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.

Saying i made a statement means nothing without context. Read my "statement" and tell me where my above responce was backpedaling.

Look you can tell me i just suck all day and it wont prove anything. Play against me if you want to witness how bad I roll.

Just last year i lost 3 games in major GT's because of dice (admitted by my opponents). I was actually in the running for best in faction custodes last year for a bit.

I then ran out of money due to covid and medical gak and could not attend any more tournaments.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Saying i made a statement means nothing without context. Read my "statement" and tell me where my above responce was backpedaling.

If you're not willing to admit it that's fine, but everyone else can see it.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Look you can tell me i just suck all day and it wont prove anything. Play against me if you want to witness how bad I roll.

If you've had below-average rolls in the past, it doesn't mean anything about how well you'll roll in the future.

People who complain that they have "worse luck" than other players typically just don't understand the game. Good play involves minimizing the effects of bad luck on yourself by choosing the situations you get into; people who don't understand what are good and bad decisions in the game will think they had bad luck, and think they have consistent bad luck, when in fact they're consistently making bad decisions.

Nobody had bad luck, actually. If you sit around rolling dice, while there may be occasional spikes, it will even out over large amounts of dice rolled.

I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.

Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.

It doesnt filter them out at all. When i roll above average i absolutely demolish my opponents (no matter who they are).

I just happen to roll bad more often than good.

Telling me i dont understand the game is laughable. I work at a casino and know more about probabilities than anyone without a degree in mathmatics. I know exactly how averages work, which is why I know I roll worse than average.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
It doesnt filter them out at all. When i roll above average i absolutely demolish my opponents (no matter who they are).

I just happen to roll bad more often than good.

Telling me i dont understand the game is laughable. I work at a casino and know more about probabilities than anyone without a degree in mathmatics. I know exactly how averages work, which is why I know I roll worse than average.

I don't have a degree in mathematics and I know more than you. I know that you can't say that you "roll" worse than average, even if you have rolled worse than average in the past.

If you're losing with Custodes when everyone else is winning you're probably not that good at the game, or don't make winning a priority in listbuilding.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
It doesnt filter them out at all. When i roll above average i absolutely demolish my opponents (no matter who they are).

Clearly none of your opponents have ever rolled above average during the same game you were hot in.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Telling me i dont understand the game is laughable. I work at a casino and know more about probabilities than anyone without a degree in mathmatics.

Yep, except for all those other people with similar jobs. Or those people who're just plain talented. Or that other dog on the internet....

 Sim-Life wrote:
I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.

Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.

I had a guy from my class lose his scholarship and then drop out of school, because in first two matchs he had he slipped, the second slip was so bad he injured his wrist, so he had to drop out and the even was a qualifire. He was one of the top 3 guys in my weight bracket in the entire wojewodship and practicaly had a garenteed spot in a state run sport university. I don't think his memories just like mr Hecatons somehow filter out the good, and leave the bad. If you lose 3 games at a GT because of a bad roll, you lose it because of a bad roll. There were match ups a few months ago where, if playing vs DE you didn't go first you would lose the game on math probability alone. even if in the end all rolls should go 50/50, assuming perfect dice, it doesn't change the fact that rolling 10 6's in a game of lets check how my unit does vs enemy, does not balance out rolling 10 1's in the game which decides if you go top8 or drop below 16 spot.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

I just happen to roll bad more often than good.

I would actually suggest buying better dice because whoever made your dice most likely did something wrong.

Nobody wins/loses on probability alone. You gotta roll the dice.

Karol wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.

Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.

I had a guy from my class lose his scholarship and then drop out of school, because in first two matchs he had he slipped, the second slip was so bad he injured his wrist, so he had to drop out and the even was a qualifire. He was one of the top 3 guys in my weight bracket in the entire wojewodship and practicaly had a garenteed spot in a state run sport university. I don't think his memories just like mr Hecatons somehow filter out the good, and leave the bad. If you lose 3 games at a GT because of a bad roll, you lose it because of a bad roll. There were match ups a few months ago where, if playing vs DE you didn't go first you would lose the game on math probability alone. even if in the end all rolls should go 50/50, assuming perfect dice, it doesn't change the fact that rolling 10 6's in a game of lets check how my unit does vs enemy, does not balance out rolling 10 1's in the game which decides if you go top8 or drop below 16 spot.

Firstly nice to see you back Karol.
Secondly it sucks that guy screwed up but a sporting injury isn't the same as dice averages so it's not compatible. One game you might roll like garbage and in another you might roll well. Your brain is programmed to remember the bad game more than the good because it made you feel bad and it wants to avoid that situation again. It's not a case of specific instances moreso than it is global averages.

I also like the lack of self-awareness of the person defending Custodes as not OP by using the argument "they're only not OP because I roll badly, but when I roll well they demolish everyone". Read what you just wrote dude.

I went on a 3-4 year stretch (back in uni) of dice rolls where I never rolled to go first in our weekly games against the guys I usually played.

Genuinely not kidding here.

It got to the point where I'd plan my deployment based on the assumption I was going second...

'I roll terribly' could be the dice, but I wouldn't doubt this could be a thing....

Karol wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.

Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.

I had a guy from my class lose his scholarship and then drop out of school, because in first two matchs he had he slipped, the second slip was so bad he injured his wrist, so he had to drop out and the even was a qualifire. He was one of the top 3 guys in my weight bracket in the entire wojewodship and practicaly had a garenteed spot in a state run sport university. I don't think his memories just like mr Hecatons somehow filter out the good, and leave the bad. If you lose 3 games at a GT because of a bad roll, you lose it because of a bad roll. There were match ups a few months ago where, if playing vs DE you didn't go first you would lose the game on math probability alone. even if in the end all rolls should go 50/50, assuming perfect dice, it doesn't change the fact that rolling 10 6's in a game of lets check how my unit does vs enemy, does not balance out rolling 10 1's in the game which decides if you go top8 or drop below 16 spot.

Again, you're missing the point purposefully in an effort to paint Poland as a dystopian hellhole.

You can lose a game due to bad luck. But that's not the same as saying a player has good kr bad luck - their next game might be amazing!

 Sim-Life wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.

Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.

I had a guy from my class lose his scholarship and then drop out of school, because in first two matchs he had he slipped, the second slip was so bad he injured his wrist, so he had to drop out and the even was a qualifire. He was one of the top 3 guys in my weight bracket in the entire wojewodship and practicaly had a garenteed spot in a state run sport university. I don't think his memories just like mr Hecatons somehow filter out the good, and leave the bad. If you lose 3 games at a GT because of a bad roll, you lose it because of a bad roll. There were match ups a few months ago where, if playing vs DE you didn't go first you would lose the game on math probability alone. even if in the end all rolls should go 50/50, assuming perfect dice, it doesn't change the fact that rolling 10 6's in a game of lets check how my unit does vs enemy, does not balance out rolling 10 1's in the game which decides if you go top8 or drop below 16 spot.

Firstly nice to see you back Karol.
Secondly it sucks that guy screwed up but a sporting injury isn't the same as dice averages so it's not compatible. One game you might roll like garbage and in another you might roll well. Your brain is programmed to remember the bad game more than the good because it made you feel bad and it wants to avoid that situation again. It's not a case of specific instances moreso than it is global averages.

I also like the lack of self-awareness of the person defending Custodes as not OP by using the argument "they're only not OP because I roll badly, but when I roll well they demolish everyone". Read what you just wrote dude.

Right..... lack of self awareness. My argument for custodes not being OP was completely ignored actually. I told you to compare datasheets and tell me how they are overcosted and not one person attempted to do so in this thread.

I then talked in defence of me loosing games by explaining my bad dice rolls and somehow that became the reason custodes werent OP............

Since your obviously just looking for some way to turn my words against me and not actually trying to figure out what I said im gonna leave you to your own mess.

There is no next game, when you lost scholarship and didn't get in to a sports school of next rank. That is litterally what qualifires are for.

GW events tournaments are the same. No one cares if durning testing someone won 99 out of 100 games vs this specific match up. If durning an event you lose a game, you lose it. And by the way for the scoring, aside for being disqualified, it doesn't matter if you lost by lack of skill, the opponent being more skilled or losing by a random roll of a dice.

Also winning your 3ed or 4th bout is kind of a meth too. Who cares if you win those games, when your at the bottom half of the bracket in to loser part of the event. I guess for w40k the problem of sponsorship doesn't exist yet, but in general no one is going to watch or care that someone who went 0:3, devasted his opponent in round 4. Because people are interested in top players and top players, playing the best w40k there is.

Based on how 40k is structured, it's indeed very easily possible that someone rolls poorly on the specific rolls that actually matter for a game. There are lots and lots of rolls in a game, but some of them have a much greater influence than others. We've already seen the roll to go first mentioned, but also things like damage rolls on big models make a huge difference (if you hit their warlord for D6, and it has 6 wounds, there is this small chance of just blowing it up right away. So in that case, the 6 would be a lucky roll with a huge impact. But if you instead roll a 6 to hit with some random gun, it just doesn't matter).

So yes, I can easily believe that a couple of bad (or good) rolls can have a huge impact on the game. Some of those things have been taken out of the game (like break tests and vehicle damage tables) but many still remain. And armies that roll less dice because of their size will see more of that sort of thing.

That said, I don't believe in people rolling better or worse in general. Sure, they will have hot and cold games, but no one is simply lucky or unlucky. We just have a ton of confirmation biases.

 Eihnlazer wrote:


Right..... lack of self awareness. My argument for custodes not being OP was completely ignored actually. I told you to compare datasheets and tell me how they are overcosted and not one person attempted to do so in this thread.

Why does that matter? We have a lot of tournament data now that's pointing to Custodes (and Tau) being at least Drukhari levels of broken, possibly worse. One of your arguments was weighted dice could explain that, which is so comically misguided it's hard to take anything you say seriously, especially if you continue to maintain there's nothing wrong with Custodes in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Karol wrote:
There is no next game, when you lost scholarship and didn't get in to a sports school of next rank. That is litterally what qualifires are for.

GW events tournaments are the same. No one cares if durning testing someone won 99 out of 100 games vs this specific match up. If durning an event you lose a game, you lose it. And by the way for the scoring, aside for being disqualified, it doesn't matter if you lost by lack of skill, the opponent being more skilled or losing by a random roll of a dice.

Also winning your 3ed or 4th bout is kind of a meth too. Who cares if you win those games, when your at the bottom half of the bracket in to loser part of the event. I guess for w40k the problem of sponsorship doesn't exist yet, but in general no one is going to watch or care that someone who went 0:3, devasted his opponent in round 4. Because people are interested in top players and top players, playing the best w40k there is.

I get that you view stuff through a lens if sports but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and it isn't comparible because luck plays a very small part in physical sport. In terms of cognitive bias rolling bad at a GT will be more at the forefront of your mind than the time you rolled incredibly well during a practice game. Because you remember the GT more it doesn't mean you ALWAYS roll bad, you just think you do because your brain tells you you do.

 Eihnlazer wrote:


Right..... lack of self awareness. My argument for custodes not being OP was completely ignored actually. I told you to compare datasheets and tell me how they are overcosted and not one person attempted to do so in this thread.

Let us not forget that you offered two ridiculous answers to begin with which did lead this thread on a wild tangent.

There is actually a good thread going strong on r/warhammercompetitive where people who play the army are discussing things that are overpowered and what is underpowered within the army itself and how GW might address them. I suggest reading over it. Some you might agree with, others disagree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/t33rzu/balancing_custodes_from_a_custode_players/

Trajan is 160 and Typhus is 165. The power level between the two is night and day. He basically overperforms relatively to all the big faction hero models. Death Guard would need severe point drops just to compete on the same table as Custodes.

It also doesn't change the fact that earlier you listed the majority of factions having problems with Custodes. How can Custodes not be OP when they dominate the majority of 40k factions? I honestly feel like there is a weird disconnect in your writings, and I do not say this to offend, but to express genuine perplexity as you have written statements that support people's assertions that Custodes are OP while at the same time you express that Custodes aren't that good.

 Sim-Life wrote:

I get that you view stuff through a lens if sports but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and it isn't comparible because luck plays a very small part in physical sport. In terms of cognitive bias rolling bad at a GT will be more at the forefront of your mind than the time you rolled incredibly well during a practice game. Because you remember the GT more it doesn't mean you ALWAYS roll bad, you just think you do because your brain tells you you do.

you have not been in events that have buckets then. Death groups are a thing. If you have a big championship and you end up pulling dudes from Kazakstan or Tajikistan you can, and some people do, fake injuries just to not fight them. they are masters of the craft and make you look like a fool. And there is stuff like purging going bad, and you suddenly get DQed for substance abuse, or you drink/eat something you get from the hotel or your trainer and the next day you are sick. We had the entire team go AWOL just because they washed their mouths and teeth with uncooked water in bulgaria.
But what I think is that you are talking about probabilities and I talk about reality. If someone lost important placings in a GT, because of bad rolls they are going to remember it. Heck they are teachers at my school who had career ending injuries over 30 years ago, and they talk about it every 30 min durning training, warm up , supplement taking etc. Now does that mean that everyone is going to suffer an injury like that at the age of 19-20? of course not. But it does not change them having the expiriance. Plus like with everything the past won games don't matter. The only ones that do are those in the future or the one you are playing right now.

But you are right, being in sports also makes me highly supersticious. And it very much affect people performance. I have seen a Lithuanian guy try to beat up his team m8s and trainer, for someone using his "lucky" chalk. And he did lose the next 3 bouts in the event.


But to be more on topic. Are custodes too OP? Probably, they will be for sure, if they stay at the win rates for another 4-6 weeks. Will tau,eldar or upcoming books balance them out? possibly the only real question is, When the custodes nerf come in 3-6months, are they going to be just custodes nerfs , will they be extremly heavy handed like the SoB ones and will this mean that sudden lack of OP custodes ends up with people getting to enjoy 70% win rate tau, eldar or something else. What would be really bad is if we had no changes to custodes in 3 months and then get unsubstential ones in 6, and then at the 9 month mark end up DE style big nerf, which only makes Custodes switch from playing units X and Y to Z and Q.

I've never met a good player who thinks bad luck exists. Is it a better grasp of probability? A better grasp of reality? Who knows?

EightFoldPath wrote:
I've never met a good player who thinks bad luck exists. Is it a better grasp of probability? A better grasp of reality? Who knows?

Heck, most "lucky rituals" (like lucky chalk) in sports aren't even really "luck" it's more to try and get your head into the psychological space you need to be in to win. We may not recognize those things when we commit to them buy we subconciously flip a switch while doing them.

So yeah, luck can play a part in games, especially dce b ased one s, but luck mitigation is taught by high level players for a reason. It's also why mathhammer is used so often when making comparisons as it removes luck and shows generally what you can expect out of a unit allowing you too better compare things.

EightFoldPath wrote:
I've never met a good player who thinks bad luck exists. Is it a better grasp of probability? A better grasp of reality? Who knows?

The argument surely is that being "good" creates luck. If the odds are in your favour, the outcome you want is more likely to turn up.

But the idea dice will average out - in a game, in a tournament, or even over say 6 months is nonsense.
When you look at games between the top players it often does come down to dice.

Welcome back Karol, good to see you.

In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.

I remember that post and how high level players made a push to swap to casino dice to avoid the increased chance of 1s.

Tyel wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I've never met a good player who thinks bad luck exists. Is it a better grasp of probability? A better grasp of reality? Who knows?

The argument surely is that being "good" creates luck. If the odds are in your favour, the outcome you want is more likely to turn up.

But the idea dice will average out - in a game, in a tournament, or even over say 6 months is nonsense.
When you look at games between the top players it often does come down to dice.

Actually, it's the other way around. The top players try to make it so the dice really don't matter.

For example, they don't use Median/Avg, that's just a tool for a general guide on how a unit performs. In game, they usually do how a unit will perform 80% of the time, then they have a backup for when they have that 20%.

It's one of the reasons that 5 dice hitting on 2s with a re-roll is far better than 12 shots hitting on 4s. The 12 shots have a better average (6), but the reduced variability of the 5 shots means you can count on hitting with 4 out of 5 shots when you need it.

Edit.

I realized after typing the above post that there's a better way to describe the game. Normally the faction imbalance causes the players to turn against those bad factions. The game is so bad right now the players are turning against each other.

I don't think I've ever seen a player so disingenuous.

Yes you can totally loose a game because of bad luck. Especially if your poor rolls are on very important events.

Now, maybe he's not a bad player, or maybe he is, but saying a faction is not strong because he lost most of his matches while simultaneously admitting you had poor rolls is beyond idiotic.
Either you did have terrible luck these games, in that case you have not made enough games for your data to be relevant at all. Or you're just straight up bad.

brainpsyk wrote:
I realized after typing the above post that there's a better way to describe the game. Normally the faction imbalance causes the players to turn against those bad factions. The game is so bad right now the players are turning against each other.

No, this is a normal Tuesday on Dakka.

brainpsyk wrote:
Actually, it's the other way around. The top players try to make it so the dice really don't matter.

For example, they don't use Median/Avg, that's just a tool for a general guide on how a unit performs. In game, they usually do how a unit will perform 80% of the time, then they have a backup for when they have that 20%.

It's one of the reasons that 5 dice hitting on 2s with a re-roll is far better than 12 shots hitting on 4s. The 12 shots have a better average (6), but the reduced variability of the 5 shots means you can count on hitting with 4 out of 5 shots when you need it.

Yes - although I'm not really sure how this goes against what I said.
As I think you are saying - the point is that you make decisions, such that you end up in a situation where what you need will turn up 80-90% of the time. And generally speaking yes, top players prefer reliability and consistency over possibly rolling hot.
And sure they'll probably have some cover for the bad 10-20% of times - but sometimes that fails as well.
When you have two players with top lists, making broadly speaking the "correct" moves, the game often swings on a few dice. I don't think you can claim that say not making a charge, or getting terrible advance rolls, failing a psychic test, or just not killing a unit that you'd expect to die 5 times in 6 (or inversely, making say no saves so a unit does die when it shouldn't) doesn't swing games.

Its the same thing with poker. Top players don't just rely on being lucky - but luck undoubtedly matters.

 Dolnikan wrote:
Based on how 40k is structured, it's indeed very easily possible that someone rolls poorly on the specific rolls that actually matter for a game. There are lots and lots of rolls in a game, but some of them have a much greater influence than others. We've already seen the roll to go first mentioned, but also things like damage rolls on big models make a huge difference (if you hit their warlord for D6, and it has 6 wounds, there is this small chance of just blowing it up right away. So in that case, the 6 would be a lucky roll with a huge impact. But if you instead roll a 6 to hit with some random gun, it just doesn't matter).

So yes, I can easily believe that a couple of bad (or good) rolls can have a huge impact on the game. Some of those things have been taken out of the game (like break tests and vehicle damage tables) but many still remain. And armies that roll less dice because of their size will see more of that sort of thing.

That said, I don't believe in people rolling better or worse in general. Sure, they will have hot and cold games, but no one is simply lucky or unlucky. We just have a ton of confirmation biases.

It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.

There are events that can go badly, but did I over commit? Did I gamble on the outcome? Should I have delayed instead? Similar logic applies to poker. It's pretty random, but there's a skill to success.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
Based on how 40k is structured, it's indeed very easily possible that someone rolls poorly on the specific rolls that actually matter for a game. There are lots and lots of rolls in a game, but some of them have a much greater influence than others. We've already seen the roll to go first mentioned, but also things like damage rolls on big models make a huge difference (if you hit their warlord for D6, and it has 6 wounds, there is this small chance of just blowing it up right away. So in that case, the 6 would be a lucky roll with a huge impact. But if you instead roll a 6 to hit with some random gun, it just doesn't matter).

So yes, I can easily believe that a couple of bad (or good) rolls can have a huge impact on the game. Some of those things have been taken out of the game (like break tests and vehicle damage tables) but many still remain. And armies that roll less dice because of their size will see more of that sort of thing.

That said, I don't believe in people rolling better or worse in general. Sure, they will have hot and cold games, but no one is simply lucky or unlucky. We just have a ton of confirmation biases.

It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.

There are events that can go badly, but did I over commit? Did I gamble on the outcome? Should I have delayed instead? Similar logic applies to poker. It's pretty random, but there's a skill to success.

100%. Good players don't rely on dice rolls to win games, but on strategy (from list building to actual playing at the table).
Then dice rolls can influence the performance, but they are not the main reason why a player wins or loses those many matches over time.