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.
2020/01/17 17:46:49
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/17 17:55:16
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
2020/01/17 18:18:06
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
My 46 game win streak was years ago??? when? The first time i went 6-0 to win an event was 2014 at 11tg company gt. In 2015 I won LVO with a loss so 8-1. I went undefeated at hammer in the new year in 2018 and also battle for salvation that same year, but in between I lost at both LVO and AdeptiCon as well as I’m sure other events. And someone above posted 2019 records.
So again point out this 46 game win streak that I’ve been on ever. Because I struggle to even come up with more than perhaps 10-13 games on a row bookended by losses.
2020/01/17 18:24:18
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I wouldn't bother. This is the same person who thinks a 14% better chance to roll a 6 (which is roughly a 19% total chance, versus a perfectly balanced 16.7) means you will almost never lose a game ever.
2020/01/17 18:25:18
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
You're the one who said it was last year:
Xenomancers wrote: [I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
If you're gonna accuse someone of cheating, make sure you have your facts straight. So where is your evidence that he ever had a 46-win streak? Or is it possible you were mistaken?
2020/01/17 18:32:13
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
the_scotsman wrote: "Well, it looks like your army is very slow, you field expensive things right alongside cheap things so it's easy for an opponent to kill your expensive stuff right off the bat, anything you have that's mobile you deep strike and try to make charge rolls with no modifiers, and you don't have any shooting early on so when you do reach combat, all your opponent's cheap stuff is still in the way."
I think this is destined to get locked - but I probably have a ridiculous record against very casual friends whose armies and playstyles are exactly this. It isn't due to rigged dice, its because they are not very good at the game but don't care enough to get better - its not that important to them. They need everything to go right - and I need everything to go wrong. Which isn't very likely.
The problem - for balance - is how much the game should be warped to make stuff viable. Should you be able to build the above army, with obvious flaws, against someone who is vaguely aware of how the game can be played, and have a reasonable (say 40%) chance to win anyway? Or should it be much lower? How damaging for the hobby (if at all?) is it for said players to realise their collection doesn't really work in game, and they'll need to splash some cash to buy in more functional stuff?
2020/01/17 18:46:48
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
My 46 game win streak was years ago??? when? The first time i went 6-0 to win an event was 2014 at 11tg company gt. In 2015 I won LVO with a loss so 8-1. I went undefeated at hammer in the new year in 2018 and also battle for salvation that same year, but in between I lost at both LVO and AdeptiCon as well as I’m sure other events. And someone above posted 2019 records.
So again point out this 46 game win streak that I’ve been on ever. Because I struggle to even come up with more than perhaps 10-13 games on a row bookended by losses.
Look dude, I am sure you popped up in the dakka discussion I am referring to so you know the discussion I was referring to. Do you remember that discussion/thread? Like I said it was years ago and it's not as if I collected or looked into the data myself at the time. I simply made a comment in the thread that if anyone won 46 games in a row they are certainly cheating somehow because it is basically impossible. So you have about a 90% WR on average? Never at any point have you had a 100% WR for a period of 46 games in ITC? Also I have nothing against you and if it's true that you never went on a steak like that I'm sorry for throwing that out there. The intent was not to target you anyways.
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
2020/01/17 18:50:08
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xeno, I honestly think you should consider taking a break from the forum for a while brother, your posts are coming off as more and more aggressive, accusatory, over invested. This is dakkadakka ffs. It doesn't really matter. Life is sweet, those roses aren't gonna smell themselves!... Hope this doesn't come off as patronising, it's not intended that way.
2020/01/17 18:51:37
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
You're the one who said it was last year:
Xenomancers wrote: [I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
If you're gonna accuse someone of cheating, make sure you have your facts straight. So where is your evidence that he ever had a 46-win streak? Or is it possible you were mistaken?
Did you miss the part where I said. "I think". As in it might not be entirely accurate.
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
2020/01/17 19:00:01
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The problem is with your flippant inference that this necessarily means he's cheating, not with whether you remembered his win record perfectly or not. The first is some serious shade to throw on a fellow player, the second is no biggie.
2020/01/17 19:00:39
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Did you miss the part where I said. "I think". As in it might not be entirely accurate.
Nobody missed it. It's irrelevant. You don't accuse someone by name of cheating without evidence. Later trying to spin it as "oh its no biggie, im just kidding" when you get called on your bs is even more insulting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/17 19:01:46
2020/01/17 19:01:50
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
grouchoben wrote: Xeno, I honestly think you should consider taking a break from the forum for a while brother, your posts are coming off as more and more aggressive, accusatory, over invested. This is dakkadakka ffs. It doesn't really matter. Life is sweet, those roses aren't gonna smell themselves!... Hope this doesn't come off as patronising, it's not intended that way.
Well I'm certainly taking the day off. Great advice.
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
2020/01/17 20:02:03
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
As a side note, I'd be pretty upset if someone accused me of cheating and used a grossly exaggerated win/loss record as "proof" of my lack of integrity. Pretty sure most people would feel the same way. And the accuser then making excuses for himself or herself would just upset me more.
2020/01/17 21:05:00
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
flandarz wrote: As a side note, I'd be pretty upset if someone accused me of cheating and used a grossly exaggerated win/loss record as "proof" of my lack of integrity. Pretty sure most people would feel the same way. And the accuser then making excuses for himself or herself would just upset me more.
But if he's not cheating, then I would be *wrong*, on the Internet
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/17 21:05:15
2020/01/17 21:13:09
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
And nice, now we have indisputable proof that Xenomancers doesn’t understand a lick of what he’s talking about, can we lock this thread and leave this godawful thread topic in the dirt?
No, because Xenomancer's last tangent isn't the actual topic of the thread. Discussion on competetive data shouldn't have to suffer because Xenomancer gets stuck in the same loop every time something new happens.
Nah...there were literally people in this thread attacking the data saying it is meaningless because it's always the same players winning events.
lmao there literally wasn't a single person who said that. Literally not one. I know, as I was the very person who pointed out that some people are consistently winning, and it was unmistakably in direct response to you claiming that there is no skill to winning 40k. Oh look, here it is here.
Everything about you is extremely dishonest. The very guy you're accusing of cheating is in here asking for the example of the claims you've made, while you're here arguing past him to others because you know you can't answer the questions he's asking.
"I was wrong". It's not that hard pal. It only just barely starts to summarise where you're standing right now, but it's a good beginning.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/18 05:38:34
2020/01/17 21:40:28
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
My 46 game win streak was years ago??? when? The first time i went 6-0 to win an event was 2014 at 11tg company gt. In 2015 I won LVO with a loss so 8-1. I went undefeated at hammer in the new year in 2018 and also battle for salvation that same year, but in between I lost at both LVO and AdeptiCon as well as I’m sure other events. And someone above posted 2019 records.
So again point out this 46 game win streak that I’ve been on ever. Because I struggle to even come up with more than perhaps 10-13 games on a row bookended by losses.
Look dude, I am sure you popped up in the dakka discussion I am referring to so you know the discussion I was referring to. Do you remember that discussion/thread? Like I said it was years ago and it's not as if I collected or looked into the data myself at the time. I simply made a comment in the thread that if anyone won 46 games in a row they are certainly cheating somehow because it is basically impossible. So you have about a 90% WR on average? Never at any point have you had a 100% WR for a period of 46 games in ITC? Also I have nothing against you and if it's true that you never went on a steak like that I'm sorry for throwing that out there. The intent was not to target you anyways.
Lol just to be clear. 46 wins is like 6-7 tournaments or more. So to have that kind of streak you need to win 6-7 events in a row. Like GT events. Including some of the 9 round events like nova and LVO.
I haven’t won 6-7 events total in the last 4+ years combined. So no at no point have I come close to that record.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/17 21:43:02
2020/01/17 21:51:27
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
My 46 game win streak was years ago??? when? The first time i went 6-0 to win an event was 2014 at 11tg company gt. In 2015 I won LVO with a loss so 8-1. I went undefeated at hammer in the new year in 2018 and also battle for salvation that same year, but in between I lost at both LVO and AdeptiCon as well as I’m sure other events. And someone above posted 2019 records.
So again point out this 46 game win streak that I’ve been on ever. Because I struggle to even come up with more than perhaps 10-13 games on a row bookended by losses.
Look dude, I am sure you popped up in the dakka discussion I am referring to so you know the discussion I was referring to. Do you remember that discussion/thread? Like I said it was years ago and it's not as if I collected or looked into the data myself at the time. I simply made a comment in the thread that if anyone won 46 games in a row they are certainly cheating somehow because it is basically impossible. So you have about a 90% WR on average? Never at any point have you had a 100% WR for a period of 46 games in ITC? Also I have nothing against you and if it's true that you never went on a steak like that I'm sorry for throwing that out there. The intent was not to target you anyways.
Just out of sheer curiosity, what would you say to someone that's had a 46 game losing streak? Isn't that equally implausible?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/17 21:52:19
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2020/01/17 22:31:22
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Your criteria for deciding whether someone is cheating is the level of their success? As proof you provide two notorious cheaters but conveniently fail to mention successful athletes who don't cheat. Usain Bolt? Is he also a cheat? Not only that, your 46-game winning streak "evidence" is completely fictitious anyway. You refuse to acknowledge that and therefore stand by your initial accusation, which called out a specific player by name. Kind of ironic that in a conversation about cheating the dishonest one is the one who made the accusation in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/17 22:33:07
2020/01/18 04:38:13
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
On stats I just read a FLG article saying there are hundreds of Marine lists at LVO (shocker!) and hundreds of them are bringing the rare Chaplain Dread and Thunder fire Cannon. And there is a strict no "counts as" rule.
Which seems like it's just a bunch of netlisters?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/18 13:03:13
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2020/01/18 13:55:00
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Wayniac wrote: On stats I just read a FLG article saying there are hundreds of Marine lists at LVO (shocker!) and hundreds of them are bringing the rare Chaplain Dread and Thunder fire Cannon. And there is a strict no "counts as" rule.
Which seems like it's just a bunch of netlisters?
Maybe, but a lot of them are about to be yellow carded and have the model removed from the table.
They're supposed to submit conversions for approval and lots did not.
2020/01/19 18:24:58
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Wayniac wrote: On stats I just read a FLG article saying there are hundreds of Marine lists at LVO (shocker!) and hundreds of them are bringing the rare Chaplain Dread and Thunder fire Cannon. And there is a strict no "counts as" rule.
Which seems like it's just a bunch of netlisters?
Maybe, but a lot of them are about to be yellow carded and have the model removed from the table.
They're supposed to submit conversions for approval and lots did not.
Would my chaplain dread I converted from a ven dread - which has a chaplain head for the marine...and the chaplain melee weapon mounted on the front side panel and lots of heraldry be acceptable?
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
2020/01/19 18:55:00
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Wayniac wrote: On stats I just read a FLG article saying there are hundreds of Marine lists at LVO (shocker!) and hundreds of them are bringing the rare Chaplain Dread and Thunder fire Cannon. And there is a strict no "counts as" rule.
Which seems like it's just a bunch of netlisters?
Maybe, but a lot of them are about to be yellow carded and have the model removed from the table.
They're supposed to submit conversions for approval and lots did not.
Would my chaplain dread I converted from a ven dread - which has a chaplain head for the marine...and the chaplain melee weapon mounted on the front side panel and lots of heraldry be acceptable?
FLG is really lenient on conversions, but it if isn't quite apparent that it is the model then you need the conversion approved. I can't say how they would take such a thing, but there have been warnings on it for a while.
2020/01/19 23:54:49
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
60PL 
12PL 
Eldar- 4436 pts
