PDA

View Full Version : Orcs in tournament armies



EndlessBug
15-11-2007, 07:42
Seeing as the thread 'I take back what I said about asf for High Elves' has been ruthlessly thread jacked I thought I'd take the initiative and start a new thread for those lovable jackers.

So here it is 'Orcs in tournament armies' leading on from the multiple posts from the following link:

http://warseer.com/forums/fantasy-tactics/111402-i-take-back-what-i-said-about-asf-for-high-elves.html

Basically the jist of it is that Orcs are an underpowered army, this is backed up by the tournament standings shown here, http://www.warvault.net/warhammer_realm/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4037 , So guys can you stop jacking that thread and post here instead?

EndlessBug
15-11-2007, 07:44
The latest post was:


Both of you, please take a lesson in theory of science!
Then you will learn what you could read into such a statistic, and what you must not read into it.

It is very wrong to take a given statistic like these, and draw such conclusions like "orcs and goblins suck because they are bottom tier", because you don't know enough about the taken samples.

The only conclusion you can realy take is:
"Orcs and Goblins don't perform well in average on the tourneys we got the data for this statistic from".

You can't conclude that they are crap, because you don't know anything about the players involved. And this will not "average out".

I have played very often against orcs & goblins on tourneys.
And very often my opponents were teenagers and beginners, and clueless about how to play them good.

But a very few times I faced good players with orcs & goblins, which allways gave me a hard time to make a draw (with old high elves) and finished good in the tourney in the end, often under the best 3.

Ecclesiastes
15-11-2007, 08:20
Kinda agree to a part in the above post, at the tourneys I've played I also encountered different players playing O&G, about 3 different kinds, competitive players, fluffplayers and newbies. Yeah right, every army has those players right?

Still I noticed that especially the latter 2 are more seen playing O&G than other armies (in my experience, not generalising here). IMO there are reasons for that:

1st: the O&G army is known for its funny fluff (doom divers, snotlings, fanatics, pump wagons, etc) and therefore seem to attract more players playing the tournament just for the fun of it... "Why did you charge my Dragon and not my mage next to it with that pump wagon?? Well, I thought it would be a very snotling-like thing to take the big thing!!" things like that.

2nd: The O&G army is very easily accessible for younger and starting players, cuz they have been in a lot of starter sets and most ppl are able to buy the cheap plastics from those sets (played against a kid in an official tournament who didnt even paint his army past base-coat and had a half-assembled giant)

3rd: Painting green and brown is doable for most starting players, so again it is a less intimidating army (unlike high elves or bretonnia) for players to start with.

Those points add up resulting in me playing more lesser-skilled players with O&G... But when I face a player who I know is skilled in playing the game, I really have to watch my back against them.

Just my 2 cts, not arguing about the overall strength or viability of the list though. I agree that its a hard-to-master army.

EndlessBug
15-11-2007, 09:26
you bring up good points Ecclesiastes, personally what would draw me to play O&G's or Skaven similarly would be the amusing units and items, things that give the game that little bit of ... ho ho ho. Like you say it does not necessarily mean that the list is weak. People may think the list weak due to its random nature, but then again if you get lucky it can be devastating. The problem people are capitalising on is the fact that you have to pay more points for certain units even though in some/most cases they will not do anything, the reasons for having to pay more points is that you are paying for that potential of a devastating unit.

If a tournament player set on winning wished to create an O&G army I believe they could do quite well by simply avoiding taking the more random parts of the list.

BenK
15-11-2007, 09:41
I gotta go and buy the O + G army book.

SkawtheFalconer
15-11-2007, 10:23
I think OnG will probably not get on that well at tournements because they're so random. Even superb players are going to get screwed over by dodgy animosity rolls, and if you're planning to win a tournement I just can't see people willing to take that risk.

Avian
15-11-2007, 10:56
Chiungalla is absolutely correct in that the data only shows that O&G does badly in the tournies the data set covers. It doesn't say anything about why they do badly.

People who take this as evidence that the army book is horrible basically follow this procedure:

1) They have a limited data set showing a trend.
2) They formulate a hypothesis that can explain that trend.
3) They declare that their hypothesis is right.

That's NOT a sientific method and there would need to be a whole lot of work done in between steps 2 and 3 before it would in any way count as valid.

sainthale1988
15-11-2007, 11:32
my mate has just started O + G precisely because they are a bit random and hard to master. he's already gone though power gaming (VC) and fluff joy (DE) so this is anouther way of aproaching the hobbie. as far as tornies go we went to a doubles torrnie he with night gobbos and me with beasts (yea fear was a real issue lol!) and we didn't do too badly but we had a great time. I would agree that because thier one of the armies in the starter set new (therfore inexperiences and by extention not as good) players are taking up O + G which would be dragging thier stats down. I think that thier a long way from being a bad army (like ogres and IMO DE). i would like to end with a quote
'there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics'

Fate
15-11-2007, 11:43
Well, O&G are a very good army to play with, one of the win armies i'd say, you pump 4 mages into battle, 3 units of goblins to protect them with 3 fanatics each. 8 bolt throwers ti kill anything big and at last but not least, some wolves or spiders to catch the warmachines.

Orcs playing defensivly, yeah, it's the bottom of it, but it works and wins tournaments just that easly. ;)

Glabro
15-11-2007, 13:17
Donīt get me wrong. Iīm not saying orcs are utter crap and canīt do well in tournaments. Iīm just seeing that few people so far have managed it - but there have been a few, so itīs possible.

Of course, it doesnīt take a great leap of faith to presume that Orcs are not on the same level of competiveness as Wood Elves or Bretonnia, which is the core of the issue.

I still think that with the multitude of army builds available in the orc list, people havenīt stumbled on to the right ones. I just think that basic boyz are a fine building block for the core of the army, but itīs the other options which do the real winning.

Grinloc
15-11-2007, 13:33
I think OnG will probably not get on that well at tournements because they're so random. Even superb players are going to get screwed over by dodgy animosity rolls, and if you're planning to win a tournement I just can't see people willing to take that risk.

That's exactly the reason why i didn't put up with this randomness any longer. In 6th edition i had the one or other battle turning into a massacre in the opponent's favor due to some animosity checks, in 7th edition the likelyhood for such things happening increased significantly.

I don't think one can seperate gaming environments such as tournaments and local club games so easily. Opponents aren't inclined to bring a fluffy "little bit of everything" army list to a table, no matter where the battle occurs. People prefer to win after all.

Fact is the O&G's army book doesn't provide the options for "powergaming" lists such as Skaven (SAD), Brets (BRAF), Dwarves (Thorek), etc.
Additionally when you get confronted with the risk of losing a battle with your animosity rolls then it won't make winning with O&G's any easier.

Lex
15-11-2007, 13:39
I think part of it is the new book changed what a good list for Orcs is and some of the tourney players took what they always took but it doesn't nearly perform as well. I play a very good O&G player who adjusted very quickly to the new tactics. His army is very tough and I see it doing well with him at the wheel in a tourney setting. He's played O&G as long as i've known him, like 5 or 6 years now, and his current list doesn't really look like his old lists.

Chiungalla
15-11-2007, 15:09
Without animosity, most of the orc & goblin units would be to cheap.
Hey, 5 points for a toughness 4 model, that has strengh 4 through the first round of combat...


Of course, it doesnīt take a great leap of faith to presume that Orcs are not on the same level of competiveness as Wood Elves or Bretonnia, which is the core of the issue.

I beat wood elves every time I face them with my orcs.

There puny strengh 3-4 shooting does litte to no harm to my orcs, and in close combat I win with passive combat resolution.

Heretic Burner
15-11-2007, 18:57
Without animosity, most of the orc & goblin units would be to cheap.
Hey, 5 points for a toughness 4 model, that has strengh 4 through the first round of combat...


You might be right. That one unit in the army book might be too much of a bargain without animosity. However, units such as goblins which are overpriced compared to comparable units (gnoblars, skaven slaves, hobgoblins, etc) and savage orcs which don't compare well at all with such units as HE spearmen are clearly not underpriced. However, despite already comparing similarily with other units in other armies their pricing simply doesn't reflect the massive disadvantage of animosity.

The randomness is simply too much. However, even the randomness has rules that it follows which your opponents can more than take advantage of.

Being an army with some of the most experienced players in the game you would think that someone would find a way for them to work however it just hasn't happened. And as long as the army book remains the same, it never will.

Dranthar
15-11-2007, 20:53
and savage orcs which don't compare well at all with such units as HE spearmen are clearly not underpriced.

Savage orcs? You mean the Toughness 4, S4 in the first round 6+ ward save frenzied orcs for 8-10 pts (depending on whether you choose a 2nd choppa or spear)? If you ask me that's a pretty decent price for what you get.

What's more, you're comparing them to a unit I believe you've been saying is overpowered from the first moment you heard about them. :rolleyes: Perhaps a better comparison would be with another frenzied unit, like plague monks (they're frenzied, right?) or witch elves?

Grinloc
15-11-2007, 23:36
Savage orc:
With 2 choppas and a shield (possibly for a lil more defense against str3 shooting) he costs 11 points.

Spearelf:
An always striking first model with T3/AS5+, a total beast in the front against pretty much anything with low AS, not prone to animosity, can't be lead around due to frenzy and is 2 points cheaper than a savage orc with the above mentioned equipment.

The "statline-advantage" of a savage orc, considering his points cost, doesn't even come close to compensate for its shortcomings.

O&G's players have a hard enough time to maintain a stable battle line. Getting one or more of their units lead around by halfway competent opponents due to frenzy makes it even worse.

Due to this it's somewhat better to compare a spearelf to an orc boy.
Those boyz would actually have a chance at winning the combat against spearelfs, when they charge the elves at least. Savage orcs will just get slaughtered in this scenario, in case they actually get the chance to charge anything that is...

A frenzied trooper with 4" movement, which is prone to animosity, is one of the worst units in the game. The movement phase is by far the most important in this game, having to suffer from two quite severe disadvantages in that phase makes them pretty much craptastic.

A savage orc is clearly overpriced.
An orc boy might be even a lil underpriced, though a spear elf surely is, respectively for what they are capable of.

Correct me please in case i misunderstand what you said...do you actually think HE spearmen aren't overpowered for what they are capable of?

A DE warrior with spear, light armor and shield costs 8 points. You can't really make models with such a stat line any cheaper, considering the points cost of an orc boy.
Now a HE spearman effectively pays one lousy point for fighting with an additional rank and ASF? Wtf...

Ok, let's compare a savage orc to a witch.

Witches are 2" faster on the charge, meaning savage orcs will very rarely get the charge opportunity.
In a 1vs1 confrontation charging witches will tear those savage orcs a new one, they are just too dangerous to anything with low AS.
Against other armies witches are heaps more effective than savage orcs while being "only" 3 points more expensive.
Sure, savage orcs (10p with two choppas, w/o shields) are quite effective in CC, but due to animosity and 4" movement they are too slow to get where they should be...charging (and actually fighting) enemy units.

EndlessBug
15-11-2007, 23:47
I'm sorry but Witch Elves more affective than a T4 6+ ward model? How and by what logic is this taken? Sure when they get into combat they can be nastier due to poison. BUT they can get shot to high hell so easily, T3 and no save (I'm actually scared that my own RxB's might hit one by accident and slaughter the entire unit like a RBT bolt). Plus they are more expensive.

And DE warriors could be dropped in points yes, to 7 perhaps or be given an upgrade, let's face it with the new stat lines and costs they are too expensive.

HE spearmen are strong against low armour and Toughness opponents but they are very well balanced against the more elite.

warlord hack'a
16-11-2007, 00:08
I am not going to start arguing again, please just look to the 200+ posts long thread on O&G and why they are not broken (or, as some people continue to claim, are broken, make up your own mind). I will also not argue about why svg orcs are good and please stop suggesting that M4 frenzied infantry units that are part of a large horde can be chargepulled, I do not think you will succeed at that very often..

Anyway, i know my svg orc big uns with spears scare the hell out of my opponents, I wonder why that is since they obviously are so horribly overpriced....

Fate
16-11-2007, 00:47
I've been playing warhammer for like... 8 years i think. And one thing i have learned fast. There is no point in having blocks of big units if they have to walk. They are slow, they don't charge, they won't cause much damage and in warhammer you need fast units that ensure that will charge not only first, but also early in the game and move quickly across the table. Also they need to have a huge strike power, they have to charge and destroy or at very least rout the enemies in the turn they charge. If they can't manage it, they are useless as a fighting unit. Course, orcs aren't much for heavy cavalary and not much for flying units too so it's options are reduced as to mages, units of goblins that are not to be charged cause of the fanatics and for last but not least, bolt throwers and doom divers. course some fast cavalary will make up for the much needed anti warmachines of the enemy (in case he has it).

Dranthar
16-11-2007, 00:57
Savage orc:
With 2 choppas and a shield (possibly for a lil more defense against str3 shooting) he costs 11 points.

Spearelf:
An always striking first model with T3/AS5+, a total beast in the front against pretty much anything with low AS, not prone to animosity, can't be lead around due to frenzy and is 2 points cheaper than a savage orc with the above mentioned equipment.

The "statline-advantage" of a savage orc, considering his points cost, doesn't even come close to compensate for its shortcomings.

You know you really ought to go through the numbers, rather than making broad generalisations;

16 Spearelf attacks (3x5 w. champion) vs 6 Savage Orcs (ie. front rank) w. 2x choppas. By the numbers, the Spear elves should kill 3 (2.97) orcs while the return attacks would also take down 3 elves (2.78).

The spear elves have the edge, but it's against a unit they should do well against in the first place. Granted, in subsequent rounds the orcs might start having trouble without their choppa bonus but it also doesn't take into account factors outside combat, including WAAGH, animosity, frenzy, panic and resiliance to shooting.

These other factors are harder to take into account than straight combat, but on the whole I would say it approximately evens out, which is about right for a two units costing the same points. ;)


Correct me please in case i misunderstand what you said...do you actually think HE spearmen aren't overpowered for what they are capable of?
I gave no personal opinion on whether spearelves were overpowered or not. I simply pointed out to Heretic Burner that from his perspective, it was a little unfair for him to compare savage orcs against a unit he viewed to be overpowered, in order to 'prove' that savage orcs suck.


A DE warrior with spear, light armor and shield costs 8 points. You can't really make models with such a stat line any cheaper, considering the points cost of an orc boy.
Now a HE spearman effectively pays one lousy point for fighting with an additional rank and ASF? Wtf...
I think right now everyone agrees that dark elf spearmen are a somewhat underpowered when compared directly to the new high elves. Given that this thread is about orcs&goblins and not High Elves vs Dark Elves, shall we move on? ;)


Ok, let's compare a savage orc to a witch.

Witches are 2" faster on the charge, meaning savage orcs will very rarely get the charge opportunity.

Not necessarilly true. Those 2" can be negated by two things - calling a WAAGH (no guarantee of working, but still...), and expendible units for redirection. A unit of 2 snotling bases is 40 points, and more than capable of redirecting a charge away from the savage orcs. Of course the Dark Elves have Dark Riders but that's a much higher investment of points, being at least 2 1/2 times more expensive.

As it tends to be with frenzied vs. frenzied units, it really comes down to who gets the charge since both units easily have the potential to wipe the other out very quickly (although with poison and a smaller base size, I'd agree that the witch elves would have more killing power than savage orcs...as it should be for a more expensive unit in an elite army).
So when it comes to charging, The witch elves have the advantage of that extra point of movement, but savage orcs have the potential for a WAAGH and the fact that they're in an O&G army (ie. expendible fodder)

Of course there's also the whole issue with witches being much more vulnerable to shooting so once again, it's not exactly one sided.

Grinloc
16-11-2007, 02:20
Against any gunline (or something close to that) fragile armies often don't perform well. But against anything else those witches can be devastatingly effective, if used in a proper manner that is.
This may sound like not being important to some, but the difference between a 8" charge (+animosity, it's a general disadvantage after all with few exceptions) and a 10" charge (with no animosity) is quite noticable.
The faster an opponent's units are the more a player needs to be on his toes when it comes to unit positioning.

Yes, comparing the frenzied units of a horde army and an elite army isn't easy at all, or even recommendable. But in my personal opinion, if given the choice, i'd rather have witches. Yes, they aren't easy to use in the right manner, but their CC abilities are ment to compensate for this.

DE already got their "rules revision" some time ago, got their warriors dropped in points cost down to 7. Now when buying the shield they cost 8 points.
Dropping those warriors (with spear, shield and light armor) down to 7 might be possible, but any further drop in points would start to look a bit questionable balance-wise.
After all an empire spearman, a basic human trooper, costs 6 points with full equipment. DE warriors cost more, as they should, since they are better stats-wise. There gotta be a points cost threshhold somewhere, i doubt making DE warriors even cheaper would be the proper solution. Maybe give them something else, but that's GW's job to figure that out really. But please no such thing as hatred. Pretty please? Ty.



I am not going to start arguing again, please just look to the 200+ posts long thread on O&G and why they are not broken (or, as some people continue to claim, are broken, make up your own mind). I will also not argue about why svg orcs are good and please stop suggesting that M4 frenzied infantry units that are part of a large horde can be chargepulled, I do not think you will succeed at that very often..

Anyway, i know my svg orc big uns with spears scare the hell out of my opponents, I wonder why that is since they obviously are so horribly overpriced....

So i should just stop suggesting that frenzied M4 troops can be chargepulled? On which thought do you base this "request"?

Just because your opponents probably aren't eager to take full advantage of this doesn't mean it's not a valid tactic. It even gets easier when using fast armies like any elven one.
In the odd (nowadays rarely occuring) battle against O&G's i always bring shades, harpies and numerous units of dark riders to the battle. Since savage orcs take up about the same space as orc boyz do (5 or 6 models wide) it isn't hard at all to achieve this in numerous situations.

It becomes even more obvious when it comes to my chaos opponent. He stopped using warriors with the mark of khorne, since they are frenzy-wise the same as savage orcs but cost twice as much: slow and divertable.


Since a savage orc's only focus is CC he needs to be up there in the thick of it. This very unit characteristic is enough to make it possible for the opponent to lead them around.
Now a possible "solution" against having your frenzied units being lead around is screening them with an expandable tiny unit so they aren't forced to charge the chargepulling opponent's unit. But as long as these screening units are in place those frenzied units can't charge anything themselves, which is counterproductive in numerous situations.

As Dranthar suggested choosing snotlings as screens is recommended, since other greenskins don't care when they die, additionally they aren't prone to animosity.
But don't even think i would ever attempt to charge those screens myself...

Now when i start a battle and see those obvious "screening" trash units they become my prime targets for shooting. Often enough it's more severe for the opponent to lose his "anti-frenzy-screens" rather than cutting the US of, say, black orcs down in half. In my case i'm lucky enough to play DE, since they have the shooting tools to have a chance at acheiving this.


HE Spearmen seem to be halfway balanced against opposing armies' elite units. Didn't i read it on this very forum that they seem to be pretty balanced against chaos warriors (unchosen/undivided)?
So the (points-wise) possibly lousiest trooper of the HE army seems balanced CC-wise against those mentally depraved chaos nutheads, who cost almost twice as much in comparison? I dunno, i can't really view this as reasonable. Chaos warriors may be core, but they are far from being "core". HE aren't weak shooters after all and losing even a couple of those spiky ones hurts plenty.

WillFightForFood
16-11-2007, 02:52
The real problem here is that people tend to be comparing base units on a points scale, when the game designers have explicitly stated that armies are balanced as a whole, not on an individual unit scale. Certainly there is some comparability, especially at the low end, but the system as a whole is not set up as a "add x trait and that will cost y points".

Case in point, you're giving the Savage Orcs against the Spear Elves, now how often is that really going to happen? You might have one unit of Savage Orcs and one unit of Spear Elves... on opposite sides of the table.

Here's a better question, how do Orcs match up against other armies and why? What holes are there in their lineup when playing against certain opponents? Why is it some people contend they are so horrible in tournaments?

Dranthar
16-11-2007, 03:10
A few things Grinloc;

1. 10" charge is generally better than 8" with animosity and WAAGH, sure, but by the very nature of the animosity/waagh rules it's not going to equal a definite charge for the witch elves.

2. Speaking of animosity, while I'd acknowledge that it's messed me up in the past, it's also allowed me to pull off some pretty awesome surprise-charges thanks to rolling a '6'. It's that very uncertainty that makes opponents a little uneasy of staying just out of charge range of an orc&goblin army. Sure those wyches might be 9.5" away and ready to charge, but thanks to animosity and WAAGH they are far from safe.

3. It seems your problem with savage orcs has far more to do with the frenzy rules. Yes it's a double-edged rule and yes there are ways of holding off such units, just as there's also ways of avoiding getting led astray by these other units. Such methods aren't infalliable but considering people still do it, it must be still worth while.

4. Once again, can we keep the discussion to O&G's, rather than Dark Elves vs. High Elves, possible Dark Elf revisons, and High Elves vs Chaos? I fail to see its relevance to the topic and there are plenty of currently active threads dealing with all of the above.

Grinloc
16-11-2007, 03:24
Reasons why i think O&G's aren't good at tournaments:

1.) Due to animosity they on average tend to be slower than other 4" movement armies, often enough getting their battle lines thrown into disarray to a varying degree.
Their available cavalry choices aren't shining in a favorable spotlight either. Bigun savage boar boyz might be able to lay the smack down, but a frenzied and animosity-prone heavy cavalry unit with a 4+AS, costing 33 points per model? C'mon...that's the price of an undivided chaos knight ffs.

2.) O&G's clearly don't have the tools to match the "powergaming" lists of Skaven, Brets, Dwarves, etc. The next time my Brets opponent brings 3 units of peggy knights to the battle they gonna take a refreshing bath in the cauldron of .... paint remover :skull:.

3.) O&G's became more unpredictable in 7th edition. No matter if the player is an exceptional tactician, in the odd situation of getting "punished" for his units being cheap when he can afford it the least it likely won't make much difference in the end which qualities said player has.

4.) Numerous unit special rules of O&G's aren't broken by themselves, but they tend to become broken in numerous combinations. This is my reason for thinking that Matt Ward didn't think it through on an "army book-wide" scale.
Examples: Magic and animosity, fanatics and animosity, etc.
If it's particularily about fanatics just ask Urgat. But you maybe better not stretch it, his guns seem loaded on this issue already ;).

@Dranthar: On point 4, sure thing.

Chiungalla
16-11-2007, 05:00
You might be right. That one unit in the army book might be too much of a bargain without animosity. However, units such as goblins which are overpriced compared to comparable units (gnoblars, skaven slaves, hobgoblins, etc) and savage orcs which don't compare well at all with such units as HE spearmen are clearly not underpriced.

Goblins are overprieced because they got the newest army book.
And GW only managed lately to figure out, that 2 point goblins (skaven slaves and gnoblars) are to cheap even for there low abilities.

And savage orcs perform very well if you use them right.
As blocks of 10 to use far from your general, because the frenzy makes them immun to panic.
If you play larger blocks of savage orcs, they fast become very expensive and not worth there points in my opinion, but 10 are very fine.


However, despite already comparing similarily with other units in other armies their pricing simply doesn't reflect the massive disadvantage of animosity.

Strengh 4 (in first round of combat), toughness 4, with a 6+ ward save and 3 attacks for 10 points, sounds way to cheap for me, without animosity.
And again, animosity, isn't an disadvantage all the time.

Think a while about the possibility that your savage orcs get a 6 on the waagh, and catch the unit your opponent placed before them to cause them to charge.


Being an army with some of the most experienced players in the game you would think that someone would find a way for them to work however it just hasn't happened. And as long as the army book remains the same, it never will.

I know players that finish orcs in the top 3 of great tourneys on a regular basis.
I play high elves on tourneys, but I win more than 75% of my orcs & goblin games.


Savage orc:
With 2 choppas and a shield (possibly for a lil more defense against str3 shooting) he costs 11 points.

No one takes the shields, to gain a 6+ armor save on toughness 4 troops.


Spearelf:
An always striking first model with T3/AS5+, a total beast in the front against pretty much anything with low AS, not prone to animosity, can't be lead around due to frenzy and is 2 points cheaper than a savage orc with the above mentioned equipment.

And dies very much faster to all kind of shooting, and has to roll panic tests.


O&G's players have a hard enough time to maintain a stable battle line. Getting one or more of their units lead around by halfway competent opponents due to frenzy makes it even worse.

There are enough units that don't suffer from animosity:
Chariots, Trolls, Black Orcs...
You can field a very good orcs and goblins army, where your animosity rolls aren't that important at all.


Correct me please in case i misunderstand what you said...do you actually think HE spearmen aren't overpowered for what they are capable of?

You have to take into account, how fast they die to shooting as well.
If you only take the close combat abilities into account, and use the mathhammer on there close combat abilities, most chaos units are overpowered and underprieced.
Even those that are very bad on the battlefield.


Against other armies witches are heaps more effective than savage orcs while being "only" 3 points more expensive.

Play witch elves against an gunline, and do the same with savage orcs.
You fill find out fast, where the witch elves have there weak spot.
A toughness 3 model for 13 points, with no armor...

Flypaper
16-11-2007, 09:25
@Chiungalla and Avian -

- In all fairness, the post I linked to provides a fair bit more information about the methodology than that. A much more detailed breakdown of the math and it's implications can be found here (http://www.warvault.net/warhammer_realm/viewtopic.php?highlight=tournament&t=8) (note:this last post is about 6th edition numbers, but you can re-apply that theory to the newer figures).

In particular:

The only conclusion you can realy take is:
"Orcs and Goblins don't perform well in average on the tourneys we got the data for this statistic from".
This was not an average across all scoring - it measured percentages of each army's placement in the top 1/3. This doesn't completely negate the possibility that a large number of novice Greenskin players were dragging the numbers down, but it does mitigate it somewhat.

Also, the sample size is about as good as you're going to get anywhere. There simply isn't much better empirical data available - so any discussion outside of these or similarly sourced numbers only really has pure Theoryhammer + anecdotalism to fall back on. :o

Avian
16-11-2007, 11:21
This was not an average across all scoring - it measured percentages of each army's placement in the top 1/3. This doesn't completely negate the possibility that a large number of novice Greenskin players were dragging the numbers down, but it does mitigate it somewhat.
Indeed, and that is precisely what a lot of people is arguing: Greenskins are played by a lot of people (as the data shows) and a higher than average number of players are new to the game and/or people who are into the game more for the hobby aspect of things.

If we had the source data, it would probably be interesting to see how, say, the top 50 people for each army did, because you can then remove large numbers of new players that are attracted to an army and would drag it down, regardless of army book quality.


We can do some basic math (I chose the VC because they have an ABM pretty close to 100):

Orcs & Goblins
Players: 123 (8.13% of 1512)
Expected number in top 1/3: 41 (33% of 123)
Actual number in top 1/3): 27 (66.38% of 41)

Vampire Counts
Players: 101 (6.68% of 1512)
Expected number in top 1/3: 34 (33% of 101)
Actual number in top 1/3): 33 (98.80% of 34)

So out of 1512 players, Greenskins got 27 top 1/3 results and Vampire Counts got 33. Not a whole lot of difference there and it suggests that the top players of both armies do quite well, while the greenskins have a lot of people doing badly that upsets the over all results. ;)

Fate
16-11-2007, 11:26
Grimloc. You say that because you grab the orcs and depart with them with a lot of units to fight when they are slow and with poor fighting skills (when compared to cavalary and stuff). In that point i have to say, it usually sucks, but if you make of it a line of goblins units in the center which ar unaprouchable because of the fanatics, have a couple of flanking units which won't be such a pain if they die and at last 8 bolt throwers and 2 doom divers, thrust me, it wins tournaments just that easly. I Played a few time against it with empire, my chances are down nearly to 0. Also i've seen other armies like chaos for example, they are pretty much ****ed up too. It's just to much bolt throwers for big things to come near and followed by magic and fanatics. Trust me, they rock!

Also debating this unit on foot is better than that one is a bit pointless, foot units are slow and don't cause damage, simply a waste of points.

By the way,you think orcs are random, try empire! The steam tank is completly unrealiable now, the hellblaster now have to roll to hit so it became unefficient, the rocket battery almost never hits. The cavalary now is special (if you want STR4 and you do want it), pistoliers now suck thanks to the new rules for pistols and the outriders are utter **** since they can't move and fire.

I play empire and before i had a nice competitive army, now the only way i win with them is having luck... Lot of it.

DeathlessDraich
16-11-2007, 11:33
I hardly play with O&G and I've always lost when using them. Animosity and Waagh can disrupt the best plans but I'd like to add that I managed to secure a draw against the new HE with a new O&G revised list.

Summary:
22 Black Orcs (w shields) beat 16 Swordmasters after 2 combat turns.
Giant charged a unit of Dragon Princes and destroyed them after a few turns.
Spear Elves forced to charge through Fanatics and destroyed a unit of Savage Orcs which had previously slain another unit of Spear Elves.
Unfortunately my Wyvern and Warboss were killed after running through most of the Bolt throwers and archers


So O&G are ... not bad after all, although I doubt I'll use them much.:D

Tutore
16-11-2007, 11:47
Well I don't know, since I play O&G I still have to lose my first battle. Today I went against a skaven SAD army and massacred it ruthlessly, fighting also against my opponent's incredible luck in turns 1 and 2. I know there can be players who play insanely better than me, but I wouldn't ever say my armybook is weak compared to others.

Glabro
16-11-2007, 12:02
First off, the Black Orcs are a much more expensive unit, second, how the heck did they pull it off?

I take it you deployed the Black Orcs 5 wide, then.
The swordmasters should be 8 wide, in two ranks, in that case.
16 attacks hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s -> 7 dead black orcs. You donīt strike back. You lose the first round by 6 already.

Anything besides this result is either the result of pure fluke or idiotic gameplay by the elves.
Might I also add that for half the price, the Swordmasters could field a Swordmasters unit that would have won the 22 Black Orcs by a mere 4 (and this only because after kills, the 16 swordmasters JUST managed to outnumber the Black Orcs)?

This should highlight the fact that those Toughness 3 5+ save Swordmasters really do need to die to shooting...

Chiungalla
16-11-2007, 12:11
You forget the 3+ armor save of the black orcs in close combat with choppa and shield, don't you?
And the need to target the champion, so he can't strike back...

smileyface
16-11-2007, 12:46
A savage orc is clearly overpriced.
An orc boy might be even a lil underpriced, though a spear elf surely is, respectively for what they are capable of.

Correct me please in case i misunderstand what you said...do you actually think HE spearmen aren't overpowered for what they are capable of?

A DE warrior with spear, light armor and shield costs 8 points. You can't really make models with such a stat line any cheaper, considering the points cost of an orc boy.

Agree, agree, disagree, yes*, and yes you could.

*partly because that sentence makes no sense. However, assuming you meant underpriced, then I still disagree... speculatively, since I've yet to use them though. They are still pretty pricy, and they're still fragile, and they're still horribly vulnerable to anything that can shrug of S3 attacks, and there's still a lot of that out there, and the list is still expensive so babysitting them with a hero is tricky. Plus, ASF makes very little difference to the majority of combat matchups... except for thing like savage orcs and witch elves that have negligible armour but a lot of attacks.

A DE warrior is clearly overpriced. Seriously. Think of an army that doesn't have DE warriors in it. Now ask them, would they take DE warriors instead of their nearest equivalent core infantry?

Lizards, vs saurus. You're kidding, right? Giant face-eating lizardmen vs skinny guy with bad attitude?

Undead, vs whatever. Better quality vs the whole point of an undead list? No.

HE, vs spearelves. *laughs*

Chaos, vs marauders. With fewer options, and bearing in mind you don't want defensive troops, you wouldn't pay extra for the elf.

Bretonnia, would take anything instead of their overpriced peasants. However, they still wouldn't field the DE warrior, because they can take knights instead.

Empire, vs swords or spears (not halberdiers, because they are rubbish). This one is actually a bit tricky. The empire probably wouldn't mind a Ld 8 infantry unit for slightly more independant operations. However, they are probably going to have a general around anyway towards their centre, which would mean the extra Ld was points wasted. On the other hand, no doubt a few generals would be tempted by not having to choose between spears and WS4. Gripping hand though, your three infantry blocks would cost 120 points more. That's another block! Too much.

Orcs... if the basic Orc boy cost 8 points with his shield, and didn't have animosity, I and everyone I know in real life would take him over an 8 point dark elf. I'm sure some people are so annoyed by animosity that they would take the elf, but the orc is basically superior.

DoW, vs pikemen. DoW pikemen are a bit pricy. However, they're also a bit scary. The DE spear is cheaper but dull, and doesn't have any fear factor or punch. Hence I'd choose pikes, if I were fielding any ranked infantry.

WE, vs... er... archers? Not really comparable. Eternal guard? Not core (mostly) and no in any case. Dryads? *hollow laughing*

Seriously, why would anyone who isn't DE choose to have DE warriors in their list instead of what they've already got? If the answer you come to is more or less that they wouldn't then congratulations, you've found an overpriced unit.


I've just realised - I'm off-topic in a thread started because people were off-topic.
*laughs*

Avian
16-11-2007, 14:24
I've chewed the tournament data a bit and made a graphic representation of them. If anyone wants the Excel file, let me know.

http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/images/tournies.bmp

Green line - share of players in the top third compared to the median value (28)
Blue line - share of players at all compared to the median value (93)
Red line - Difference between the blue and green lines

As you can see, the middle part of the curve shows a lot of armies that do about as well as you'd expect, but both ends are more unusual. I would like to single out six armies for closer inspection:

1) Dwarfs - a lot of players in the top third, but less than you'd expect given the very large number of players in all.
2) Orcs & Goblins - expected number of players in the top third, but not as many as the number of players would indicate
3) Dark Elves - Few players and even those are doing badly
4) Daemons - Even fewer players, but those who play do quite well.
5) Bretonnia - Normal number of players and a high number of players in the top third
6) Wood Elves - Even higher number of players and even proportionally higher number in the top third

Now, out of those six, four armies have a higher than normal number of players (O&G, Dwarf, Brets and WE). Two of these feature in the current starter set and those two are also the ones that do the worst in the rankings. This is probably not a coincidence and would indicate a high number of new players dragging down the score somewhat.

Now, O&G have a new army book and Dwarfs sort of have one too, but then so does the Empire (though with a new army half way through the year, it might be hard to figure them in) and the WE book is not much older than the Dwarf one. Thus "new army book syndrome" is probably not much of an issue.

Brets and WE both have a decent number of plastic sets and look quite nice when painted up, which might explain why they have so many players, but the share of the top third would indicate that this is not the sole reason and one suspects that the quality of the list is also a factor.

And then we have DE and DL. Both have few players, but while the DE ones do worse than you'd expect, the DL ones do better. Both armies are fairly expensive to buy with few or no plastic sets, and you might expect that the players are more often those who are into the painting and converting side of things, but as they get wildly different shares in the top third, the placings seem to more likely be due to the quality of the army list. If it were not, one would expect their results to look more similar.


Summary: WE, Brets and DL have very good lists, DE have a bad list and you can't really tell with greenskins and stunies. ;)

Avian
16-11-2007, 14:36
This might also be useful - if the blue line doesn't follow the green, there is something odd:

http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/images/tournies2.bmp

Note that on the whole, more people play the armies that are doing well.

DeathlessDraich
16-11-2007, 15:10
Wow. Good graphs.
It certainly confirms the general impression that WE players tend to do well in tournaments but as you mentioned the calibre of the player matters too. It might be possible that there are more good players who favour certain armies- a difficult factor as you mentioned
As in any sampling process, the sample size matters.
How many tournaments were used and over what period?
Were they pure pitch battles?
Some scenarios in tournaments could favour certain armies - e.g fast moving armies; fear causing etc.

Keeping to the topic, your graphs do indicate that O&G will generally under perform in tournaments.

Tutore - I would certainly like to have a look at your army list if possible. Thanks

Glabro
16-11-2007, 15:56
You forget the 3+ armor save of the black orcs in close combat with choppa and shield, don't you?
And the need to target the champion, so he can't strike back...

True, they should use shields here, reducing casualties to just under five. A champion wasnīt mentioned on either side, but assuming both have one, their impact on the calculation isnīt that big, especially since the Swordmaster champion can challenge him.

Regardless, the point stands. Theyīll win by 3 with the bigger unit, and 2 with the small 8-man swordmaster unit.
If the Black Orcs get lucky and one is left to strike back, his chances of causing a wound are less than 42% - but the Black Orcs still lose.

Naturally, the Swordmasters are susceptible to wild streaks of bad luck, but those shouldnīt be counted in this sort of performance evaluation (meaningless as they are).

sainthale1988
16-11-2007, 16:15
alright alright dark elves spear men suck! granted
however this is taking the micro aproach. in reality you have to take the whole list and who it balances out to weither its a good army or not and even then its to your syle of play and battlefield condition (a empire gun line is bugger all good trying to charge one at a time into a dug in unit of HE spearmen behind a wall for and extream example)
OG are bad because of animosity. period in my opinion
wood elves (and to a lesser degree bretoninas) are very very good at what they do and this has been identified and is used aparrent in the excellent graphs (were you get them btw?)
the thing that intrest me is that the rest have only marginal anolomies suggesting accurate balance and good play testing.
as far as new army syndrome coment is conserned its not more to do with NEW PLAYER syndrome that drag down the stats. there are so many people just starting out playing warhammer playing orcs (badly) who don't know thier **** from thier elbow compared to veterans of all armies, it was the same for empire when they were in the starter set for 6th edition, noobies are rubbish.

Chiungalla
16-11-2007, 17:00
@ Swordmaster vs. Black Orcs:
- Swordmaster costs 2 points more then a black orc with shield
- Swordmasters are better in close combat against infantry *
- Swordmasters have a better movement
- Swordmasters have a better leadership

- Black Orcs survive very much better against shooting
- Black Orcs get the auto-success on the waaagh!

(* The Job against heavy armored cavalry is far closer, because the swordmasters will not kill all enemies in contact, and are far more vulnerable to the enemy counter attacks then the Black Orcs will be.)

In a one on one fight, the swordmasters will win most of the time, but that does not mean, the black orcs are worse then the swordmasters.
They have other strong sides, and other weaknesses.

Heretic Burner
16-11-2007, 19:04
Now, out of those six, four armies have a higher than normal number of players (O&G, Dwarf, Brets and WE). Two of these feature in the current starter set and those two are also the ones that do the worst in the rankings. This is probably not a coincidence and would indicate a high number of new players dragging down the score somewhat.

However we have clear evidence this does not occur. 6th edition starter set armies were mid-tier armies. Sounds like a coincidence to me if the data indicates that there are no correlation.



Now, O&G have a new army book and Dwarfs sort of have one too, but then so does the Empire (though with a new army half way through the year, it might be hard to figure them in) and the WE book is not much older than the Dwarf one. Thus "new army book syndrome" is probably not much of an issue.

Absolutely not. The data indicates no change in success of an army book over time. Bad books do poorly from the start while WE were successful from day 1.



Brets and WE both have a decent number of plastic sets and look quite nice when painted up, which might explain why they have so many players, but the share of the top third would indicate that this is not the sole reason and one suspects that the quality of the list is also a factor.

However the top army (Daemonic Legions) doesn't have the number of players as the others and multiple bottom armies also have a large player base. Clearly no correlation.



And then we have DE and DL. Both have few players, but while the DE ones do worse than you'd expect, the DL ones do better. Both armies are fairly expensive to buy with few or no plastic sets, and you might expect that the players are more often those who are into the painting and converting side of things, but as they get wildly different shares in the top third, the placings seem to more likely be due to the quality of the army list. If it were not, one would expect their results to look more similar.

DE do have plastic sets and aren't more expensive to buy than many armies on the list. DL, while few plastic sets, are also found in smaller numbers. As the evidence indicates - clearly the placings, being polar opposites, have no impact on numbers playing the army.



Summary: WE, Brets and DL have very good lists, DE have a bad list and you can't really tell with greenskins and stunies. ;)

With the massive number of players for Greenskins and Stunties the evidence is stongest for them, they are obviously very bad lists. While WE and Brets, both of fairly large player base are immensely powerful lists. DL and DE, polar opposites. Yes the evidence certainly does indicate a clear imbalance in the lists, zero correlation between starter armies, and zero correlation between player usage being tied to quality of army list.

The results are illuminating. The evidence is quite conclusive - there is no army for "experienced players" or one favored by tournament players because of its inherent power. The six armies indicated clearly need to be addressed and should be the priority for GW to balance their game.

Cragspyder
16-11-2007, 19:52
With the massive number of players for Greenskins and Stunties the evidence is stongest for them, they are obviously very bad lists.


I gotta admit this is the first person I've heard say that Dwarves have a weak list.

Tutore
16-11-2007, 20:09
Wow. Good graphs.
It certainly confirms the general impression that WE players tend to do well in tournaments but as you mentioned the calibre of the player matters too. It might be possible that there are more good players who favour certain armies- a difficult factor as you mentioned
As in any sampling process, the sample size matters.
How many tournaments were used and over what period?
Were they pure pitch battles?
Some scenarios in tournaments could favour certain armies - e.g fast moving armies; fear causing etc.

Keeping to the topic, your graphs do indicate that O&G will generally under perform in tournaments.

Tutore - I would certainly like to have a look at your army list if possible. Thanks

I change it often, I've got many models to choose within. My last one is here:

http://warseer.com/forums/fantasy-army-lists/113043-waaagh-againzt-bad-skavenz.html

I also used to have great time with this one:

1 Black orc warboss, with kickin' boots (+1 attack) and amulet of protectyness
1 Orc Big Boss Battle Standard Bearer on Boar, with Best Boss 'At (5+ saving throw)
1 Goblin big boss on wolf with One Hit Wunda
1 Night goblin shaman, 2nd level, 2 Mushrooms, 1 Dispel scroll

CORE UNITS
20 Orc boyz, 2 choppas, full command, Warboss joins this unit.
20 Orc boyz Big 'Unz, 2 choppas, full command, banner Totem of Mork (+X dispel dice, where X is the rank bonus of the unit), Battle standard bearer joins this unit.
10 Orc boyz, 2 choppas.
20 Night Goblins with hand weapon and shield, musician.
20 Night Goblins with hand weapon and shield, musician.
20 Night Goblins with bows, musician.
9 Goblin Wolf Riders with spears and shields, full command, Goblin big boss joins this unit.
5 Goblin Wolf Riders with spears, musician.
5 Forest Goblin spider riders, musician.
5 Forest Goblin spider riders, musician.

SPECIAL UNITS
2 Spear Chukkas (Bolt Thrower)
1 Rocklobber (catapult)
1 Orc Chariot
1 Goblin Chariot

RARE UNITS
1 Troll
1 Troll

I must admit many suggestions come from Avian's site, which is the Bible for an O&G player.

Glabro
16-11-2007, 22:24
@ Swordmaster vs. Black Orcs:
- Swordmaster costs 2 points more then a black orc with shield
- Swordmasters are better in close combat against infantry *
- Swordmasters have a better movement
- Swordmasters have a better leadership

- Black Orcs survive very much better against shooting
- Black Orcs get the auto-success on the waaagh!

(* The Job against heavy armored cavalry is far closer, because the swordmasters will not kill all enemies in contact, and are far more vulnerable to the enemy counter attacks then the Black Orcs will be.)

In a one on one fight, the swordmasters will win most of the time, but that does not mean, the black orcs are worse then the swordmasters.
They have other strong sides, and other weaknesses.

One point more, not two.
Obviously, Swordmasters have a big weakness : vulnerability, but theyīre close combat gods, as they should be.

tanglethorn
17-11-2007, 02:10
I am getting bored with players trying to stick up for the new OnG book. Mathew Ward killed them as a competive army. He placed limits on troop choices that already had limitations to begin with. I think it was awful what they did to Black Orcs and their Quell Animosity rule. They should still have the 6 inch rule as it gives players the ability to alleviate some of the Animosity penalties.

The new Waagh rule is very mediocre at best. I think its bad that during a Waagh you can still suffer from a dice result of a 1 and on top of it take wounds.

And on a turn where there is no Waagh called, a dice roll of a 6 is almost as bad as a 1 because it can leave one of you units out in the open so you opponent can set up for a charge next turn.

Goblin Heroes should be 2 for 1 hero slot. Don't even get me going about Goblin Wolf Chariots no longer being 2 for 1 Special choices. Regular Goblins no longer come with Shields for free.

Also with the new High Elf book Goblins are the suck more so than ever. ASF vs goblins fearing Elves is a bad bad thing.

Orcs are definetly the troop of choice. They are great for their points cost, but still for 3 points more Dwarves get a W4 T4 LD9 core troop with no animosity rule. You can try to make an argument about their Move 3, but since they are always moving 6 because of the Relentless rule, Orcs lost out again because of possible Animosity and a Move of 4 that can be march blocked.

Another point that kills the new OnG book is that Animosity effects units that it shouldnt. I still cant see why Goblin Squig Hoppers are subject to Animosity. In fact I would have designed it so that Animosity will not work on Units that are Immune to Psychology like Squig Hoppers and Frenzied Orcs. Would this be overbalanced? Absolutely not. Why you ask? Because there are very few units in the OnG book that are Immune to Pschology and the few units that are listed would actually balance the fact that the OnG book is currently plagued with design flaws.

The fact of the matter is that the OnG is an army that is Handicapped. It's a fun concept and I love OnG very much. Thier 6th edition book was fun and fluffy and it was possible to make some semi competive armies.

The new release is a joke at best and Mathewe Ward should be flogged and shot for letting such a piece of garbage make it to the public light.

Also, the OnG seems to have more rules issues at the moment than any of the other books that were just released over the past 2 years.

The army IS NOT in a good state for Tournament play for an average player. In fact many Veterans and Skilled players tend to stay far away from playing an OnG army because many tacticians can not stand the fact that they do not have total control over the army.

I understand that many players are into OnG for the fun of it and that's perfectly fine. On this level the army is awesome and fun to play with and against. But I think many of us agree that OnG do not typically have a place in the Tourny scene and most of the guys you see there are either new or into playing OnG for other non-competive reasons.

I still think there is the ability to play a semi-competitive list, but it requires a knowledged and experienced player who is a great tactician.

What bothers me is when players who blindly support the idea that the new OnG are a competive army run around these boards claiming opinion as fact.

Graphs and charts and flawed statistics aside, all it takes is some common sense to realize the new book was beaten with a nerf bat for no apparent reason. Even Goblin fanatics got wacked. The book was totally toned down, when in actuality, it just needed a little love.

Scew Mathew Ward and have a great weekend! :)

Avian
17-11-2007, 11:36
The results are illuminating. The evidence is quite conclusive - there is no army for "experienced players" or one favored by tournament players because of its inherent power. The six armies indicated clearly need to be addressed and should be the priority for GW to balance their game.
What the graphs illustrate about greenskins is NOT that they have a problem getting top placements, they have a normal amount of top third placements. For example they have more top third placements than Skaven. The problem is that they are overrepresented in the number of players doing badly.





With the massive number of players for Greenskins and Stunties the evidence is stongest for them, they are obviously very bad lists.
I gotta admit this is the first person I've heard say that Dwarves have a weak list.
Yeah, please explain this one.




DE do have plastic sets...
You mean plastic set. :p

Heretic Burner
17-11-2007, 17:55
What the graphs illustrate about greenskins is NOT that they have a problem getting top placements, they have a normal amount of top third placements. For example they have more top third placements than Skaven. The problem is that they are overrepresented in the number of players doing badly.

I don't know what graph you are looking at but the one I look at shows that despite the large O&G players their top placements are absolutely dreadful. Sure they can have more top placements than Skaven if they use almost twice the number of players! It's expected that they should field almost double the number of top third placements if it was a balanced list however this is simply not reflected on the graph. They do not have a "normal" amount of top third placements (the graph clearly indicates this with an immediately apparent negative top third placements to players line). Clearly it shows O&G are indeed broken.

RE: Dwarfs. Clearly the graphs show them to be a very weak army. Explaining it is not necessary, the results speak for themselves. Now if you wish me to theorize why they fall so low the answer is obvious - their movement. For a movement based game they are undoubtedly near the bottom in that category. So while Dwarfs undoubtedly do very well in pitched battles (particularly Thorek gunlines), in movement based scenerios they are at a decided disadvantage.

sainthale1988
17-11-2007, 19:26
Heretic burner: your point on dwarf movement can be summed up thus;
your wrong, just plain wrong. are you forgetting relentless? and what about anvil of doom extra movement (in the bloody shooting phase as well, whats that about anyway?)

Hrogoff the Destructor
17-11-2007, 20:37
With the massive number of players for Greenskins and Stunties the evidence is stongest for them, they are obviously very bad lists.

I think it's pretty much accepted that Dwarves have the best army book out there. If it's not the best, it's darn well competing with Brettonia and Wood Elves for the top.

Flypaper
18-11-2007, 05:56
However we have clear evidence this does not occur. 6th edition starter set armies were mid-tier armies.
In all fairness, the Battle for Skull Pass set was a much better deal financially, so it was more likely to encourage people to pick up those armies.

Absolutely not. The data indicates no change in success of an army book over time. Bad books do poorly from the start while WE were successful from day 1.
With the fairly major exception of Tomb Kings, who were still considered bottom tier up to a year after their book was released.

I think it's pretty much accepted that Dwarves have the best army book out there. If it's not the best, it's darn well competing with Brettonia and Wood Elves for the top.
Is that the case if you disallow special characters, though? I ask out of genuine curiosity, since no-one around here's been overcome by the urge to shrink and grow a beard recently... But I'd gotten the impression that a lot of Dwarf lists coast to victory on the back of one Thorek Ironbrow.

Heretic Burner
18-11-2007, 07:16
I think it's pretty much accepted that Dwarves have the best army book out there. If it's not the best, it's darn well competing with Brettonia and Wood Elves for the top.

From what perspective? From a coherently put together book with decent fluff, pretty pictures, a good flavor, and generally sticking to things "dwarfy"? Sure, it is a fairly good army book. From a competitive balance perspective? Absolutely not. They are taking a beating in tournaments.

Dwarfs do very well in pitched battles taking advantage of decent shooting and one extremely poorly designed special character. In any other scenerio they simply don't have the mobility to compete. Warhammer is a victory points game and dwarfs are ill equipped to deal with generating movement/position based victory points.

Chiungalla
18-11-2007, 09:06
So dwarfs are still very good in tourneys without scenarios, which are the more balanced ones, because not all armies are equally good in scenarios.

And of cause it is not as simple to win a movement scenario against dwarfs, if the target of the scenario lies within 24 inches of a dwarfen gunline, and you need to hold the target till turn 6...

Warlord Ghazak Gazhkull
18-11-2007, 15:26
Well I think that OnG can perform great on tournament, my last 2 tournaments I got both times a top 10 place, which is good. And people who claim that the unreliablity is only disadvantage is wrong, it is also a andvantage cause your opponent can't trust the annimosity, once an opponent showed the flank of his elf unit with archmage to squiqs that where 11" and for my annimosity I roll 6 and 5" to move so I'm in charge range and I whipe his elves. In other games it would be save to do this but against OnG you never know what happens, altough I have to agree that OnG are a tough army to master on the last tourny I was from the last 4 players 3 where OnG players. But when you build an all round OnG army you can take on any army any day.

This is just my toughts and I suspect I belong to the veteran greenskin generals:)

Greetz
G

Finnigan2004
18-11-2007, 15:38
In all fairness, the Battle for Skull Pass set was a much better deal financially, so it was more likely to encourage people to pick up those armies.

With the fairly major exception of Tomb Kings, who were still considered bottom tier up to a year after their book was released.

Is that the case if you disallow special characters, though? I ask out of genuine curiosity, since no-one around here's been overcome by the urge to shrink and grow a beard recently... But I'd gotten the impression that a lot of Dwarf lists coast to victory on the back of one Thorek Ironbrow.

In response to the Tomb Kings point, there is one other example, and that is the Ogre Kingdoms who have more recently had some more success at bigger tournaments (becoming at least somewhat respectable lately).

In response to the dwarf question, I have seen some successful dwarf armies, but I think that the better ones (without Thorek) look rather boring to play because they have to use heavy shooting to compensate for a less effective movement phase. This approach does not appeal to many players. They can be very, very nasty in a pitched battle, if they take enough shooting to induce you to charge the dwarf lines. This seems breaks down at tournaments where objective have to be claimed, and dwarf players either cede the objective or leg it off and leave their guns unprotected.

Heretic Burner
18-11-2007, 20:21
So dwarfs are still very good in tourneys without scenarios, which are the more balanced ones, because not all armies are equally good in scenarios.


Since that is the basic, core rules of the game all armies should be balanced in scenarios. A failure to do so is a failure to balance the army lists. As neither dwarfs or O&G perform well it is clear that they are not balanced whatsoever. Surely O&G need a lot more work, the evidence clearly supports this, however it is not to say dwarfs couldn't use help either. When the numbers are available it truly is shocking how poorly GW has balanced some lists.

Finnigan2004
18-11-2007, 21:29
Since that is the basic, core rules of the game all armies should be balanced in scenarios. A failure to do so is a failure to balance the army lists. As neither dwarfs or O&G perform well it is clear that they are not balanced whatsoever. Surely O&G need a lot more work, the evidence clearly supports this, however it is not to say dwarfs couldn't use help either. When the numbers are available it truly is shocking how poorly GW has balanced some lists.

Actually, in the core rules of the game, pg. 248 notes that the standard game of WHFB is the pitched battle. Normally the scenarios included in tournaments are not the three included in the back of the book. Even the three included are certainly not completely balanced-- they are for fun and varied games. In including the scenarios, I am sure the designers realize that complete balance for all armies in them would not be possible, thus the fact that as noted pitched battle is the standard.

Chiungalla
19-11-2007, 04:37
Surely O&G need a lot more work, the evidence clearly supports this

Not the evidence, but only your opinion and what you want to read into the statistics, but must not for good reasons, explained earlier in this topic.

Avian
19-11-2007, 09:42
RE: Dwarfs. Clearly the graphs show them to be a very weak army. Explaining it is not necessary, the results speak for themselves.
See, that is the problem with your posts - you don't give any explanation, you just assume that people will see things your way. Try to back it up with some facts and analysis.



I don't know what graph you are looking at but the one I look at shows that despite the large O&G players their top placements are absolutely dreadful. Sure they can have more top placements than Skaven if they use almost twice the number of players!
You are assuming that player skills are pretty much equal. The results can just as easily be explained by a normal selection of players who get a large addition of fresh players with the new starter set - players who would have done badly with pretty much any list. Greenskins have 30 more players than the median and assuming that these are bottom-scrapers who just picked the army because they got a lot of models in the starter set, if you remove them, you get an average number of players with an average share of people in the top third.

This also explains the Dwarf results, which you have failed to give any reason for other than pure guessing.

Dranthar
19-11-2007, 10:07
This also explains the Dwarf results, which you have failed to give any reason for other than pure guessing.

In fact, one might argue that given the similar pattern of dwarf results with the O&G results, one might argue that this together would support the theory of an influx of new players, due to the presence of both armies in the starter set, bringing the scores down in Avians graph.

It otherwise seems like quite a coincidence that two of the armies with poor showings also happen to be the starter set armies? :angel:

Avian
19-11-2007, 10:09
Well, I can do the same treatment on the 2006 results, and see what they indicate.

Dranthar
19-11-2007, 10:18
Well, I can do the same treatment on the 2006 results, and see what they indicate.

Wasn't 7th ed. WHFB released near the end of 2006? So the sort of information we'd get then is how O&G (and empire) fared before their new list/edition, although IIRC Dwarfs were released halfway through 2006, which may produce some odd results for them...

Would it be possible to filter out the results that were after the O&G book, or is that going to be too tricky?

Avian
19-11-2007, 10:38
Well, we can compare results, then:

2006
(showing main lists only)
http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/images/tournies3.bmp

2007
http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/images/tournies.bmp

With the change for 7th edition, both Greenskins and Dwarfs get more players, which pushes their results down, indicating an influx of newer players with little experience getting into the game by way of the new starter set, and doing badly.



Wasn't 7th ed. WHFB released near the end of 2006? So the sort of information we'd get then is how O&G (and empire) fared before their new list/edition, although IIRC Dwarfs were released halfway through 2006, which may produce some odd results for them...

Would it be possible to filter out the results that were after the O&G book, or is that going to be too tricky?
I believe the data is autumn to autumn and not exactly by year, so that would not be necessary. In any case, I am working from secondary data only and could not filter out things that way.

Flypaper
19-11-2007, 10:52
It is also interesting to note that the order of the armies is the exact same as before.
Wouldn't that then suggest that Dwarves & Greenskins are underpowered, and that the influx of players didn't change much one way or another?

Edit: Whoa, simulcast edits! Different chart changes things significantly. :)

Avian
19-11-2007, 11:00
And we can try sorting primarily by popularity:

2006
(again main lists only)
http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/images/tournies4.bmp

2007
http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/images/tournies5.bmp


We can see that while in 2006, none of the top 5 popular armies did noticably worse than you'd expect, and four of the most poplar armies do better, in 2007, only one does noticably well, two do okay and two do badly. This would indicate that players in 2007 are less critical than in 2006 and choose armies less on reputation for quality and more for other factors.




Wouldn't that then suggest that Dwarves & Greenskins are underpowered, and that the influx of players didn't change much one way or another?

Edit: Whoa, simulcast edits! Different chart changes things significantly. :)
It was an error with the labels in the first graph (the reason the armies did idential was that the second graph just copied the labels of the first instead of setting the correct ones). :o

Heretic Burner
20-11-2007, 08:18
Indeed the 2006 data is crystal clear, O&G do significantly better despite being a starter army clearly devastating any notion that it is the starter army being the problem. Empire, again a starter army, also does quite adequate in the 2006 data again putting any idea that a starter army has any impact on the competitive balance to rest. The statistics don't lie, the theory has been disproven.

As Avian's graphs indicate, starting armies are not to blame for the ghastly showing of O&G. There remains zero, nadda, zip, zilch support that somehow one army is flooded with veteran players or new players or any specific type of player whatsoever.

So with the "starter" theory up in flames we can focus once again the new army book has lead to an army that significantly underperforms in tournaments.

It is shocking how as the 2006 O&G can almost serve as the benchmark for balance, everything from competitive balance to player balance, the 7th edition version has been so completely fouled up. Hopefully GW learned their lesson about being much more careful who they get to design the books.

Avian
20-11-2007, 09:27
Indeed the 2006 data is crystal clear, O&G do significantly better despite being a starter army clearly devastating any notion that it is the starter army being the problem.
I think you have failed to grash what the data shows. For 2006, the armies in the old starter set did not have more players than average, which indicates that the wave of newbies getting into Empire and Greenskins with the starter set has passed some time ago. This is not really surprising since the starter set was five years old by then.

In complete contrast to what you say, we see that the two armies who show up in the new starter set immediately get a much higher boost in player numbers, despite them not doing especially well previously (the only other army that got a huge boost in numbers were the WE, which was one of the armies that did better).


Thus, if you want to dismiss the new starter set as a factor, please explain why O&G and Empire did not have a great number of players in 2006, while the O&G and Dwarfs suddely have one in 2007.

Heretic Burner
20-11-2007, 21:30
I think you have failed to grash what the data shows. For 2006, the armies in the old starter set did not have more players than average, which indicates that the wave of newbies getting into Empire and Greenskins with the starter set has passed some time ago. This is not really surprising since the starter set was five years old by then.

I see zero, nil, zilch, nadda evidence in any of the graphs indicated that somehow the dwarf and O&G players in tournaments are "newbies". In fact, there are certainly armies of comparable numbers in players that are in the upper tier of rankings. Nothing here indicates a skew one way or another.



In complete contrast to what you say, we see that the two armies who show up in the new starter set immediately get a much higher boost in player numbers, despite them not doing especially well previously (the only other army that got a huge boost in numbers were the WE, which was one of the armies that did better).

In complete contrast to what you are saying, we see multiple armies have changed dramatically in numbers played with zero relevance to the starter set. Again, zero evidence whatsoever that those players are more veteran or newer to the game.



Thus, if you want to dismiss the new starter set as a factor, please explain why O&G and Empire did not have a great number of players in 2006, while the O&G and Dwarfs suddely have one in 2007.

Precisely the point. O&G and Empire do not have great numbers of players in 2006, despite being the starter set, indicating the starter set has zero relevance to what army is entered in the tournament! There is no correlation whatsoever to starter set and player numbers. None. There is no correlation whatsoever to starter set and experience of players entering the tournament. None.

There isn't a necromancer in Sylvania that can raise this theory.

Tutore
21-11-2007, 06:39
Precisely the point. O&G and Empire do not have great numbers of players in 2006, despite being the starter set, indicating the starter set has zero relevance to what army is entered in the tournament!

There wasn't something like a O&G vs Empire starter set in 2006. Before Battle for skull pass, there wasn't a to-date starter set. And O&G wasn't any starter set for many years.

Dranthar
21-11-2007, 07:38
I can sleep safe in the knowledge that the scientific community does not come to conclusions in the same way as Heretic Burner, otherwise we'd still be assuming the world was flat. ;)

Avian
21-11-2007, 07:44
...the starter set has zero relevance to what army is entered in the tournament!
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why O&G and Dwarfs suddenly got a lot of new players in the last year if it was not because of the new starter set.

The three armies that got the highest increase in player numbers from 2006 to 2007 were the greenskins, dwarfs and wood elves. Out of those three, the WE did very well while the other two did very badly, and incidentally were the two armies in the new starter set.

Now assuming that people did not pick armies because they did badly and assuming (as you do) that the new starter set had nothing to do with it, why did the Orcs & Goblins and Dwarfs get so many new players, then?

Dranthar
21-11-2007, 07:48
Would it be possible to analyse the data in a different way, specifically;

Count only the players who scored in the top third for your starting pool of players. This effectively eliminates the 'newbie factor' and helps to ensure that the players in the dataset are at least halfway competent with their army.

From there, you count players in the top third (or half?) of your new dataset? The lower population size would increase the possibility of outliers mucking up the numbers, but we might get some more useful information out of it and more importantly, eliminate the newbies from the data.

Am I making sense, or do I really need to go back and take the statistics course again? :D

Avian
21-11-2007, 08:14
To do that I'd have to get the original data from the guy who made the post linked to in the first post in this thread. I'm not sure how much you could get out of just using the top third as your base because the sample size would be quite small (it's a bit small already, which is why I'm just going with general trends) and the margin for error quite large, but it could for example be interesting to take the total number of players per army and sort them into top, middle and bottom thirds.

I can try to contact the guy and see what I can get.

Heretic Burner
21-11-2007, 17:56
Now assuming that people did not pick armies because they did badly and assuming (as you do) that the new starter set had nothing to do with it, why did the Orcs & Goblins and Dwarfs get so many new players, then?

The whole piont is to avoid assumptions, go by the relevant data granted. I see no "many" players added to O&G and dwarfs, that is of course another lie. O&G are relatively equal with the prior edition when one includes the 'Ardboyz (and even without the addition of those players the difference is far from large). Empire also remain statistically equal, yet AGAIN showing no starter set bias. Meaning only dwarfs have increased which would indicate that it isn't the starter set alone that is the reason, if at all. Thus, yet AGAIN the "starter" theory goes up in flames.


Would it be possible to analyse the data in a different way, specifically;

Count only the players who scored in the top third for your starting pool of players. This effectively eliminates the 'newbie factor' and helps to ensure that the players in the dataset are at least halfway competent with their army.


That would have no statistical value whatsoever. All it would do is reduce sample size and margin of error. An arbitrary manipulation of the data does nothing to produce unbiased results, its simply skewing the data.

While at it why not just take the placements of armies when there is a full moon and it rained the night before? Equally arbitrary and having equally no value.

So to sum up, that statistics course might be helpful after all. :D

Kahadras
21-11-2007, 19:05
The whole point is to avoid assumptions,

Right but your 'assuming' that the O&G armies book is the worst based on the fact of a bunch of statistics from a couple of tournaments from a single year. Going by that kind of raw data is stupid (I don't even have to be a Marine Biologist to know that).

Kahadras

Dranthar
21-11-2007, 22:44
That would have no statistical value whatsoever. All it would do is reduce sample size and margin of error. An arbitrary manipulation of the data does nothing to produce unbiased results, its simply skewing the data.

While at it why not just take the placements of armies when there is a full moon and it rained the night before? Equally arbitrary and having equally no value.

Nice; so I make a suggestion that would effectively eliminate any need for an assumption you've been arguing about the whole time (that the increased number of O&Gs is due to the influx of N00Bs from skull pass), and you pass it off as introducing bias? :rolleyes:

You're right in that the statistical error might be increased, but isn't it somewhat foolish to claim that outright without even so much as a glance at the data?


So to sum up, that statistics course might be helpful after all. :D

You need it more than me, buddy. ;)

warlord hack'a
21-11-2007, 22:48
heretic, can you please start with your explanation as to why, but this time try to actually use arguments that have not already been countered.. So why did O&G get more players, note that I am omitting the words 'a lot' to avoid you saying: "they did not get a lot more players, only a few".

And as for Dranthar's suggestion, that actually has statistical validity, we are testing a hypothesis here, the question being: "are the bad results of O&G armies caused by a broken army list (your theory) or due to other factors, such as a steep learning curve, a high number of newbie players and a high number of gamers that are in it for the fun or fluff, so in other words: a low number of power gamers".

Now the best way to study this is have data on each individual player, such as: age, 'tactical IQ', knowledge of the game rules, number of years of playing experience, number of years of tournament experience etc. We do not have these data, so we go by the next best thing: make sub selections in the data that we do have, using the 'logic' derived from our hypothesis.

Now suppose your theory is true, then this would mean that now matter how good an O&G player, whether he is newbie or veteran, in it for the fluff or the kill, he/she would end up low on the tournament result list. So we would not see many of these people in the top third tier, those that are there just must have had an enormous streak of luck, but these streaks happen so yes, we will find some of them in the top third tier. But only one or two, after all the list is broken so how could you win? Especially 5 or 6 times in a row, which is what you need to end up that high on the list. Or in other words, assuming a normal distribution you simply say that the mean of the O&G normal distribution will be lower than the mean of the Wood elf distribution, so although some players are in the thin outside of the normal distribution, most of them are in the middle and since the middle is lower, overal results will be lower.

Now suppose the list is not broken but the overall results are caused by a high number of newbies. This would mean that for this hypothesis also the mean of the normal distribution of the O&G is lower than for say woodelves. But in contrast to your theory the rest of the normal distribution graph will look different, the variance will be higher (the 'tails' will be thicker), more people will end up really low (the 'newbies') but also more people will end up high (the 'veterans').

Now we cut off two thirds of this table, let's see what happens: in your theory, the people that remain will be very few as your outliers (the ones that were extremely lucky) are few in numbers. However, in the newbie theory there will still be a lot of O&G players in this remaining selection.

Now actually we do not need to run any statistics on that, we just need to have a look at the shape of the normal distributiopn of the data, if the normal distribution is high and short (e.g the red one in the graph on the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution) then that would indicate a broken army list, if it looks more like the blue one in the same graph then that could indicate a lot, but it does not point towards a broken army list.

or to summarize: we are not talking about an arbritrary manipulation, we are talking about a targeted manipulation to test a hypothesis, note the word TEST, not the word PROVE..

Prince Facestab
22-11-2007, 00:06
Empire also remain statistically equal, yet AGAIN showing no starter set bias.

Ahhhh... just so everyone knows, we shouldn't see any starter set bias for the Empire. Their starter set was available in 2006, but not in 2007, and we are measuring differences between 2006 and 2007. So any increase due to being in the starter set would have happened in 2006, and showed no difference in 2007.

Since most people probably buy the starter set when it first comes out, the best time to look for Empire starter set bias would be at the last year of 5th edition, and the first year of 6th edition. Still, we'd have to remember that the 2007 starter set is a significantly better deal.

So we can't dismiss the idea of the effect that being a starting army has based on Empire's lack of change, because there shouldn't be any change between these two years. They stopped being in a starting set, and we should only see change if they had done the opposite.

Heretic Burner
22-11-2007, 02:22
heretic, can you please start with your explanation as to why, but this time try to actually use arguments that have not already been countered.. So why did O&G get more players, note that I am omitting the words 'a lot' to avoid you saying: "they did not get a lot more players, only a few".

I'm not following you, you are asking why an army has virtually the same statistical number of players from year to year as the data shows? Probably the very same reason Empire did not decrease relevantly despite being removed from the starter set - it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. Why would the numbers change? Countless factors: WD features, expected statistical deviance, store availability, model availability, etc, etc, etc. None of which shows any bias whatsoever to being more likely to attract less skilled players. Once again, hopefully for that last time, any statistical evidence of a less experienced bias is not present in the statistical data present.



And as for Dranthar's suggestion, that actually has statistical validity, we are testing a hypothesis here, the question being: "are the bad results of O&G armies caused by a broken army list (your theory) or due to other factors, such as a steep learning curve, a high number of newbie players and a high number of gamers that are in it for the fun or fluff, so in other words: a low number of power gamers".

However Dranthor's suggestion does not measure quantitatively what a "power gamer", or an "experienced" gamer is. Clearly the test is flawed and has no merit - just as I pointed out.



Now the best way to study this is have data on each individual player, such as: age, 'tactical IQ', knowledge of the game rules, number of years of playing experience, number of years of tournament experience etc. We do not have these data, so we go by the next best thing: make sub selections in the data that we do have, using the 'logic' derived from our hypothesis.

Yes without the available data we go with the best data available, the very data GW uses to balance their armies. As there is no possible way to manipulate the statistics to measure "power gamer" or "experience" then the best, and most logical solution, is to take the biggest sample available. Which is what we've done.



Now suppose your theory is true, then this would mean that now matter how good an O&G player, whether he is newbie or veteran, in it for the fluff or the kill, he/she would end up low on the tournament result list.

Clearly you don't understand the statistics. What the statistics show is O&G fare significantly worse in tournament standings than other armies. What it shows is that it is far more likely player X playing O&G will do worse than player Y playing Wood Elves. As the game is meant to be balanced (hence the very notion of point values) that is unacceptable by GW's own standard of measurement!



or to summarize: we are not talking about an arbritrary manipulation, we are talking about a targeted manipulation to test a hypothesis, note the word TEST, not the word PROVE..

However it is an arbitrary manipulation having decided there is some "experience" factor to be tested. The answer is quite simple really, this is how GW measures army balance. Now if the armies don't conform to GW's own measurement of army balance than they are not balanced with regards to the other armies.

Prince Facestab
22-11-2007, 03:03
Probably the very same reason Empire did not decrease relevantly despite being removed from the starter set

You wouldn't expect to see a decrease, either. Being removed from the starter set means that fewer new players join (thus, no increase) but it doesn't mean that old players quit.

If you had charted Empire player growth for several years prior, you might see a decrease in the rate of increase, but that's it.

So, the Empire probably didn't change, because nothing happened that we might expect to cause them to change.

BenK
22-11-2007, 04:03
Prince Facestab, you are wasting your time. Any reasonable person will understand the case that Avian has presented as well as they ever will be now.

Avian
22-11-2007, 06:53
I see no "many" players added to O&G and dwarfs, that is of course another lie.
Do you see them now?

http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/images/tournies6.bmp

Graps indicate the change in the relative popularities of the armies (i.e. the difference between the number of players divided by the medians) from 06 to 07.




Empire also remain statistically equal, yet AGAIN showing no starter set bias.
For the umpteenth time: A *NEW* starter set has lots of appeal and will sell well. An *OLD* starter set has very little. If you expect a set that is five years old and looking decidedly dated to sell as well as a brand new one, you are quite mistaken.
You can see the trend elsewhere as well, in CDs, books, DVDs, etc. Go into your local record store and ask them how many of the new '[i]Whiny Pop Ballad #87' CDs they sell compared to the '[i]Whiny Pop Ballad #14' CD from five years ago.

In 2006, the effect of the old starter set on the number of greenskin and empire players is not surprisingly negligible. There is nothing surprising in that.

warlord hack'a
22-11-2007, 09:19
well I was writing a nice long answer to your once again fantastic claims Heretic Burner, but then my computer crashed and I am not going to write it again. lease read through the link I put in my post about the basics of normal distribution before you come back with your remark as basically what you say is what I say (the mean of the distribution for the orcs is lower than the one for the elves) but this does not mean that the orcs are broken. I only added that we need to look at the actual distribution, not only at the mean.. Oh well I will put it in simple numbers for you:

suppose we have a tournament with 100 players in total and the 15 O&G players attending end up on positions 3,5,8,17,22,38,42,65,66,75,92,95,98,99 and 100. The mean placing result will be 55 for the OG forces.
Now let's take the same tournament in an alternative universe and we see the following results:
48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 and 62. The mean again will be 55.

However, the first tournament indicates a 'newbie factor' (or more precisely: does NOT point to a broken armylist) as there are quite a lot of people that end up high, which with a broken armylist is virtually impossible! The second one indicates your hypothesis: a broken armylist, as no one manages to score high (yes I know: in my example this list is not really broken as the average of all 100 players of course will be 50.5 which is not that different from 55).

And remember: we are not arguing if the warhammer game is unbalanced (the argument you now all of a sudden jump to), we are talking about the fact if the O&G list is unbalanced, a completely different argument. I too think that brets and woodelves are too strong and therefore the game as whole is a bit unbalanced, but I think that the O&G list is a nice mid-tier armylist (like all lists should be) whose results are pulled down by an influx of new players due to the starter set phenomenon.

And as for empire influence not visible: as Avian says people buy the starterset when it is new, 6th edition is what, 5 years old? No effect there any more..

Ecclesiastes
22-11-2007, 09:47
Prince Facestab, you are wasting your time. Any reasonable person will understand the case that Avian has presented as well as they ever will be now.

/Agreed... only exception would be slayers and longbeards :D

Finnigan2004
22-11-2007, 12:24
I think that it is time to call off the dogs Avian. You make a great case, but I do not think that Heretic Burner wants to see the point here. You sort of remind me of a brilliant, young intelligence analyst who comes into a white house briefing ready to make his case, but who misses the nuance in the president's memo-- "I need your analysis to decide on whether or not to go to war. Please present your reasons for :) and against :( military action, so that we can decide between war :cool: and peaceful diplomacy. :rolleyes:"

Avian
22-11-2007, 15:49
Oh well, I shall see where I put my laurels and have a nice little rest. :D

Heretic Burner
23-11-2007, 01:21
For the umpteenth time: A *NEW* starter set has lots of appeal and will sell well. An *OLD* starter set has very little. If you expect a set that is five years old and looking decidedly dated to sell as well as a brand new one, you are quite mistaken.


For the umpteenth time (umpteenth time plus one?) there remains no evidence of the starter set having any impact on the skill level of the tournament players. None. Zero. Zilch. Nadda. I expect the starter set to remain the starter set - it remains the basis for the game regardless if it is new, 5 years old, or a decade old.

From your assumption it appears you believe there is a flood of new players to the hobby. Far from the truth! There is massive evidence to the contrary with large number of store closures, flat bottom stock price, and countless profit warnings from GW we are NOT looking at an influx of players. By any logical standard, the player base is decreasing.

I hate to break it to you but people are not buying the new starter set in droves and then entering tournaments with unpainted armies. 1) Profits are bottomed out, players have decreased. 2) tournaments tend to require painted minis, the O&G army in particularly taking far longer to paint than say WE.

You continue to show zero, nil, nadda, zilch evidence for a "experience" factor, instead making wild assumptions with nothing to back it up. I have always simply used the data showing clearly that O&G are statistically worse off in tournament settings.

For the umpteenth time. Plus one.

warlord hack'a
23-11-2007, 06:36
Heretic, now try and answer my post instead of using the same arguments (for the ump.... , well you get the idea) again, also claiming that you have always only used the data shows and to you the data show CLEARLY that O&G are STATISTICALLY worse off in tournament settings. Do you know what these two words mean in an experimental setting? If you did then I am sure you would refrain from using them in your post.
NOTHING that has been posted so far has been STATISTICALLY proven and certainly nothing has been CLEAR (let's define clear as having an alpha (=error margin) of 5%, then in order to clearly define something we would actually have to run a statistical test which we have not so there you go..).

So here I go again: everybody sees that the data indicate (but once again: nothing is proven and certainly not statistically) that O&G do not fare well at tournaments (and no, just looking at general placing is not enough, that's the fun part of it!). Now we are looking into the possible explanations for this. You claim the list is broken, I have given you the most likely shape of the data set when this is true. I (and with me others) tend to believe that O&G might suffer from a newbie factor and I hypothesised what the data set would then look like.

Now if someone can point me to the data (so the list with all players, their battle scores (so only battle., not painting and sportmanship etc. etc.) and the army they fielded then I am happy to plot them and see what their distributions look like.

Avian
23-11-2007, 08:20
Mister Burner: Your dodge-fu is strong, but not that strong. Give it a rest.


I've sent a PM to the guy who did the original calculations asking for his data. If/when I get it and can do better crunching, I will report back here.

BenK
23-11-2007, 11:23
Warlord Hack'a! You are breaking the unwritten laws of Forum! Do not feed the Troll, you hear me! Do not feed the troll!

warlord hack'a
23-11-2007, 11:28
my troll gets fed allright, last tournament he ate a giant.. Well to be more preciese: he took a bite out of the giants toe but then the giant died and decided to crash land onto the troll, who did not survive that encounter..

Ecclesiastes
23-11-2007, 12:30
my troll gets fed allright, last tournament he ate a giant.. Well to be more preciese: he took a bite out of the giants toe but then the giant died and decided to crash land onto the troll, who did not survive that encounter..

So typical.... :p

So what did he learn from this? Always start your meal at the top :D

Red_Duke
23-11-2007, 14:52
I'd say it was the more hit and miss nature of things like animosity which would be the undoing of them in a lot of tournament situations. Not only that, but they have less stupid combinations at their disposal (ala KF and x2ST).

Overall i think theres one important factor with O&G however - first off, its a rare thing not to have a fun game against them, and secondly, all the O&G players themselves tend to be having plenty of fun as well. As such, i think theyre a great army - they may struggle somewhat on the consistancy (especially over 6 games for a tournament), but i've yet to hear any opponent at a GT say "Oh no... not ANOTHER O&G army!" (unlike Thorek gunlines, Tree Forest WE lists, and Stanky empire lists)

So as far as im concerned, any competetive issues (which are somewhat debatable) are more than made up by the fact that theyre probably one of the most fun armies to play, and this is, afterall, a game :)

Heretic Burner
23-11-2007, 19:54
Heretic, now try and answer my post instead of using the same arguments (for the ump.... , well you get the idea) again

The same arguments remain valid no matter how many times I use them. I'm not sure what you want from me exactly. What are you saying, that those arguments have been proven to be iron clad so you want me to use other arguments instead?



So here I go again: everybody sees that the data indicate (but once again: nothing is proven and certainly not statistically) that O&G do not fare well at tournaments (and no, just looking at general placing is not enough, that's the fun part of it!).

Fun part of what? See, I don't think you are following it. I'll make it simple:

1) GW bases the balance of their armies on tournament results. Thus, if tournament results are off, the army balance is off.
2) O&G tournament results are off. Very off!

Now you might have a problem with GW's methodology of balance which is fine. However, it is what they go by so if there is fault with that then there is fault with the balance of their entire game. Now that is a fun part!



Now we are looking into the possible explanations for this. You claim the list is broken, I have given you the most likely shape of the data set when this is true. I (and with me others) tend to believe that O&G might suffer from a newbie factor and I hypothesised what the data set would then look like.

I'm not following. You have zero, nadda, zilch data to suggest the distribution of O&G is any different from the distribution of WE, Empire, Skaven, or any other army. With the data we have, the only data presented, the data GW uses for balance, we show a massive decrease in competitive balance for O&G with respect to the other armies. Sure there are no "proofs" in science (barring mathematics) however there certainly are compelling sources of evidence to show a point. This is one of them.



Now if someone can point me to the data (so the list with all players, their battle scores (so only battle., not painting and sportmanship etc. etc.) and the army they fielded then I am happy to plot them and see what their distributions look like.

This data is from only battle score, not painting, sportsmanship, etc. No worries there.

See, the data has been looked at forward and back. There is no evidence of any starter bias as the 6th edition results show. There is no evidence of a "new player" factor whatsoever. There is no evidence but the simple statistics that show O&G perform worse as an army than the vast majority of others. Clearly, with zero other evidence to suggest otherwise, the most logical and scientific (as you seem intent to observe) step would be to take the most likely result, and least convulated, available and say yes, this here army is unbalanced.

Unless of course you have some evidence you have yet to reveal to explain your strange notion that the statistics are off besides some kind of hunch you expect the distribution to be vastly different (and even then it would have no connection whatsoever to a "experience" factor).

I eagerly await this evidence you've been witholding.

superknijn
23-11-2007, 20:51
Uhm, Data? This is a tabletop miniatures game, were you're supposed to have fun.

Malorian
23-11-2007, 21:09
I'm fairly sure GW doesn't use ONLY tournament results to rebalance armies. In fact I'd put my money on that GW uses sites like these to decide what need rebalancing rather than tournaments.

At my last tournament I went to Nids were #1 and #2. Does that mean they are overpowered? No. It means parts of them are. To learn about that they would look at forums like these and see all the anti-nidzilla posts rather than just making all of the nids weaker.

edit: In reponse to proff that new players use O@G and it bringing their numbers down, we obviously don't have a list of how long people were playing when they started, but we do know O@G is a hard army to master.

Unlike some armies where a new player can jump in and do great (brets/empire) O@G is like HE where there is a leanring curve that starts with a lot of losses as you aren't used to the army up to a point where they win a lot. This would mean that you would see more O@G at the extremes but since the orks are so random experienced players (who want to go to GT) will pick other armies to bring to better their chances. Not because the army is better, but because it is more stable.

Thus you have the new ork players not used to their crazy rules at the bottom, and then the top of the curve is cut off.

Grinloc
23-11-2007, 22:41
When an army performs pretty bad in a competitive environment, as shown by the tournament results, then there is a clear balance problem.

I don't really know what people are trying to achieve when debating these results. Even IF there were a "newbie" or "just for fun" dynamic involved it does little to downplay those results being evidence.
Or would anyone attempt to say that (let's say) 70% of a tournaments O&G's players are mostly "newbies", "fun" people or unlucky players? Results of 20th, 92nd, 100th+ of 135 show the exact opposite, an army book which apparently isn't capable of providing highly competitive army lists. Lists which are basically required to have any chance of making it into the top 10 rankings.

Maybe there is a "personal army dynamic" involved to some degree, kind of not liking what's obviously happening at those tournaments to said army's players. But that shouldn't have any influence on a discussion.
O&G's players (and former ones) might have a different playstyle approach to their army. But those underperforming players, who actually try to win those tournaments, care very little for what other people think about their actual bad performance in the end.

Experienced O&G's players, they do exist that's for sure, go to such a GT, trying to win, but obviously can't make it....they CLEARLY can't. That's all there is to it.

No matter which dynamics are a factor in making those tournament results happen the way they are...when it comes down to it this O&G's army book is not good enough. It is GW's job to take action so game wide balance, or something close to it, can be achieved.

Kahadras
24-11-2007, 07:39
Experienced O&G's players, they do exist that's for sure, go to such a GT, trying to win, but obviously can't make it....they CLEARLY can't. That's all there is to it.

No matter which dynamics are a factor in making those tournament results happen the way they are...when it comes down to it this O&G's army book is not good enough. It is GW's job to take action so game wide balance, or something close to it, can be achieved.

It's NOT about the O&G book being not good enough it's about a select number of armies books (namely Empire, Wood Elves and Bretonnians) having broken army builds within them. If the O&G armies book is not good enough then neither are Dark Elves, Lizardmen, Skaven, High Elves, Ogre Kingdoms, Dwarfs, Chaos, Tomb kings, Vampire counts etc.

Looking at the latest UKGT heat results is interesting. Out of the 140 players 9 took O&G. 4 finnished in the top half of the table, 2 qualified (top 40), two finnished in the bottom 40, the highest placing was 13th the lowest placing was 114th.

Kahadras

Grinloc
24-11-2007, 21:11
Well, for letting broken army builds slip through there's nobody but GW to blame. I know that managing a state of game wide balance is very difficult, even almost impossible to achieve on such a large scale, but at some point it starts to become silly.
Compare BRAF's, SAD's, Thorek's, etc. to the "powergaming" lists of O&G's...i mean...wth? The potential gap of effectiveness between those lists is so huge i wonder how long it took those people in Nottingham to realize what's going on.

When having no "army fluff bias" worth mentioning and attempting to win a GT, having to choose between...

a.) O&G's
b.) BRAF's, SAD's, etc.

...i'd certainly choose option "b.)".

Back in 6th edition O&G's players weren't so hampered, they had a quite effective army list themselves. Big chunks of artillery, scary magic, "free" goblin heroes, powerful magic items, etc.

Now important parts of those dynamics are gone, so no averagely competitive army lists anymore....compared to BRAF's, SAD's, etc.

Maybe DE, O&G's, OK, etc. have averagely balanced army builds in GW's vision, but this "self-patting on the back" won't help much until those broken army builds out there are toned down in effectiveness.

Beefing those underperforming armies up in power isn't the solution either, unless GW wants those powergaming builds to become the norm, even in "friendly" games.

dcikgyurt
24-11-2007, 21:24
It's seems to me that O&G are comedy armies, they aren't MEANT to win tournaments, they've meant to be an army where playing them is more fun than winning. Hence why they don't do so well. As it is most of the O&G (or 40K ork) players I've seen tend to be middle-aged veterans of the game who've won tournaments with beardy armies (read the book, seen the film, bought the t-shirt) and are now more interested in having games that are fun; and most of them don't care whether they win or lose.

warlord hack'a
25-11-2007, 14:38
I am not going to try to explain to people who look at averages how to look at data sets. I am going to repeat however:

saying that &G are broken because they can not built the uberpowered BRAF, SAD etc. is more than silly. I completely agree with Kahadras:
It's NOT about the O&G book being not good enough it's about a select number of armies books (namely Empire, Wood Elves and Bretonnians) having broken army builds within them. If the O&G armies book is not good enough then neither are Dark Elves, Lizardmen, Skaven, High Elves, Ogre Kingdoms, Dwarfs, Chaos, Tomb kings, Vampire counts etc.

And AFAIK the discussion was about whether O&G are good to take, not about whether other army builds are too powerful (which they are).

warlord hack'a
25-11-2007, 14:56
well I had a short look at the post which shows us the 'statistics' and I found a table which also showed the % of armies finishing in the top 33% of the ranking and what do we see, O&G finish nicely in the middle, that's rather strange for a broken army list with which it is nigh impossible to win! :
Top 33 (%)
Wood Elves* * * * * 16.89*
Bretonnians* * * 9.46*
Dwarfs* * * * * * 9.23*
Lizardmen* * * * 7.21*
Hordes of Chaos** 6.76*
Vampire Counts* 6.53*
Empire* * * * * 5.41*
Orcs & Goblins** 5.41*
Tomb Kings* * * 5.18*
Skaven* * * * * 4.73*
Ogre Kingdoms* 4.73*
Beasts of Chaos* * 4.73*
High Elves* * * 4.28*
Daemonic Legion* 3.83*
Dark Elves* * * 3.15*

warlord hack'a
25-11-2007, 14:57
sorry for the **, that's what excel does apparently..

John Wayne II
25-11-2007, 16:24
That's an interesting set of data, warlord hack'a. I trust it's accurate, and if it is it lends more credence to the theory that the army book has no trouble getting to the top tier stages of the tournament, but rather that a large amount of newbies are dragging the overall score down. It's also interesting to see Dwarfs claiming third place, behind the usual suspects (Brets and Woodies).

warlord hack'a
25-11-2007, 17:35
I just found it on the same page as the rating list that this whole post is about. Somewhere halfway through the page.. What we really need to get our hands on is the list with all the scores of the individual players, but Avian is working on that..

And yes indeed, dwarves sort of counter the newbie idea: They are in the starterset and therefor a lot fo them are present, but in contrary to new O&G players they do quite well. But then again, a dwarf gunline is easy to think up, set up and play..

Heretic Burner
25-11-2007, 18:05
Warlord hack'a you've forgotten to look at a very important column in that data - the percentage of players using the army. The numbers you've posted are meaningless without taking into account that vital piece of information. The table shows clearly that O&G end up with an ABM of 68.04 which is far off from the ABM score of 100 you would expect in a balanced army. In fact, its the lowest of any score listed!

So yes, no other army based on that data has as hard time of succeeding as O&G. Keep in mind this data also has a tendency to push the ABM results towards 100 due to mirror games, in particularly the popular armies. So dwarfs, WE, and O&G are even more unbalanced than it would appear!

Finnigan2004
25-11-2007, 18:48
RE: Dwarfs. Clearly the graphs show them to be a very weak army. Explaining it is not necessary, the results speak for themselves.

:eyebrows: I thought that dwarfs were a very weak army, not an over the top and unbalanced one.

Grinloc
25-11-2007, 18:57
Dwarves aren't really a weak army (in my opinion), just somewhat one-dimensional...extremely good at shooting and defense.
Gunlines are probably quite good as an all-comers-list...it aint funny to play against such a thing, but whatever makes you win i suppose.

warlord hack'a
25-11-2007, 19:27
heretic, I would like to refer you back to my posts on normal distribution and the thickness of the taisl.. If you still do not understand those please refrain from posting on this topic until you do. There are O&G players in the top 33%, this alone is with the amount of brokenness of the armylist that you describe, a nigh impossible feat, NO MATTER HOW MANY O&G players attend. You see, when the lsit is really broken then that would mean winning is only possible by a stroke of luck. To end up in the top 33% you need a lot of these strokes of luck. too many O&G players have had these strokes of luck for it to be coincidence, hence the list s not broken. Difficult to play yes, unpredictable yes, by far not as good as brets or woodelves yes, broken no..

Red_Duke
26-11-2007, 09:16
Just out of curiosity, how many tournaments are the stats based on? also, are they all based on the current codex for O&G or are some of them based on the old one?

One thing id say as far as the overall stats that Heretic is suggesting however, is that ive noticed quite a lot of O&G players going along to tournaments with quite fluffy lists rather than extremely competetive ones - so while you still get a reasonable showing from the people who come along with their more tournament orientated lists, the fact that not everyone turns up with a tuned up hardcore tourney list skews the worth of that indicator

So id agree with Hack'a that the percentage on finishing positions is a more reliable factor, as it more readily compares the better players and better lists, rather than overall, where i think theres a higher probability of people taking fluffy O&G lists compared to say, WE or Dwarves.

Grinloc
26-11-2007, 22:41
Well, to be fair to O&G's players and their "fluffy lists" at those tournaments...there really isn't any "hardcore" list in the 7th edition army book which is considered highly powerful against most opposing armies.

Maybe a goblin warmachine "gunline", but other armies are way better at this.
Steam tanks, BS4+ war machines, core chariots, Str4 shooting infantry, rattling guns, hard-hitting flying stuff, scouts, tunnelers, etc...none of this stuff can be found in the army book.

Those O&G's army tournament lists may appear "fluffy" to players of other armies, but O&G's just don't have the option to even have a "hardcore one".

Most O&G's units appear generic in their purpose and usage. Being unreliable is ment to even their cheap price out against opposing armies.
Animosity in its current form is too harsh as a balance factor and often enough screws up battle plans in key situations, making it even harder for the O&G's player to fight the uphill battle against other armies.

What O&G's are good at is outnumbering, but that's about it. Being unreliable and lacking any real key units doesn't sound like "highly competitive" with an "all-comers-list".

This army book isn't on the same potential powerlevel as Brets, Skaven, Dwarves, etc...far from it. Or did you ever hear someone say"*random O&G's unit* appears overpowered"?

Discussing where these shortcomings come from and their negative effects on O&G's GT results doesn't serve much of a purpose really.

Heretic Burner
26-11-2007, 23:40
heretic, I would like to refer you back to my posts on normal distribution and the thickness of the taisl..

Yes its been looked at. As of yet there is no evidence whatsoever for the thickness of the tails. Where is the evidence you've been witholding? We're still waiting.


If you still do not understand those please refrain from posting on this topic until you do.

Oh I very much encourage you to post in this topic. I would suggest posting the evidence you've been witholding.


There are O&G players in the top 33%, this alone is with the amount of brokenness of the armylist that you describe, a nigh impossible feat, NO MATTER HOW MANY O&G players attend.

Nobody made the claim of O&G never making it into the top third, you're just making outrageous lies now. I had hoped it wouldn't have come down to this.



You see, when the lsit is really broken then that would mean winning is only possible by a stroke of luck.

No, it means that in a game determined to at least put a show of being balanced, an army that is as dreadfully as competitive as O&G face a supreme upward battle. O&G do not fit the balance to a tremendous degree and therefore are, yes, broken.



To end up in the top 33% you need a lot of these strokes of luck. too many O&G players have had these strokes of luck for it to be coincidence, hence the list s not broken. Difficult to play yes, unpredictable yes, by far not as good as brets or woodelves yes, broken no..

Yes broken. Not enough players have had these "strokes of luck" as you call them. Thats the point of the statistics, O&G trail enormously at lacking those players that succeed regardless of luck. Thats why the sample size is there and we don't use anecdotal evidence. Outrageous lies, bizarre definitions of "broken", and suggestions of some convulated distribution (with zero evidence to back it up) just ain't gonna cut it.



Just out of curiosity, how many tournaments are the stats based on? also, are they all based on the current codex for O&G or are some of them based on the old one?

No idea but there are a significant number of entries listed (1500+) and inclusion of the major GTs. The book covers primarily the new book with a scant number of the old book which, having fared significantly better, would actually push the ABM score upwards.



One thing id say as far as the overall stats that Heretic is suggesting however, is that ive noticed quite a lot of O&G players going along to tournaments with quite fluffy lists rather than extremely competetive ones - so while you still get a reasonable showing from the people who come along with their more tournament orientated lists, the fact that not everyone turns up with a tuned up hardcore tourney list skews the worth of that indicator

There just isn't any evidence at all that O&G bring more "fluffy" lists to the tournament. Simply put there isn't any way of measuring "fluffiness" either. The sample does away with all of that and just goes by the hard battle scores. No interpretation. No opinion. Just a hard number. I'm quite certain there are countless "fluffy" daemonic legion lists, OK lists, DE lists, Empire lists, Skaven lists, etc, etc, etc.


So id agree with Hack'a that the percentage on finishing positions is a more reliable factor, as it more readily compares the better players and better lists, rather than overall, where i think theres a higher probability of people taking fluffy O&G lists compared to say, WE or Dwarves.

Yes, O&G have a dreadful percentage of success based on their size. There is no evidence at all that O&G purposely bring an underperforming list - that truly would be more crazy than those sunbaked savage orcs! There is simply no measurement for "fluffy", what is allowable in tournaments is simply what can be generated through the army book. If the army book doesn't allow the army to perform in a competitive nature then it simply isn't up to snuff.

In fact, I can't think of too many ways WE can go unfluffy. It's not like they have any units in their army list that are going to be especially unlikely to find in a typical battle...certainly no steam tanks for instance. And the most successful, daemonic legions? It may be even more difficult to go "unfluffy" with them! I can say quite honestly I've come across a whole lot more unfluffy Skarsnik armies than I have come across unfluffy WE! And is it possible to find an army containing Grimgor fielded that even remotely matches the fluff of his current army composition? But then again, I admit fully that my opinion of fluffy is as meaningless to balance as yours and simply doesn't alter the cold hard numbers whatsoever.

BenK
27-11-2007, 04:53
It regenerates!


You have to kill it with fire!

sephiroth87
27-11-2007, 06:24
Nah, it doesn't die. Heretic Burner comes with a 1+ save and a 3+ ward when he sticks his head in the sand. He also rolls an artillery dice to see how many times he quotes your comments out of context in his posts. It's like strangleroot debating.... ;)

warlord hack'a
27-11-2007, 07:26
and to that I have nothing further to add, except this: it looks more like a 1+ wardsave to me, must be magical sand he is using..

Avian
27-11-2007, 07:52
I just found it on the same page as the rating list that this whole post is about. Somewhere halfway through the page.. What we really need to get our hands on is the list with all the scores of the individual players, but Avian is working on that..
I sent the poster a PM on the other forum, but he hasn't logged on after that and thus naturally hasn't sent me anything, so it might take a while.

BenK
27-11-2007, 08:47
"It's like strangleroot debating.... "

It's like debating a seventeen year old who's just decided he's a communist and he doesn't even believe in God and he doesn't care what his father says so there.

Kahadras
27-11-2007, 10:08
Outrageous lies, bizarre definitions of "broken", and suggestions of some convulated distribution (with zero evidence to back it up) just ain't gonna cut it.


OK then GTUK heat 3. 140 players, 10 O&G players. 5 finished in the top half, 2 in the top 40. 5 finished in the bottom half, 2 in the bottom 40. Highest finnishing placement was 13th. Lowest finishing placement was 114th.

Placing were... 13, 24, 55, 59, 68, 82, 90, 96, 105, 114

Sorry but I still can't see how the O&G armies book is broken no matter how hard I try.

Kahadras

Red_Duke
27-11-2007, 10:55
A damn site better than the VC managed i must say...
Heat 2: 19 36 49 52 70 98 110 111 132 148 150
Heat 3: 26 67 107 115 121 128 137

In both Heat 1 and 3 there was but a single count going through. There can only be one! ;)

Finnigan2004
27-11-2007, 12:29
In light of how swimmingly this debate has gone, I would like to propose a couple of new rules:

1. We don't talk about orcs and goblins for fear of someone invoking the "I'm rubber and you're glue" rule.

2. See rule #1.

Gaius Marius
27-11-2007, 13:19
Someone posted a way back that the Bret, Wood Elf and Empire lists were overpowered. :eek:
I am curious as to what combination / list makes the Empire overpowered :wtf: and thus over-represented in the top 33% of tournaments, If I read the various charts and diagrams presented here in the last pages, Brets, Wood Elf and for some reason Chaos Demons are over-represented in the top 33%, O&G are under-represented, but Empire are having a .500 season again as usual.
So, How is the Empire broken (too tough) :confused: and could someone explain it in really simple words so I can start using it too? :D

Finnigan2004
27-11-2007, 13:30
I think that empire has a build that is really broken, although I have only seen it and never actually played against it. Since you live out east, and we will likely never meet, I will tell you what my understanding of the list is (not sure I would want to play against it). Allegedly, it is the build that is common in the UKGT because that is a no comp bloodbath.

O.K.. As I understand it, the "broken" list is one that involves taking a couple of steam tanks and the war altar. I think that most people add a gunline to this setup for maximum carnage. Apparently, these are nearly unkillable. Another broken build is a standard gunline backed up by many, many levels of magic and all of the artillery that you can lay your hands on. Basically, in really simple words, it seems that if you take tons and tons of guns, you will do pretty well.

Red_Duke
27-11-2007, 13:31
Simply put, there are 3 combinations which are pretty damn evil.
1. Karl Franz on Dragon, x2 Steam Tanks, x3 wizard caddies, x3 10 handgunners
2. Balthazar Gelt, lots of wizards, Steamtank, plus other stuff.
3. Arch Lector on War Altar with speculum, x2 Steamtanks, other priests, shooty stuff, fanatics.

All pretty evil - the KF with x2 Stanks is stupid, evil, and hateful. The second is also highly successful, and Gelt is pretty damn good. The Lector is pretty much unkillable by certain armies, and makes a mockery of every character in the game, and is doubly nasty against undead and daemons.

Note the usage of Stanks...

However, these all can suffer vs Thorek Gunlines (tm) which themselves suffer from Tomb Kings and ambushing beastman armies.

Gaius Marius
27-11-2007, 14:02
Ouch! Sounds kinda evil. No sportsmanship or army selection points there.
I like the Arch Lector on a War Altar as it was a fun excuse to convert my old War Wagon... I don't even own some of the other stuff. I have an old old steam tank on the shelf (baby blue and pink style, about 1/2 the size of the current behemouth) but I haven't taken it out for this edition of the book. Good is it?
(I will also have to look into the Thorek Gunlines (tm) is Thorek the named Dude with an anvil?)

Red_Duke
27-11-2007, 14:12
Yup, orrible little blighter that he is... Makes a dwarf army pretty damn evil as he can use Ancient Powers with his anvil much more safely than a standard runesmith.

Personally id avoid ever using any of the listed, all dull dull dull! Get yourself an O&G army instead, then you're at least likely to have more fun with it :)

Grinloc
27-11-2007, 20:19
Don't even want to imagine how a mortal chaos khorne army plays against that Franz/Steam Tank combination.

Imagining a Steam Tank crushing into some chosen chaos warriors of khorne, since they can't flee from the charge...so very very wrong...

Kahadras
27-11-2007, 21:55
Ouch! Sounds kinda evil. No sportsmanship or army selection points there.

Yup that's why Empire have managed to win all three of the UKGT heats this year IIRC. Seriously I think the problem is much more the fact certain armies are easier to 'break' than others. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the current O&G armies book had some kind of abusable combo that power gamers could jump on.

Kahadras

Grinloc
27-11-2007, 22:06
Yup that's why Empire have managed to win all three of the UKGT heats this year IIRC. Seriously I think the problem is much more the fact certain armies are easier to 'break' than others. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the current O&G armies book had some kind of abusable combo that power gamers could jump on.

Kahadras

Sadly, that's true.
At least when it comes to Steam Tank mania O&G's at least got the option of rather cheap bolt throwers.
Plenty of people attend those GT to win after all. GW gives them the opportunity of "army book abuse", it may be poor sportsmanship, but unfortunately it's perfectly legal.

I think GW should rethink its army balancing process, it's bad enough as it is now. WHFB surely doesn't need more of this madness.

Heretic Burner
27-11-2007, 23:19
GW would certainly be well advised listening to their customer base which has compiled monumental amounts of data that show quite clearly they are doing an absolutely dreadfully in balancing their armies. Certainly it wouldn't be that far fetched to devote one (1) article in White Dwarf to this major problem with at least the scant effort of assuring their player base that they will do everything in their power to fix their errors.

Certainly their current management decision of deny, deny, deny, deny is getthing them nowhere. They are bleeding money right now and it doesn't take an MBA to determine that a major problem is indeed ignoring your customer base.

They know there is a problem and have taken no corrective measures. Why not?

Grinloc
28-11-2007, 03:21
White Dwarf? Admitting major problems? C'mon now.
On most occasions companies don't consider admitting mistakes in popular magazines as good business.

Most likely they gonna adjust armies the way they always did...release new editions of army books.

Of course that doesn't guarantee that they will take a closer look at "Thoreks", "RAF's", "SAD's", etc. I'm pretty sure they try to avoid toning down new edition's armies/units as much as possible, since that would limit the "shiny stuff" which would catch the attention of potential customers.
Less "shiny stuff" ... less profit (short-term).

When your corporation is "bleeding", the first thing you think about is cutting costs and increasing profits. Short term, making adjustments to army books (investing time and money) without releasing a new edition due to balance reasons means the exact opposite.

Being a customer let's someone talk/speculate about all kinds of stuff and the "right thing", but since we can only guess what's going on behind GW's closed doors...

etancross
28-11-2007, 15:31
First off, the Black Orcs are a much more expensive unit, second, how the heck did they pull it off?

I take it you deployed the Black Orcs 5 wide, then.
The swordmasters should be 8 wide, in two ranks, in that case.
16 attacks hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s -> 7 dead black orcs. You donīt strike back. You lose the first round by 6 already.

Anything besides this result is either the result of pure fluke or idiotic gameplay by the elves.
Might I also add that for half the price, the Swordmasters could field a Swordmasters unit that would have won the 22 Black Orcs by a mere 4 (and this only because after kills, the 16 swordmasters JUST managed to outnumber the Black Orcs)?

This should highlight the fact that those Toughness 3 5+ save Swordmasters really do need to die to shooting...


this is a prime example of why mathhammer doesn't work because pure "stats" tell you one thing but when you start rolling dice on the table eleventy-seventy-billion things could and usually do happen.

To pull back an example i used before, i used to think Minotaurs SUCKED and couldn't for the life of me think why anyone would take them, that was coming off of seeing them over the course of 3 - 4 games playing against my dwarfs (a few years back when i played dwarfs) seeing them charge in, do nothing, get beaten and run down. Later once i saw them against an empire player and i was like WHOA!

Also i had a unit of Nightgoblins get charged by a bonegiant, and i kept thinking DAMIT he's gonna wreck that unit, but guess what happend?

On the charge he killed “1” and I will quote once again “1” nightgoblin. Now statistic tell me this shouldn’t have happened and he should have killed more before I hit him in the flank with blackorcs and killed him (the bonegiant) and I know things like this have to have happened to everyone reading this post and that’s why you can not count on numbers and stats to workout what really happens on the table….. YES you can get a rough idea but thats all.

warlord hack'a
28-11-2007, 18:20
which is hopefully what everybody does.. Last friendly tournament I joined my 5 svg orc boar boyz faced up against a DragonOgre Shaggoth. To cut a long story short, after 10 S5 fanatic hits, 20+ S5 attacks and 12 S4 attacks the dragon ogre had lost 2 wounds and proceeded to kill my svg orcs.. Now on average, in the course of charge, break him, pursue, him rallying and me charging him again in my next combat round (thus the high number of attacks) I should have inflicted 5+5+3=13 wounds.. That's warhammer for you..

P.s. Etancross, love your avatar! The good old D20, if only they would introduce that into Warhammer..

Heretic Burner
28-11-2007, 23:55
@etancross - I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that books such as the O&G army book should be balanced in mind with what is vastly more unlikely to occur than what is statistically more likely to occur? Clearly an application of common sense would tell us that obtaining balance in the more common scenerios is going to benefit a far wider audience than balancing with the most unlikely scenerio. Perhaps that may be a reason why Matt Ward has introduced such a disaster of animosity and believed it is a good thing - in the extreme unlikelihood that rolling a 6 actually aids your army despite the fact that it is vastly more likely that lumbering randomly forward in a direction of your opponent's selection is going be a hindrance.

It seems like an interesting theory, I wonder if it does explain some of Mr Ward's bizarre thinking.

Chiungalla
29-11-2007, 05:15
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that books such as the O&G army book should be balanced in mind with what is vastly more unlikely to occur than what is statistically more likely to occur?

But the things you use for your mathhammer, are not very likely to occure.
They occure in less then 50% of the time.

If you role 2 six sided dice, for example, you will get 7 in average.
Thats the predictand.
But you actually only get the 7 on one of six dice roles in average.

And thats what you do all the time.
Use the predictand, that is very unusual to ever happen.

And you go even further.
You explain whole unit balance, with tons of dice rolls involved, only by locking at the predictands and the average results, and they are very very unlikely to actually happen.

Thats were you need a "very much bigger mathhammer" with lot more knowledge about statistics.

Or you need game testing. Thats the way GW balances the game, and it is far superior to your "small math hammer".

etancross
29-11-2007, 13:11
@etancross - I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that books such as the O&G army book should be balanced in mind with what is vastly more unlikely to occur than what is statistically more likely to occur? Clearly an application of common sense would tell us that obtaining balance in the more common scenerios is going to benefit a far wider audience than balancing with the most unlikely scenerio. Perhaps that may be a reason why Matt Ward has introduced such a disaster of animosity and believed it is a good thing - in the extreme unlikelihood that rolling a 6 actually aids your army despite the fact that it is vastly more likely that lumbering randomly forward in a direction of your opponent's selection is going be a hindrance.

It seems like an interesting theory, I wonder if it does explain some of Mr Ward's bizarre thinking.

:wtf: WOW is amazing how you pulled something completely different out of my statment, i mean you went down roads i didnt even cover. What my statement was about was why mathhammer is only effective with giving you a rough idea of what "Could" happen.

My statement that had nothing to do with balance i just wanted to point out Mathhammer shows us statwise what "can" happen but if you've played the game longer than 5 minutes you know what "Can" happen doesn't "always" and sometimes just "doesn't" happen.

im not suggesting anything... what i said was what i said and balance had nothing to do with what i said. After the whole ASF thing im trying to reframe from even speaking on balance.

----------edit-------->
(for spelling, and re-typing somethigns after i thought about them while fixing a server issue here at work)

Also i would like to say im not one of the people crying about balancing the O&G codex and i dont think O&G are an underpowered army. Ive won around 70 to 75% of the games ive played, ive never been massacared, and ive never played agame where i felt helpless. i like the codex and i think it rocks, when i played the HE's i crushed them with little problems. Now i see more players using dragons so they may be something to worry about in future games.

As far as balance goes, i wish there was no anamosity or i wish that they did something like they did for Dwarfs were units withing 6" of a certain other unit wouldn't suffer from anamosty (I think the rule im speaking of is the dwarf rule if warriors are within 6" of longbeards they dont panic). I like orcs alot!

etancross
29-11-2007, 13:26
P.s. Etancross, love your avatar! The good old D20, if only they would introduce that into Warhammer..


lol thanks Hack'a :)

Glabro
29-11-2007, 14:26
this is a prime example of why mathhammer doesn't work because pure "stats" tell you one thing but when you start rolling dice on the table eleventy-seventy-billion things could and usually do happen.


Of course expected results are not guaranteed by any means, and are unlikely to happen. However, it can go either way.

However, if the expected results are in your favour, AND you donīt lose a lot by taking the chance - why not do it?

In the case of the 8 swordmasters, they cost 120 points bare. A unit of 20 plus black orcs costs a heckload more.
You donīt lose the game if luck is not with you and you lose a 120-point unit, but the Orcs stand to lose a far more expensive unit, AND a standard... Iīd take those odds, but obviously that wouldnīt be my game plan, as itīs by no means guaranteed to happen (this includes actually getting those Swordmasters there alive!)

etancross
29-11-2007, 15:50
In the case of the 8 swordmasters, they cost 120 points bare. A unit of 20 plus black orcs costs a heckload more.)

geewillikers! u may be right!!

I do have to say though, i have never had the fortune (or misfortune) to have black orcs hit some swordmasters....

Red_Duke
29-11-2007, 16:05
Tis a good point etancross - why would you get your black orcs into combat with Swordmasters in the first place? why not introduce them to a bunch of chariots instead?

For instance, the humble goblin wolf chariot - 2 cost 120pts, and id consider them quite able to deal with the swordmasters (although the whole fearing elves thing might not help matters much of course) or even 3 snotling pump wagons! 6d6 S4 hits on the charge from 3 of them. Lets see those swordmasters stand up to that!

Seriously though, comparing single units is a waste of time imo - both MAY be members of their respective armies elite infantry, but they serve different purposes. Also, the game just doesnt work like that (not the ones i play anyway).

Glabro
29-11-2007, 21:26
Indeed, donīt take my Mathhammer to mean that Swordmasters are a broken unit, as there are multiple ways of dealing with them - I just highlighted the fact that they are very, very good at what they do, and are to be feared!

In any case, this is slightly off-topic.

Kahadras
29-11-2007, 21:54
I think we just have to agree that Swordsmaster do very well in one area i.e combat and move on. There are plenty of ways for O&G to counter them (fanatics, shooting, chariots) but probably the best thing to do is just ignore them. March block and then just run away. If the worst comes to the worst bait them with a unit of wolf riders or something and pull them into a position where it will take them a couple of turns to get back into the game.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
30-11-2007, 00:15
But the things you use for your mathhammer, are not very likely to occure.
They occure in less then 50% of the time.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Over time the statistics will tend to follow the expected distribution curve. Of course it is very likely to occur.



If you role 2 six sided dice, for example, you will get 7 in average.
Thats the predictand.
But you actually only get the 7 on one of six dice roles in average.

Except those die are not rolled once, they are rolled many times. Gathering all those rolls together you will find that they do indeed conform to the expected. So yes, armies can be balanced and should be balanced towards what is likely to occur rather than the most remote possibility such as animosity being a positive.



And thats what you do all the time.
Use the predictand, that is very unusual to ever happen.

And yet far more likely to happen than any other possibility. Nobody needs it to conform 100% of the time, properly balanced you will expect unusualy rolls to happen to army A and army B about the same - however you will find that if army A and army B are balanced those rolls will cancel each other out given a significant sample.



And you go even further.
You explain whole unit balance, with tons of dice rolls involved, only by locking at the predictands and the average results, and they are very very unlikely to actually happen.

On the contrary they are very likely to happen indeed - far more than any other result in the game. However, we have been granted the amazing statistical power of a large sample and have found that indeed those numbers just don't add up - we'd expect the average to occur but find something quite unlikely indeed.



Thats were you need a "very much bigger mathhammer" with lot more knowledge about statistics.

We find those statistics significant with the size of the sample to find quite conclusively army A is performing worse than army B. Likewise, with a large enough sample (say during proper playtesting) once again a competant company will find army A to perform worse/better than army B. This has not been caught in playtesting and it is clear that there is a fundamental flaw in GW's policy.



Or you need game testing. Thats the way GW balances the game, and it is far superior to your "small math hammer".

Their playtesting has been a disaster. With the large sampe size you would indeed find armies clustered together with a properly balanced playgroup however our results show something startlingly different. The average is not being met. The expected distribution is simply not being seen. Their game testing has indeed failed utterly and is not superior to, well, anything.

sephiroth87
30-11-2007, 01:45
He just rolled a 10 on Strangleroot.

Hrogoff the Destructor
30-11-2007, 02:02
I'm not sure what you're saying. Over time the statistics will tend to follow the expected distribution curve. Of course it is very likely to occur.


In the long term it's likely to occur, but in the short term the chances are it won't. So no, the chances are it won't happen, unless your counting dice rolls from different situations/games.

But all that really matters are the dice rolls you have at the moment. Yeah, in the long run it may follow normal distribution over a course of 50 games where the swordmasters and black orcs meet in combat, but since when did my dice rolls from previous games impact my current game? They don’t since each game isn't mutual, so they aren’t important to me. And since my dice rolls this game are short term, they are not likely to follow the normal distribution curve, unless both armies are mostly swordmasters vs mostly black orcs, but the chances are they aren’t.

Chiungalla
30-11-2007, 05:11
I'm not sure what you're saying. Over time the statistics will tend to follow the expected distribution curve. Of course it is very likely to occur.

Yes, it will, but this is not what you are saying.
You don't work with expected distribution curves, you work only with predictands.

You look at the predictands, not the expected distribution curve, and say unit B will win.

The right thing to do will be, to take the whole distribution curve, for all the dice rolls, do the greater mathhammer, and say: B will win with a probability of x%, A will win with a probability of y% and it will be a draw with a probability of z%.


Except those die are not rolled once, they are rolled many times. Gathering all those rolls together you will find that they do indeed conform to the expected.

They do conform with the expected, not with the predictand, but with the whole distribution curve.

And this isn't a Gaussian distribution, because of the many many dice rolls involved, and this can make very strange things happen.

And in some cases the predictand is only hit in a very rare amount of times, some times (in special cases) never.


So yes, armies can be balanced and should be balanced towards what is likely to occur rather than the most remote possibility such as animosity being a positive.

No, they should be balanced with all posibilities, and there probabilities, in mind.
If you only go by predictands, you will miss over 90% of the cases most of the time, when there are many dice involved.

If you go by predictands, high elves will fail no panic test.

And if you go by predictands you may miss, just for example, some thing like a 60 point unit of goblins actually have a 25% chance to win against a 240 points unit of swordmasters.


Their playtesting has been a disaster. With the large sampe size you would indeed find armies clustered together with a properly balanced playgroup however our results show something startlingly different. The average is not being met. The expected distribution is simply not being seen. Their game testing has indeed failed utterly and is not superior to, well, anything.

You are wrong.
Our results don't have a sample with a "properly balanced playgroup", or at least there is no evidence for a "properly balanced playgroup" in it.

You will only get a "properly balanced playgroup" by a large enough sample sice, if you assume that players chose there armies with a La Place distribution (at random with no preferences of any kind), and you can't seriously believe this is given.

Heretic Burner
01-12-2007, 01:29
In the long term it's likely to occur, but in the short term the chances are it won't. So no, the chances are it won't happen, unless your counting dice rolls from different situations/games.


Which of course is exactly what we are counting as the playtesting would, theoretically, involve more than a single game between two drunken players rolling dice then sending the book to print. We expect them to have a very strong idea of just what army A will do when met up with army B - any competent gaming company will do the very same with their product. Sadly this has been shown to not be the case by the enormous volume of data collected so far.

As we aren't seeing anywhere close to proper balance we can conclude quite safely that their playtesting is dreadfully flawed. Not that we are alone, GW also admits that their armies aren't balanced having come out on record indicating that tournament results do indeed factor in future balancing efforts. Yet their current model is a dreadful failure so its about time to look at other ideas.

Chiungalla
01-12-2007, 08:11
As we aren't seeing anywhere close to proper balance we can conclude quite safely that their playtesting is dreadfully flawed.

No, we can not conclude quite safely, because the data don't actually show, what you want to see in them. As I said before many times.

To read into the data, what you want to, you need to think about the player skill equally distributed across all armies.
And this isn't given.

And no, this isn't given because of the great number of players in your statistic.
To let those great numbers work in your favour, the players need to chose there armies on a random basic, what isn't given.

I agree with you, that in general, the balance in Warhammer is not good.
A very nice and good way to deal with this, is to reduce the life time of the army books, maybe making them a free download.

So you can change things more often, and balance books better against each other. That is a way GW has allready used for Bloodbowl, and there it works quite nice.

But my orcs do very good, seldom loose a game, and I have great fun playing them. And I'am not even the best player around. So I don't see any need to bother with an army that does so good in my hands.

Heretic Burner
01-12-2007, 17:41
No, we can not conclude quite safely, because the data don't actually show, what you want to see in them. As I said before many times.

Absolutely. Everyone needs to look at the data with an eye of seeing things not shown in the numbers. There are no proofs in science outside of math so of course interpretation is the rule of the day. In this case the evidence is concrete showing O&G significantly outplayed by other armies.



To read into the data, what you want to, you need to think about the player skill equally distributed across all armies.
And this isn't given.

Sure. However, with zero, zip, nadda, nil evidence showing otherwise the most logical step is to, of course, take the statistics at face value.



And no, this isn't given because of the great number of players in your statistic.
To let those great numbers work in your favour, the players need to chose there armies on a random basic, what isn't given.

The players have to do no such thing. The statistics are in no way, shape, or form tied to "choosing". We have zero evidence at all that in "choosing" the army it has any influece whatsoever on the effectiveness of said army. Without any evidence to the contrary, once again the proper thing to do is to take it at its simplest meaning without any convulated theories.



I agree with you, that in general, the balance in Warhammer is not good.
A very nice and good way to deal with this, is to reduce the life time of the army books, maybe making them a free download.

Which of course is an outstanding idea implemented by countless successful companies. Updating the product does indeed aid in balance. With the greatest source of playtesting available, the players, we have scored a massive amount of data to allow GW to make the necessary balance steps. GW themselves have long since admitted of using tournament data for balance so it isn't far off to suggest they actually implement changes.



So you can change things more often, and balance books better against each other. That is a way GW has allready used for Bloodbowl, and there it works quite nice.

It certainly does, especially since it is one of the few areas of their business they actually accept player feedback and engage in conversation with their customer base. With a fraction of the resources devoted to Bloodbowl as well.



But my orcs do very good, seldom loose a game, and I have great fun playing them. And I'am not even the best player around. So I don't see any need to bother with an army that does so good in my hands.

Your orcs may do well, however the statistics show quite clearly the majority of players O&G do not do "very good". Fortunately we don't look at isolated incidents to determine balance - not even GW with their dreadful track record does that - we take the far more powerful data of accumulated evidence. What does good in your hands against a very select group of opponents has not shown to be at all effective for a great number of players against a far wider selection of opponents...much more powerful evidence. I'm quite certain there are players using DE to great effectiveness against WE out there however the bulk of the evidence is quite to the contrary.

sephiroth87
02-12-2007, 04:18
Misfire? Nope, Strangleroot!

Chiungalla
02-12-2007, 07:26
There are no proofs in science outside of math so of course interpretation is the rule of the day. In this case the evidence is concrete showing O&G significantly outplayed by other armies.

"No truth in science without math", don't even is close to, "every math done is right". You have to think about your math, and circumstances, in science very carefully to get any good result.

And if you do this for your tourney statistics, you will end up knowing, what they show, and what they don't show. What you can read in the math, and what is proven by the math.

And what needs further thinking, new data and a new statistic to be proven.

And to get to the conclusion you want to get, you can't take tourney datas at all. You need an experiment.

Science isn't collecting data in the wild, because they have failures and influences you can't even imagine. Science is all about experiments.

Thats the problem for nearly every science: you need an experiment, to get things proven

So if you want your conclusion to be proven, you need a great number of players, give them random armies, and look at the results of many thousand battles.


Sure. However, with zero, zip, nadda, nil evidence showing otherwise the most logical step is to, of course, take the statistics at face value.

No, it maybe the step most people will take, but that is only because they don't no a slight bit of science theory.


Without any evidence to the contrary, once again the proper thing to do is to take it at its simplest meaning without any convulated theories.

There is an evidence to the contrary, in the simplest principles of science theory:
If you don't choose your samples by random, but let them be choosen by preferences, you make mistakes.

If it's your preferences or that of the players makes no difference in this case.

Heretic Burner
02-12-2007, 19:40
Science isn't collecting data in the wild, because they have failures and influences you can't even imagine. Science is all about experiments.

Completely absurd. Science in no way, shape, or form requires "experiments" to be, well, science. It is a systematic knowledge or practice - you simply do not require experiments.



Thats the problem for nearly every science: you need an experiment, to get things proven

Since things are never "proven" in science it is quite clear that this is completely absurd. There are only proofs in mathematics.



So if you want your conclusion to be proven, you need a great number of players, give them random armies, and look at the results of many thousand battles.

If I wanted proofs I would look to math. I have no desire for proofs. I have desire for theories and conclusive evidence showing results. We have a veritable mountain of data suggesting O&G are indeed statistically significantly weak in tournament battles, its enough to show quite clearly that there is a fundamental problem with the book.



No, it maybe the step most people will take, but that is only because they don't no a slight bit of science theory.

You have repeatedly stated there are proofs in science and all science requires experiments. Clearly one of us is at fault and that is certainly not myself!



There is an evidence to the contrary, in the simplest principles of science theory:
If you don't choose your samples by random, but let them be choosen by preferences, you make mistakes.

There is absolutely zero, nil, nadda, zip evidence whatsoever that there is any statistical correlation between army preference and performance. There is statistical correlation between army type and performance presented. I certainly encourage you to provide that evidence of correlation between preference and performance, we certainly have seen none yet, however until that time scientific principals are quite clear you do not go with a convulated and more unlikely scenerio to explain you go with the basic.



If it's your preferences or that of the players makes no difference in this case.

Sure. As it stands we have no evidence that preference is directly correlated with performance. Army type however certainly is.

John Wayne II
02-12-2007, 20:55
Completely absurd. Science in no way, shape, or form requires "experiments" to be, well, science. It is a systematic knowledge or practice - you simply do not require experiments.


:wtf:

Now I know you are taking the ****...

Gralph!?!
02-12-2007, 21:07
well, if this has been said yet i am sorry but the thread was too long so i didn't read it all.

my 2 pence in the matter is that the orcs and goblins are an army that can do well in tournaments, i play against a few people in my local GW who tend to be fairly good with their armies such as a dwarf player and a wood elf player as well as maddoc grotsnik who tends to give me and him a good game.

the point is that the orcs and goblins are a fairly compeative force if you kowhow to use there dirty tricks to your advantage. some tricks are things like abusing hatred and frenzy with your cheap throw away units, using fanatics to sway the enemy away from you works well (they are not offensive tools so do not rely on them killing entire units) i very rarly use fanatics and i can do fairly well. i use 1 or 2 if i have the spare points in my unit ofgoblins so that i can use them tactically. if anything the fact that tactics are a very important thing for orcs and goblins to use is what makes them ifficult to use. since animosity xcan make you charge ywhen you do not want to, you may squabble holding up your well thought out battle plan or stops your magic, these are all things that you need to consider by having some levels of back up plans. orcs do not work when the person thinks that you need to rsh the board and charge to win. this often fails and as such i have found my spier riders to be my hardest unit since they can get up the board abnd **** people off alot. hell they are the single unit that has ever killed maddoc grotsniks flaggelents.

pretty much the jist off all this rambling is that for orcs to win in tournament settings they need a good general who can use terrain to its advantage and also lots of fast throw away units like wolf riders and spider riders for dissuption purposes.

WillFightForFood
02-12-2007, 21:22
As it stands we have no evidence that preference is directly correlated with performance. Army type however certainly is.

We have no evidence of it, because no one has compiled any data to rule it out. What you need here is a validity check. Does what your measuring actually represent the concept you think it does? Does your measure have a proper relation to real world events outside the sample? You're saying that the tournament results measure army strength/brokenness and game balance. Ceteris Paribus, that has face validity. But there are a number of other variables involved here that you're not measuring. You're not measuring subject skill level. You don't have any idea if there is a selection bias (You're claiming no, but that's not been measured, so you really can't make that claim).

Think about it this way, typically for causation you want the following things to be established:
1. Correlation
2. Time-Order
3. Context
4. Nonspuriousness
5. Causal Mechanism

1-3 I'll grant you, but you can't rule out alternative factors which may explain the outcomes, and you really don't have a good explanation for the causal mechanism because you can't directly establish that A->B relationship and there are far too many intervening variables at work here that you don't even bother to examine.

In any case, you are right - Army Type is correlated with tournament performance in the tournaments measured - but then I invariably I get phone calls from solicitors on days that I can sleep in - no one would posit my sleeping in causes me to be called.

Say it with me kids, correlation does not mean causation.

Chiungalla
03-12-2007, 03:32
Say it with me kids, correlation does not mean causation.

Correlation does not mean causation. :angel:


Completely absurd. Science in no way, shape, or form requires "experiments" to be, well, science. It is a systematic knowledge or practice - you simply do not require experiments.

Okay, I alter my statement:
You need experiments to make good science.
You can make bad science without experiments all the day, but you get the "correlation does not mean causation" problem all the time.



Since things are never "proven" in science it is quite clear that this is completely absurd. There are only proofs in mathematics.

No, there are proofs in science.
They may not be same kind of proofs you make in mathematics, but they are called and used as proofs.
And they are done by experiments.


You have repeatedly stated there are proofs in science and all science requires experiments. Clearly one of us is at fault and that is certainly not myself!

And you are wrong again.


There is absolutely zero, nil, nadda, zip evidence whatsoever that there is any statistical correlation between army preference and performance.

Yes, but you get this seriously wrong again.
I'am not the one who needs evidence.

You need evidence, that there is no correlation (or better causation) between army preferenc and performance, to make your conclusions.


There is statistical correlation between army type and performance presented.

And there was a statistical correlation between the population of storks in northern germany in the 19th century, and the new born children.

And despite this correlation, it hast turned out, that they don't bring the children.


Sure. As it stands we have no evidence that preference is directly correlated with performance. Army type however certainly is.

And we have no evidence, that there is no such causation or correlation.

And I don't need any evidence, because I don't make any claim I need evidence for. The only claim I made, was that you can't get your conclusion from the data. And that is a fact.

You may show correlation perfectly fine, but you can't show causation without an experiment.

But you make a claim, and you need evidence that there are no other causations that cause your correlation.

Heretic Burner
04-12-2007, 00:15
Correlation does not mean causation.

However, there is certainly zero evidence to the contrary. Once again, principles state the most base answer is the strongest rather than the most convulated and complicated unless shown otherwise. Certainly there has been nothing to show otherwise though, as always, I welcome those with doubts to present the evidence they've been witholding to explain those objections.



Okay, I alter my statement:
You need experiments to make good science.
You can make bad science without experiments all the day, but you get the "correlation does not mean causation" problem all the time.

Nonsense. There is certainly "good" science completely viable without experiments. Experiments in no way shape or form is necessary for "science" as has already been shown. Good or bad.



No, there are proofs in science.
They may not be same kind of proofs you make in mathematics, but they are called and used as proofs.
And they are done by experiments.

No they aren't. There are no proofs in science outside of mathematics. There are theories. There is evidence. But never, ever, proofs.



You need evidence, that there is no correlation (or better causation) between army preferenc and performance, to make your conclusions.

I need no such evidence at all! I go with the most base explanation, the principle explanation, the more accepted explanation then the vastly more convulated one you are suggesting. Show evidence otherwise then the base theory may be changed otherwise...no luck.



And there was a statistical correlation between the population of storks in northern germany in the 19th century, and the new born children.

And despite this correlation, it hast turned out, that they don't bring the children.

Yes, showing how you should provide evidence to suggest otherwise. Without evidence you can make all manner of equally wrong assumptions, however principles remain the base answer is the strongest until shown otherwise. I encourage you to present this evidence you've been witholding.



And we have no evidence, that there is no such causation or correlation.


We have iron clad evidence of correlation. It doesn't get any stronger. Until shown otherwise, no other suggestion is as feasible for causation.



And I don't need any evidence, because I don't make any claim I need evidence for. The only claim I made, was that you can't get your conclusion from the data. And that is a fact.

You have made numerous claims contrary to the presented evidence, most notably that O&G are not signifcantly underperforming with regards to other armies. You have presented zero, nil, nadda evidence to maintain such a wild and convulated claim.



You may show correlation perfectly fine, but you can't show causation without an experiment.

Barring any contradicting evidence, it is indeed the strongest evidence we have. We can certainly utilize the strongest and most powerful statistical evidence available to conclude facts.



But you make a claim, and you need evidence that there are no other causations that cause your correlation.

And evidence has indeed been presented supporting the claim. Zero, nil, nadda, zip evidence has been presented suggesting otherwise. The most basic principled explanation is used until shown otherwise.

Chiungalla
04-12-2007, 04:44
There was zero, nil nadda evidence from your side showing causation.
The evidence for correlation is clear, but you can't make the claim of causation by simply showing correlation.

And your claim that the most simple answers are right untill proven otherwise is wrong.

To make a claim, you are the one to show the evidence. And you still have not shown any evidence for causation, but only for correlation. And you claim causation.

And there is only one way leading from correlation to causation: experiments.
All other forms of correlation are no evidence for causation, and even a experiment needs carefull thinking to show causation.

And even if your claim that the simplest answers are right, was right, I don't agree that your answer is more simple then mine.
I don't agree that "orcs and goblins is a bad army list" is a more simple or basic claim then "more bad players play orcs & goblins".

So you have at best equally good evidence for your causation "theory", if you don't accept our word that good players perform well with orcs & goblins.

There are some good tactics and army lists around for orcs & goblins that work really great.

The ability to charge a gunline (or a mage alone or in a small unit) from the savety of a hill with a Wyvern is priceless, and no other army can do this.

Avatar of Mork
04-12-2007, 06:37
It is hard to argue with a guy that constantly believes that repeting the phrase "there is absolutely zero, nil, nadda, zip evidence" makes him a winner (yeah and that is you Heretic Burner!).

With that said I personally hope that Avian gets the data soon so we can finally put an end to this discussion. New players finds animosity hard to deal with witch leads to bad battleplans and defeat. For an experienced player animosity isnīt that problematic. Use black orc bosses and troops not suffering from animosity like giants and chariots and youīll be fine. A really nasty build is a multi chariot army with 8 chariots.

DeathlessDraich
04-12-2007, 10:14
Seems as if the discussion has strayed somewhat.


New players finds animosity hard to deal with witch leads to bad battleplans and defeat. For an experienced player animosity isnīt that problematic. Use black orc bosses and troops not suffering from animosity like giants and chariots and youīll be fine. A really nasty build is a multi chariot army with 8 chariots.

Hello and welcome.
O&G is not my favourite army by far mainly because of the unpredictability of Animosity which makes it very difficult to plan ahead with units that have to test.
Waagh is almost as fickle. Couple this with low Ld and Troll Stupidity makes O&G a difficult army. I invariably lose or draw when I deign to use them but I did almost scrape a victory against the new HE, even after failing several animosity tests.

Chiungalla
04-12-2007, 12:28
You simply not have to use that units that are subjekt to animosity that much.

Giants, Trolls, chariots, warmachines and black orcs don't suffer from animosity, and are very good (or at least cheap) troops.

And 5 model units of cavalry loose there animosity with the first casulty.

Heretic Burner
04-12-2007, 23:00
There was zero, nil nadda evidence from your side showing causation.
The evidence for correlation is clear, but you can't make the claim of causation by simply showing correlation.

Nor is there a need to do so. In the absence of any viable alternatives supported by evidence clearly the answer supplied is by far the most supported statistically.



And your claim that the most simple answers are right untill proven otherwise is wrong.

Utter nonsense. It's a derivative of a major foundation of today's philosophy of science. Clearly the most notable proponant was William of Ockham, hence Occam's Razor. It is the standard most any notable scientist has used for centuries from Newton to Einstein.



To make a claim, you are the one to show the evidence. And you still have not shown any evidence for causation, but only for correlation. And you claim causation.

Evidence supporting the claim is by far strongest than any other viable alternative. By far. So far in fact there has been absolutely none supplied against it at all!



And there is only one way leading from correlation to causation: experiments.
All other forms of correlation are no evidence for causation, and even a experiment needs carefull thinking to show causation.

Fortunately we have the greatest "experiment" available of them all: tournament games. It is an ongoing experiment. Though, once again as has been repeatedly shown to you experiments are in no way, shape, or form necessary for science. Indeed it would be most unethical for human psychologists to perform otherwise!



And even if your claim that the simplest answers are right, was right, I don't agree that your answer is more simple then mine.
I don't agree that "orcs and goblins is a bad army list" is a more simple or basic claim then "more bad players play orcs & goblins".

Yes I, as have virtually every notable scientist in existance, do indeed make the claim that the simplest answer is the strongest. O&G being a horrid army list is indeed a simpler answer, it deviates from the base (armies are perfectly balanced) by one movement (armies aren't perfectly balanced). Your theory, however, makes multiple unexplained assumptions the primary being there is any reason whatsoever for players to be biased in selection. There is also the major fault in why poor players would show a bias for O&G when in 6th they haven't. And indeed the most crippling stroke of all - there is no evidence at all that there is any "bad player" bias at all! It is so convulated it makes the head spin.



So you have at best equally good evidence for your causation "theory", if you don't accept our word that good players perform well with orcs & goblins.

Clearly not. The gaps in your theory are enormous as has just been shown with no evidence to back it up at all presented as yet. As of yet, all evidence presented does indeed support the base theory proposed and should be accepted.



There are some good tactics and army lists around for orcs & goblins that work really great.

Clearly those tactics and army lists proposed haven't worked great, hence the dreadful statistics. Of course one might argue yet another deviation from the base in that O&G players somehow are more prone to not using tactics however this makes a convulated theory even worse!



The ability to charge a gunline (or a mage alone or in a small unit) from the savety of a hill with a Wyvern is priceless, and no other army can do this.

This is completely random and bizarrely off topic on a tangent I can't even fathom.

sephiroth87
04-12-2007, 23:51
If you keep feeding him, this is what you get...

Prince Facestab
05-12-2007, 01:10
I think you're wildly misusing Occam's Razor. Occam's razor, first of all, states that the simplest explanation is the preffered explanation, not the strongest. It was never intended to be used in defense of a theory, so you can't say "I don't need evidence, because my explanation is the simplest!"

What we have so far is data that suggests that the average orc player will do poorly at tournaments. You seem to take this as evidence that the best reason for this is that the O&G book is the weakest; in reality, this is not suggested any more by the data than any other theory that has been presented. What's so complicated about suggesting that new players have joined O&G, bringing the average down? Evidence for this having happened is... the low average of O&G players. The exact same evidence as you are using. The point is, we lack evidence for a great number of theories, including yours, and even if being the simplest explanation was a defense, your theory has no right to utilize it. In fact, since Avian has provided some evidence for the new player theory (and your refusal to acknowledge it as evidence merely enforces the idea that experimental data should have blinds on it to prevent "outliers" being removed due to bias), yours might even be the more complicated theory that should not be examined until evidence suggests that we look at it.

A corrolary of Occam's Razor, possibly by Einstein says "The simplest possible explanation should be used, but no simpler." In reality, this is a complex issue, and there are many factors involved, and probably at least some of their low performance is due to a poor army book. But one can only suspect that, or have opinions, until some evidence of a particular cause is given. Until then, you are basing a theory off of opinion and speculation, and even if you do turn out to be right, it's just a coincedence, and doesn't imply any virtue on your part.

dabber
05-12-2007, 02:10
I'm the guy that compiled the data and created the thread on Warhammer Realm. As a reminder
http://www.warvault.net/warhammer_realm/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4037

I must complain about a few things in this 8 page thread first.
* There isn't enough data. I know that, I just want to reinforce it to you. I compile and post it because this is far better than anything else I can find. Works great for refuting posts like "Dwarfs are so broken!!!!!!!!!!". I think its worth considering for more serious conclusions, but its tough.

* References to how one person does (here with greenskins), or how some army did in a specific tournament. The entire point of this concept is that small scale results are meaningless. MEANINGLESS! Of course O&G (or any other army) can win games and can win tournaments. That says nothing about its overall or average quality.

rant over



If you read down the Warhammer Realm thread, the suggestion currently being discussed here was done once. I dropped the bottom half of the results and recalculated. The Orcs & Goblins rating didn't change. (look at my Oct 10 post where I archived the original post before updating it).

On that discussion, how many new players do you think actually attend GTs? How many younger players? Do you see people at GTs that started playing Warhammer in the last 6 months? The ones I've attended (US) have very few teenagers (under 10%) and a chunk of those come with their fathers, who are also playing. I don't have any hard numbers, but I don't see how there is a significant "youth" factor in GTs.

I also don't see how there can be a link to the starter set. A GT army is vastly bigger than the starter set and requires a much larger committment. Models acquired there may be convenient, but in terms of building a fully painted GT army, they are not that significant. I think much more important is Orcs & Goblins and Dwarfs got new army books recently. To heck with the starter set, the army book ups the popularity. By Avian's chart (change in popularity related to the mean, Nov 22), the top 4 increases are recent army books. The recent army book that didn't increase (Empire) was among the more popular in 6th edition. I think army book makes tons more sense than the starter set.

However, in terms of hard numbers, it is very impractical to really link army frequency with time. When you start chopping up the totals by time, the numbers get a lot smaller and really dubious. I drew a hard line at the release of 7th edition. I felt that had a clear impact on every army at once and thus was worth doing. I also kinda consider the 6th edition numbers as "practice", since I didn't start collecting data until about the last year of 6th.

Chiungalla
05-12-2007, 08:13
Fortunately we have the greatest "experiment" available of them all: tournament games. It is an ongoing experiment.

If you believe the tournament games qualify for an experiment, you are so wrong, as you are in this whole thread from the beginning.

You get all the theory of science stuff so terrible wrong.


Yes I, as have virtually every notable scientist in existance, do indeed make the claim that the simplest answer is the strongest.

Not the strongest, only the first one to check.



The entire point of this concept is that small scale results are meaningless. MEANINGLESS! Of course O&G (or any other army) can win games and can win tournaments. That says nothing about its overall or average quality.

You may want this to be true, but small scale results are not even near to meaningless.


If you read down the Warhammer Realm thread, the suggestion currently being discussed here was done once. I dropped the bottom half of the results and recalculated. The Orcs & Goblins rating didn't change. (look at my Oct 10 post where I archived the original post before updating it).

That is meaningless.
Because only viewing the upper or lower half will not bring any better results.

If (for example) the player skill is not meaningless but very important.
And (for example) Orcs and Goblins have 2/3 bad players and 1/3 good players.
And (for example) Bretonnia have 2/3 good players and 1/3 bad players.

The Bretonnia will be the best army if you do the math on the whole data.
And they will be the best army, if you do the math on the upper or lower half of the data.



On that discussion, how many new players do you think actually attend GTs? How many younger players? Do you see people at GTs that started playing Warhammer in the last 6 months?

Why 6 months?

To become a good tourney player you need
- talent
- a lot of games
- against different opponents
- which should be at a good skill level, so you will learn faster and more
- which should play with different army lists

And very few players are good tourney players after 6 months.
Some play like crap after several years if they don't have the right "training conditions".

Red_Duke
05-12-2007, 08:48
I think pretty much the one and only thing we can be 'scientifically certain' of, is that Heretic Burner and Dabber don't like the new O&G army book ;)

Past this, i think its all a matter of peoples tastes really.

I think it can be said of most armies that there are those who think they are a terrible army, capable of nothing but failure, and there are those who think the exact opposite. Still, it would be pretty boring if we were all using the same army :)

Storak
05-12-2007, 13:27
i have been following this topic for quite a while now. unfortunately reasonable points, like dabber above or Avian's graphs are rather the exception that the rule.


What we have so far is data that suggests that the average orc player will do poorly at tournaments. You seem to take this as evidence that the best reason for this is that the O&G book is the weakest;

the "average orc player" does not exist.
the data shows, that on average, orcs perform worse in tournament that we would expect them to do.


You may want this to be true, but small scale results are not even near to meaningless.

of course they are. it is rather bizarre, that many of the people who dismiss the tournament data, think that their personal experience of 3 battles is important to this topic.


That is meaningless.
Because only viewing the upper or lower half will not bring any better results.

If (for example) the player skill is not meaningless but very important.
And (for example) Orcs and Goblins have 2/3 bad players and 1/3 good players.
And (for example) Bretonnia have 2/3 good players and 1/3 bad players.

The Bretonnia will be the best army if you do the math on the whole data.
And they will be the best army, if you do the math on the upper or lower half of the data.

you obviously do not understand what dabber did.
he tested the hypothesis, that orcs (or other armies) perform worse, because of a exceptionally high number of very bad, new or "fluffy" players.
limiting the data to the "best" 50% would filter out the majority of the new players, who joined orcs because of a starter set.


And 5 model units of cavalry loose there animosity with the first casulty.

and they lose most flank charge benefits as well.

------------------------

i have not played enough games under the new rules. but the facts are rather obvious:

1. many orc players consider the book weak. this includes players who performed well with orcs before.

2. even a lot of other players think the same.

3. the thesis that the army book is weak is supported by data from tournament results.

4. there is evidence, that other factors (new army books etc) affect those tournaments as well.

we wont get perfect data soon. so i think we should look carefully at what we have.

Chiungalla
05-12-2007, 15:32
you obviously do not understand what dabber did.

I do, probably better then you and him, but it is meaningless what he has done.

To do a wrong things with the data, does not make the conclusions you want to take the right thing.
And simply letting down 50% of the data, is no good thing to do with a data set.


he tested the hypothesis, that orcs (or other armies) perform worse, because of a exceptionally high number of very bad, new or "fluffy" players.
limiting the data to the "best" 50% would filter out the majority of the new players, who joined orcs because of a starter set.

Like you could see in my example it will not "filter this out" in nearly all cases. So it will not test the hypothesis at all.


and they lose most flank charge benefits as well.

No they don't.
4 models of cavalry have a unit strengh of 8, what is perfectly enough to get the +1 from a flank charge and negate ranks.


we wont get perfect data soon. so i think we should look carefully at what we have.

And carefull looking shows us, that the existing data shows next to nothing about army book power.

dabber
05-12-2007, 17:43
You may want this to be true, but small scale results are not even near to meaningless.
Please explain. What value does O&G winning the Colonial GT have towards determining the overall power level of the army? I see one data point as meaningless, because it has massive variations based upon player skill, opponents, army list, dice, etc, etc, etc. Same with proposing that at tournament X, the O&G finished 4, 7, 16 with their 3 out of 80 entries. The idea of compiling lots of data is most of those other factors should average out. Certainly dice, opponents, army list and scenarios should average out. Whether player skill can average out is worth debating and that is what we are doing.



If (for example) the player skill is not meaningless but very important.
And (for example) Orcs and Goblins have 2/3 bad players and 1/3 good players.
And (for example) Bretonnia have 2/3 good players and 1/3 bad players.
The Bretonnia will be the best army if you do the math on the whole data.
And they will be the best army, if you do the math on the upper or lower half of the data.
Only if you assume the results are perfectly distributed.
Lets make a 24 person tournament example.
Brets finish 1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22.
O&G finish 7, 9, 14, 19, 23, 24.
Brets have 4 in the top 1/3 and O&G have 1.
The finishers at 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 are the good players.

If you remove the bottom half, you remove all the bad players. The Bret rating gets better (3/4 in the top instead of 4/6) while the O&G does not (0 vs 2/6)





And very few players are good tourney players after 6 months.
Some play like crap after several years if they don't have the right "training conditions".
True. But some are good quicker. The largest tournament in the US was won by a 15 year old this year. The main point is I don't see a basis for the claim that "O&G attracts newer players". I cannot refute it solidly, but I can better attempt to address the idea that new players are significant enough at GTs to matter. The only visual way I can identify a newer player is age and I see few teenagers at the GTs I attend.

Storak
05-12-2007, 17:48
No they don't.
4 models of cavalry have a unit strengh of 8, what is perfectly enough to get the +1 from a flank charge and negate ranks.


ooops, i was wrong. looks like i got confused by being adviced to have my enemy reduce my units to a "working" size.
quite often a single round of shooting will leave me with 2 wolfs, fleeing.


I do, probably better then you and him, but it is meaningless what he has done.

To do a wrong things with the data, does not make the conclusions you want to take the right thing.
And simply letting down 50% of the data, is no good thing to do with a data set.
...
Like you could see in my example it will not "filter this out" in nearly all cases. So it will not test the hypothesis at all.

what hypothesis?
the one he was testing is: O&G have bigger numbers of players and worse performance in tournaments, because many new (weak) players chose the army because of the starter set.
the 50% + data does contradict this hypothesis.

your "example " only works, when both armies have the same number.
if you assume O&G having 150 players (2/3 bad players), and Daemonic Legion having 75 (and only 1/3 bad), the top 50% would include 50 of both. and top 25% should be equal as well. it isn t.

perhaps you might want to state (or repeat?) your hypothesis?

Chiungalla
05-12-2007, 18:48
In your example, there will be 225 players over all.
So there will be 112,5 players in the top half.

Orcs & Goblins don't even have the 56,25 good players to fill the top half.
Demonic Legion don't have them as well.

So there are 100 good players equaly mixed in the top 50 out of the top players.
And there will be 12,5 players with bad skill.

But your example will only work with exactly this parameters.
If there will be only 10 more good demonic leagion players (or bad orcs & goblins players) around, you end up with the demonic legion still in favor.

This shows that your filtering on the data, does not provide results you can trust in, but only works if the data you work with turns out to be in your favour.

Kahadras
05-12-2007, 18:54
I think everybody needs to step away from the maths/science for a minuite. Looking at the latest GTUK heat results Orcs and Goblins didn't do that badly with placings spread nearly equaly throughout the rankings (no complex maths needed here)

This blows any theory of O&G being 'broken' out of the water as people actualy qualified with the army. If O&G was so poor no one would be in the top half (noting this is one of the most competitive tourney events and sees a lot of net listing and the like). If Orc and Goblins were as poor as some people indicate then there would be no way they could stand up to the Bretonnian, Wood Elf, Empire and Dwarf competitive builds that are so popular at the present moment in the tourney scene.

Kahadras

Storak
05-12-2007, 19:42
In your example, there will be 225 players over all.
So there will be 112,5 players in the top half.

no. there are more army lists, than those 2. other armies with less extreme ratios will balamce this.


So there are 100 good players equaly mixed in the top 50 out of the top players.
And there will be 12,5 players with bad skill.

if you form two groups of players, the obvious point of separation is the middle. 50% being bad players, 50% being good.
if you chose another point, your quotas (1/3 and 2/3) will lose their meaning.


But your example will only work with exactly this parameters.
If there will be only 10 more good demonic leagion players (or bad orcs & goblins players) around, you end up with the demonic legion still in favor.

no. it is the other way round: it only works as you think, if you use similar number of players for both armies.

yes, i chose the 150 nad 75 numbers, to make the math easy. by what scientific method did you come up with 1/3 and 2/3 ratios?


This shows that your filtering on the data, does not provide results you can trust in, but only works if the data you work with turns out to be in your favour.

this is false.
dabber chose a simple method to test his hypothesis. if you have a better one, apply it.


I think everybody needs to step away from the maths/science for a minuite. Looking at the latest GTUK heat results Orcs and Goblins didn't do that badly with placings spread nearly equaly throughout the rankings (no complex maths needed here)

yes, eyeballing the result of one tournament certainely is a much better approach than an analysis of all tournament numbers.

i forgot to mention one fact in my list above:

5. some players perform good with the new army book.

warlord hack'a
05-12-2007, 20:13
okay, here we go again: Heretic claims the book is broken and hence the bad O&G results. However, the fact that soem O&G players end up high on the tourny lists points in the direction (but is not proof or evidence or any of these strong words that I as a biologist have since long learned to avoid) of his theory being flawed as the amount of players ending high whilst the armylist is severly broken should be very low, as in maybe 1 O&G player who was lucky 6 battles in a row..

p.s. Heretic Burner, do you just love the word convulated or do you get paid to promote it?

Chiungalla
05-12-2007, 21:08
no. there are more army lists, than those 2. other armies with less extreme ratios will balamce this.

Not in the example. In the example there were only two armies.
If you take more, it will turn out to have even more problems, not less.
But you have a harder time to explain them, because it becomes very difficult.


if you form two groups of players, the obvious point of separation is the middle. 50% being bad players, 50% being good.

Yes, it may be the obvious point, but it isn't the right point.


if you chose another point, your quotas (1/3 and 2/3) will lose their meaning.

I don't think you got my quotas right in the first place.


no. it is the other way round: it only works as you think, if you use similar number of players for both armies.

Thats perfectly fine for me (but not true).
If I show one (and only one) possible example where a mathematical method doesn't turn out to get the right result, the whole method needs rethinking.

And that is what I have done for the "only the best x%" stuff.
The data you get from that are flawed, because the result does not depend on actuall correlation, but only choosing the x in the right way, to get the result you want.

Another example:
There are 300 players around.
200 orcs and goblin player, 80 good players, and 120 bad players.
100 demonic legion players, 80 good players, and 20 bad players.
And the assumption, that both army lists work actually as good as the other.

If you take the whole data, you will end up with the result suggesting that the demonic legion is far better then orcs & goblins.

(80 out of 100 demonic legion armies will perform well, but only 80 out of 200 orcs and goblins armies.)

If you choose to cut the lower 20% of the data, you will end up with even b
better demonic legion, and worse orcs & goblins.

(80 out of 80 demonic legion armies will perfom well, but only 80 out of 180 orcs and goblins armies.)

From this point on, with increasing % of the data in the lower section not used, orcs and goblins will become better and better.

(for example 50%:
50 out of 50 demonic legion armies will do well, but only 80 out of 100 orcs and goblin armies.)

And if you reach the point, where 60% of the data is not used, they are equally good.

(40 out of 40 demonic legion, and 80 out of 80 orcs and goblin armies will work good.)

So the result depends largely on the actuall set of data, and the chosen amount of ignored data. And to guess something like 50% will not provide any good results at all.


this is false.
dabber chose a simple method to test his hypothesis. if you have a better one, apply it.

I need not to have a better one.
I showed very clear that his method does not work.

And I don't even think that his hypothesis is of any worth.
So why should I think about methods to strongen a hypothesis I don't believe in?

I would go with an experiment if I want to know the truth.
A great number of players, given there armies at random, and play against each other.

But this question isn't that important to me, to make this happen, because it will be much work to do so.

But a better method would be, to make graphs about "army quality" depending on how much of the data is used for all armies.

By comparing these armies, and carefull thinking about the graphs, you are maybe possible to figure out some details, that you miss, if you only look at points from this graphs by using only one possible percentage.

Kahadras
05-12-2007, 21:10
yes, eyeballing the result of one tournament certainely is a much better approach than an analysis of all tournament numbers.


Yup seen as it actualy contains list rankings. It's better to work with than just some statistics without any other data available. The GTUK Heat three results gives us the amount of O&G players, how many games they won and where they placed.

'Eyeballing' as you put it is a lot better IMHO than dragging the discussion into a convoluted maths/science arguement while twisting the data to fit your 'version' of what it proves. My point is simply that in the latest tourney O&G did quite well which shoots down the theory that the O&G armies book is in someway hopelessly broken.

Kahadras

warlord hack'a
05-12-2007, 22:32
kahadras,

can you point me to that list of actual placements, I might be able to run some statistical tests on that..

Kahadras
05-12-2007, 22:39
OK then GTUK heat 3. 140 players, 10 O&G players. 5 finished in the top half, 2 in the top 40. 5 finished in the bottom half, 2 in the bottom 40. Highest finnishing placement was 13th. Lowest finishing placement was 114th.

Placing were... 13, 24, 55, 59, 68, 82, 90, 96, 105, 114

If you want to check the whole list then just go to the Gamesday and Tournament forum: UK WHFB GT Heat 3 - who's going & with which army? thread. Should have the results in there somewhere.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
05-12-2007, 23:23
okay, here we go again: Heretic claims the book is broken and hence the bad O&G results.

No, once again that is not the case. I merely point out that the statistics show a significant departure from what is expected from a balanced scenario. In this case O&G (and others) are statistically significantly underperforming as an army. The simplest, and thus preferred theory is quite obvious - O&G as an army book has been dreadfully unbalanced. This simplest, and preferred, theory has been completely supported by the evidence at hand. There has been as yet zero evidence presented to refute this preferred theory. There is utterly no reason whatsoever to deviate from this preferred theory and yet there are posters who are convinced otherwise. I would truly love to have a full understanding on why they deviate from the preferred theory as I have yet witnessed zero evidence contrary to it. There simply must be a reason isn't there?


However, the fact that soem O&G players end up high on the tourny lists points in the direction (but is not proof or evidence or any of these strong words that I as a biologist have since long learned to avoid) of his theory being flawed as the amount of players ending high whilst the armylist is severly broken should be very low, as in maybe 1 O&G player who was lucky 6 battles in a row..

Yes, in a game where chance is indeed a major factor it is expected that even a poorly performing army will indeed finish in high standings on occasion. This is expected. I am not nearly as good in mathematics (nor do I have the available data) to state the likelihood of that occurring however given only a 6 game base, in particular with O&G's large number of players )hence mirror games), this is far from out of the question. This in no way, shape, or form invalidates that base (and preferred) theory, in fact it validates it as it adheres to expected results. As has already been told to you specifically on this point, nobody claimed that O&G (or any poor performing army) would have no chance at a high placement, it is expected in a game of chance.



p.s. Heretic Burner, do you just love the word convulated or do you get paid to promote it?

I am particularly fond of the word for being outstandingly effective at showing clearly and concisely how iron clad the preferred theory has been, and remains, to this point. If you have any leads on how I might indeed by paid to promote the word I am all ears.


And if I may, I commend you dabber for taking the time and effort to compile all the results. Your work might not be appreciated by everybody but it certainly is by myself.

Dranthar
06-12-2007, 02:00
I am standing on the earth, yet I nor anyone else on the planet does not fall into the sky. Therefore the simplest and thus prefered explanation is that the earth if flat.

This arguement clearly and completely demolishes any other theory put forward because every other theory is quite obviously wrong.

I'm so smart. :D

Prince Facestab
06-12-2007, 03:01
Heretic Burner, (see, I don't like when people abbreviate your name to "Heretic". That's kinda the opposite of your name) I'm only going to respond to a few bits of your post.


No, once again that is not the case. I merely point out that the statistics show a significant departure from what is expected from a balanced scenario. In this case O&G (and others) are statistically significantly underperforming as an army. The simplest, and thus preferred theory is quite obvious - O&G as an army book has been dreadfully unbalanced. This simplest, and preferred, theory has been completely supported by the evidence at hand. There has been as yet zero evidence presented to refute this preferred theory. There is utterly no reason whatsoever to deviate from this preferred theory and yet there are posters who are convinced otherwise. I would truly love to have a full understanding on why they deviate from the preferred theory as I have yet witnessed zero evidence contrary to it. There simply must be a reason isn't there?

I would reiterate; there is nothing that makes an unbalanced army book the simplest or preferred theory. The statistics compiled by Dabbler do not contribute any more evidence to this theory than to a number of others. So the fact that your theory hasn't been refuted doesn't mean that it's right. Just that it's still valid. Really, Avian's statistics don't make your theory invalid either; they just give evidence to other theories. I don't think we have enough data to invalidate most theories.


I am particularly fond of the word for being outstandingly effective at showing clearly and concisely how iron clad the preferred theory has been, and remains, to this point. If you have any leads on how I might indeed by paid to promote the word I am all ears.

Errr... I don't think it's actually a word. Maybe this is an across the ocean thing? I can't find it in the dictionary. However, if you do find a way to promote it, I'd like to promote the fake word "Destroyal", so I am also interested in this.



And if I may, I commend you dabber for taking the time and effort to compile all the results. Your work might not be appreciated by everybody but it certainly is by myself.

Ok, this I agree with. Dabbler has done some awesome hard work compiling a lot of information. And it certainly does say something, even if there are a few flaws (which Dabbler has acknowledged). So we should, I agree, focus on what we can learn from it, like Avian has done.

Dranthar
06-12-2007, 03:41
Okay, I'm going to be serious for a moment and put across my current assesment of the situation;

1. dabber/Avians graphs show that O&Gs have both a larger number of players and do poorer on average than other armies in overall tournament rankings.

2. By dabblers own admission, the dataset is not large enough to make any statistical conclusions. It also is unable to effectively address several variables, including player skill in relation to army preference, possible influence of the BfSP set and the newness of the army book.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't these datasets show overall rankings? In which case you would need to add painting, composition and sports to those variables.

4. Any theory formulated that is based solely on the dataset will show no statistical significance. There are simply too many variables that are unaccounted for.

5. Heretic Burner is very poor at getting his point across in a way that would be accepted by others. Even without considering his interpretations of the evidence, the fact that he's taken an extreme point of view (O&Gs are horribly broken) only serves to alienate those who might otherwise acknowledge that O&Gs are not quite as powerful/balanced/abusable/whatever as other lists.

6. Even if the O&G book was weak as ****, it only gives me more reason to play them because if I win games, I know it will be on the strength of my playing skills, rather than the strength of my army list. Thus, I could possibly even conclude that O&Gs are the best army. :D


Personally, I don't believe O&Gs are 'broken'. If anything, the list isn't quite as abusable as other lists (eg. Empire, Brets, Wood Elves, Thorek Dwarfs) and so by extension would not perform as well in tournaments where you would expect to see a higher frequency of WAAC lists.
I think other variables also influence the poor showing of O&Gs in the dataset, but like everyone else here (Heretic Burner included), I have no evidence to back my theory up.

Chiungalla
06-12-2007, 06:18
I would truly love to have a full understanding on why they deviate from the preferred theory as I have yet witnessed zero evidence contrary to it. There simply must be a reason isn't there?

1.) Because we don't agree that you claim of the broken army book is simpler then any of our other alternative claims.

2.) Because orcs & goblins finishing within the top 5 on a tourney would not be this likely, if the list were "several broken", and this occurs to some players around here for several tourneys in a row.

Avian
06-12-2007, 08:44
3. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't these datasets show overall rankings? In which case you would need to add painting, composition and sports to those variables.
It's battle results only.
(It should be so obvious that any ranking that included paiting and so forth would be uninteresting that I doubth anyone would make one.)

Flypaper
06-12-2007, 10:20
I can't find it in the dictionary.Warlord Hack'a misspelt 'convoluted (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=convoluted&x=0&y=0)'

Red_Duke
06-12-2007, 10:32
Meh, this is one that could just go on forever...

Im not sure what people think theyre actually going to learn from all the math-hammer however, other than deciding that theyre not going to invest in an O&G army, which they were lets face it unlikely to do anyway. So whats the point? The O&G haters are convinced theyre right, as are those who disagree with them. No matter how many numbers people flash around, its really not going to make a blind bit of difference.

Anyway, people who want to win tournaments THAT badly generally take something sad like the standard WE or Thorek tournament lists, or one of the Empire builds with KF or Gelt. So perhaps that would suggest that the main problem with O&G is that they dont have any broken special characters? (although i think the ones they DO have are pretty cool and characterful mind you)

Storak
06-12-2007, 12:12
Not in the example. In the example there were only two armies.
If you take more, it will turn out to have even more problems, not less.
But you have a harder time to explain them, because it becomes very difficult.

this is false. most of your results are artefacts, that will not happen if you look at a real dataset.


Thats perfectly fine for me (but not true).
If I show one (and only one) possible example where a mathematical method doesn't turn out to get the right result, the whole method needs rethinking.

you are mixing up stuff here. methods need to be chosen and adjusted to fit the data. giving "one" example, on which a version of a method doesn t work is basically useless.

especially if that example is using artificial data and an abstruse version of the method.


And that is what I have done for the "only the best x%" stuff.
The data you get from that are flawed, because the result does not depend on actuall correlation, but only choosing the x in the right way, to get the result you want.

that is false again. dabber had an obvious reason for his choice of the 50% mark. (testing a hypothesis, taht assumes a flaw in the lower part of the data. trying to keep a significant amount of data.)



Another example:
There are 300 players around.
200 orcs and goblin player, 80 good players, and 120 bad players.
100 demonic legion players, 80 good players, and 20 bad players.
And the assumption, that both army lists work actually as good as the other.

this doesn t make any sense at all.
for some weird reason, you declare 53.333...% of players as good, the rest as bad.
from that, the only groups that you can draw any conclusions about, is the ratio in the upper 53.3% and the lower 46.6%.
how will you draw any conclusion about the top 90% or the top 40% or any other group? how will the top 10% look for example?

again: dabber chose 50%, because a popular hypotheses assumes many fluffy/new (starter army/army book) O&G players bringing down their ratio.
his choice makes sense.


I would go with an experiment if I want to know the truth.
A great number of players, given there armies at random, and play against each other.

But this question isn't that important to me, to make this happen, because it will be much work to do so.

it is an impossible experiment.

------------------------

i don t have more time, but i think this discussion is flawed. we are all looking at the data (i include myself!) with quite some opinin formed already.

so i have a honest question:

do you really think, that an experienced player, with looking at the army books, following discussions and palying watching games, could not get a pretty good impression about "good/bad" army books?
would the tournament stats confirm this impression or not?

---------------------


Personally, I don't believe O&Gs are 'broken'. If anything, the list isn't quite as abusable as other lists (eg. Empire, Brets, Wood Elves, Thorek Dwarfs) and so by extension would not perform as well in tournaments where you would expect to see a higher frequency of WAAC lists.

this would be a good point, if it wasn t for 2 of those armys being NEW army books. and the third (non-O&G) new book not being represented so far.
and the other books being very LATE books, so tey will be around for a couple of years.

Chiungalla
06-12-2007, 14:18
After rethinking the whole thing, I believe I could have get dabber seriously wrong, with his 50% dropping.

Does he
a) Take a given tourney with 40 players, and only looking at the 20 doing best?
b) Take a given tournament, and looking at the best 50% of a given army?

If he does a, it is very obvious that this will produce several failures.

And if he does b, it will be the same obvious, that it will produce failures, but different ones then a.

So how does he exactly drop the data?

Storak
06-12-2007, 17:34
After rethinking the whole thing, I believe I could have get dabber seriously wrong, with his 50% dropping.

Does he
a) Take a given tourney with 40 players, and only looking at the 20 doing best?
b) Take a given tournament, and looking at the best 50% of a given army?

If he does a, it is very obvious that this will produce several failures.

And if he does b, it will be the same obvious, that it will produce failures, but different ones then a.

So how does he exactly drop the data?

i think he is doing a version of (a).


As this was initially started by a post by Jervis (GW guy) on their Games Development forum in 2005, I started out following his "ABM" (Army Brokeness Modifier) method. The concept is to look at the number of entries for each army and the number that finish in the top 1/3 (or another fraction, 1/4 changes little).

...

One potential weakness with this method of calculating is it cannot remotely account for player skill. With just GT results, it is impossible to actually account for player skill, but I thought it was worth trying something. My guess was two armies would be particularly subject to that. One is Daemonic Legion, which is almost entirely played by experienced veterans because they take the time to do the conversions. Another might be Orcs & Goblins, which often attract younger and newer players.
So I decided to try simply dropping the bottom half of the results, and then looking at the top half of the rest, or the top 1/4 overall. (This proved really easy to do in Excel, which is part of why I tried it.) The results didn't change all that much.

http://www.warvault.net/warhammer_realm/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4037#p62609

"top 1/4 overall" doesn t sound like as if he took the best 50% of each army.

------------------------------

a look at the HEAT result doesn t look very promising for O&G. seems like it was ratehr steamtank dominated..

http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/files/wfb_heat_3_results.pdf

Chiungalla
06-12-2007, 18:15
Okay.

But if you take away the bottom 50% of the data set, you don't know for sure, which one you have taken away are caused by broken army lists, and which one were caused by bad players.

Every bad list will look better, and every better list will look worth, no matter what the cause of there good or bad performance were.

-----

And I think we can all agree, that orcs & goblins are not the best lists around, and have a hard time facing lists like empire, wood elves, bretonnia and dwarfs.

Kahadras
06-12-2007, 20:59
and have a hard time facing lists like empire, wood elves, bretonnia and dwarfs.


More accurately have a hard time facing 'maximised' Empire, Wood Elf, Bretonnian and Dwarf lists. At the end of the day the arguement boils down to Orcs and Goblins don't have a 'broken', 'cheesy', 'power gamery' (or whatever else you want to call it) list build that can be exploited to allow it to compete against the Empire Karl Franz/steamtank gunline, Wood Elf tree spirit/mage, Bretonnian RAF/cavhammer or Dwarf Thorek Gunline.

Ammusingly it seems like people are arguing the Orc and Goblin book is broken for not being broken. :)

Kahadras

Dranthar
06-12-2007, 23:33
this would be a good point, if it wasn t for 2 of those armys being NEW army books. and the third (non-O&G) new book not being represented so far.
and the other books being very LATE books, so tey will be around for a couple of years.

Dude, I have no idea what you were getting at here. :D

In any case, the key word in my last paragrapgh was "Personally", hence it's just my opinion based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. I have nothing statistically solid to back it up and I don't expect people to agree with me purely on faith. ;)

Heretic Burner
07-12-2007, 00:31
I am standing on the earth, yet I nor anyone else on the planet does not fall into the sky. Therefore the simplest and thus prefered explanation is that the earth if flat.

And you'd be absolutely right to believe this as many, many, many of the top scientists of the day did as well. From a scientific process this is absolutely acceptable method. However you are forgetting one extremely vital piece of information - the simplest theory validated by the evidence at hand is taken. The evidence at hand showed the earth is not flat, thus the simplest theory with the evidence at hand is that it is indeed no longer flat but the spherical object we know today.



This arguement clearly and completely demolishes any other theory put forward because every other theory is quite obviously wrong.

Every theory is wrong? In existence? I'm afraid you are completely misinformed on the subject as your example shows quite clearly. I'm afraid the only thing completely demolished was your objection to the scientific process.

With the insurmountable evidence showing that indeed the armies do not meet the criteria for being balanced, the equally massive evidence showing O&G perform at an acceptable level in tournament results, and the undeniable fact that the preferred theory is the simplest and, as yet, completely valid available there can be no question but to agree with GW's own method - the greenskin book as it stands is a complete and utter disaster.

Dranthar
07-12-2007, 00:40
Every theory is wrong? In existence? I'm afraid you are completely misinformed on the subject as your example shows quite clearly. I'm afraid the only thing completely demolished was your objection to the scientific process.

I love how you just proved my own point by arguing against it. :D

The evidence at hand does not adequately take into account variables that we know to exist, yet have not measured (similar to my theory that the world is flat). Therefore making any conclusion (especially a conclusion as extreme as yours) is flawed.

You talk about science, yet you don't appear to have much experience in it. To make a conclusion as extreme and absolute as yours requires you to irrefutably prove that every variable that could possibly influence the conclusion is accounted for. The evidence at hand is a long, long way from doing that.

Red_Duke
07-12-2007, 11:25
Um, why are we discussing 'scientific evidence' in relation to wargames? less of the 'war', more of the 'games' please ;)

warlord hack'a
07-12-2007, 13:53
wow man heretic burner, you must have scored an A+ when they taught you how to use adjectives..

And your theory has not been valid since the start as has been pointed out so many times, yet you still come back with the same conclusion over and over again, so I'll say it one more time:

your theory is not reflected in the statistics we have, nor is any other theory posted here. or to quote Dranthar:
To make a conclusion as extreme and absolute as yours requires you to irrefutably prove that every variable that could possibly influence the conclusion is accounted for. The evidence at hand is a long, long way from doing that. (and it's also a long long way from validatnig any of the other theories)

And I go even further: if the O&G armybook is indeed broken then good and bad players would score badly. So how do you explain that quite a high number of O&G players end up high on the list then? You still have not answered this question though it was posted already weeks ago, looks like you are avoiding answering it..

Storak
07-12-2007, 14:15
More accurately have a hard time facing 'maximised' Empire, Wood Elf, Bretonnian and Dwarf lists. At the end of the day the arguement boils down to Orcs and Goblins don't have a 'broken', 'cheesy', 'power gamery' (or whatever else you want to call it) list build that can be exploited to allow it to compete against the Empire Karl Franz/steamtank gunline, Wood Elf tree spirit/mage, Bretonnian RAF/cavhammer or Dwarf Thorek Gunline.

Ammusingly it seems like people are arguing the Orc and Goblin book is broken for not being broken. :)

Kahadras

again: the problem with this claim is, that two of those broken lists are NEW army books. (and the high elfs have rather a high potential thee as well!)


Um, why are we discussing 'scientific evidence' in relation to wargames? less of the 'war', more of the 'games' please ;)

because people dismiss gaming experience as irrelevant. but they don t believe in big numbbers either.


And I go even further: if the O&G armybook is indeed broken then good and bad players would score badly. So how do you explain that quite a high number of O&G players end up high on the list then? You still have not answered this question though it was posted already weeks ago, looks like you are avoiding answering it..

that simply is not true.
the pure randomness of the game, and massive differences in player skill allows for a "best 33%" result for basically any army.




Okay.

But if you take away the bottom 50% of the data set, you don't know for sure, which one you have taken away are caused by broken army lists, and which one were caused by bad players.

Every bad list will look better, and every better list will look worth, no matter what the cause of there good or bad performance were.

yes, that is a problem. but the thesis he was testing would assume a lot of VERY BAD orc players.
2starter box bias" or "sligtly weak list" should look somewhat different in the result, but it would not be easy to spot.


And I think we can all agree, that orcs & goblins are not the best lists around, and have a hard time facing lists like empire, wood elves, bretonnia and dwarfs.

thanks for this. sounds reasonable to me.

Kahadras
07-12-2007, 18:23
again: the problem with this claim is, that two of those broken lists are NEW army books. (and the high elfs have rather a high potential thee as well!)


So whats your point? GW are still producing unbalanced armies books? Does that mean we should unbalance O&G and all of the other fairly moderate books to compensate? The only probelm with the O&G armies book seems to be that you can't power game with them. Does this indicate there's a problem with the O&G armies book or that GW still are producing easily abusable armies books?

Kahadras

tanglethorn
07-12-2007, 18:34
So whats your point? GW are still producing unbalanced armies books? Does that mean we should unbalance O&G and all of the other fairly moderate books to compensate? The only probelm with the O&G armies book seems to be that you can't power game with them. Does this indicate there's a problem with the O&G armies book or that GW still are producing easily abusable armies books?

Kahadras


If you cant understand by now that O&G was poorly written and underbalanced it's time to move off this thread. The issue is not their lack of powergaming. It's quite the opposite. It's about trying to field a badly designed list that has 90% of it's unit choices handicapped.

I think I see a big trend where O&G players patriotically defend their armies to the death. It's nothing personal, a lot of O&G players are great. WHat's makes them so fun is that they dont typically care about winning, but are more into it for the fun factor.

It's not a win army. that's obvious. It's a fun army. Still with that in mind I think GW weakened OnG's compared to their last book and I dont understand why they did that. We all now by now that gobins are not as cheap and they are actually overcosted for what that need to do. Against High Elves it's even worse.

The other issue was the book was badly worded and is dire need of more FAQs than before. A book that has so many errors should also give a clue to the reader about the books desgin quality as well.

New OnG = Thumbs down.

It needs another re-release bad.

Kahadras
07-12-2007, 18:52
I think I see a big trend where O&G players patriotically defend their armies to the death. It's nothing personal, a lot of O&G players are great. WHat's makes them so fun is that they dont typically care about winning, but are more into it for the fun factor.


Actualy I don't play O&G. What I do see, however, is O&G armies doing very well for themselves in various gaming groups I've been to and I get slightly confused when people rant on about how 'broken' and 'underbalanced' the list is.

Last week I watched a fairly balanced O&G army swarm all over a Skaven SAD. According to what is being touted by some people on this thread that just couldn't happen, the O&G army simply couldn't handle it.

Kahadras

Storak
07-12-2007, 22:35
So whats your point? GW are still producing unbalanced armies books? Does that mean we should unbalance O&G and all of the other fairly moderate books to compensate? The only probelm with the O&G armies book seems to be that you can't power game with them. Does this indicate there's a problem with the O&G armies book or that GW still are producing easily abusable armies books?

Kahadras

what fairly moderate 7th edition army books are you talking about?

i think the O&G book has two problems: no opverpowered combination, in an environment in which those seem to be standard.
and a somewhat weak basic list.


Actualy I don't play O&G. What I do see, however, is O&G armies doing very well for themselves in various gaming groups I've been to and I get slightly confused when people rant on about how 'broken' and 'underbalanced' the list is.

Last week I watched a fairly balanced O&G army swarm all over a Skaven SAD. According to what is being touted by some people on this thread that just couldn't happen, the O&G army simply couldn't handle it.

Kahadras

Kahadras, could you please name one person posting here, who claims that O&G could never win a battle?
if you can not name such a person, would you please stop makeing such stupid claims?

the randomness of Orcs makes an occasional good performance even more likely than in another army.

you really need to take a close look, if you want to find orcish units taht are better than their empire counterpart. and obviously the new books are more inline with empire than O&G.

Shank
07-12-2007, 22:54
Let me stirr the pot a bit. Are you guys serious? The orcs/goblins book is underbalanced? You can't powergame with it (whatever that means)? Please, I have played against the new Orcs many, many times and it is a very tough opponent in the right hands. The book has soooo many improvements over the last edition it way makes up for where they got toned down a bit. It is by far the most versitile list released so far. Plus they have some of the best warmachines in the game for there price. Just a very good book. And please leave all this math stuff at school.....

Storak
07-12-2007, 23:08
The book has soooo many improvements over the last edition it way makes up for where they got toned down a bit. It is by far the most versitile list released so far. Plus they have some of the best warmachines in the game for there price. Just a very good book. And please leave all this math stuff at school.....

Intuition and gut feeling beats math. all the time, eh?

Kahadras
07-12-2007, 23:49
what fairly moderate 7th edition army books are you talking about

Who says I'm talking about purely about 7th ed? Do all 7th ed armies books somehow have to be more powerful than their 6th ed counterparts?


Kahadras, could you please name one person posting here, who claims that O&G could never win a battle?
if you can not name such a person, would you please stop makeing such stupid claims?

My point is that I've seen O&G do well against different types of armies, including competitive ones, repeatedly.


the randomness of Orcs makes an occasional good performance even more likely than in another army

Please don't say I'm making stupid claims then instantly make one of your own. Pinning the 'success' of O&G players on 'randomness' is a bit insulting IMHO. I've already posted up the fact that two players made it into the top 40 in the UKGT third heat with O&G. Where their victories down to 'randomness'?

The guy I watched beat down the SAD still failed anamosity checks, ran away, failed armour saves, rolled low on the move of his squig hoppers, missed with his bolt throwers etc. He still won and without relying on 'randomness'.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
08-12-2007, 00:40
Who says I'm talking about purely about 7th ed? Do all 7th ed armies books somehow have to be more powerful than their 6th ed counterparts?

Being competitive with the 6th edition counterparts would be a nice start. Clearly this is not happening as the statistics show quite clearly.



My point is that I've seen O&G do well against different types of armies, including competitive ones, repeatedly.

And I've seen O&G do quite dreadfully against different types of armies, including competitive ones, repeatedly. Fortunately we have a much more powerful tool at our disposal than merely what we've "seen", we have hard data to crunch. And that hard data is quite conclusive: O&G simply don't measure up.



Please don't say I'm making stupid claims then instantly make one of your own. Pinning the 'success' of O&G players on 'randomness' is a bit insulting IMHO. I've already posted up the fact that two players made it into the top 40 in the UKGT third heat with O&G. Where their victories down to 'randomness'?

Nobody is saying it is impossible for O&G to ever have a high-ish placement. Nobody. It is completely expected for even an army as dreadful as O&G to have the occasional high-ish placement. However, the results clearly show that it is far more unlikely to have that placement than other armies and there lies the problem.



The guy I watched beat down the SAD still failed anamosity checks, ran away, failed armour saves, rolled low on the move of his squig hoppers, missed with his bolt throwers etc. He still won and without relying on 'randomness'.

Fortunately we have far more powerful tools at our disposal than watching "one guy". The massive amount of data shows quite clearly that O&G are dreadfully unbalanced and need immediate attention. I, most people on the planet, and yes even GW themselves are going to take hard statistics over watching "one guy" every single time.

Kahadras
08-12-2007, 01:11
Clearly this is not happening as the statistics show quite clearly.


Please show us them then.


And I've seen O&G do quite dreadfully against different types of armies, including competitive ones, repeatedly.

Yes armies do win and lose.


Fortunately we have a much more powerful tool at our disposal than merely what we've "seen", we have hard data to crunch. And that hard data is quite conclusive: O&G simply don't measure up.


I haven't seen you crunching much data recently.


Nobody is saying it is impossible for O&G to ever have a high-ish placement. Nobody. It is completely expected for even an army as dreadful as O&G to have the occasional high-ish placement. However, the results clearly show that it is far more unlikely to have that placement than other armies and there lies the problem

Actualy the third heat data (latest available) saw a balanced spread of O&G players. two in the top 40, two in the bottom 40, five in the top half of the table, five in the bottom half.


The massive amount of data shows quite clearly that O&G are dreadfully unbalanced and need immediate attention.

You really need to bring this data to the table. Not only the data but the analysis behind it to prove that it is indeed the armies book that is at fault. As far as I can tell all you've done is look at the raw data, draw a conclusion from it and then ignore any other possibility that has been presented.

Kahadras

Shank
08-12-2007, 01:56
Intuition and gut feeling beats math. all the time, eh?


Oddly enough, I can just read the book and tell if it is a good army or not. Of course, throw in a bunch of games and yes, I can form a informed opinion.

I just don't see this major reason why 6th edition is so much better than 7th. If you would like to enlighten me, please do. I'm sure it has been brought up on this thread but I don't want to go through some 300 posts.

I had friends who played Orcs complain about them when the book was first released. But now, they all love it. I have lost more than I have won against Orcs.

Chiungalla
08-12-2007, 05:43
yes, that is a problem. but the thesis he was testing would assume a lot of VERY BAD orc players.

But if you assume VERY BAD orc players, why the bottom 50%?
Aren't the bottom 25% enough for the VERY BAD players?


I think I see a big trend where O&G players patriotically defend their armies to the death. It's nothing personal, a lot of O&G players are great. WHat's makes them so fun is that they dont typically care about winning, but are more into it for the fun factor.

I care about winning.
And I do so with my orcs & goblins most of the time.
My only lost games with orcs & goblins were with an try out army list shortly after the army book was released.

I play "weak high elves" for fun, and orcs & goblins if I want to win.


the randomness of Orcs makes an occasional good performance even more likely than in another army.

If you look closer at orcs & goblins, they are not that random after all.
A single unit of orcs & goblins is random. But you have many of them.
And some of them are even less random, than the normal orc (black orcs, war machines, chariots).

A high elf army can lose a game to one or two failed panic tests.
And even every single failed armor check or ward save hurts on a high elf army. That is random!

A good orc and goblin army doesn't care about two lost units.

Urgat
08-12-2007, 10:16
Oddly enough, I can just read the book and tell if it is a good army or not. Of course, throw in a bunch of games and yes, I can form a informed opinion.

I just don't see this major reason why 6th edition is so much better than 7th. If you would like to enlighten me, please do. I'm sure it has been brought up on this thread but I don't want to go through some 300 posts.

I had friends who played Orcs complain about them when the book was first released. But now, they all love it. I have lost more than I have won against Orcs.

Yesterday, I once again lost 5 savage boar boyz big'uns because... I called a waaagh. Again. And I had sworn I'd never use the ****** rule ever again, and I had to go and think "heh, if I call the waaagh now, these wolves that are so far behind will be able to join the charge feast, they got a rank, they might do it!". Result, wolves rolled 6 on their animosty test anyway, and the savage orcs decided to visit the great green, and self-icombusted, leaving my (frenzied) shaman alone in front of an angry mob of chaos warrios and their general...
How in the hell can you not consider a book wronh, which has your own boyz hit harder than anything else in the game (D6 wounds with no save? Beatt that pancy giants and bloodthirsters), but only when hitting themselves?
Well at least, yesterday was a 100% cavalry army, so I didn't get the infamous "release fanatics on enemy turn, step on them on your turn caused you got 6 on animosity" crap.

Well I won the second battle, didn't lose my most expensive unit on one of my own dice rolls, you see.

There, I needed to vent, got to once in a while, you can now all ignore me and proceed with wasting your time on that amusingly pointless topic :p

Chiungalla
08-12-2007, 11:56
If you only called the WAAAGH! to get some wolf riders into close combat, it was your fault, to do so. Nothing on the rule forces you to use it in a way, that the possible drawbacks are greater then your winning with it.

Shank
08-12-2007, 13:10
Yesterday, I once again lost 5 savage boar boyz big'uns because... I called a waaagh. Again. And I had sworn I'd never use the ****** rule ever again, and I had to go and think "heh, if I call the waaagh now, these wolves that are so far behind will be able to join the charge feast, they got a rank, they might do it!". Result, wolves rolled 6 on their animosty test anyway, and the savage orcs decided to visit the great green, and self-icombusted, leaving my (frenzied) shaman alone in front of an angry mob of chaos warrios and their general...
How in the hell can you not consider a book wronh, which has your own boyz hit harder than anything else in the game (D6 wounds with no save? Beatt that pancy giants and bloodthirsters), but only when hitting themselves?
Well at least, yesterday was a 100% cavalry army, so I didn't get the infamous "release fanatics on enemy turn, step on them on your turn caused you got 6 on animosity" crap.

Well I won the second battle, didn't lose my most expensive unit on one of my own dice rolls, you see.

There, I needed to vent, got to once in a while, you can now all ignore me and proceed with wasting your time on that amusingly pointless topic :p

Well, you didn't "have" to call the Waaagh. It was your choice to do so. So the rule isn't a bad one. You must know when you are going in, that it could hurt you.
If the complaint is that Orcs are "too" random and that is why they stink, I say to that, they have always been that way. And most armies have certain random elements. But not all armies have T4 strength 4 on first turn core units for 5 points. Orcs do. Warmachines blow up, steam tank suffer wounds and blow up, stupidity etc.

Storak
08-12-2007, 13:24
If you only called the WAAAGH! to get some wolf riders into close combat, it was your fault, to do so. Nothing on the rule forces you to use it in a way, that the possible drawbacks are greater then your winning with it.

and


Well, you didn't "have" to call the Waaagh. It was your choice to do so. So the rule isn't a bad one. You must know when you are going in, that it could hurt you.

"waagh" is the orcish version of the elfish ASF.
that a lot of players wonder, whether it is worth using, is a real problem.



If the complaint is that Orcs are "too" random and that is why they stink, I say to that, they have always been that way. And most armies have certain random elements. But not all armies have T4 strength 4 on first turn core units for 5 points. Orcs do. Warmachines blow up, steam tank suffer wounds and blow up, stupidity etc.

1. Orcs were not this random in eralier editions of the game. Orcs are more random in 7th than in 6th.

2. the difference between a 6 point orc and a 6 point empire swordman are minimal. toughness makes the orc slightly more resilient to shooting. in combat they perform very similar, especially if we factor in animosity.
biggest difference is, that the swordsmen are not considered the best unit in the empire army by everyone.

hint: orcish warmachines might misfire as well. trolls suffer from stupidity. we are talking about additional randomness!

sephiroth87
08-12-2007, 14:11
If anyone who says the orc and goblin book is "dreadfully broken," start posting your list and your battle reports. Most of the battle reports from people who don't like the list have been very vague about how they play the o&g army and have only made claims about how they destroyed it with another army. And who do you play regularly? How many players?

Let's see if I get an answer or if I get ignored and math hammer starts flying again...if I get an answer, I'd be happy to help you. But most likely, you won't because learning how to win with the army doesn't help your point that they're completely, unequivocally broken.

If you're beyond asking for help if you're losing, it seems likely to me that you're just complaining because you can't win.

And heretic burner, an earlier poster made a pretty astute observation about how your point never comes across well because you're abrasive. I tried to help you, I tried to argue with you, but it seems like banging on that keyboard is much easier for you to do than playtesting a list, getting advice, and learning how to play better than you could before. Last I heard, this was a "tactics" category this post is in. There's been very little tactics because you've tried to steer the argument over and over to dabber's tournament statistics.

You're trying to ram a point home that many people don't agree with, and you're trying to use vinegar instead of honey to do it. The sheer weight of argument while having your head stuck firmly in the sand is impressive, but you're not going to convince anyone who enjoys using the army.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm

:p Rule of thumb on the internet: weight of words does not equal valuable contribution.

At some point in this thread, I resolved to not be bothered by anything you've said, simply because I don't believe your evidence is as strong as you say it is, your arguments are not persuasive enough, and you don't come off as credible because you're essentially ignoring the flaws in the statistics and calling them conclusive proof of something that you believed beforehand. Seems to me like picking the statistics that support what you already believe without doing independent research of your own should be a little problematic. Of course, I'm a real estate agent, not a scientist. The scientists in the crowd can debate that one with you. If there's flaws in the research, wouldn't it be smart to start compiling a bigger sample so that your hypothesis would be less subject to criticism? That might take time away from the tireless rebuttal tactic you've got going on, though.

So I just started poking fun at you, and will from now on. I would advise people on this board to do the same, simply because you're going to complain no matter what we say. I look at your arguments the same way that I do conservative talk radio in America, where there's an obvious axe to grind. And really, the more we post as an argument, the more noose we make for ourselves, because you're using it to quote line by line, taking apart each individual sentence of an argument while never addressing larger issues. It's an age-old obnoxious debating tactic that rarely wins an opinion over to your side.

If anything, I would think you're making people want to build an orc and goblin army just to see if they can win with it, thus proving you wrong. If you cause more people to want to play the orc and goblin army and find ways to win with it using the 7th edition rulebook, are you really accomplishing what you set out to do? It's hard to tell the motivation of someone who complains over and over about how the army sucks, never asks for help, and sits in the corner telling everyone else why the army is no good. I dunno, maybe you just like debating and this is a convenient topic more than just what you firmly believe.

I'm ready for the strangleroot debate tactic, where you pick apart my points, take them completely out of context, quote parts of them just to set up a strawman argument, twist them to your own opinion, and call my argument meaningless because I didn't post enough numbers to satisfy your pocket protector/highwater pants need to form opinions only based on mathematics.

Chiungalla
08-12-2007, 14:17
"waagh" is the orcish version of the elfish ASF.

No, it isn't.
High elves pay many many points for the ASF rule.
Orcs and goblins get an discount for the bundle of animosity and waaagh!.


that a lot of players wonder, whether it is worth using, is a real problem.

The question isn't if you should use it, but when and how you should use it.


2. the difference between a 6 point orc and a 6 point empire swordman are minimal. toughness makes the orc slightly more resilient to shooting. in combat they perform very similar, especially if we factor in animosity.

Strengh 4 in first close combat round.
Toughness 4.
Thats a minimal difference?
I think not.


biggest difference is, that the swordsmen are not considered the best unit in the empire army by everyone.

And who considers 6 point orcs as the best unit in an orc & goblin army?

Finnigan2004
08-12-2007, 16:50
I look at your arguments the same way that I do conservative talk radio in America, where there's an obvious axe to grind.

While I mostly agree with you sephiroth, comparing people to the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly-- have you no decency sir? ;)

Urgat
08-12-2007, 23:11
Well, you didn't "have" to call the Waaagh. It was your choice to do so. So the rule isn't a bad one. You must know when you are going in, that it could hurt you.
If the complaint is that Orcs are "too" random and that is why they stink, I say to that, they have always been that way. And most armies have certain random elements. But not all armies have T4 strength 4 on first turn core units for 5 points. Orcs do. Warmachines blow up, steam tank suffer wounds and blow up, stupidity etc.

I know it was my choice, thank you. As for the rest, even warmachines are not able to inflict D6 wounds w/o saves, for instance. Nothing does. the benefit of calling the waaagh is never worth the risk (an average move of 3" forward, maybe? Great).
So yeah, it was my choice, and that choice was a stupid one, not because of the benefit, but because I went against my decision of never using it again: telling me it was stupid because it was to get a unit of wolves in a good position is, well, unfounded, you don't know the benefits I'd have gained from that move, if the savage boar boys didn't die -> front charge of the boars, and flank charge of the wolves -10 strong, full kitted-on the same unit of marauders, and the layout of the battlefield would have had them overun into the flank of a 10 strong unit of chaos warriors, which were charged by my regular boar boyz. This was a otentially battle winning move, therefore the choice was sound, if not for one fact: I had sworn never to use that rule ever again, so I failed big time).

To conclude, the complaint is not that the orcs are too random, it's that we got a rule that can (should) basically be ignored when you decide to use any cavalry. I'm not complaining about the randomness of the army (I've lived with it for 9 years now, mind you), I haven't been beaten with my all goblin horde for months now (tonight I got a draw, which is the first time I haven't won since june, and it was my fault anyway, I did something very stupid which completly ruined my left flank), I'm just noticing that we got a rule that is impracticable, so please don't go all condescendant on me, it is uncalled for.
You're not going to see me say that O&G are subpar, that's for sure.

Storak
08-12-2007, 23:34
No, it isn't.
High elves pay many many points for the ASF rule.
Orcs and goblins get an discount for the bundle of animosity and waaagh!.

are you trying to tell me, that orcs cost less, because they have the "waaaagh" rule?

because i was not talking about animosity, just about Waaagh.


The question isn't if you should use it, but when and how you should use it.

like "don t use it, when fielding cav"?


Strengh 4 in first close combat round.
Toughness 4.
Thats a minimal difference?
I think not.

WS 4, ini 4? and deatchment rules instead of animosity?
5 wide, orcs will do 1.1 casualties vs 0.4 by the swords, if they have the charge. if not, it is 1 vs 0.6.
in following rounds, both deal the same damage.



And who considers 6 point orcs as the best unit in an orc & goblin army?

this is a funny question.

Chiungalla
09-12-2007, 01:40
As for the rest, even warmachines are not able to inflict D6 wounds w/o saves, for instance. Nothing does. the benefit of calling the waaagh is never worth the risk (an average move of 3" forward, maybe? Great).

An average move of 3.5" that can bring your general on wyvern from behind a hill, on top of the hill. From perfect safety to a point from where he can charge anything, without one turn of enemy fire in between.


well, unfounded, you don't know the benefits I'd have gained from that move, if the savage boar boys didn't die -> front charge of the boars, and flank charge of the wolves -10 strong

But still it was a very risky gamble, and with further thinking you will get to the same conclusion.

There was only one result of the dice, where you could have get your benefit out of that waaagh!

A 5 on the animosity role of the wolf riders.
This is the only role you can get your intended benefit, out of the Waaagh!
And to get the full benefit, you need a 2+ on the savage orc boar boys, too.
So even less chance.

On a 6 they will move anyway, and on a result of 4- they will not move at all.

And you have two possible results of the dice, where the waaagh! would kill your troops.
An one on the savage orc boar boys.
And an one on the wolf riders.

So you have a 5/36 chance to gain a benefit.
And a 11/36 chance to suffer from your calling of the waaagh!.
Not including the chance of wounds on other units.

I still call it a bad use of the rule, no matter how the tactical situation was.
Gambling for a 5 on a 1D6 dice role, is never a good idea, if this is related to such risks.


are you trying to tell me, that orcs cost less, because they have the "waaaagh" rule?

No, but you have to look at animosity and the waaagh! as a bundle.


like "don t use it, when fielding cav"?

Like in "Don't use it if your chances of success with the Waaagh! are so low, and the chances of a devasting failure are much greater."

Use it,
- when your chances are 100% (a general in the unit you want to move, or black orcs you want to move)
- or there is only little risk (no orc cavalry in need of an animosity check because of the Waaagh!)
- or there is a high propability that you get a benefit from it (like a full sized orc infantry unit with 3 ranks, can get a flank charge on an expensive enemy unit on a 3+ on the animosity role)

But the greatest advantage of the rule is, that your opponents need to take it into account.
He needs to think about the risks he has, if you use your Waaagh!
And yes, a smart player will fear the power of the Waaagh!

It's often of greater use, in the late time of the battle, when the units are closer to each other, and the movement tactics got lost in some nice close combats.

So keep it till turn 4-6 (with the exception of the wyvern tactic), to keep your opponent in fear and wait for the right moment to use the Waaagh!

Capt. Jack
09-12-2007, 05:19
So I was slightly bored and decided to run some statistics from the US grand tournaments in Baltimore and Chicago. Information was provided via the US GW website for those tournaments. I don't know if they show everyone involved or only the top players so that may be a problem.

What I did was look at the overall placement for two armies. The assumption is that if O&G are underpowered there should be a significant difference when compared with a control. I chose VC for my control group as I generally do not hear that they are significantly over or underpowered so should be fairly representative of the normal placement. It should also be noted that the samples I used fairly small so conclusions could be thrown off by sampling bias. Now that you know what I was planning, on to the stats!

Orcs and Goblins had an average placement of 60.5 and a median placement of 63.
VC had an average placement of 47.9 and a median placement of 49. Standard deviation for VC was 31.6. I won't do do a true analysis of varience as I don't want to think that much right now so I'll just compare this with the standard deviations instead to draw my conclusions.

So what does all this mean? Statistically speaking, O&G are just as likely to do as well as VC in a tournament. The differences in the averages can be chalked up to random chance. If O&G were truly underperforming their average would have been ideally 2 standard deviations lower than the VC average. I would have been intrigued if it had been 1 standard deviation off as well but there was not enough difference to have any statistical meaning.

Storak
09-12-2007, 10:28
What I did was look at the overall placement for two armies. The assumption is that if O&G are underpowered there should be a significant difference when compared with a control. I chose VC for my control group as I generally do not hear that they are significantly over or underpowered so should be fairly representative of the normal placement. It should also be noted that the samples I used fairly small so conclusions could be thrown off by sampling bias. Now that you know what I was planning, on to the stats!

Orcs and Goblins had an average placement of 60.5 and a median placement of 63.
VC had an average placement of 47.9 and a median placement of 49. Standard deviation for VC was 31.6. I won't do do a true analysis of varience as I don't want to think that much right now so I'll just compare this with the standard deviations instead to draw my conclusions.

So what does all this mean? Statistically speaking, O&G are just as likely to do as well as VC in a tournament. The differences in the averages can be chalked up to random chance. If O&G were truly underperforming their average would have been ideally 2 standard deviations lower than the VC average. I would have been intrigued if it had been 1 standard deviation off as well but there was not enough difference to have any statistical meaning.

i guess you were looking at this data:
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/2007/tournamentcircuit/baltimoregt/wh_results.htm

are you sure that you used battle points?
do you think that 3 (three?!?) vampire armies make for a good control group?

Storak
09-12-2007, 10:50
An average move of 3.5" that can bring your general on wyvern from behind a hill, on top of the hill. From perfect safety to a point from where he can charge anything, without one turn of enemy fire in between.

why would you place your general on a wyvern?


Use it,
- when your chances are 100% (a general in the unit you want to move, or black orcs you want to move)
- or there is only little risk (no orc cavalry in need of an animosity check because of the Waaagh!)
- or there is a high propability that you get a benefit from it (like a full sized orc infantry unit with 3 ranks, can get a flank charge on an expensive enemy unit on a 3+ on the animosity role)

so it is a usefull rule, when i want to move the general and i don t have any cav?

or if i decided to place my general on a wyvern?

are you factoring in the number that you have to roll for a distance?


So keep it till turn 4-6 (with the exception of the wyvern tactic), to keep your opponent in fear and wait for the right moment to use the Waaagh!

jup. in the final turns, it will generally wipe out or force panic tests. sounds great.

with about 12 units, it will kill 2 times three of your orcs and goblins.
that should be slightly less that 50 points on average.

Finnigan2004
09-12-2007, 13:26
I hate to throw this out there, but does anyone know if any (or most or all) of these events were comped? Having played in events with comp, it is obvious to me that it is impossible to compare army book efficacy while using a subset of the rules that may vary from place to place. Some tournaments allow for virtually anything and some severely curtail some lists with restrictions and percieved restrictions. If events have composition scoring, it will certainly affect the data significantly.

Capt. Jack
09-12-2007, 14:51
i guess you were looking at this data:
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/2007/tournamentcircuit/baltimoregt/wh_results.htm

are you sure that you used battle points?
do you think that 3 (three?!?) vampire armies make for a good control group?

Yes, that was the data that I was using as well as that from Chicago so there were a few more VC and O&G entries. I did mention that my sample was small though. I also chose them as a control before counting the overall number of entries as I wanted to avoid choosing a biased control. I also used overall placement not battle points so that may be a good way to redo this analysis. I highly encourage others to do this kind of analysis again. Frankly, I don't go to tournaments and I really don't care if the army is underpowered or not. I just want to have a good time. I also hadn't done any statistical analysis in awhile so thought this would be a simple project to waste some time.

Chiungalla
09-12-2007, 15:21
why would you place your general on a wyvern?

Because he will win battles for you?
It's a highly sucessfull tactic around here.


so it is a usefull rule, when i want to move the general and i don t have any cav?

... or your general is in the cavalry.
... or you use them in the right moment, when the probability of sucsess is far greater then the probability of failure.


are you factoring in the number that you have to roll for a distance?

No need for a role of more then 1, if you use the wyvern tactic.
Place him right behind a hill, but in touch with the hill.
1 inch is enough, to get on the hill, and from there you can make all the charges you like.

And the general on the wyvern can win some very hard fights, if he has the right equipment.

Same will work, if done by a good player, with nearly every sight blocking terrain. But with hills it's nearly foolprove.


with about 12 units, it will kill 2 times three of your orcs and goblins. that should be slightly less that 50 points on average.

If you still got 12 units in the last turn, that have to role for animosity, there is no need for a Waaagh! You have allready won the game, nearly all the time.

And who fields 12 units, that have to role for animosity?

sephiroth87
09-12-2007, 16:12
why would you place your general on a wyvern?



so it is a usefull rule, when i want to move the general and i don t have any cav?

or if i decided to place my general on a wyvern?

are you factoring in the number that you have to roll for a distance?



jup. in the final turns, it will generally wipe out or force panic tests. sounds great.

with about 12 units, it will kill 2 times three of your orcs and goblins.
that should be slightly less that 50 points on average.

The waaagh is useful when you're using blocks of orcs, black orcs, or when your general's unit is a hammer unit. He could be leading a block of orcs, cavalry, on a wyvern, or riding a chariot. He still goes and gets the movement. Especially useful when you're dealing with an infantry or a cavalry unit that's put itself right outside your 8'' charge move. A general's unit auto goes, black orcs go, and orc units led by a big boss go on a 2+. Even a regular orc block with 3 ranks goes on a 3+.

The general on a wyvern is wonderful when you're running an army that has lots of cavalry.

As far as factoring in distance, if you can get within 10'' of an enemy at the start of the turn, your chances are fairly good of being able to charge. I'd take those odds every time, especially when most of the units in my army don't test for animosity. (go wolf chariots, boar chariots, and trolls!

The funny thing is, the fast cavalry usually doesn't have to test either, because it gets shot up on the first turn and takes a few casualties, and sticks because they're within the 12'' bubble of the general.

Lauren_Star
09-12-2007, 23:12
Because he will win battles for you?


General On Wyvern :D
ALWAYS my Lord choice
(well i do want to make use of the model :P, but game wise he rules)

Heretic Burner
10-12-2007, 00:07
Absolutely the Waaagh rule has clearly been a major source of contention for many O&G players. Clearly an attempt to somehow make up for the crippling new animosity, the rule is so devastating to the O&G's own units, particularly cavalry, that it is all but worthless. Naturally there are countless instances where calling the Waaagh aided the opponent far more than the Greenskin player. An absolutely dreadful rule.

In the new O&G book it is a virtual gamble to do anything. Moving. Casting. Shooting. All happen to be enormously risky prospects to the O&G player without even the remote benefit to make up for the additional drawbacks. The resulting placement of the army in tournaments is no surprise at all, they're simply written with unusable rules in its current state. A touch of randomness is one thing, being utterly pointless to even attempt to maintain a battle line is quite another. Clearly an across the board drawback like animosity will never be well balanced with an across the board benefit like HE strikes first and this should be obvious. GW simply doesn't appear to care, possibly distracted by the notion of one horrific rule possibly momentarily drowning out the sea of HE complainers from last edition.

Do I want a rule as poorly thought out as strikes first to help the Greenskins? No. But it certainly needs something and it needs it fast.

Dranthar
10-12-2007, 02:14
Absolutely the Waaagh rule has clearly been a major source of contention for many O&G players.

This is all highly subjective to your own opinion and is in no way any more valid than my own opinion; that the WAAAGH rule is a potent ability that gives you the potential to charge units you couldn't ordinarily reach. It means your opponent can never be sure about which of his units are safe from getting engaged. This is a considerable advantage that helps O&G armies stay competitive, even with animosity.

I also have the benefit of not speaking in absolutes, so I would argue that my opinion is much easier to accept by the nay-sayers than yours.

Your opinion, in the format you present it is absolutely dreadful Heretic Burner. Whether you think you're right or not, nobody's going to take you seriously unless you have a little more moderation and stop presenting your view in such an extreme context.

Chiungalla
10-12-2007, 04:06
Clearly an attempt to somehow make up for the crippling new animosity, the rule is so devastating to the O&G's own units, particularly cavalry, that it is all but worthless. Naturally there are countless instances where calling the Waaagh aided the opponent far more than the Greenskin player.

Sorry for you, that you need to think before using an option, in a strategy game.
For me it's fine.

There are times when it will be plain stupid to call the Waaagh!, and there are times when the chances for a gain through the Waaagh! will be much greater then the chances of loosing.

It is no no-brainer, so think about it, and use it right!

warlord hack'a
10-12-2007, 10:02
Oops he did it again! Heretic Burner, you once again managed to make a post (and what a surprising content!) in which you once again managed to NOT answer my earlier posted question, debating is hard isn't it, it means you actually have to accept the remote possibility that your view is not 100% correct and that is tough..

Storak
10-12-2007, 12:22
Yes, that was the data that I was using as well as that from Chicago so there were a few more VC and O&G entries. I did mention that my sample was small though. I also chose them as a control before counting the overall number of entries as I wanted to avoid choosing a biased control. I also used overall placement not battle points so that may be a good way to redo this analysis. I highly encourage others to do this kind of analysis again. Frankly, I don't go to tournaments and I really don't care if the army is underpowered or not. I just want to have a good time. I also hadn't done any statistical analysis in awhile so thought this would be a simple project to waste some time.

ok, the Chicago data is here:
http://gamesday.us.games-workshop.com/GamesDay2007/chicago_cov/gt/warhammer_results.htm

that is 8 more orc and 5 more vampire players.

why do you think that your look at 15 entries is better than dabbers look at 1500?

and i think that looking at battle points is the ONLY way to to this analysis.

Storak
10-12-2007, 13:41
guys, thanks for all this help in using "waaaagh". but i am not sure what to make of it.


Because he will win battles for you?
It's a highly sucessfull tactic around here.

... or your general is in the cavalry.
... or you use them in the right moment, when the probability of sucsess is far greater then the probability of failure.

No need for a role of more then 1, if you use the wyvern tactic.
Place him right behind a hill, but in touch with the hill.
1 inch is enough, to get on the hill, and from there you can make all the charges you like.

And the general on the wyvern can win some very hard fights, if he has the right equipment.

And who fields 12 units, that have to role for animosity?

1. sending your general away from the troops is rarely a good tactic with orcs.

2. neither is putting your general in expensive units. a full cav army will suffer even more from the waaagh.

3. "use it at the right moment" is pretty useless advice. ranks for example tend to be redruced, towards the end of the game..

4. the wyvern/hill tactic is EXTREMELY situational. it depends on the models and scenery you are using and will determine your setup. all that,for a single charge.

5. the general on a wyvern will need the best ward save he can get.

6. Avian will list 11 in his "build an orc list" advice for 2500 points. you might have sligthly fewer most times.
http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/avian/tactics/greenskin_starting.php


The waaagh is useful when you're using blocks of orcs, black orcs, or when your general's unit is a hammer unit. He could be leading a block of orcs, cavalry, on a wyvern, or riding a chariot. He still goes and gets the movement. Especially useful when you're dealing with an infantry or a cavalry unit that's put itself right outside your 8'' charge move. A general's unit auto goes, black orcs go, and orc units led by a big boss go on a 2+. Even a regular orc block with 3 ranks goes on a 3+.

The general on a wyvern is wonderful when you're running an army that has lots of cavalry.

As far as factoring in distance, if you can get within 10'' of an enemy at the start of the turn, your chances are fairly good of being able to charge. I'd take those odds every time, especially when most of the units in my army don't test for animosity. (go wolf chariots, boar chariots, and trolls!

The funny thing is, the fast cavalry usually doesn't have to test either, because it gets shot up on the first turn and takes a few casualties, and sticks because they're within the 12'' bubble of the general.

1. a list of the things that tend to profit from the rule is nice. the majority of the army, on avearge, does not.

2. placing the general in a unit to give them the waaaagh boost for one turn is bad advice (chariots, small units, gobbos)

3. again: cav armies do suffer a lot from waaaagh.

4. needing a 3 to move and 3 inches to get there, will happen on less than 50% of occasions.

5. why do you list units that will not profit from waaagh? if it is such a good rule?

6. the 12" around my general tend to be filled with important troops. the wolfs will be very lucky, if they are in range.

7. if they don t role for animosity, they can t profit from waaaagh!


There are times when it will be plain stupid to call the Waaagh!, and there are times when the chances for a gain through the Waaagh! will be much greater then the chances of loosing.

It is no no-brainer, so think about it, and use it right!

this discussion is about orcs, scoring below average in tournaments.

that our "positive" army special rule is not a "no-brainer", but instead will backfire a lot, not work with certain armies or not be used at all by many generals, could be part of the problem!

why are ASF, detachments and relentless no-brainers?

---------------------------

we haven t even mentioned the worst part of Waaaagh yet:
the enmy can determine the directio of your "bonus" move, by placing his units!

Avatar of Mork
10-12-2007, 14:53
Storak: Who talks about the animosity rule as a completely positive one? If you ask me orcs and goblins have the rule to compensate for all the dirty cheap troops in the army. But, that doesnīt mean that the rule is purely negative (something that has been suggested above).

Animosity isnīt a big problem if you use the right troops. With two black orc big bosses and a black orc warboss you got three animosity-free units (make them orcs!) and a rock hard centre! Add a small unit of black orcs, chariots, trolls, and a giant (donīt forget the snots) and you have animosity-free flank protection aswell. In my opinion only the animosity roles for the fast cav are problematic. Therefore take at least three units - the risk that all of them fails the test (gets 1s that is) is not that big.

And people, let me remind you that you need 1s on your dice for animosity to be a problem. Donīt tell me that a role of 6 is problematic - in almost all cases it is not.

And Heretic, try to counter this reply for once (please try).

warlord hack'a
10-12-2007, 15:31
oh heretic has countered your reply already close to 20 times, or at least he has reacted to them, countering might not be the right word ;-). And the number of cases in which a 6 is problematic depends on your army build, you sound like you have a redundancy build (meaning: get two units to do the job of one), indeed then the 6 is not much of a problem. But if you have a more elite list it might be. Personally I think the 6 is an improvement but I am just trying to mediate your remarks a bit as strong remarks get strong answers and some people love to give strong answers..

Avatar of Mork
10-12-2007, 16:49
Warlord hacka: Please tell me about the elite army of yours that have such big problems with animosity. Please define elite. If you by elite mean black orcs then you are wrong. If you mean massive units of Bigúns and savage orcs then you are closer to the point.

My build is far from redundancy. As you can see only the fast cav relates on “two units doing the job of one”. The other units, infact, doesn’t suffer to much (or at all) from animosity.

I think Heretic and others who continues too claim that the OnG book is broken are wrong. It is true that not all builds can make it to the top but some of them can. Maybe it is the case that the OnG list has limited options for a good tournament build but that is true for most armies.

And Warlord hacka, by the word counter I didnīt meant reply. I was hoping that Heretic could answer with sound arguments (and by doing this also take to account what others have said before him).

I have a question to all of you who like Heretic thinks that the OnG list is broken. Have you actually playtested OnG with the new rules or have you just dismissed the list at first glance? Experience is everything – theoryhammer is rubbish.

Spleendokta
10-12-2007, 22:12
How many of those OnG armies that placed high in said tournaments where the stupid fanatic bomb lists?

Heretic Burner
10-12-2007, 23:26
I also have the benefit of not speaking in absolutes, so I would argue that my opinion is much easier to accept by the nay-sayers than yours.

I genuinely don't care what others say about me. I know its a difficult concept to grasp, especially considering the monumental number of posts from posters practically jumping over each other in order to get my attention, however I simply don't have the time or even the need to reply to them all.

In this case I certainly can speak in an absolute, there is no question at all that the Waaagh rule is a source of contention for many O&G players - the evidence is all over these message boards and indeed even in this own thread!

I'm not here to be "accepted" by the nay-sayers, quite frankly I'd genuinely have to look long and hard to find something I'd care about less. Now, for those so eager to get my attention may I point towards that handy tool known as the private message so as to not clutter up and hijack this wonderful thread from its purpose. I make no guarantee I'll reply to all of my fan (or hate) mail, but at least it will go a long way of weeding out the obvious flame baiters and trolls.



Your opinion, in the format you present it is absolutely dreadful Heretic Burner.

I certainly hope you have solid evidence for that. :D

It certainly has been ultra effective at bringing attention the problem - indeed this thread is the direct result of the "format".



Whether you think you're right or not, nobody's going to take you seriously unless you have a little more moderation and stop presenting your view in such an extreme context.

Again I do hope you have proof of this. Indeed, don't bother, once again this thread is evidence alone of many posters taking the statistical analysis seriously. So once again I've proven enormously effective at getting the point across and reaching the hearts and minds of my audience - whether they agree or not.

The view was presented with concrete evidence in a format that has yet to be even remotely close to being refuted and indeed remains the preferred theory of not only myself, the scientific community, but also GW themselves.

Certainly a format that seems more successful than clamoring for my attention is it not?

TzeentchForPresident
11-12-2007, 06:51
I think OnG will probably not get on that well at tournements because they're so random. Even superb players are going to get screwed over by dodgy animosity rolls, and if you're planning to win a tournement I just can't see people willing to take that risk.

This

An army that isnīt acting randomly, vulnerable to fear and similar really shines when in the hand of an experienced player. And even more so if it depends on speed.

That is why the fastest, fear immune army in the game, the Daemonic Legion, performs so well in tournaments, and Orc and Goblins so bad. Despite that the core, the lesser demons have thougness and saves that are similar or even worse that of the basic Orc and the demons are much more expensive pointwise.

Just take the example of breaking an opponents mega unit that includes the best troops and the General. You need to attack it with multiple units to beat it and get 1-2 units to charge the flank and / or possible the rear.

An Orc and Goblin player might have set up for a perfect such multiple charge, but then Animosity screws him over and the units that can attack are simply not enough to deal with the mega unit.

warlord hack'a
11-12-2007, 09:03
Heretic burner, you did it again! Again no answer, again outrageous claims, I wonder what makes you do that? Why are you running away from giving counters to other explanations.


The view
you mean: your view?


presented with concrete evidence
you mean the tournament placement results, that's not evidence and certainly not concrete. And although it may be 'the best we have' this does not automatically mean it is good enough, which it is not. And even if we, for the sake of argument, assume that it is good enough it does not point to your theory of a broken armylist, as I have been trying to point out by bringing on the normal distribution and the expected shape of this distribution when the list is broken or when the results are influenced by other possible explanations (such as e.g. a high number of new players, or the inability for O&G to build a powergaming list (which is something I do not consider broken, I think it is broken when your armybook allows you to build such a list)). However, you keep on avoiding answering the question I asked you then, so I will repeat it again for you:

If the list is broken, as you claim, then it should not be possible to make an armybuild that stands any chance of winning except by sheer luck or by running into very inexperienced opponents, that is the definition of broken (if not, please let me know what your definition of broken is). Now in a tournament you play 6 matches, if you do well you end up in a higher pool of players so you meet more experienced players (possibly with harder to beat armylists), that is the way the tournament is set up. Now, if the O&G list is broken, how do you explain that quite a number of players ended up high on the list you so revere? And when looking at the results Dranthar placed, the question becomes even bigger as there are even more O&G players high on that list.. Can you please enlighten me as to how you think this happens (and 'sheer luck' does not cut it, the statistical chance of someone making 13th place by having sheer luck for 6 games in a row is neglectible if you count the number of dice rolled by both parties in 6 games..).


has yet to be even remotely close to being refuted
It's been refuted a lot of times but somehow you simply do not seem to catch on..


and indeed remains the preferred theory of not only myself, the scientific community, but also GW themselves.
your theory is not the preferred theory (well it is to yourself), certainly not from 'the scientific community' (what 'scientific community' are you talking about, my colleagues do not play warhammer nor, as far as I know, know of it's existence, so I doubt if they have an opinion on the game and they certainly are part of the 'scientific community') and since when did you talk to GW staff to hear what their preferred theory was?


So just stop making outrageous claims, spice them up with adjectives and repeat them till people stop arguing, your theory has not been proven, is in fact a long way away from being proven and has not been accepted by more than a few people, if you insist on keeping up your claim that it is proven and accepted, then please, as so many people have asked you already, present us with the proof. You simply seem to be unable to do that, I wonder why that is..

warlord hack'a
11-12-2007, 09:12
and to avatar of mork, I meant that your word countering was chosen correctly, it was however not a good word to descibe the reactions made by Heretic Burner to claims like yours.

and by a more elite list I indeed mean massive units of svg orcs and svg orc big uns, check out my armylist post of a few months back.. And note that I have 2 blakc orcs to keep the list under control..

My point is: you present your view rather extreme, which will allow other people on the forum to react in an extreme manner, getting us all nowhere.

p.s. If you want to know my opinion on our new animosity rules, check the forum for animosity and hack'a and you will see we agree ;-).