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.
2020/01/03 18:36:41
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
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?
This is precisely my point. Topline numbers are *meaningless*, especially when you're using a single, highly limited dataset. Getting into the variables beyond winrate, and the accurately interpreting those variables in the context of individual rulesets is where the meat and potatoes are.
Also I'm slain by SoS with a 60% winrate. That takes serious chutzpa.
2020/01/03 18:42:46
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
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
This was the "Dreaming Shadow" list:
Biel-Tan
Autarch SR
Farseer SR
Seer
20x Guardians
2x5 Rangers
7 Spears
2 Spinners
Dreaming Shadow
Shadowseer
Yncarne
Yvraine
Silent Shroud
6 Skyweavers
I find it absolutely hilarious that it's labeled Dreaming Shadow. These people picking their primary should not be allowed. These people need to get someone who understands data.
I'll stand by my initial skepticism of 40kstats as anything but a directional tool.
2020/01/03 18:47:17
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
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
Gabe is my Buddy. I have played against that list many times. I defeated it with ironhands going second losing an executioner and a redemptor turn 1. The list has a few gimicks. One of which is a 1 CP stratagem that tripples a unit of 12 destroyers damage and giving the destroyers a 4++ save by chaining between objectives. It is a dam strong list though and he is a good player. 1CP to get +1 damage and str for plasma is outragious....I pay 2 CP to get double shots with bolt rifles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 19:05:09
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 18:55:28
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
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.
Killing is just one possible approach to denying your opponent the chance to score. It has clear value as part of your overall strategy to outscore your opponent but if you try to simplify the game down to "the game is and always will be about killing" then you don't understand the game.
IMO giving killing both a role in denying your opponent the opportunity to score and a direct VP reward is terrible mission design and missions which do this are at the heart of the current balance problems.
2020/01/03 18:58:39
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
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.
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.
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.
How am I putting words in your mouth? I made a comparison between space marines and eldar...I pretty much assumed that everyone in here understands that mixing space marine detachments is not good as it actively punishes you by taking away really powerful abilities (super doctrines and in the case of adding allies you lose doctrines). Ofc eldar don't get any of those benefits anyways but Eldar are clearly superior to marines not getting those benefits AKA - look at the rest of the edition where marines did not get those benefits. Eldar lose nothing for mixing detachments - it would be a good way to go about fixing them IMO giving them some kind of negative for taking mixed detachments. Somehow me suggesting this in your words
"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."
Somehow suggesting a fix to make eldar have a downside for mixing detachments I have "zero functional capacity to comprehend" the game system? That is outrageous man. It was actually kind of encouraging that they made these mono bonus rules for space marines in 2.0. I'm open to other fixes to CWE but something certainly needs to be done.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 18:58:49
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
As a SW/DW/DA player those numbers make sense to me. Every single unit I have SM had something better, for cheaper with better strats. I imagine other xeno armies are feeling that way too.
At this point I feel that GW is holding my factions hostage behind a pay wall (that I can't even access because they are trying to wring as much $$ from the player base as they can).
With the slow release of the PA supplements I think we are stuck here for the foreseeable future. I don't know how much GW can do to knock down the offending factions if all of the PA stuff was meant to get to this power level. If they knock down IH but buff the hell out of DA it doesn't help anything and just makes the game bad but with a different oppressor.
I'd hope that GW is aware of these numbers but I'm finally starting to believe what a lot of posters have been screaming at me for a while now, that GW just doesn't care about competitive balance. That has to be the only answer that fits because numbers like these would be cause for alarm if you actually gave a feth. Which is a shame because competitive balance to me equates to casual balance.
Like The Scotsman said, playing against nu-marines without a fully optimized cut-throat list is enough to make most people step away from the game for a while and with all of the momentum that 8th had up until that point I really hope that GW realizes they are shooting themselves in the wallet (because, we all know that's what the people in charge care about) before too much more damage is done.
I haven't bought anything since the supplements released, I hope other people are voting with their wallets as well.
2020/01/03 19:06:35
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: However. With the given data approximately 20% of your games will be against marines. I don't think that is a very big deal as most of the list are different. It is really only the mirrors of the exact same list that skew the data. Which that is likely pretty rare.
That's not entirely accurate. It compounds each round based on wins. I ran the numbers assuming a 100 man tournament, 20 marines players at a 66% win ratio for marines.
Round 1: 20% Chance to play against a marine player.
Round 2: 26%
Round 3: 40%
Round 4: 71%
Round 5 will have 8 players undefeated. 3 marine and 5 non marine. All 5 non marine players will have played a marine player by this point.
Grain of salt, statistically speaking, yadda, yadda.
2020/01/03 19:18:43
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
By attributing a statement to me that I did not make. Again, quote for me where I stated that a 69% win rate is acceptable. I will *continue* to wait, as this is now the second time you've been asked to produce evidence of your statement. A statement which is a lie, and you know it.
Somehow suggesting a fix to make eldar have a downside for mixing detachments I have "zero functional capacity to comprehend" the game system?
You're not suggesting fixes. You're throwing up your hands and wailing that a new toy is better than the one you have, and demanding to be allowed to smash it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/03 19:19:43
2020/01/03 19:19:19
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I don't know. Honestly, I do get that marines needed a serious buff, it was just impossibly frustrating to see that buff applied not just to offense in an already super-deadly edition, but to ultra static gunline offense.
Marine firepower now doubles if you stand still. Their strongest stratagem combo is with a static artillery piece. Their assault bonus applies equally if they move forward and charge, or if they stand there and wait for the enemy to come to them, which, why would they not with beta boltguns? All the marine armies that relied on moving forward and attacking the enemy have to wait until turn 3 for that to happen, and the ones who sit there and squat in their deployment zone all game get their bonus from turn 1.
The problem with marines was never that they didn't kill enough, or that getting into rapid fire range was this impossibility, it was that they felt like paper that as soon as they hit the table they could be crumpled up and thrown away. And at the competitive level they STILL can have that problem, when people beat them they're still schlooping up whole squads of primaris dudes at a time with their riptides.
But the buffs give them the ability to two-turn table you right back, which I guess feels fine in tournaments but in settings where people weren't taking those optimised lists originally you now have marines removing 120+ hours of your painting efforts in a single shooting phase.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/01/03 19:26:34
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: However. With the given data approximately 20% of your games will be against marines. I don't think that is a very big deal as most of the list are different. It is really only the mirrors of the exact same list that skew the data. Which that is likely pretty rare.
That's not entirely accurate. It compounds each round based on wins. I ran the numbers assuming a 100 man tournament, 20 marines players at a 66% win ratio for marines.
Round 1: 20% Chance to play against a marine player.
Round 2: 26%
Round 3: 40%
Round 4: 71%
Round 5 will have 8 players undefeated. 3 marine and 5 non marine. All 5 non marine players will have played a marine player by this point.
Grain of salt, statistically speaking, yadda, yadda.
That is a good point but from the general sense you should only be using the average marine winrate for 56ish to calculate that and not the ironhands winrate you are also assuming you are winning every game as well. That why I said approximately. Each round if you are winning your chances go up to face stronger lists but every loss you take decreases your chances. Marines are only 28% of the top 10 lists. So on a game per game basis your first game you have a 20% chance of playing against marines. On your last game you have a 28% chance. Every tournament will be different to with numbers of marines in there. I think it's safe to say you will play marines at least once in a GT but most of your games will not be against marines.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 19:30:01
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: However. With the given data approximately 20% of your games will be against marines. I don't think that is a very big deal as most of the list are different. It is really only the mirrors of the exact same list that skew the data. Which that is likely pretty rare.
That's not entirely accurate. It compounds each round based on wins. I ran the numbers assuming a 100 man tournament, 20 marines players at a 66% win ratio for marines.
Round 1: 20% Chance to play against a marine player.
Round 2: 26%
Round 3: 40%
Round 4: 71%
Round 5 will have 8 players undefeated. 3 marine and 5 non marine. All 5 non marine players will have played a marine player by this point.
Grain of salt, statistically speaking, yadda, yadda.
That is a good point but from the general sense you should only be using the average marine winrate for 56ish to calculate that and not the ironhands winrate you are also assuming you are winning every game as well. That why I said approximately. Each round if you are winning your chances go up to face stronger lists but every loss you take decreases your chances. Marines are only 28% of the top 10 lists. So on a game per game basis your first game you have a 20% chance of playing against marines. On your last game you have a 28% chance. Every tournament will be different to with numbers of marines in there. I think it's safe to say you will play marines at least once in a GT but most of your games will not be against marines.
This was also without marines playing other marines. It was geared toward a worst case scenario. It was also based on winning. The moral of the story is if you go to a tournament you can't win it without facing marines at least once.
2020/01/03 19:30:16
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
the_scotsman wrote: I don't know. Honestly, I do get that marines needed a serious buff, it was just impossibly frustrating to see that buff applied not just to offense in an already super-deadly edition, but to ultra static gunline offense.
Marine firepower now doubles if you stand still. Their strongest stratagem combo is with a static artillery piece. Their assault bonus applies equally if they move forward and charge, or if they stand there and wait for the enemy to come to them, which, why would they not with beta boltguns? All the marine armies that relied on moving forward and attacking the enemy have to wait until turn 3 for that to happen, and the ones who sit there and squat in their deployment zone all game get their bonus from turn 1.
The problem with marines was never that they didn't kill enough, or that getting into rapid fire range was this impossibility, it was that they felt like paper that as soon as they hit the table they could be crumpled up and thrown away. And at the competitive level they STILL can have that problem, when people beat them they're still schlooping up whole squads of primaris dudes at a time with their riptides.
But the buffs give them the ability to two-turn table you right back, which I guess feels fine in tournaments but in settings where people weren't taking those optimised lists originally you now have marines removing 120+ hours of your painting efforts in a single shooting phase.
If you were GW...how would you handle this problem? These is a massive distaste for the state of competitive play right now due to the prevalence of marines.I would say from looking at the data that most of this distastes is not entirely grounded in fact but a fair amount is personal bias against marines - they are certainly top tier but they aren't invaliding the rest of the field. Plus with the spicy peice of data that Ironhands are a clear outlier in power I think the solution is easy. Nerf Iron-hands with an instant hotfix and watch the data for the next few months.
I wouldn't do anything about it.
I'd look at my sales data to see if there's something not meeting sales projections. If there was, then I'd look to fix that.
As for what goes on in a tourney? Well, the game I make isn't designed for that. I'd tell you this upfront & warn you that it may/may not work well if you use it for such & that it's not my problem. I'd also tell you that I'm going to continue making it without concern for the tournament scene.
2020/01/03 19:37:51
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
By attributing a statement to me that I did not make. Again, quote for me where I stated that a 69% win rate is acceptable. I will *continue* to wait, as this is now the second time you've been asked to produce evidence of your statement. A statement which is a lie, and you know it.
Somehow suggesting a fix to make eldar have a downside for mixing detachments I have "zero functional capacity to comprehend" the game system?
You're not suggesting fixes. You're throwing up your hands and wailing that a new toy is better than the one you have, and demanding to be allowed to smash it.
No I am suggesting fixes. To the armies that are winning the most. You just don't like the tone or something. Most likely you just don't want your eldar nerfed.
Serious question...do you know what inference is? Intelligent people make conclusions based on reason. I have inferred by your constant objection to my suggested fixes without offering a counter solution that you are okay with the 69% WR...
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 19:56:38
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
No I am suggesting fixes. To the armies that are winning the most. You just don't like the tone or something. Most likely you just don't want your eldar nerfed.
Considering my prime army is Deathwatch that's an exceptionally hilarious statement.
Serious question...do you know what inference is? Intelligent people make conclusions based on reason. I have inferred by your constant objection to my suggested fixes without offering a counter solution that you are okay with the 69% WR...
You would be painfully incorrect.
For the third time. Quote for me where I stated that a 69% win rate is acceptable.
You cannot, because the assertion is a lie. A lie you continue to propagate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 19:58:50
2020/01/03 20:06:26
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
No I am suggesting fixes. To the armies that are winning the most. You just don't like the tone or something. Most likely you just don't want your eldar nerfed.
Considering my prime army is Deathwatch that's an exceptionally hilarious statement.
Serious question...do you know what inference is? Intelligent people make conclusions based on reason. I have inferred by your constant objection to my suggested fixes without offering a counter solution that you are okay with the 69% WR...
You would be painfully incorrect.
For the third time. Quote for me where I stated that a 69% win rate is acceptable.
You cannot, because the assertion is a lie. A lie you continue to propagate.
I just told you I have inferred through reason that you are okay with a 69% WR for custom eldar because you attack all my ideas without offering a solution. Yet you again ask for evidence of a quote I never said you made - only that I have deducted through common sense reasoning that you must be okay with 69% WR eldar. Still yet to give any ideas of your own. While you derail the thread with insults to my intelligence. Thank you so much for the constructive discussion you've provided.
I have a particular skill for identifying eldar players BTW. At this I am an expert. Over the years of people defending WK and scatter bikes and wave serpents...there are particular speech patterns and vitriol that all eldar fanbois share. (That was a joke BTW)
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:
It's even worse for ultras that I though. Does this include successors? I am assuming it does. Anyway to seperate the parent chapters from their successors?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/03 20:17:42
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 20:30:31
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
It's even worse for ultras that I though. Does this include successors? I am assuming it does. Anyway to seperate the parent chapters from their successors?
Ultramarines are curiously low. There is no separation from Successors in the data.
Sort of makes you think that GW got it right except for some silly combinations with the easiest such ones available to IH. Then the mediocre update to Eldar who clearly have strong rules already.
Ah...ok...I think I understand this weird format a little better. Hang on.
2020/01/03 20:37:39
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
It's even worse for ultras that I though. Does this include successors? I am assuming it does. Anyway to seperate the parent chapters from their successors?
Ultramarines are curiously low. There is no separation from Successors in the data.
Sort of makes you think that GW got it right except for some silly combinations with the easiest such ones available to IH. Then the mediocre update to Eldar who clearly have strong rules already.
Ah...ok...I think I understand this weird format a little better. Hang on.
It's hard to avoid the confirmation bias here for me but It really isn't surprising to see Ultras that far down. Actual Ultramarine are actually a nerf from their previous form which was about a 45% WR with Gman build...remember...the OP build? Successors are a whole other story. I would expect to see the Ultra successors higher as I do pretty well with them. They are more of a TAC choice.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 20:39:03
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I just told you I have inferred through reason that you are okay with a 69% WR for custom eldar because you attack all my ideas without offering a solution. Yet you again ask for evidence of a quote I never said you made - only that I have deducted through common sense reasoning that you must be okay with 69% WR eldar. Still yet to give any ideas of your own.
You are quite possibly the most self-contradictory hypocrite I've seen in a long time. In the same sentence that you deny claiming a thing, you again repeat the claim!
Since you are plainly incapable of understanding all but the simplest of sentences, lets fix that:
I take no position on whether or not a 69% win rate in a limited data set has any meaning on the overall health of the present edition of Warhammer 40k.
While you derail the thread with insults to my intelligence. Thank you so much for the constructive discussion you've provided.
Stop posting hystrionic bs and I'll stop calling you on it. Everything from you since the advent of 8.5e has been bald-faced spleen venting overreaction and instance after instance of ignorance. Remember when 20 noise marines were as powerful as 10 Repulsor Executioners? How about when Squig Buggies were the absolute god tier unit?
Your inability to read beyond the top line of a limited data set, and your conclusion from that that a single specific trait is the root cause of all evils in the present balance environment is the latest example of that trend of unparalleled incompetence.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/03 20:40:34
2020/01/03 20:41:53
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I just told you I have inferred through reason that you are okay with a 69% WR for custom eldar because you attack all my ideas without offering a solution. Yet you again ask for evidence of a quote I never said you made - only that I have deducted through common sense reasoning that you must be okay with 69% WR eldar. Still yet to give any ideas of your own.
You are quite possibly the most self-contradictory hypocrite I've seen in a long time. In the same sentence that you deny claiming a thing, you again repeat the claim!
Since you are plainly incapable of understanding all but the simplest of sentences, lets fix that:
I take no position on whether or not a 69% win rate in a limited data set has any meaning on the overall health of the present edition of Warhammer 40k.
While you derail the thread with insults to my intelligence. Thank you so much for the constructive discussion you've provided.
Stop posting hystrionic bs and I'll stop calling you on it. Everything from you since the advent of 8.5e has been bald-faced spleen venting overreaction and instance after instance of ignorance. Remember when 20 noise marines were as powerful as 10 Repulsor Executioners? How about when Squig Buggies were the absolute god tier unit?
Your inability to read beyond the top line of a limited data set, and your conclusion from that that a single specific trait is the root cause of all evils in the present balance environment is the latest example of that trend of unparalleled incompetence.
You just lack reading comprehension here I think. I said that I inferred your meaning...Not that you said you were okay with 69% WR. Maybe we could just move on from this and you could start giving constructive ideas because...I am assuming here that...you aren't okay with 69% WR Eldar?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 20:52:43
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It's hard to avoid the confirmation bias here for me but It really isn't surprising to see Ultras that far down. Actual Ultramarine are actually a nerf from their previous form which was about a 45% WR with Gman build...remember...the OP build? Successors are a whole other story. I would expect to see the Ultra successors higher as I do pretty well with them. They are more of a TAC choice.
I can give you this -- each list and the detachments along with specialists. There were a number of UM that opted not to go mono in Nov/Dec. Almost 50%. They're doing moderately well considering the meta they're fighting in so I'd still place them as "strong".
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 20:53:44
2020/01/03 20:54:08
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
You just lack reading comprehension here I think. I said that I inferred your meaning...Not that you said you were okay with 69% WR. Maybe we could just move on from this and you could start giving constructive ideas because...I am assuming here that...you aren't okay with 69% WR Eldar?
I take no position on whether or not a 69% win rate in a limited data set has any meaning on the overall health of the present edition of Warhammer 40k.
Emphasis fething mine. For the love of god actually read what people write.
2020/01/03 21:02:27
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It's hard to avoid the confirmation bias here for me but It really isn't surprising to see Ultras that far down. Actual Ultramarine are actually a nerf from their previous form which was about a 45% WR with Gman build...remember...the OP build? Successors are a whole other story. I would expect to see the Ultra successors higher as I do pretty well with them. They are more of a TAC choice.
I can give you this -- each list and the detachments along with specialists. There were a number of UM that opted not to go mono in Nov/Dec. Almost 50%. They're doing moderately well considering the meta they're fighting in so I'd still place them as "strong".
Spoiler:
The Ultras and knight lists are likely Gman with knights. It's not doing too well. lol.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 21:09:23
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
You just lack reading comprehension here I think. I said that I inferred your meaning...Not that you said you were okay with 69% WR. Maybe we could just move on from this and you could start giving constructive ideas because...I am assuming here that...you aren't okay with 69% WR Eldar?
I take no position on whether or not a 69% win rate in a limited data set has any meaning on the overall health of the present edition of Warhammer 40k.
Emphasis fething mine. For the love of god actually read what people write.
Did you just prove me right by providing a quote (which I didn't see obviously) that you actually don't care that eldar are at 69% WR in december because you don't think the 69% has any meaning. LOL. Brilliant man. This is the best data source we have access to. Eldar already had pretty high WR and they got buffed. You'd expect the WR to go up. It did.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 21:32:40
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
It's even worse for ultras that I though. Does this include successors? I am assuming it does. Anyway to seperate the parent chapters from their successors?
Ultramarines are curiously low. There is no separation from Successors in the data.
Sort of makes you think that GW got it right except for some silly combinations with the easiest such ones available to IH. Then the mediocre update to Eldar who clearly have strong rules already.
Ah...ok...I think I understand this weird format a little better. Hang on.
It's hard to avoid the confirmation bias here for me but It really isn't surprising to see Ultras that far down. Actual Ultramarine are actually a nerf from their previous form which was about a 45% WR with Gman build...remember...the OP build?
Do you really think the ideal Codex-1.0 UM list would outperform the ideal Codex-2.0 UM list? All the points drops, new rules, etc were somehow a step down?
