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.
2020/01/28 00:28:13
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
2020/01/28 01:35:49
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
You can’t simultaneously claim that ‘stats don’t mean anything' while drawing a conclusion from stats
Me, this very same page of this thread:
Nitro Zeus wrote: My view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all
Me, the very same post you quoted:
Nitro Zeus wrote: I wouldn't call them OP or draw that conclusion at all from just a statistic
Orcs coming top 8 LVO doesn't mean Orcs are OP, you can settle down. It does however mean that they are an army capable of getting top 8 LVO, a claim a large amount of Orc players said was specifically untrue, that Orcs couldn't compete like that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/28 01:36:47
2020/01/28 05:56:21
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
A good metric is gathering the data from all the lists that went 6-0 or 5-1, those are the lists which have shown a good competitivity and were one game away from making it. Top 8 or top 50 doesn't men anything.
2020/01/28 08:14:16
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro, I'm just going to post all of the times you use stats to claim something definitively in the post I quoted, to make it clearer to you;
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game
...but to the people complaining they can't win games at their local with Orcs while Orcs are out here top 8'ing LVO... well, thats a problem with the player, not the army.
You also said this, ironically;
here's another example of why stats are a stupid measure to use definitively
One list making the top 8 of an event means sweet FA. It's an outlier, as I said in my previous post, and therefore not a good representation of anything.
You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO. Clearly they can go the distance, the stats show this.
It seems to me that you only believe stats that suit your argument.
2020/01/28 08:44:37
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO.
I claimed no such thing, at any point, and never would. I have Chaos as a significantly stronger faction than Orcs, without a doubt. The stats for LVO might say otherwise today, and that's fine, it doesn't change my opinion here, and I doubt it changes yours. Just more reason that stats aren't a definitive measure of balance. You can still make statements based off stats however, such as "Orcs are still a faction capable of getting top 8 at LVO" and you would be indisputably correct. There is no hypocrisy between these two take-aways. The problem isn't with my statements, it's with you conflating two very different things into one. As I said to Xenomancers, my view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all, it's just that people misunderstand their meaning and try to make them say something they don't.
2020/01/28 08:45:15
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
I think he is saying that IH have some rules which feel unfair. If you have ever played against the functionally immortal IH Leviathan then you would know what he means. Even when you manage to play around it and win on the mission it just feels unfair that a unit of that cost should be so completely dominating. Nothing short of a Titan should be able to do what that unit can easily do.
2020/01/28 09:03:25
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO.
I claimed no such thing, at any point, and never would. I have Chaos as a significantly stronger faction than Orcs, without a doubt. The stats for LVO might say otherwise today, and that's fine, it doesn't change my opinion here, and I doubt it changes yours. Just more reason that stats aren't a definitive measure of balance. You can still make statements based off stats however, such as "Orcs are still a faction capable of getting top 8 at LVO" and you would be indisputably correct. There is no hypocrisy between these two take-aways. The problem isn't with my statements, it's with you conflating two very different things into one. As I said to Xenomancers, my view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all, it's just that people misunderstand their meaning and try to make them say something they don't.
And you seem to be putting far too much weight on going top 8 at LVO as opposed to number of finishers in the top 50 or top 100. Yes you can say Orks are a faction capable of going top 8 of LVO. That is factually correct. I'm not sure what else you're trying to infer though, particularly when you add a piece effectively stating "gid gud bro", other than 'Orks are way better than their own players believe, as evidenced by the 8th place LVO finish'. We don't need a top 8 finish to prove that Orks can win games (if that was the point you were trying to dispute). We have plenty of evidence of that throughout LVO.
2020/01/28 09:24:56
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I wouldn't dream of telling you to git gud because I don't believe you are capable of it.
I had considered adding to the end of my last post, the fact that I've seen how you argue in the past, and that I'm going to bow out before you hit me with a third strawman you've invented to serve your arguments. I decided instead to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for letting me down, but I guess the fault is my own, so I'ma do it now instead. Have a nice day. I already know your response is going to be how this means you 'won', so you can have that, and I can have the peace of mind of this not going on for another 20 posts of your dishonesty.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/28 09:27:00
2020/01/28 12:25:43
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
As Xeno has stated above - Marines even manage to compete at the top level when they make no use of their super doctrine. That's how bad it is. Some units are so wildly under-priced it's no wonder they are so prevalent
Which bears out that it isnt really super docs and docs that are the direct issue. Its strats allow SM to use low cost (arguably not undercosted) units at their peak.
IH are king, because their super doc does matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/28 12:29:55
2020/01/28 14:43:10
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Nitro, I'm just going to post all of the times you use stats to claim something definitively in the post I quoted, to make it clearer to you;
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game
...but to the people complaining they can't win games at their local with Orcs while Orcs are out here top 8'ing LVO... well, thats a problem with the player, not the army.
You also said this, ironically;
here's another example of why stats are a stupid measure to use definitively
One list making the top 8 of an event means sweet FA. It's an outlier, as I said in my previous post, and therefore not a good representation of anything.
You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO. Clearly they can go the distance, the stats show this.
It seems to me that you only believe stats that suit your argument.
There's a miss between the two.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
2020/01/28 14:49:27
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
Now i'm dizzy!
2020/01/28 14:49:48
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
I think he is saying that IH have some rules which feel unfair. If you have ever played against the functionally immortal IH Leviathan then you would know what he means. Even when you manage to play around it and win on the mission it just feels unfair that a unit of that cost should be so completely dominating. Nothing short of a Titan should be able to do what that unit can easily do.
He's assuming balance should be aimed at a particular point, instead of balancing everything towards whatever is currently most OP. Like the claim that the WraithKnight was given balanced rules, despite being clearly subpar compared to IoM knights. And that UM hit that point.
The deficiency is that he probably doesn't realize this, and assumes everyone else shares his view of what the appropriate "balance point" is.
The facts can't shift such an argument. Anything stronger than his army is "OP". Anything weaker is "trash". Nothing he has needs a nerf. Anything that beats it needs a nerf. Anything that it beats was because he chose right. Any event is self-evidently proof of the argument based on this assumption.
I wholeheartedly support not balancing around the top of the meta. But with some clarity around it.
2020/01/28 14:53:09
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
He's assuming balance should be aimed at a particular point, instead of balancing everything towards whatever is currently most OP. Like the claim that the WraithKnight was given balanced rules, despite being clearly subpar compared to IoM knights. And that UM hit that point.
The deficiency is that he probably doesn't realize this, and assumes everyone else shares his view of what the appropriate "balance point" is.
The facts can't shift such an argument. Anything stronger than his army is "OP". Anything weaker is "trash". Nothing he has needs a nerf. Anything that beats it needs a nerf. Anything that it beats was because he chose right. Any event is self-evidently proof of the argument based on this assumption.
I wholeheartedly support not balancing around the top of the meta. But with some clarity around it.
You're knocking it out of the park with posts today. This is particularly good insight into the minds of some positions.
2020/01/28 15:05:02
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
Now i'm dizzy!
Then let me try again:
Spoiler:
If 1 Ork list places in the top 8, that's not enough numbers to be conclusive about how good Orks are, statistically. About as likely to be a fluke as it is to represent just how good Orks are.
Some players make the claim that their army cannot possibly place in the top 8. It's a claim that's rooted in the conclusion that their faction is bad. Being unable to place in the top 8 is then evidence that the faction is bad.
If 1 Ork list places in the top 8, it means that an Ork list *can* possibly place in the top 8. It definitively disproves the claim that it cannot happen (because it did happen). It's not stats - you're not running percentages, averages, etc. It's a single event. It's a counterexample, not a statistical rejection. So it's an argument, but not one based on statistics (and counterexamples to absolute claims are actual proofs - hence why most absolute claims are wrong when talking statistics).
If the claim that Orks cannot possibly place in the top 8 is evidence supporting the conclusion that Orks are bad, disproving that claim removes said support. Removes an argument that we shouldn't doubt it. Ergo, it casts doubt on "Orks are bad", but is not definitive.
Put abstractly:
I believe $X, you believe not-$X.
I claim $X is true because $Y.
Some accept that argument.
You disprove $Y.
$X has less support. It's more likely to be false than it was before you disproved $Y. But it's not conclusively false.
There's a related fallacy here, where "If $X then $Y" is countered by not-$Y, it's common for people to then believe not-$X. But that's not what's happening here. I was going to expand on this fallacy and what's different here, but I'm already getting far to academic - let me know if you want more details.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/28 15:06:13
2020/01/28 15:19:57
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
It is kind of fun to watch everyone pick the hills they want to die on though.
Cognitive bias is a helluva drug.
"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."
2020/01/28 17:58:10
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
If this
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game
isn't a definitive statement I don't know what is.
I'll break it down for you;
'Orcs placing top 8' [the stats] 'at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game' [the definitive statement, derived from said facts].
He's making a definitive statement, it's there in literal black and white.
2020/01/28 18:57:13
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The claim "Orks aren't that bad, because they made top 8, so statistically they're [definitively] competitive" would be using stats definitively.
The claim "Orks made top 8, so the claim that Orks cannot make top 8 is false" would be using an individual event to disprove an absolutist assertion definitively. It's not using stats.
You're reading the first. He's making the second.
He seems to be *implying* that Orks are *likely* competitive, or at least more competitive than most think. That's part of the *implication* of what he just showed *definitively*. But the claim was neither definitive nor based on stats.
Now i'm dizzy!
Then let me try again:
Spoiler:
If 1 Ork list places in the top 8, that's not enough numbers to be conclusive about how good Orks are, statistically. About as likely to be a fluke as it is to represent just how good Orks are.
Some players make the claim that their army cannot possibly place in the top 8. It's a claim that's rooted in the conclusion that their faction is bad. Being unable to place in the top 8 is then evidence that the faction is bad.
If 1 Ork list places in the top 8, it means that an Ork list *can* possibly place in the top 8. It definitively disproves the claim that it cannot happen (because it did happen). It's not stats - you're not running percentages, averages, etc. It's a single event. It's a counterexample, not a statistical rejection. So it's an argument, but not one based on statistics (and counterexamples to absolute claims are actual proofs - hence why most absolute claims are wrong when talking statistics).
If the claim that Orks cannot possibly place in the top 8 is evidence supporting the conclusion that Orks are bad, disproving that claim removes said support. Removes an argument that we shouldn't doubt it. Ergo, it casts doubt on "Orks are bad", but is not definitive.
Put abstractly:
I believe $X, you believe not-$X.
I claim $X is true because $Y.
Some accept that argument.
You disprove $Y.
$X has less support. It's more likely to be false than it was before you disproved $Y. But it's not conclusively false.
There's a related fallacy here, where "If $X then $Y" is countered by not-$Y, it's common for people to then believe not-$X. But that's not what's happening here. I was going to expand on this fallacy and what's different here, but I'm already getting far to academic - let me know if you want more details.
Oops - sorry. You did a good job explaining the first time. I was just being silly.
2020/01/28 19:37:55
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The main problem people run into with stats is they expect the stats to say something definitive when they're really more of a puzzle to dissect and explore. Stats don't really tell you anything; you have to approach them with a question and see how the data supports or rejects your hypothesis. Even then, the answers you receive are sometimes only useful when compared to answers to other questions.
Where the "lies, dirty likes, and statistics" part of the problem comes into play is that this interesting, partial answers, often involve a lot of caveats. Comparing the winrate of Iron Hands with the winrate of Iron Hands with a Leviathan can support an argument; and often times you get interesting data along the way like "pure Tyranid lists did not beat an Iron Hands opponent with a Leviathan dreadnought after round 2" or some such nonsense (no idea if that's actually true). Those caveats are tedious though and that often gets turns into "tyranids cannot beat Iron Hands" or something similar.
As global as stats are, they're actually more useful on a personal level. You can see things like winrate at a macro level, but to get something useful, you need to focus on your personal interests and narrow your scope down to something you can learn from. Maybe you want to know every Necron list that went X-1 and from there compare them for successful trends or commonalities in where the -1 came from. The process of taking a dataset and iterating hypothesis to provide directions for future actions is where stats can be a powerful tool. Unfortunately, more often than not people simply read broad stroke conclusions and treat them as definitive because they're based on stats. There's a truth there, but its one of many. Understanding how those truths pertain to your own situation is what can make stats a very powerful tool in the right hands.
2020/01/28 19:43:31
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
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
2020/01/28 19:52:42
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
Then how can Ultramarines be strong enough to win that match?
2020/01/28 20:05:09
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
I think he is saying that IH have some rules which feel unfair. If you have ever played against the functionally immortal IH Leviathan then you would know what he means. Even when you manage to play around it and win on the mission it just feels unfair that a unit of that cost should be so completely dominating. Nothing short of a Titan should be able to do what that unit can easily do.
He's assuming balance should be aimed at a particular point, instead of balancing everything towards whatever is currently most OP. Like the claim that the WraithKnight was given balanced rules, despite being clearly subpar compared to IoM knights. And that UM hit that point.
The deficiency is that he probably doesn't realize this, and assumes everyone else shares his view of what the appropriate "balance point" is.
The facts can't shift such an argument. Anything stronger than his army is "OP". Anything weaker is "trash". Nothing he has needs a nerf. Anything that beats it needs a nerf. Anything that it beats was because he chose right. Any event is self-evidently proof of the argument based on this assumption.
I wholeheartedly support not balancing around the top of the meta. But with some clarity around it.
I am saying that the point they balanced Ultramarines too is a great point in the power level between armies currently in that game. Marines needed a fix. The point at where the Ultramarines are. A marine chapter that has a turn 2 superdoctrine and reasonable stratagems and relics even a reasonable superdoctrine (which requires a give and take - unless you aren't taking any heavy weapons - you are going that have some weapons not getting the -1 ap from doctrines).
I knew the moment I saw the Ironhands leaks that the game was basically doomed. They went way above the power curve with their rules. For example if I brought the same LVO winner list as Ultras - it would still be a really powerful list if I just subbed out feiros for a gravis captain and subbed out SBR for BR. The difference is - you could kill that levi in 1 turn no problem unless I make more 4++ than I should. The list is beatable then. I think there are other issues with the game too...like character protection is exceptionally busted too and it always has beeen. IMO in 9th they need to go back to units needing the join squads to get the protection. Which vehicles wont be able to do.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
Then how can Ultramarines be strong enough to win that match?
Are you being obtuse? Obviously I am talking about Ultras vs non marines. Not Ultras vs marines with clearly superior rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/28 20:09:03
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
2020/01/28 20:12:13
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It is my personal opinion that Ultramarines current rules are perfect. They are strong enough to win any match but they can lose a match just as easily. Ironhands would dump on my ultras....it wouldn't even be fair.
??
I could swear I just read that you think the Ultras rules are perfect & that they could win any given match just as easily as they could lose it. So how would playing vs IH be unfair to your UM?
Because obviously they are just better than the Ultramarines. By a large factor too.
Personally, I'd be happier if the less-OP space marine subfactions had their power rearranged to be more defensive than offensive. The games I've seen end in wins for the non-marine player and the games I've won versus the new marines have all revolved around a hugely crippling alpha strike destroying their ability to act like a deathball that rerolls everything and anything and ignores every save and just blows you away.
Every defensive ability besides just...having an invuln save new marines don't give a gak about, since rerolling all hits means they aren't affected as much by modifiers and even their basic guns can sport AP-1 and AP-2.
The thing that makes those wins possible is that space marines are still capable of being killed in droves by certain weapon types, especially when they all clump up around aurabubble characters as they are wont to do. big crazy close combat bombs can blow away 500-600 points of models in a turn easy, as can stuff like double tapping oblits or plasma chaos termies or admech wrath of mars mortal wound bombs.
I hesitate to think that what initially attracted people to play space marines was the idea of putting all their dudes down on the table within a couple 6" aura bubbles and never moving from their DZ while they hose enemy armies off the table in 3 turns. There aren't enough people who want to play Tau for that to be a fun playstyle. They want to be playing walking tanks that feel flexible and tactical so they can handle any threat and are no slouch in combat as well as shooting. That ain't what marines currently do. Even if you do have weirdo subfactions like black templars and salamanders who aren't pulling the crazy tournament wins, they still don't make for fun gameplay. I'd play almost anything before I'd play another game vs salamanders, can they possibly make the game take any longer than having to roll, then reroll, then roll, then reroll, then reroll 1, then roll, then roll saves, then roll damage, reroll 1 for a CP....OK now the next 5-man squad...
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/01/28 20:18:08
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: You claimed Chaos are in a worse place than Orks while they have twice the number of players in the top 50 at the LVO.
I claimed no such thing, at any point, and never would. I have Chaos as a significantly stronger faction than Orcs, without a doubt. The stats for LVO might say otherwise today, and that's fine, it doesn't change my opinion here, and I doubt it changes yours. Just more reason that stats aren't a definitive measure of balance. You can still make statements based off stats however, such as "Orcs are still a faction capable of getting top 8 at LVO" and you would be indisputably correct. There is no hypocrisy between these two take-aways. The problem isn't with my statements, it's with you conflating two very different things into one. As I said to Xenomancers, my view isn't that the stats are meaningless at all, it's just that people misunderstand their meaning and try to make them say something they don't.
And you seem to be putting far too much weight on going top 8 at LVO as opposed to number of finishers in the top 50 or top 100. Yes you can say Orks are a faction capable of going top 8 of LVO. That is factually correct. I'm not sure what else you're trying to infer though, particularly when you add a piece effectively stating "gid gud bro", other than 'Orks are way better than their own players believe, as evidenced by the 8th place LVO finish'. We don't need a top 8 finish to prove that Orks can win games (if that was the point you were trying to dispute). We have plenty of evidence of that throughout LVO.
Orks don't match well with marines. It is just a bad matchup. Much like marines don't match up with tau. Orks aren't going to do well when 25% of the field is marines.
They are still one of the better armies in the game though. The SAG is one of the only weapons in the game that can actually kill this levi on a good roll...which is funny.
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
2020/01/28 21:07:52
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
It would be useful to know whether the Ork Player won because *Orks* or because he was the better player, his opponents got the tactics wrong, fluffed secondary selection or dice rolls, were seized on etc.
Because on paper yes, I think Marine lists should just destroy that list. But they didn't (even if game 5 was won by a point). So maybe I'm wrong.
2020/01/28 21:09:28
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Tyel wrote: Wish I had seen the Ork list win games 5 and 6.
It would be useful to know whether the Ork Player won because *Orks* or because he was the better player, his opponents got the tactics wrong, fluffed secondary selection or dice rolls, were seized on etc.
Because on paper yes, I think Marine lists should just destroy that list. But they didn't (even if game 5 was won by a point). So maybe I'm wrong.
It should probably be noted that the Ork list was allowed to run some Legends units or at least FLG failed to enforce the no-Legends rules on the list. Not sure how much of a difference it made, but it should be noted.
"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."
2020/01/28 21:27:40
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anything can make top 50, Orcs placing top 8 at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game
isn't a definitive statement I don't know what is.
I'll break it down for you;
'Orcs placing top 8' [the stats] 'at least shows they are capable of keeping up with most the game' [the definitive statement, derived from said facts].
He's making a definitive statement, it's there in literal black and white.
'Keeping up with the rest of the game' means exactly what Bharring said it did, 'possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments', which is something that a great many Orc players on this board specifically swore up and down was impossible - hell, hear it from some people and Orcs can't place top 8 in a 16 man RTT
It's crazy that multiple people seem to be able to understand the difference between making a definitive claim about tiering extrapolated from a statistic, and just talking about what the data itself actually says, and in very broad terms at that. I get the vibe this isn't an accidental misunderstanding however, the difference has a portion of nuance to it but it's not this difficult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: The main problem people run into with stats is they expect the stats to say something definitive when they're really more of a puzzle to dissect and explore. Stats don't really tell you anything; you have to approach them with a question and see how the data supports or rejects your hypothesis. Even then, the answers you receive are sometimes only useful when compared to answers to other questions.
Where the "lies, dirty likes, and statistics" part of the problem comes into play is that this interesting, partial answers, often involve a lot of caveats. Comparing the winrate of Iron Hands with the winrate of Iron Hands with a Leviathan can support an argument; and often times you get interesting data along the way like "pure Tyranid lists did not beat an Iron Hands opponent with a Leviathan dreadnought after round 2" or some such nonsense (no idea if that's actually true). Those caveats are tedious though and that often gets turns into "tyranids cannot beat Iron Hands" or something similar.
As global as stats are, they're actually more useful on a personal level. You can see things like winrate at a macro level, but to get something useful, you need to focus on your personal interests and narrow your scope down to something you can learn from. Maybe you want to know every Necron list that went X-1 and from there compare them for successful trends or commonalities in where the -1 came from. The process of taking a dataset and iterating hypothesis to provide directions for future actions is where stats can be a powerful tool. Unfortunately, more often than not people simply read broad stroke conclusions and treat them as definitive because they're based on stats. There's a truth there, but its one of many. Understanding how those truths pertain to your own situation is what can make stats a very powerful tool in the right hands.
Another great post ^^
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/28 21:28:22
2020/01/28 22:43:42
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: 'Keeping up with the rest of the game' means exactly what Bharring said it did, 'possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments', which is something that a great many Orc players on this board specifically swore up and down was impossible - hell, hear it from some people and Orcs can't place top 8 in a 16 man RTT
.....And that is still a definitive statement.... but either way, "keeping up with the rest of the game" does not indicate to me "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments". If you meant "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments", why didn't you write this?
In fact, I find it incredible that you're trying to claim your entire point was; "Orks finishing in the top 8 at LVO shows that Orks can finish top 8 at a big event". No gak. That is literally the data, raw. Either your point was entirely moot, or you're backtracking because you've proven yourself a bit of a hypocrite.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/28 22:45:40
2020/01/28 22:54:35
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Tyel wrote: Wish I had seen the Ork list win games 5 and 6.
It would be useful to know whether the Ork Player won because *Orks* or because he was the better player, his opponents got the tactics wrong, fluffed secondary selection or dice rolls, were seized on etc.
Because on paper yes, I think Marine lists should just destroy that list. But they didn't (even if game 5 was won by a point). So maybe I'm wrong.
Tyel wrote: Wish I had seen the Ork list win games 5 and 6.
It would be useful to know whether the Ork Player won because *Orks* or because he was the better player, his opponents got the tactics wrong, fluffed secondary selection or dice rolls, were seized on etc.
Because on paper yes, I think Marine lists should just destroy that list. But they didn't (even if game 5 was won by a point). So maybe I'm wrong.
Speaking very broadly, I'd say that the ability of orks to pull off outlier performances is representative of their general status. I.e., that they can be powerful, but their performance is dependant on some very unreliable systems coming up in the ork player's favor. I.e., win first turn, Da Jump goes off successfully, a jumped mob makes their charge, the loota bomb rolls maximum shots on their first shooting phase, etc. And of course making absolutely no player mistakes on top of it.
So while a person might conclude that orks are secretly powerful and it's only this one guy who figured out the ONE WEIRD TRICK that SPACE MARINE PLAYERS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW... it's far more likely that out of many ork armies present, he just happened to be the one to have enough of his coinflip-based abilities work to put him into a competitive position.
Or in short: an army that requires you to win ten coinflips in a row to win games isn't actually powerful, even if it occasionally exhibits far-above-average results.
2020/01/28 23:23:19
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Nitro Zeus wrote: 'Keeping up with the rest of the game' means exactly what Bharring said it did, 'possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments', which is something that a great many Orc players on this board specifically swore up and down was impossible - hell, hear it from some people and Orcs can't place top 8 in a 16 man RTT
.....And that is still a definitive statement.... but either way, "keeping up with the rest of the game" does not indicate to me "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments". If you meant "possible to place top 8 at one of the biggest tournaments", why didn't you write this?
In fact, I find it incredible that you're trying to claim your entire point was; "Orks finishing in the top 8 at LVO shows that Orks can finish top 8 at a big event". No gak. That is literally the data, raw. Either your point was entirely moot, or you're backtracking because you've proven yourself a bit of a hypocrite.
Somehow everyone seems to recognise what I was saying in both posts bar you, but I suspect that's an iq problem. If you misunderstood it to begin with, okay I guess, it's not that difficult but alright, however if you still don't get it after all this explanation from like three different people, you're either nitpicking because you have literally nothing else and you're incapable of backing down, or you're just beyond help. Either way this is done because it's been clearly explained, nothing you ever say makes sense, you just deliberately take things out of context and pretend that you are completely bamboozled to the meaning! that you've conciously obscured from your elaborate recounts of what happened, and it's not even frustrating to watch, its just... sad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/29 00:16:32
