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.
2020/01/20 03:40:10
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Emicrania wrote: Is this a 25 pages of gak posting or there is any valuable information to gather "looking at the data"?
The problem is that the overall statistics do a terrible job describing the individual experience of any single data point, so when the OP comes in and says "Hey, guys, look at the data and Marines aren't that OP!" they generate a bunch of folks crawling out of the woodwork to explain why their experiences don't line up with the data, and then a bunch of other people popping in to describe how their experiences don't line up with the first batch. So the data has served here to start a fight about whose anecdotal experiences of the game more correctly describe the overall state of the game. I suppose it might be valuable information if you're trying to gather a collection of peoples' anecdotal experience of the game?
I feel like 40k doesn't have the volume of games to really produce quality data. It's also not like an online RTS where everyone has access to every unit in their codex and can experiment easily, due to things like painting and rules against proxying.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards. Most 40k players are not as creative as they like to think they are.
2020/01/20 06:42:07
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Yoyoyo wrote: I feel like 40k doesn't have the volume of games to really produce quality data. It's also not like an online RTS where everyone has access to every unit in their codex and can experiment easily, due to things like painting and rules against proxying.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards. Most 40k players are not as creative as they like to think they are.
The relatively low number of games played - or at least recorded on places like 40kstats - does mean that the data should be viewed as somewhat unreliable. I don't think that means it should be discarded entirely, because it is still informative, but it also shouldn't be taken as the final word on faction strength.
The data gets even messier when you starting to break things down beyond overall win rates. I dunno how helpful it is to find out that CWE had a 50% win rate against GSC in December when there were a grand total of 8 games played against them.
2020/01/20 13:05:47
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Yoyoyo wrote: I feel like 40k doesn't have the volume of games to really produce quality data. It's also not like an online RTS where everyone has access to every unit in their codex and can experiment easily, due to things like painting and rules against proxying.
Point of order. There are 52,472 games recorded for last year. 25,876 of those occurred between August and December, but the calculus is shifting so much that the results from that time period are absolutely useless. CA has hit. GK are definitely competitive. DA and BA are both better off. Nids have some moderately good things. I would argue TS will be showing up with more than just Ahriman.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards. Most 40k players are not as creative as they like to think they are.
Agreed. This is a key point that many 40K players miss. "Do you think people haven't already tried everything?" No. No, they haven't.
This forum is really bad at two things:
1) Assessing the value of units whose primary purpose isn't to kill as much as possible
2) Understanding the layers of interactions when you're on the table
Far too often people call 40K a shallow game, and compared to some, it is. But there's a lot more to it and just like in Starcraft force preservation can be a key to victory.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/20 16:28:20
2020/01/20 18:25:39
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The "strength" of a 40k army seems to be a floor to the army and then the ability of the general seems to set the upper bound.
A bad player with a great army can still go 3-0 at an RTT if they are playing against bad armies. At a major they may end up 4-2 while a good player with that army is in the 5-1 range and a great player is trying to win it.
A great player is usually not taking a bad army while a good player with a bad army can get to that same 4-2 as the bad player with a great army. So you see both 4-2 players and think the armies are of equal strength and attribute the 5-1/6-0 armies to player skill (which is half right and half wrong).
It's a tricky calculus. Then you have things like Nick N vs Mani Cheema and their LVO lists. On paper Manni C.'s list looks soooooo good while I have no idea what Nick is going to do with those reivers but I doubt a player who understands the game as well as Nick does is including a unit that isn't busted for it's intended role.
But if you look at the units people are bringing to LVO gives you an idea of what the hive-mind thinks are powerful (marines, TFCs, chaplain dreads). I'd say that is a more accurate way of judging what units are perceived as powerful. Problem with this is the divergence between CA2019 missions and ITC missions (secondaries on ITCs punishing certain units/builds) which is why I'd love to see more CA 2019 missions to see what over-performs across both formats.
The more numbers we look at the more of a picture we can draw. Connecting the dots of high performing armies along with over-represented units will give a picture of what's going on.
Then there is the whole other issue of what's good at what level. Casual, local, regional, national all have different metas and while hellblasters may eat your local meta up you'd be hard pressed to see them perform at a regional level. Invulnerable IH leviathan dreads may ruin your casual experience but at the national level they are not a problem.
There are lots of layers and it's quite interesting to see how all of these data points interact (at least to me).
2020/01/20 19:12:35
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Yoyoyo wrote: I feel like 40k doesn't have the volume of games to really produce quality data. It's also not like an online RTS where everyone has access to every unit in their codex and can experiment easily, due to things like painting and rules against proxying.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards. Most 40k players are not as creative as they like to think they are.
that is true for sure. But do we have to be 100% accurate to know that pre PA4 GK were really bad, and pre nerf Inari were really good through half of 8th ed. I think people over focus a lot if a 2-3% difference in win ratio between ITC and not ITC means, and how it proves that something was or wasn't OP. I think it is better to look atwhat overlaps. If in ITC and outside of ITC, the eldar list is a flyer one, Then flyers are the good thing. Specialy if it is a result we see spread over both time and places played, so the argument of one person dominating and messing up the stats is less strong.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2020/01/20 19:36:58
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I don't think ITC vs CA 2019 fundamentally changes which units are good. Killing and not being killed are strong in both formats. You can't score with dead units in either format. I personally feel more empowered in ITC to maximize my score, but I get that many see the secondary missions as too gamey.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/20 19:37:24
2020/01/20 20:03:49
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I think it's more that you choose your secondary objectives (and can thus skew your list towards them) that people take askance with. If you, say, chose your secondaries via a D6 roll, I doubt many people would complain. And it'd drive you to take a more "well rounded" list to the field, which is probably a good thing.
2020/01/20 20:05:37
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think ITC vs CA 2019 fundamentally changes which units are good.
There's a few qualities that will always be positive just by their nature. Mobility, resiliency, firepower. However, changing the mission parameters definitely changes how an army has to approach the mission.
Look at Scorched Earth for example. 2 objectives in each DZ and 2 in the midfield. If you can burn an objective in the enemy DZ, you score 3VP and remove it from the game. If you are fairly light on board control anything that's Obsec and resilient presents an existential threat.
2020/01/20 20:45:32
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think ITC vs CA 2019 fundamentally changes which units are good.
There's a few qualities that will always be positive just by their nature. Mobility, resiliency, firepower. However, changing the mission parameters definitely changes how an army has to approach the mission.
Look at Scorched Earth for example. 2 objectives in each DZ and 2 in the midfield. If you can burn an objective in the enemy DZ, you score 3VP and remove it from the game. If you are fairly light on board control anything that's Obsec and resilient presents an existential threat.
But those units are good in ITC as well. I just see CA 2019s twists are rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness, and therefore a poorer readout on who is a better general. Your scorched earth example is just another case where CA 2019 unfairly rewards cheap chaff imo. The game already strongly rewards high model count low-value models, imo.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/20 20:59:45
2020/01/20 21:18:32
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think ITC vs CA 2019 fundamentally changes which units are good.
There's a few qualities that will always be positive just by their nature. Mobility, resiliency, firepower. However, changing the mission parameters definitely changes how an army has to approach the mission.
Look at Scorched Earth for example. 2 objectives in each DZ and 2 in the midfield. If you can burn an objective in the enemy DZ, you score 3VP and remove it from the game. If you are fairly light on board control anything that's Obsec and resilient presents an existential threat.
But those units are good in ITC as well. I just see CA 2019s twists are rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness, and therefore a poorer readout on who is a better general. Your scorched earth example is just another case where CA 2019 unfairly rewards cheap chaff imo. The game already strongly rewards high model count low-value models, imo.
Show me on this traitor guard enforcer model were the big Bad horde touched you.
Alternatively go provide a propper list of yours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/20 21:18:48
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/01/20 21:20:03
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
That "joke" is getting pretty old. I'm allowed to have my opinion, regardless of what list I'm running at any given time. I've already posted that I need to build autobolter dudes and permanently fire the DC, as they are very weak vs chaff in practice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/20 21:32:49
2020/01/20 23:42:13
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/20 23:43:31
2020/01/21 01:24:30
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: That "joke" is getting pretty old. I'm allowed to have my opinion, regardless of what list I'm running at any given time. I've already posted that I need to build autobolter dudes and permanently fire the DC, as they are very weak vs chaff in practice.
They are asking you to please, just this once, to show your working out...
2020/01/21 01:46:16
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
2020/01/21 02:57:21
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
2020/01/21 03:07:26
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards.
Why would that matter?
Because people act like that 40k is a solved game when it isnt.
People throw Magnus to the wind, because omg so strong. And then he dies and isnt as good as he could be. Then people don't use him, because he is "bad".
2020/01/21 04:08:41
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I get that. I just think they are too good at their job in 8th with GW rules. GW's "solution" was the new marine codex, and so now we all suffer. Except marine players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/21 04:09:12
2020/01/21 08:47:28
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I get that. I just think they are too good at their job in 8th with GW rules. GW's "solution" was the new marine codex, and so now we all suffer. Except marine players.
I have no idea what BA army you're playing (probably because you've yet to post your list) but yesterday I played against a Nid list with 170 Gaunts as well as a whole bunch of big monsters. On my turn 1 my BA had cleared all 60 of the Hormagaunts and killed a Hive Tyrant while wrapping a Carnifex to somewhat protect a unit of Incursors. My game plan was simply to remove as many little bugs as possible through shooting and assault, while getting the DCTH into the Tyrant if I could. I burned lots of CPs that turn but cleared basically all of the chaff I cared about. I lost a lot of stuff in return but my opponent was pretty much crippled as far as board control and breadth of threat was concerned. I did all of this without a single auto bolt rifle and if you look at the points traded and even number of units killed after the first battle round I was behind on both counts yet I won the game quite handily because, unlike ITC missions, relatively mindless killing isn't hugely rewarded in Maelstrom missions.
I have no idea why you're having problems against chaff but I can assure you BA are not incapable of dealing with it in any mission format.
2020/01/21 11:31:59
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards.
Why would that matter?
Because people act like that 40k is a solved game when it isnt.
People throw Magnus to the wind, because omg so strong. And then he dies and isnt as good as he could be. Then people don't use him, because he is "bad".
No, I mean why would it matter whether Magnus moves backwards or forwards?
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I get that. I just think they are too good at their job in 8th with GW rules. GW's "solution" was the new marine codex, and so now we all suffer. Except marine players.
I have no idea what BA army you're playing (probably because you've yet to post your list) but yesterday I played against a Nid list with 170 Gaunts as well as a whole bunch of big monsters. On my turn 1 my BA had cleared all 60 of the Hormagaunts and killed a Hive Tyrant while wrapping a Carnifex to somewhat protect a unit of Incursors. My game plan was simply to remove as many little bugs as possible through shooting and assault, while getting the DCTH into the Tyrant if I could. I burned lots of CPs that turn but cleared basically all of the chaff I cared about. I lost a lot of stuff in return but my opponent was pretty much crippled as far as board control and breadth of threat was concerned. I did all of this without a single auto bolt rifle and if you look at the points traded and even number of units killed after the first battle round I was behind on both counts yet I won the game quite handily because, unlike ITC missions, relatively mindless killing isn't hugely rewarded in Maelstrom missions.
I have no idea why you're having problems against chaff but I can assure you BA are not incapable of dealing with it in any mission format.
That's okay, I don't know either game to game. That's why I haven't posted anything. I don't have a single list atm. I could post a list, but it wouldn't mean anything.
So you consider 60 out of 170 crippled? That doesn't sound right.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/21 13:21:18
2020/01/21 14:03:35
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I get that. I just think they are too good at their job in 8th with GW rules. GW's "solution" was the new marine codex, and so now we all suffer. Except marine players.
I have no idea what BA army you're playing (probably because you've yet to post your list) but yesterday I played against a Nid list with 170 Gaunts as well as a whole bunch of big monsters. On my turn 1 my BA had cleared all 60 of the Hormagaunts and killed a Hive Tyrant while wrapping a Carnifex to somewhat protect a unit of Incursors. My game plan was simply to remove as many little bugs as possible through shooting and assault, while getting the DCTH into the Tyrant if I could. I burned lots of CPs that turn but cleared basically all of the chaff I cared about. I lost a lot of stuff in return but my opponent was pretty much crippled as far as board control and breadth of threat was concerned. I did all of this without a single auto bolt rifle and if you look at the points traded and even number of units killed after the first battle round I was behind on both counts yet I won the game quite handily because, unlike ITC missions, relatively mindless killing isn't hugely rewarded in Maelstrom missions.
I have no idea why you're having problems against chaff but I can assure you BA are not incapable of dealing with it in any mission format.
That's okay, I don't know either game to game. That's why I haven't posted anything. I don't have a single list atm. I could post a list, but it wouldn't mean anything.
So you consider 60 out of 170 crippled? That doesn't sound right.
I think that's your problem. I killed just over 1/3 of the chaff my opponent had but it's not the number or proportion of them that I killed that's important, it's which specific units. I removed two of the actual threatening chaff units (Hormagaunts) and damaged a couple of the Termagaunt units closest to me. The bulk of the other chaff was either protecting against Deep Strike (so quite spread out) or controlling objectives around the backfield. I don't care about them. I don't care if there's 300 of them if it'll take 2 turns for them to influence the game. My BA use a lot of Phobos Primaris and jump pack units to make it very mobile so I can isolate parts of the enemy army to kill and ignore other parts for later on.
Maybe it's an ITC thing, maybe it's just a you thing, but you seem far too concerned with raw numbers of kills. That's just not that important. Read what I wrote again. When I said I crippled my opponent I was not referring to numbers I was referring to the impact of removing the units I killed on the wider game.
Again, post a list, any list, even the last one you used, and you might actually get some useful pointers as to what you're doing wrong. It's baffling to me that you haven't done this already.
2020/01/21 14:16:30
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Slipspace wrote: Maybe it's an ITC thing, maybe it's just a you thing, but you seem far too concerned with raw numbers of kills. That's just not that important. Read what I wrote again. When I said I crippled my opponent I was not referring to numbers I was referring to the impact of removing the units I killed on the wider game.
I'll second everything I just quoted.
Sure, the other guy may have 200 models on the board, but if only 30 of those are within range of a progressive-scoring objective and you've got your turn to remove them before VP gets awarded at the end of the battle round, you don't need to kill 200, you just need to kill 30. Anything beyond that is a bonus.
I think the footprint hordes have is more of a double-edged sword than players often treat it- trying to maneuver 6+ squads of Guardsmen, let alone 20+, so that they're able to usefully contribute and not just getting in the way of everything is a very difficult task. This is also another case where terrain matters; big hordes are much less useful if you have sufficient terrain, as their inability to maneuver or take cover means they hit diminishing returns very quickly.
I think the reality is that hordes are just really strong vs BA. I'll dig up my last list exactly but I know it had 15 DC, astorath, 10 Sg, sg ancient, 15 intercessors, smash capt, and 9 suppressors. DC are getting fired, though. Permanently.
2020/01/21 15:44:16
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I seriously doubt that. I'm not gonna listen over a hour long pod cast to learn an answer to a simple question.
The answer isn't simple. If you don't care to learn then you can't claim to have a position from a place of knowledge. Suffice to say the simple answer is that Magnus' position creates fear. The opposing player will move to prepare to deal with that threat. By moving Magnus in to deal damage and then away using warp time you confound their movements, and with tables containing good terrain, their ability to target him cohesively.
Previously it was always "get Magnus (and Morty) into combat where he can do the most damage and hopefully he'll be safe". It's one dimensional thinking.
The big scary marines lists? They have jack gak for ranged anti-tank. Nick Nanavanti has 6 Chaplain Dread LCs and that's it. With good movement Magnus is now in a position to exploit those lists and he just got access to more healing.
