article going over a history of something....so a historical account or historical article. pretty simple stuff. Ill reiterate it because this because I know you need a little bit of extra help. You extrapolated a lot out of something small to fit your narrative. The article was largely not discussing what we where talking about. It was a historical article.

Something is always the the 'top' or 'best', that alone is not grounds for nerfing/banning. The first thing I said about it was you mistake prevalence for oppression. A single qoute from a technically off top article saying "they where played", or "where the army to beat". Cool so they where prevalent? and this is supposed to be new information ?

Ozomoto wrote:
It is by definition an article going over a history of something....

The mental gymnastics you're doing just to prove you're not wrong is amazing to behold. Did an old gypsy woman curse you? If you admit fault will your first born die or something?

Even if it was an "historical account" or whatever you want to call it. It was an article that had specifically to do with how well IKs had performed over the last year and everything you argued agasint is in that article.

Edit: We went back and forth for 3 pages about IKs and now you say it's not relevant when i show you an opinion you don't agree with? Alright i'm done, you win dude.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
It is by definition an article going over a history of something....

The mental gymnastics you're doing just to prove you're not wrong is amazing to behold. Did an old gypsy woman curse you? If you admit fault will your first born die or something?

Even if it was an "historical account" or whatever you want to call it. It was an article that had specifically to do with how well IKs had performed over the last year and everything you argued agasint is in that article.

No offence but you are delusional. It was an account of knights rules releases and nerfs.
I have never argued they where not popular or meta defining. In fact I called them so. Like i agreed/agree with what the article says.

It really doesn't comment on however what the debate was about; which is whether the knight nerf was justified or not. Where knights oppressive, could they have stayed where they where etc. It makes a one comment in the entire article saying they are the list to beat, which is and was true. However that is not calling them oppressive, its not calling them nerf worthy; but you are extrapolating such, which just isn't true(the author might have had that opinion but its not stated in the article). You are bs ing me and yourself with your narrative you are pushing. The rest ( and majority) of the article is just general irrelevant claims (to our discussion) like, after the nerf imperium knights fell out of favour or marines took chaos knight out of the meta.

Something is always the best/top. I will say it for the third time, that alone is not grounds for being nerfed. In fact considering there is always something(s) at the top it can actually be good for particular things to be there over others. Something can be the list to beat and its a very healthy meta for that list to be at the top.

This will have to call it for me; if you think an irrelevant text of writing (that i agreed with) was/should be earth-shattering revelation to my 40k knowledge/opinion, then your fundamental misunderstanding for how things are is so great no amount of text or conversation will ever be enough.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Edit: We went back and forth for 3 pages about IKs and now you say it's not relevant when i show you an opinion you don't agree with? Alright i'm done, you win dude.

No it's irrelevant because it's irrelevant. Read why I stated its irrelevant. If it talked about the nuances of beating knights/ knights beating you. What you can do about, and the before and after snap shot of the meta (everyone not just the knights themselves) and the health of the game) and compared it then ya it would be relevant.

It has nothing to do with me 'disagreeing with it" . I just said I agree with it