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.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Marines still have a higher win percentage than Eldar if you remove the Marine mirror.

It's just with Marines being nearly 4x as prevalent as Eldar, their frequent mirror (with a 50% win rate, obviously), drags them "down".

That's shocking, unexpected, and runs counter to the thread's narrative! /s

For gaks and giggles I added Ta'u and Orks and gave a side by side of ITC to Non-ITC. It looks to me that people who say ITC is bad for the game are both correct and incorrect. Ta'u suffer greatly outside of ITC, but Orks see a boost. Despite this Eldar and Codex Marines maintain a stranglehold. Whether the new missions will upset this dynamic will remain to be seen over coming months.

Data is whatever was available for Nov and Dec tournaments at the time I grabbed it (a few days ago).

Wow almost as though...ITC does nothing in reality and the top codices still do their thing!

Sterling191 wrote:
“We still can’t beat Eldar but have two builds that should be banned because they’re too good”.

Classic.

Custom trait eldar is the top winning army right now with 69% WR in december. (this is like...higher than ynnari was in its prime)
Ironhands right behind with 66%

Nothing else really comes close with a significant play rate.
https://www.40kstats.com/subfaction-results

They both should honestly be nerfed. MOA/expert crafters is likely a big part of these factions success. It's no all of it ofc but it is a big part of it. OFC eldar being able to mix detachments at will also plays into it as well.

not sure how to fix eldar...probably should not allow them to mix detachments with custom traits and or nerf Expert crafters.
For Ironhands (and also IF) fix the super doctrine and nerf MOA.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
For gaks and giggles I added Ta'u and Orks and gave a side by side of ITC to Non-ITC. It looks to me that people who say ITC is bad for the game are both correct and incorrect. Ta'u suffer greatly outside of ITC, but Orks see a boost. Despite this Eldar and Codex Marines maintain a stranglehold. Whether the new missions will upset this dynamic will remain to be seen over coming months.

Data is whatever was available for Nov and Dec tournaments at the time I grabbed it (a few days ago).

Only include December data and see what that changes.

Also what is condiered a mirror match here? Astartes vs Astartes? Or Just Ironhands vs Ironhands for example?

How to fix Iron Hands?

Don't put kill points into every mission. Simple. Done.

Sure they are still really annoying and a player can bring them along to club some baby seals but they will get bored of not winning tournaments with their smash-face Iron Hands. Then when they water it down enough to compete properly in objective missions they lose enough of the IH crazy nonsense that they drop down to normal Astartes power levels.

I played a classic smash-face IH list in a local pre-Xmas tournament. Being the tournament before Christmas I had only taken a semi-competitive list but it had *loads* of units good for scoring. He tabled his first-round opponent in 2 turns. He tabled me in 6 turns by which time I had an unassailable VP lead so I won the game. He went on to table his 3rd round opponent in 3 turns too, while I quietly went on to win the event.

If we had played that same pair of lists with ITC or similar missions with a bunch of kill points added on I would have had no possible route to victory. If people are playing kill point missions all the time of course Iron Hands are OP - its the missions which make them so. What you want are progressive scoring and at most one mission with a kill point element - almost exactly like the ones in CA19 which you might even imagine the game designers are trying to balance against. Funny that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow almost as though...ITC does nothing in reality and the top codices still do their thing!

It is interesting to see what happens to factions outside top books though.

GSC do really bad outside ITC (44% vs 30% WR), but Nids to a ton better : 32% to 46%
DE go from 48% to 55% outside.
CSM 40% to 45%.
AM go up a couple percent on the outside, but still pretty poor.

happy_inquisitor wrote:
How to fix Iron Hands?

Don't put kill points into every mission. Simple. Done.

Sure they are still really annoying and a player can bring them along to club some baby seals but they will get bored of not winning tournaments with their smash-face Iron Hands. Then when they water it down enough to compete properly in objective missions they lose enough of the IH crazy nonsense that they drop down to normal Astartes power levels.

I played a classic smash-face IH list in a local pre-Xmas tournament. Being the tournament before Christmas I had only taken a semi-competitive list but it had *loads* of units good for scoring. He tabled his first-round opponent in 2 turns. He tabled me in 6 turns by which time I had an unassailable VP lead so I won the game. He went on to table his 3rd round opponent in 3 turns too, while I quietly went on to win the event.

If we had played that same pair of lists with ITC or similar missions with a bunch of kill points added on I would have had no possible route to victory. If people are playing kill point missions all the time of course Iron Hands are OP - its the missions which make them so. What you want are progressive scoring and at most one mission with a kill point element - almost exactly like the ones in CA19 which you might even imagine the game designers are trying to balance against. Funny that.

You pretty much can't lose a game with a 3 turn table. Even if you score 0 points going into turn 3. I assure you you are going to loss more often than not playing cat and mouse objectives and you can not face your opponent pound for pound in killing. Killing wins you games...the game is about killing. I don't understand your argument.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Custom trait eldar is the top winning army right now with 69% WR in december. (this is like...higher than ynnari was in its prime)
Ironhands right behind with 66%

You heard it here first folks. Craftworlds are now worse than pre-nerf Ynnari.

 Xenomancers wrote:

They both should honestly be nerfed. MOA/expert crafters is likely a big part of these factions success. It's no all of it ofc but it is a big part of it. OFC eldar being able to mix detachments at will also plays into it as well.

not sure how to fix eldar...probably should not allow them to mix detachments with custom traits and or nerf Expert crafters.

You do realize that every army is capable of mixing detachments right? Hell, Admech has been doing that for practically the entire goddamn edition to pull stratagem and keyword shenanigans.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Custom trait eldar is the top winning army right now with 69% WR in december. (this is like...higher than ynnari was in its prime)
Ironhands right behind with 66%

You heard it here first folks. Craftworlds are now worse than pre-nerf Ynnari.

A lot of stuff is/was worse than pre-nerf Ynnari. Castellan. Caladius. Nu-Marines obviously. Chaos Daemons over the summer. Hell, Ynnari was down to basically being a fairly balanced, mid-tier army in the months pre-WD nerf and post-Assassins, etc..

White Dwarf rules was a classic "6+ months" delayed nerf that probably wasn't even necessary by the time it arrived (similar to the GSC nerf and perhaps the Plaguebearer increase with CA in a way, I suppose).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow almost as though...ITC does nothing in reality and the top codices still do their thing!

It is interesting to see what happens to factions outside top books though.

GSC do really bad outside ITC (44% vs 30% WR), but Nids to a ton better : 32% to 46%
DE go from 48% to 55% outside.
CSM 40% to 45%.
AM go up a couple percent on the outside, but still pretty poor.

But IMO the most important thing is, many (at least Xenos) can play with a completely different set of units and still do fine. Take Tau, i have a friend that plays a large amount of Piranhas, in CA maelstrom they are very good, drop Drones off to go harass crap and rush the vehicle to objectives, body block, etc.. for 56pts each they are a steal in that playstyle. You take them into ITC and they'll make you auto lose b.c of how ITC scoring works.

Also i would like to see the Mirror matches taken out if possible too.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It looks to me that people who say ITC is bad for the game are both correct and incorrect.

It is not so much about being bad or not, it is about not balancing the official game based on someone's houserules.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

But IMO the most important thing is, many (at least Xenos) can play with a completely different set of units and still do fine. Take Tau, i have a friend that plays a large amount of Piranhas, in CA maelstrom they are very good, drop Drones off to go harass crap and rush the vehicle to objectives, body block, etc.. for 56pts each they are a steal in that playstyle. You take them into ITC and they'll make you auto lose b.c of how ITC scoring works.

Also i would like to see the Mirror matches taken out if possible too.

A plausible premise, but I'm not sure it always pans out. I am quite interested how the new CA does though.

All data I've posted is sans mirror match.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Custom trait eldar is the top winning army right now with 69% WR in december. (this is like...higher than ynnari was in its prime)
Ironhands right behind with 66%

You heard it here first folks. Craftworlds are now worse than pre-nerf Ynnari.

 Xenomancers wrote:

They both should honestly be nerfed. MOA/expert crafters is likely a big part of these factions success. It's no all of it ofc but it is a big part of it. OFC eldar being able to mix detachments at will also plays into it as well.

not sure how to fix eldar...probably should not allow them to mix detachments with custom traits and or nerf Expert crafters.

You do realize that every army is capable of mixing detachments right? Hell, Admech has been doing that for practically the entire goddamn edition to pull stratagem and keyword shenanigans.

Data kind of speaks for itself doesn't it? Ynnari were around 57% WR in their prime from what I remember. Custom trait eldar is now 69% in december.

And no. Space marines can not mix detachments or they lose super doctrine. Can't include different non marine factions or they turn into 1.0 marines lol. This is what I was referring to. It is particularly egregious with cumstom traits to mix detachments because you can custom build a force every trait benefiting every unit to the max.

To add, i still play a mix Harlequin detachment, 2 DJ's Deaming Shadows, 1 SS as Silent Shroud, and 1 Solitaire as Midnight Shadow, just for the relics/stratagems.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Data kind of speaks for itself doesn't it?

It absolutely does not. The reasons behind data matter just as much, if not more, than the top sheet number. But you've consistently proven incapable of understanding that fact.

 Xenomancers wrote:


And no. Space marines can not mix detachments or they lose super doctrine. Can't include different non marine factions or they turn into 1.0 marines lol. This is what I was referring to. It is particularly egregious with cumstom traits to mix detachments because you can custom build a force every trait benefiting every unit to the max.

And once again you're demonstrating you have zero capacity to comprehend the functional components of the system you're hysterically groaning about. Multiple competitive builds utilize mixed Marine forces (most notably those comprised of RG and WS players), or even allies because the functionality provided by overlapping stratagems, relics and WLTs is superior to what they would get with their associated super-doctrine.

Which brings us right back to how mixed forces have functioned for the entirety of the fething edition.

But keep on ranting about how Eldar being able to mix <CRAFTWORLD> detachments is somehow ban worthy.

Includes mirror and all types.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Includes mirror and all types.

What's going on with Iyanden? Comparable VP tally as Custom, with a much lower VPL but also a Win rate worse than the major players?

Sterling191 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Includes mirror and all types.

What's going on with Iyanden? Comparable VP tally as Custom, with a much lower VPL but also a Win rate worse than the major players?

Likely has to do with how it is used as soup, but i'll poke at it and see. The data sets are a little funny (not how I would manage the data for sure). Here's the full sweep by chapter in Dec; ITC only:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Custom trait eldar is the top winning army right now with 69% WR in december. (this is like...higher than ynnari was in its prime)
Ironhands right behind with 66%

You heard it here first folks. Craftworlds are now worse than pre-nerf Ynnari.

A lot of stuff is/was worse than pre-nerf Ynnari. Castellan. Caladius. Nu-Marines obviously. Chaos Daemons over the summer. Hell, Ynnari was down to basically being a fairly balanced, mid-tier army in the months pre-WD nerf and post-Assassins, etc..

White Dwarf rules was a classic "6+ months" delayed nerf that probably wasn't even necessary by the time it arrived (similar to the GSC nerf and perhaps the Plaguebearer increase with CA in a way, I suppose).

I disagree with this premise. Ynnari with still a meta contender at the time of the castellan it just wasn't play as much. People actually get bored playing the same list all the time it seems. Ynnari was never balanced before it was nerfed. Ynnari and Castellan were nerfed simultaneously too.

For example at the time of LVO last year (pre nerf for both armies) Ynnari was 59% in ITC and IK was 55% (search by the first week in feb if you want to run the results yourself) Astra Militarium was 53%.
For top 10 there was pretty good representation for AM/IK/CWE and Ynnari around 75%-80% that doesn't mean much though because castellan and ynnari were both hugely busted. Whichever is more busted doesn't really matter.

 Xenomancers wrote:

You pretty much can't lose a game with a 3 turn table. Even if you score 0 points going into turn 3. I assure you you are going to loss more often than not playing cat and mouse objectives and you can not face your opponent pound for pound in killing. Killing wins you games...the game is about killing. I don't understand your argument.

The game is not about killing. It is about winning more VP than your opponent. Killing only wins games if it is rewarded by the mission.

I played a full objective game so I just played the objectives that he simply could not compete in because indestructible super-killy vehicles don't have a very high model count[1]. I just killed the stuff in his army that could score or out-maneuver my screens and played a screening-the-character game long enough to win. Basic stuff, play the mission.

If he had been getting a free "Kill More" VP every turn I would have been beaten (I killed nothing of his on turns 5 or 6 so the VP swing would have been brutal). Even the 6 kill points for ETC missions would have left me at the mercy of lucky maelstrom cards, too many of which are kill-oriented for me to have really had a good chance. In CA19 missions I always had the win so long as I kept my self-control and played the mission - in that mission set your typical super-brutal Iron Hands list is really not that good.

Iron Hands are not balanced for games with a significant kill point element beyond First Strike and Slay the Warlord. I agree that they are imbalanced if you play missions with a lot more kill point elements than that, my point is that you should not be doing so.

[1] Also he grumbled about the TO having put the objectives very widely spaced out. That is deliberate, the TO does it to discourage armies that just camp the center of the table and shoot everyone to death, he thinks that is really boring. Table design and objective placement are more subtle elements of mission design.

Honestly, tournament data is...fine, but ultimately doesn't affect me or my games that much. I play in a fairly casual club with tons of people, we have about 50 active members, around half of which show up on any given week.

Very few people were playing soup. Very few people were playing highly optimized lists. Since the release of the supplements, our playerbase has dropped by about a third, and the last month there have never been more than 5 players not using the marine supplements.

Playing a game where you get tabled by turn 3-4 but you manage to win by VPs is functionally as enjoyable as getting tabled by turn 3-4 and losing. I understand that some optimized Tau and Eldar lists are able to compete with marines in some ITC grand tournament somewhere, but the only one of those two factions represented where I play is my eldar, and I'm not certain what those tournament lists are taking but I'm betting it's not my Storm Guardians+Avatar melee footslogger build.

Even after they stopped dominating the competitive scene in 7th, Necrons with the Decurion detachment structure were one of the most widely complained about builds because they simply were not fun to play against. Same with leafblower guard lists in 5th, and Tau in...always. There are gameplay patterns that are just fundamentally not fun to deal with, and marines with their aura bubbles, beta boltguns and doctrines have just become that. They just sit back, roll and reroll tons of dice, and table you in 3 turns.

Competitive, optimized Tau or Eldar for sure would be just as obnoxious, maybe even more so, I don't know. But I do know there aren't 35 people with identical cookie-cutter competitive Tau and Eldar lists, because the super discounted starter boxes for the game don't contain 3 riptides and 30 shield drones.

 Xenomancers wrote:


I disagree with this premise. Ynnari with still a meta contender at the time of the castellan it just wasn't play as much. People actually get bored playing the same list all the time it seems. Ynnari was never balanced before it was nerfed. Ynnari and Castellan were nerfed simultaneously too.

For example at the time of LVO last year (pre nerf for both armies) Ynnari was 59% in ITC and IK was 55% (search by the first week in feb if you want to run the results yourself) Astra Militarium was 53%.
For top 10 there was pretty good representation for AM/IK/CWE and Ynnari around 75%-80% that doesn't mean much though because castellan and ynnari were both hugely busted. Whichever is more busted doesn't really matter.

IK majority was 55%, but the "classic" Astra list with a Raven Castellan (which isn't an IK list according to the old ITC classification) was at around 70%. And yeah, Ynnari was still a bit too good somewhere between 55% to 59%, but never at Castellan levels. Not even remotely. And as said, many lists and builds beat that 59% win-percentage where Ynnari capped out, including the Castellan, Caladius, even current Expert Crafters Eldar are almost there.

And Top 10 representation can be fickle. Blood Angels outperformed Ynnari by 150% in Top 10 representation in the 2017 season when Ynnari won the ITC. Tyranids also outperformed Ynnari on that measure during that year (including winning Adepticon, etc..). And both Blood Angels and Nids remained largely unchanged (outside of the Smash-Captain fly nerf and even some point drops) since 2017 up to now Blood of Baal, and few people would considered them top tier armies in 2017/2018 despite outperforming Ynnari on the Top 10 metric.

Sterling191 wrote:


What's going on with Iyanden? Comparable VP tally as Custom, with a much lower VPL but also a Win rate worse than the major players?

Ok, so there was only 1 Iyanden player. He won 2 and lost 2. There is only one line item for the data by Chapter and it shows 27 VP avg for him and 17 avg for his opponents, so he probably lost two and crushed the next two.

Unfortunately the tournament doesn't tie back to the other data set.

I would really question the integrity of the 40kstats data sets.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Data kind of speaks for itself doesn't it?

It absolutely does not. The reasons behind data matter just as much, if not more, than the top sheet number. But you've consistently proven incapable of understanding that fact.

 Xenomancers wrote:


And no. Space marines can not mix detachments or they lose super doctrine. Can't include different non marine factions or they turn into 1.0 marines lol. This is what I was referring to. It is particularly egregious with cumstom traits to mix detachments because you can custom build a force every trait benefiting every unit to the max.

And once again you're demonstrating you have zero capacity to comprehend the functional components of the system you're hysterically groaning about. Multiple competitive builds utilize mixed Marine forces (most notably those comprised of RG and WS players), or even allies because the functionality provided by overlapping stratagems, relics and WLTs is superior to what they would get with their associated super-doctrine.

Which brings us right back to how mixed forces have functioned for the entirety of the fething edition.

But keep on ranting about how Eldar being able to mix <CRAFTWORLD> detachments is somehow ban worthy.

Do you know how silly you look when you defend the balance of a 69% WR faction? Suggesting a fix to an army winning over 60% of their game on average is what people who understand the game do. Yes I know a few marine factions WS/and RG mix detachments of marines to take advantage of WL and stratagems and due to the fact they have a turn 2/3 super doctrine....but they aren't 65% WR ironhands. They are 54-55% Whitescars and RG which aren't even relevant compared to ironhands. All you manage to do every time you speak is deomntrate how rude and insulting you are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


I disagree with this premise. Ynnari with still a meta contender at the time of the castellan it just wasn't play as much. People actually get bored playing the same list all the time it seems. Ynnari was never balanced before it was nerfed. Ynnari and Castellan were nerfed simultaneously too.

For example at the time of LVO last year (pre nerf for both armies) Ynnari was 59% in ITC and IK was 55% (search by the first week in feb if you want to run the results yourself) Astra Militarium was 53%.
For top 10 there was pretty good representation for AM/IK/CWE and Ynnari around 75%-80% that doesn't mean much though because castellan and ynnari were both hugely busted. Whichever is more busted doesn't really matter.

IK majority was 55%, but the "classic" Astra list with a Raven Castellan (which isn't an IK list according to the old ITC classification) was at around 70%. And yeah, Ynnari was still a bit too good somewhere between 55% to 59%, but never at Castellan levels. Not even remotely. And as said, many lists and builds beat that 59% win-percentage where Ynnari capped out, including the Castellan, Caladius, even current Expert Crafters Eldar are almost there.

And Top 10 representation can be fickle. Blood Angels outperformed Ynnari by 150% in Top 10 representation in the 2017 season when Ynnari won the ITC. Tyranids also outperformed Ynnari on that measure during that year (including winning Adepticon, etc..). And both Blood Angels and Nids remained largely unchanged (outside of the Smash-Captain fly nerf and even some point drops) since 2017 up to now Blood of Baal, and few people would considered them top tier armies in 2017/2018 despite outperforming Ynnari on the Top 10 metric.

I agree that top 10 can be fickle. It's too bad we don't have access to the data for optimum build performances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You pretty much can't lose a game with a 3 turn table. Even if you score 0 points going into turn 3. I assure you you are going to loss more often than not playing cat and mouse objectives and you can not face your opponent pound for pound in killing. Killing wins you games...the game is about killing. I don't understand your argument.

The game is not about killing. It is about winning more VP than your opponent. Killing only wins games if it is rewarded by the mission.

I played a full objective game so I just played the objectives that he simply could not compete in because indestructible super-killy vehicles don't have a very high model count[1]. I just killed the stuff in his army that could score or out-maneuver my screens and played a screening-the-character game long enough to win. Basic stuff, play the mission.

If he had been getting a free "Kill More" VP every turn I would have been beaten (I killed nothing of his on turns 5 or 6 so the VP swing would have been brutal). Even the 6 kill points for ETC missions would have left me at the mercy of lucky maelstrom cards, too many of which are kill-oriented for me to have really had a good chance. In CA19 missions I always had the win so long as I kept my self-control and played the mission - in that mission set your typical super-brutal Iron Hands list is really not that good.

Iron Hands are not balanced for games with a significant kill point element beyond First Strike and Slay the Warlord. I agree that they are imbalanced if you play missions with a lot more kill point elements than that, my point is that you should not be doing so.

[1] Also he grumbled about the TO having put the objectives very widely spaced out. That is deliberate, the TO does it to discourage armies that just camp the center of the table and shoot everyone to death, he thinks that is really boring. Table design and objective placement are more subtle elements of mission design.

The point is you can't score objectives when you are dead. The game is and always be about killing. This is the most deadly edition of the game too it has never been more killy.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Marines still have a higher win percentage than Eldar if you remove the Marine mirror.

It's just with Marines being nearly 4x as prevalent as Eldar, their frequent mirror (with a 50% win rate, obviously), drags them "down".

If that were teue then Eldar would have to be pretty shocking vs anything else.

 Xenomancers wrote:
[
Do you know how silly you look when you defend the balance of a 69% WR faction?

Oh look, jumping right to putting words in my mouth. What a shock.

Please quote for me where I have stated that a 69% win rate is a good thing. I'll wait.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Suggesting a fix to an army winning over 60% of their game on average is what people who understand the game do.

Not when those fixes dont address the root cause of the disparity, nor address the collateral consequences that those changes would impart downstream. But thanks for, once again, admitting that you dont understand the current edition.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yes I know a few marine factions WS/and RG mix detachments of marines to take advantage of WL and stratagems and due to the fact they have a turn 2/3 super doctrine....but they aren't 65% WR ironhands. They are 54-55% Whitescars and RG which aren't even relevant compared to ironhands.

Congratulations, youve proved my point that highly competitve armies dont need super doctrines to function. You may now pass go and collect 200 dakkabucks.

 Xenomancers wrote:
All you manage to do every time you speak is deomntrate how rude and insulting you are.

Stop showing you're fundamentally ignorant of what is happening and what people are saying to you, and I'll stop treating you like someone who wallows in their ignorance. It's a simple equation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:


What's going on with Iyanden? Comparable VP tally as Custom, with a much lower VPL but also a Win rate worse than the major players?

Ok, so there was only 1 Iyanden player. He won 2 and lost 2. There is only one line item for the data by Chapter and it shows 27 VP avg for him and 17 avg for his opponents, so he probably lost two and crushed the next two.

Unfortunately the tournament doesn't tie back to the other data set.

I would really question the integrity of the 40kstats data sets.

If sample sizes are this small and swingy...yeah its not a source to pin an argument on.

Sterling191 wrote:


If sample sizes are this small and swingy...yeah its not a source to pin an argument on.

Depends on the faction. This is the list with games included so you can parse the results a bit better: The data is still organized in a very odd manner so there's bound to be some other quirks in there.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:


If sample sizes are this small and swingy...yeah its not a source to pin an argument on.

Depends on the faction. This is the list with games included so you can parse the results a bit better: The data is still organized in a very odd manner so there's bound to be some other quirks in there.

Spoiler:

88% Harlies, 80% Ynarri Drukhari, 80% Mortan and 80% Ryza. *chef's kiss*

Sterling191 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:


If sample sizes are this small and swingy...yeah its not a source to pin an argument on.

Depends on the faction. This is the list with games included so you can parse the results a bit better: The data is still organized in a very odd manner so there's bound to be some other quirks in there.

Spoiler:

88% Harlies, 80% Ynarri Drukhari, 80% Mortan and 80% Ryza. *chef's kiss*

I mean, yes, but at the same time one person doing quite well in one event is enough to make those numbers happen.... If I go to a 5-game event with a weird subfaction and win 4/5 games, I've come nowhere near winning the event but I've created a more..overpowered subfaction than IH?

Sterling191 wrote:

88% Harlies, 80% Ynarri Drukhari, 80% Mortan and 80% Ryza. *chef's kiss*

Dreaming Shadow was Sean Nayden who went 7-1 at Atlanta Open.
Reborn Drukhari was Nathan Billings; 4-1 at Merry Slaaneshmas
Mortan was Adam Houser; 4-1 at Hooded Goblin 2
Ryza (Servitor Maniple) was Gabriel Rocheleau; 4-1 at Atlanta Open