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.
2020/01/21 15:56:39
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.
Right...see, I think the confusion is more about the way the original comment was phrased. Crimson, like me, probably assumed you were talking about the physical orientation of the model rather than the direction of movement, which is why it seemed like a confusing statement.
2020/01/21 15:58:46
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.
Right...see, I think the confusion is more about the way the original comment was phrased. Crimson, like me, probably assumed you were talking about the physical orientation of the model rather than the direction of movement, which is why it seemed like a confusing statement.
That's what I thought as well.
2020/01/21 16:02:01
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Right...see, I think the confusion is more about the way the original comment was phrased. Crimson, like me, probably assumed you were talking about the physical orientation of the model rather than the direction of movement, which is why it seemed like a confusing statement.
Fair enough. I still can't recommend that podcast episode enough. It's engaging and may change the way you think about the game.
2020/01/21 16:43:47
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Right. So it had nothing to do with actually moving Magnus 'backwards, in relation to himself, only in relation to table, which is hardly considered remarkable. My question was prompted by wonderment about facing mattering in this edition.
My take aways-
expert crafters (and eldar equiv) was a great idea
Chaplain dreads and TFCs are not single-handedly supporting multiple re-casters families
crimson hunters need more great strat support
centurions are the worst unit in the SM codex
IH/IF still need more buffs while WS/RG are equally under powered given the right general
2.0 marines, eldar and chaos soup are bad mmmmkay
Martel has played so many games with his BA that he has sunk their win rate below 40% because he refuses to use primaris bolters
GW knows I play DA/SW/DW so have given me a chance to show off my superior game play with some of the worst armies in the game
Yanarri are still OP, nerf Yanarri (J/K 3 games does not make a sample)
40k fantasy drafts are riveting pod-cast material and should definitely be taken seriously and make for great content
Comparing the state of the meta vs the podcast the numbers don't really match-up vs how some of the best players think about the game and I think it's illustrative of the problems of just relying on tourney results. To be honest there are so many bad 40k players that the results are often skewed by really good players (Siegler and Pullen with Tau) and really bad players (I'd say me but I haven't played at a GT or better since SM dexes came out so not my fault this time) which is why some critical thinking beyond just what the numbers show is required but you know what they say about common sense.
GW has no idea how to balance their game. We are entering into the dog days of 8th (I like the garden hose metaphor Peety Pab used) similar to the end of 7th where GW no longer cares about balancing since it has turned into a train wreck. OP changes (GK) will keep coming out until the game is so broken and we will do a soft reset with 8.5/9.0 sometime this summer (just in time for my marines to catch-up to the meta...).
TLR - Games feth'ed. GW is working on the next edition and doesn't care. Get ready for end of 7th part 2.
2020/01/21 18:58:25
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
My take aways-
expert crafters (and eldar equiv) was a great idea
Chaplain dreads and TFCs are not single-handedly supporting multiple re-casters families
crimson hunters need more great strat support
centurions are the worst unit in the SM codex
IH/IF still need more buffs while WS/RG are equally under powered given the right general
2.0 marines, eldar and chaos soup are bad mmmmkay
Martel has played so many games with his BA that he has sunk their win rate below 40% because he refuses to use primaris bolters
GW knows I play DA/SW/DW so have given me a chance to show off my superior game play with some of the worst armies in the game
Yanarri are still OP, nerf Yanarri (J/K 3 games does not make a sample)
40k fantasy drafts are riveting pod-cast material and should definitely be taken seriously and make for great content
Comparing the state of the meta vs the podcast the numbers don't really match-up vs how some of the best players think about the game and I think it's illustrative of the problems of just relying on tourney results. To be honest there are so many bad 40k players that the results are often skewed by really good players (Siegler and Pullen with Tau) and really bad players (I'd say me but I haven't played at a GT or better since SM dexes came out so not my fault this time) which is why some critical thinking beyond just what the numbers show is required but you know what they say about common sense.
GW has no idea how to balance their game. We are entering into the dog days of 8th (I like the garden hose metaphor Peety Pab used) similar to the end of 7th where GW no longer cares about balancing since it has turned into a train wreck. OP changes (GK) will keep coming out until the game is so broken and we will do a soft reset with 8.5/9.0 sometime this summer (just in time for my marines to catch-up to the meta...).
TLR - Games feth'ed. GW is working on the next edition and doesn't care. Get ready for end of 7th part 2.
It does feel much the same. GK getting powerful rules has also signaled the end of an edition before.
Then again if you are talking about data. If you look at the % of the top of the fields performance only you can basically eliminate bad players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: 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.
Hordes are straight up great vs elite melee. They are pretty dog crap vs elite anti infantry shooting though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/21 19:03:04
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
2020/01/21 19:18:42
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
bananathug wrote: which is why some critical thinking beyond just what the numbers show is required but you know what they say about common sense.
Taking the tournament results from November and December will introduce a heavy skew to marines without accounting for CA or any recent PAs. 40kstats does not have these tournaments available, so I couldn't tell you what effect there is yet.
So, yes, critical thinking. Let's not get carried away, yet.
2020/01/21 19:35:53
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
bananathug wrote: which is why some critical thinking beyond just what the numbers show is required but you know what they say about common sense.
Taking the tournament results from November and December will introduce a heavy skew to marines without accounting for CA or any recent PAs. 40kstats does not have these tournaments available, so I couldn't tell you what effect there is yet.
So, yes, critical thinking. Let's not get carried away, yet.
They are updating really slowly. They must do monthly updates?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/21 19:36:38
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
2020/01/21 19:50:04
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Removed - Don't post images or GIFs as the only content in a topical thread, certainly not when being rude.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/22 00:07:07
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2020/01/21 20:14:03
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
people don't understand the human element to statistics and have no idea what a statistic actually says. Hint: it's not 'this stuff is all the good stuff in the meta and all the rest is bad'.
2020/01/21 22:53:55
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: people don't understand the human element to statistics and have no idea what a statistic actually says. Hint: it's not 'this stuff is all the good stuff in the meta and all the rest is bad'.
That's what it means to most competitive players.
2020/01/21 23:17:08
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: people don't understand the human element to statistics and have no idea what a statistic actually says. Hint: it's not 'this stuff is all the good stuff in the meta and all the rest is bad'.
That's what it means to most competitive players.
I think its a complaint that on the forums, something which is a bit worse never ever beats something which is a bit better, because we live in a world of perfect average hammer.
And the best units always go first.
But it can always be interesting how something which isn't very good wins a tournament, probably because someone played well/lucked out, and suddenly there are a dozen "is this the new meta!?" takes, which quickly devolve into "no, its not consistently repeatable".
2020/01/22 00:20:46
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: people don't understand the human element to statistics and have no idea what a statistic actually says. Hint: it's not 'this stuff is all the good stuff in the meta and all the rest is bad'.
That's what competitive play is though. It's not hard to go through a codex and pick out all the high performers that "statistically" outperform everything else due to the either low point cost or hyper efficient interaction with game mechanics.
To play in the competitive meta, you only take what is "good" and spam the crap out of it. Everything else is "bad" and you gimp yourself in the competitive sense by taking them.
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |
2020/01/22 00:52:48
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The stats have been wrong so so many times in the past, because they are massively influenced by human decisions and knowledge and understanding. The statistics are a reference of what is doing well right now. But low level 'competitive' players think that stats are the rule of law on what is good and what isn't, hence why they will always be chasing the meta at best, and never the players defining it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/22 00:54:08
2020/01/22 02:25:56
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/22 02:26:43
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |
2020/01/22 02:49:04
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
NurglesR0T wrote: People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
Few high level players are sitting down with a spreadsheet and finding that unit X is 95% as efficient as unit Y and making their decisions based on that, because that's a terrible way to go about making final decisions. They're looking for dynamics to exploit and putting the best unit in its place for it. Playing practice matches, tweaking, and repeat.
Take lists with 3 TFCs. They could take one or two, and more Intercessors up front which are more durable when facing certain lists. But for whatever reason they chose 3. Other players opted not to for their own reasons. TFCs are clearly quite efficient, so why doesn't everyone take 3?
2020/01/22 03:25:18
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
NurglesR0T wrote:People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
While true, not everyone can take a net list and make the most of it.
Daedalus81 wrote:Few high level players are sitting down with a spreadsheet and finding that unit X is 95% as efficient as unit Y and making their decisions based on that, because that's a terrible way to go about making final decisions. They're looking for dynamics to exploit and putting the best unit in its place for it. Playing practice matches, tweaking, and repeat.
Take lists with 3 TFCs. They could take one or two, and more Intercessors up front which are more durable when facing certain lists. But for whatever reason they chose 3. Other players opted not to for their own reasons. TFCs are clearly quite efficient, so why doesn't everyone take 3?
Costs and buildability are usually some of the biggest reasons, and sometimes just how their meta interacts with them.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2020/01/22 03:27:48
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
NurglesR0T wrote: People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
Few high level players are sitting down with a spreadsheet and finding that unit X is 95% as efficient as unit Y and making their decisions based on that, because that's a terrible way to go about making final decisions. They're looking for dynamics to exploit and putting the best unit in its place for it. Playing practice matches, tweaking, and repeat.
Take lists with 3 TFCs. They could take one or two, and more Intercessors up front which are more durable when facing certain lists. But for whatever reason they chose 3. Other players opted not to for their own reasons. TFCs are clearly quite efficient, so why doesn't everyone take 3?
Snippet from my earlier post - I agree with you
...due to the either low point cost or hyper efficient interaction with game mechanics.
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |
2020/01/22 03:33:53
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
One player is taking reivers while a cadre of the best players (team bro-hammer) all pretty much settled on the same iron hands list as the best.
In order to come up with something really good you need good units that excel at the role you have for them. I'm sure Nick has figured out some crazy good role that reivers can play in his army and after LVO will be more than happy to tell people (probably people who pay him) why he chose them.
The rest of us need to glean from their experience because I sure as heck am not sitting in my garage with 3-5 really good players, playing crazy practice games, situation recreations, opening gambits and all of the theory crafting + in game work to figure out just what is the right amount of intercessors I need to survive most in meta army first turn shooting so that I can contest x objectives in mission y while making sure I can kill x number of meta units to make sure I get kill/hold more and what combo produces a list that gives up the least amount of ITC secondaries (I'm sadly falling into the ITC is warping the game camp but I keep seeing examples of it changing the value of units).
There is a lot more than pure statistical efficiency that goes into over all list design but the meta is usually the meta because of efficiencies and it's the pro-players that can break from what is just the most efficient mathematical units to what creates the best chance of winning.
In the podcast Nick even says that pure iron hands is better on paper than his list but he feels that his list opens up "jank" that allows him to outplay his opponents rather than just mathammer them to death.
I'd much rather have a game where the mathammer is close and then it is your tactical decisions in list building that matter more. There's a reason why the guys say it's marines or eldar or chaos is because those armies mathhammer so hard vs the rest of the field that you do not have a chance to let gameplay matter because they are so efficient. When those efficiencies close and the mathammer is close, the efficiency divergence can be overcome by a good game plan, smart tactical movement/decisions and playing the mission (which is why Nick is willing to give up a little statistical advantage for his perceived tactical advantage, but you notice he's not doing it with GSC...)
Be as good as you want but running pure dark angels (or other sub 40% faction) into one of the big boys (better than 50% win rate) just gets you blown off the table without a chance for your gameplay to matter.
Even then, you have lists like Mani Cheema's where if he goes first he wins 90% of the time because his shooting is so strong it just mathammers you off the board. 40k is such a killy, imbalanced mess that a lot of the games will be decided by who goes first (eldar parking lots vs IF) in a close match or just won't matter what you do because 500 points of their army shoots like 1.5k points of your army and it is nearly impossible to overcome such a mathematical disadvantage (even in a dice game which shows just how imbalanced GW has made the game).
2020/01/22 04:09:19
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
NurglesR0T wrote: People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
People's perception does affect the context in which units operate though. You could have a brilliant tank-killing unit, but if your perception is that people generally don't take many tanks, you won't bring it.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2020/01/22 08:14:27
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
NurglesR0T wrote: People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others
But it does change what is taken to events, which is why the statistic is not an accurate measure of balance.
It also means that the best stuff may or may not be taken based on human understanding, meaning the stats may not reflect the power level of the army. You can see this earlier in the edition with Necrons and then Tau, and even now Tyranids are falling victim to it.
Stats are not what top players use to measure what's good, it's what is used to measure what is taken.
2020/01/22 09:58:45
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Does it matter more what's better on paper, or what wins on the table by allowing you to ovecome statistical advantage?
Sorry but "play better" to compensate superior units is bad excuse. It assumes the guy who uses superior units is crappy player himself. That's condensing and stupid attitude. Imagine shock horror that there's nothing preventing good player from taking superior units...
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2020/01/22 10:14:46
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
R - Games feth'ed. 
5300 | 
2800 | 
1600 | 
