News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)  (Read 6611 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tweedz

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: 00
  • Death is only the beginning.
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2017, 04:45:48 PM »

The situation is the opposite IMO. DAs had a cost of about 12-13 points for 4 editions, and in neither of those editions they were anywhere close to being OP or underpriced.

With the transition to 8th, their cost suddenly went up 1.5 times. In my opinion, it is this cost increase that has to be justified. I personally see no justification for it, and so cost "reduction" that we're arguing for is not really a "reduction" but simply a correction of a mistake.

Backing up the 'mistake' idea is they fact that they have a PL of 3. That PL (for five models) is consistent with price of around 12 ppm. Either the PL is wrong, or the points are, and I am much more tempted to say that the problem is points considering everything else discussed about DAs.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2017, 04:54:15 PM »
It may well be that's a mistake, but we don't know, and the premise behind this topic seems to be more suggestive of a cost reduction issue, rather than correcting a mistake issue.  I'm sure that one of you could ask on GW's Facebook page whether it's actually a mistake and see whether you receive a response.  In the latest FAQ announcement GW is actually asking people to get in touch with them on Facebook if they have any questions.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Tweedz

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: 00
  • Death is only the beginning.
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2017, 05:01:56 PM »
In the latest FAQ announcement GW is actually asking people to get in touch with them on Facebook if they have any questions.

Good call. They have been very responsive lately. I put something on their FB page. We will see what comes of it.

Offline The Mattler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Eldar
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2017, 05:08:00 PM »
I rarely see discussions of the sort that you are alluding to.  In addition, your assertion that anecdotal experience is nonsense is, at best, open to question.  I've learnt far more from reading the advice posted by players who have posted their experience of fielding units on the table, discussing the results, and working out whether problematic units could be used more effectively or are not overly worthwhile including in the majority of army lists.
Tsk, tsk...and to think I had just written a short paragraph in my post above about how this forum had much less stigma toward mathematical analysis these days.  Shame, Irisado, shame. ;)

Questionable?  Questions are great, keep them coming!  You're describing far more than anecdotes here.  In fact, you're describing pretty much everything about learning in a social environment except the  homework that informs future experimentation by individuals, which in turn allows them to contribute more to the group learning by quantifying their results in a common language.  The point I'm making is that using mathematical tools to describe and predict in-game outcomes enriches the process you're describing in ways that anecdotal "evidence" cannot.

Gaming experience wins over maths every time.  I've read many a discussion about the maths underpinning unit performance and they have never told me anything that I hadn't already worked out from playing the game.  The problem with relying on modelling is that there are far too many variables that cannot be included in the model, thus rending the validity and reliability of the model open to question.  This is because certain variables, such as terrain, supporting units, player skill, and gaming environment cannot be adequately represented in any model because they are so diverse.  Maths has its place, but all it reliably provides is an indicator of performance of a unit in isolation.  In my experience, this does not translate into good quality articles or discussions about strategy or tactics.
The game itself is entirely quantifiable.   When you play it, all of your decisions are based on  probability and position.  The degree to which you understand those things is your player skill, and psychology (which you didn't mention, but it's common in counter-claims such as yours) in this context is just how well you exploit your opponent's ignorance of probability and position (i.e., their player skill).  Trying to model the entire game at once is silly unless one wants to create an AI that can play it.  However, it's useful to model restricted sets of variables in order to improve our chances of recognizing analogous situations during play, and also to check our tendency for confirmation bias or other flaws in our pattern recognition abilities.  Maybe it's true that you don't get anything out of maths articles.  Maybe you've already mastered everything they have to offer.  Maybe you've plateaued. 

I do not believe that Dire Avengers require the type of cost reduction that you are indicating in this topic.  I think that it's clear that they are currently overpriced, but such a significant reduction is difficult to justify in my opinion.
What's the reasoning behind your opinion?  You just wrote a paragraph about how you much you enjoy learning in a social environment, but you haven't provided any details about your assertion.  We agree that they're overpriced, and I've provided my rationale for a points reduction, I'm eager to hear yours.
Shuriken weaponry is the pinnacle of antiSpocklizardry in 40k.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2017, 05:28:34 PM »
Questionable?  Questions are great, keep them coming!

You've misunderstood my use of this word.

Quote
You're describing far more than anecdotes here.  In fact, you're describing pretty much everything about learning in a social environment except the  homework that informs future experimentation by individuals, which in turn allows them to contribute more to the group learning by quantifying their results in a common language.  The point I'm making is that using mathematical tools to describe and predict in-game outcomes enriches the process you're describing in ways that anecdotal "evidence" cannot.

You've changed your position  in relation to your previous statement in that case.  Please take note of the emphasis that I've added in bold:

Theoryhammer in the sense you're describing is bad, since it's almost always results oriented thinking, i.e. players forming opinions of units by trying them out without actually doing any calculations to see what they're actually good at beforehand.  Up until the last few years, the overwhelming majority of "tactic" or "strategy" articles on 40k were almost purely anecdotal nonsense, and the only calculations in them ignored points values entirely.  Ask yourself many times you've seen a discussion get bogged down in "they're T3, so they're bad" or "they have a 3+ save, so they're good", as if that was relevant without considering the whole unit in the context of its points cost.

This bold section is not the same as the point that you are now making  in your reply to me.  You were not referring to enriching the process at all.  You were claiming that any anecdotal experience was nonsense. 

Quote
The game itself is entirely quantifiable.   When you play it, all of your decisions are based on  probability and position. The degree to which you understand those things is your player skill, and psychology (which you didn't mention, but it's common in counter-claims such as yours) in this context is just how well you exploit your opponent's ignorance of probability and position (i.e., their player skill).  Trying to model the entire game at once is silly unless one wants to create an AI that can play it.  However, it's useful to model restricted sets of variables in order to improve our chances of recognizing analogous situations during play, and also to check our tendency for confirmation bias or other flaws in our pattern recognition abilities.  Maybe it's true that you don't get anything out of maths articles.  Maybe you've already mastered everything they have to offer.  Maybe you've plateaued.

You are claiming that the game is entirely quantifiable.  For this statement to be true, every variable must be able to be put into a model.  As a result, I would be very interested to see you create such a model which includes every variable.  You would also need to calculate, among other things, the standard deviation, the R squared value, and the logistic regression to ensure validity and reliability of such a model.  I completely agree that doing all of this would be completely ridiculous incidentally.

Quote
What's the reasoning behind your opinion?  You just wrote a paragraph about how you much you enjoy learning in a social environment, but you haven't provided any details about your assertion.  We agree that they're overpriced, and I've provided my rationale for a points reduction, I'm eager to hear yours.

My reasoning is twofold.  First, there needs to be more in game experience documented of how Dire Avengers are performing in conjunction with other Eldar units and in different gaming environments (there are usually some differences between the US and the UK gaming scene, for example).  In essence, my first point alludes to the observations of the previous paragraph in my first reply to you.  Second, the majority of Eldar players tend to ask for higher cost reductions than are justified, based on past experience of wishlisting (be it using anecdotal evidence or maths), so experience has taught me to be sceptical of anything which isn't a modest proposal.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Lord of Winter and War

  • The Cause of Diabetes -Captain- Necrontyr Immortal - KoN Veteran - Master of All Diplomacy | Wi-Fi Nomad |
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8901
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Harlequins, Spiderfang, Bonereapers, Space Wolves
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2017, 10:55:51 PM »
Keep in mind, points don't just reflect how much damage a unit can deal. 

Seeing how many marines a dire avenger can kill vs how many marines a marine can kill is only taking in a small part of the game.

This is especially true with eldar, whoes units rely on buffs from characters and psychers. Eldar units don't operate in a vacuum.

I'd suggest putting models on the table and trying out different combinations of units and after a bunch of game then you can have a better idea how things fit and where adjustments need to be made.

As someone who has played a lot of settlers of Catan, I've learned not to trust the math lol.

TL;dr before getting too excited, get in a bunch of games with a variety of units and see what happens.
Harlequin Army Blog

That's not blatant, this is blatant: I'm super happy that I'm playing Austria, the greatest nation in all of Diplomacy!

Azore of Austria

Offline Partninja

  • Warlock
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2731
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2017, 11:02:04 PM »
What we're saying is some of us have done this...their points cost does not warrant their use over Guardians in a lot of cases. Sadly it comes down to the age old problem of I can take more guardians (twice as many) for the same points of Avengers.

Offline The Mattler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Eldar
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2017, 12:26:58 AM »
You've misunderstood my use of this word.
Nah, it was just an opportunity to crack a joke.  ;D

You've changed your position  in relation to your previous statement in that case.  Please take note of the emphasis that I've added in bold:

...

This bold section is not the same as the point that you are now making  in your reply to me.  You were not referring to enriching the process at all.  You were claiming that any anecdotal experience was nonsense.
No, I haven't.  Your account of anecdote was much too broad to be anecdote alone, and it is with the actual definition (i.e., narrative of an incident or incidents) that I take issue.  For example, I once managed to take a T6 model from 6W to 0W with a Stand and Shoot charge reaction firing 20 S3 shots hitting on 4+ in WHFB once.  Possible?  Yes, but not remotely probable, so it's not worth planning around, and it did not influence my opinion of Dark Elf Scouts.  Frankly, they shouldn't have been there  a in the first place, and that's on me.  The rest of what you described is productive because it helps move beyond one's direct experience and results-oriented thinking.

You are claiming that the game is entirely quantifiable.  For this statement to be true, every variable must be able to be put into a model.  As a result, I would be very interested to see you create such a model which includes every variable.  You would also need to calculate, among other things, the standard deviation, the R squared value, and the logistic regression to ensure validity and reliability of such a model.  I completely agree that doing all of this would be completely ridiculous incidentally.
For one thing, how can you can't expect others to take seriously the demands that you yourself (rightly) think are ridiculous? It also doesn't help that you're describing statistical procedures that are used on data sets.  More importantly, though, 40k already has a comprehensive model: the rules.  All of the the potential interactions are already known, but the results vary according to binomial distributions from dice rolling by units of dynamic size.  We have perfect knowledge in 40k of what can happen, but since we make decisions based on what we think is likely to happen, knowing how those binomial distributions operate (even by using simplified averages), allows us to make better decisions.  Understanding the implications of that complete model for X unit in situation Y is what mathhammer usually involves, but it also can be used to evaluate asymmetries that violate design principles (especially fairness, considering the points system).

My reasoning is twofold.  First, there needs to be more in game experience documented of how Dire Avengers are performing in conjunction with other Eldar units and in different gaming environments (there are usually some differences between the US and the UK gaming scene, for example).  In essence, my first point alludes to the observations of the previous paragraph in my first reply to you.  Second, the majority of Eldar players tend to ask for higher cost reductions than are justified, based on past experience of wishlisting (be it using anecdotal evidence or maths), so experience has taught me to be sceptical of anything which isn't a modest proposal.
Since 40k already has a complete model in the form of a permissive rule set, it's possible to simulate game states.  If you'd like, you can go through the process of collecting data, but you won't get the complete range of possibilities, let alone their correct distributions.  You also won't be able to optimize play based on the best expected outcomes, you'd just be cataloguing existing decisions instead of learning to make better ones.  The kind of research you're proposing does have value for a different task: predicting metagame shifts.  If you have reason to believe that future behaviour of a population will be driven by past behaviour, you can tailor your own decisions such that they will exploit weaknesses in conventional wisdom stemming from incorrect analysis of the game.  It's tricky to pull off, though, and it's a lot more involved than simply gathering tournament list placing and whatnot; you'd want to see how each unit is being used by its respective player, and that requires analysis of recorded games.  Even so, each data point's usefulness would have to be qualified by its likelihood, so you'd still need the kind of a theoretical reference point to which you are currently objecting.  Even if you had the personnel and appropriate computational tool to make a comprehensive analysis of that data possible, I'd wager that your data set would be small because most players would compare the overpriced Dire Avengers with more efficient models, then leave them on the shelf.

I agree with you that people often ask for more than they should, which is why I try to back up my arguments with calculations that show how fulfilling the request at the very least would make the game more fair instead of less fair.  If I make a mistake, I try to own it, learn from it, and refine my methods so that I make fewer mistakes in the future.
Shuriken weaponry is the pinnacle of antiSpocklizardry in 40k.

Offline SeekingOne

  • Exarch
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Country: ru
  • May Hoeth guide our ways...
  • Armies: Eldar (Saim-Hann), Space Wolves
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2017, 04:41:41 AM »

TL;dr before getting too excited, get in a bunch of games with a variety of units and see what happens.

You sound like you're automatically assuming that no one here has done that.

As for me, my gaming group and I have been playing 2-3 games a week, almost every week since before 8th was officially released (started when photocopies of rules and indexes were leaked a week or two before release). So yeah, I did see what happens, and every statement I make is backed up with at least some actual experience (unless I specifically state otherwise myself).

That said, some things are so obviously bad that you don't need any actual playtesting to see that. 15+ years of experience with this game as a whole are enough to make it obvious. DAs would be one example of just such case.
I fight against Chaos and for Order, because it means fighting for Life against Death. There is no other battle truly worth fighting.

"If it's not for a tournament then play whatever it is that you like. Without the pressure of having to utterly destroy your opponent it opens up alot more opportunity to have fun." - Lazarus

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2017, 06:28:29 AM »
No, I haven't.

The section that I emphasised in bold contradicts that which you wrote in the reply which precedes this one.  Again, therefore, I think that it would be beneficial for you to clarify whether you still stand by the statement in bold:

Theoryhammer in the sense you're describing is bad, since it's almost always results oriented thinking, i.e. players forming opinions of units by trying them out without actually doing any calculations to see what they're actually good at beforehand.  Up until the last few years, the overwhelming majority of "tactic" or "strategy" articles on 40k were almost purely anecdotal nonsense, and the only calculations in them ignored points values entirely.  Ask yourself many times you've seen a discussion get bogged down in "they're T3, so they're bad" or "they have a 3+ save, so they're good", as if that was relevant without considering the whole unit in the context of its points cost.

Quote
For one thing, how can you can't expect others to take seriously the demands that you yourself (rightly) think are ridiculous? It also doesn't help that you're describing statistical procedures that are used on data sets.  More importantly, though, 40k already has a comprehensive model: the rules.  All of the the potential interactions are already known, but the results vary according to binomial distributions from dice rolling by units of dynamic size.  We have perfect knowledge in 40k of what can happen, but since we make decisions based on what we think is likely to happen, knowing how those binomial distributions operate (even by using simplified averages), allows us to make better decisions.  Understanding the implications of that complete model for X unit in situation Y is what mathhammer usually involves, but it also can be used to evaluate asymmetries that violate design principles (especially fairness, considering the points system).

I'm not making any demands.  I am demonstrating to you that model making is not a be all and end all of playing this game and that more often than not it is fundamentally misleading because of all the omitted variables.  In addition, I argue that all this unnecessarily complicated mathematics is not required to understand how to play this game well.  Basic probability is useful and working out various averages can be handy too, but ultimately it's in game experience of how to use units effectively in conjunction with each other which, in my experience of gaming and reading, is the key to playing all armies well,

Quote
Since 40k already has a complete model in the form of a permissive rule set, it's possible to simulate game states.  If you'd like, you can go through the process of collecting data, but you won't get the complete range of possibilities, let alone their correct distributions.  You also won't be able to optimize play based on the best expected outcomes, you'd just be cataloguing existing decisions instead of learning to make better ones.  The kind of research you're proposing does have value for a different task: predicting metagame shifts.  If you have reason to believe that future behaviour of a population will be driven by past behaviour, you can tailor your own decisions such that they will exploit weaknesses in conventional wisdom stemming from incorrect analysis of the game.  It's tricky to pull off, though, and it's a lot more involved than simply gathering tournament list placing and whatnot; you'd want to see how each unit is being used by its respective player, and that requires analysis of recorded games.  Even so, each data point's usefulness would have to be qualified by its likelihood, so you'd still need the kind of a theoretical reference point to which you are currently objecting.  Even if you had the personnel and appropriate computational tool to make a comprehensive analysis of that data possible, I'd wager that your data set would be small because most players would compare the overpriced Dire Avengers with more efficient models, then leave them on the shelf.

Which is why I would never consider actually doing it.  This level of modelling simply isn't required for a game.  In addition, the whole point of 40K Online and other forums is to share experiences and ideas, not to carry out in depth research and modelling.  Of course, if anyone really wants to engage in such research they can, but it tends to have a limited audience, owing to the complexity of the maths involved.

Getting back to the issue of Dire Avengers.  I think that it's clear that few would argue that they are not currently overpriced, however, I think that it remains very much open to question how much they should actually cost.  I've seen nothing here that persuades me that they should be 13 points per model.  I think that we need a lot more battle reports involving Dire Avengers to be posted to have a better idea of working out their cost.  This is how we used to operate for the Eldar Redux, that is to say we played a lot of games to come up with a points value, so if anyone wants to make a convincing case for Dire Avengers to be costed thus, I'd recommend actually playing a number of games using this value for Dire Avengers and then seeing whether it's justified.  That, to my mind, makes for a more more compelling argument and constructive discussion.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline SeekingOne

  • Exarch
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Country: ru
  • May Hoeth guide our ways...
  • Armies: Eldar (Saim-Hann), Space Wolves
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2017, 07:24:52 AM »
@Irisado

I already commented on this but got no answer, so I'll try again :)

I've seen nothing here that persuades me that they should be 13 points per model. 

Irisado, could you please explain me this: why do you even need to be persuaded that they should cost 13 points per model?

Thing is, even if we put all calculations aside, there's still a fact that DAs had the cost of 13 pts or lower for the last 10 years of 40k existence. This means that they kept this cost through full 4 editions' worth of changes in basic game mechanics and full 3 versions of Eldar codex, and there's massive anecdotal evidence for them being more or less good for those points throughout all of those periods. Some thought they are good, some thought they're mediocre, but very few people saw them as useless or OP.
Now, 8th edition did change a few things, but fundamentally 40k is still the same game, and most of its general principles are unchanged. So, if anything, it is the initial increase of the DAs point cost beyond 13 pts that has to be specifically justified, not vice versa.

What would you say to this?
I fight against Chaos and for Order, because it means fighting for Life against Death. There is no other battle truly worth fighting.

"If it's not for a tournament then play whatever it is that you like. Without the pressure of having to utterly destroy your opponent it opens up alot more opportunity to have fun." - Lazarus

Offline Cavalier

  • One Archon to Rules Test Them All | High Corsair Prince of Painting | Warlock
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
  • Country: us
  • Corsair Prince
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Angels, World Eaters
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2017, 08:17:35 AM »
@The Seeking One- I actually agree with you. 13 points sounds right. I'm dying to get my Avengers on the table. I actually think they are as valuable as ever, but I just can't justify the points for them and the obligatory (for my meta) Wave Serpent.

@Irisado- I bow as ever to your debating skills Irisado. I totally agree with you on math-hammer failing to tell the whole story. Terrain, deployment, deployment zones, model placement, army composition, player skill (for both players) are enormous factors that aren't accounted for in any of the calculations I've ever seen.

Mathhammer says my armies were "not optimized" last edition, yet I won a ludicrous amount of game. Level of competition, terrain, deployment etc were all HUGE factors in those games. In fact it was THOSE factors, not raw offensive output that defined my playstyle and led to so much success.

So anyway, I just wanted to say I really liked your reasoning on that. That being said 13 points sounds like the sweet spot for DA's to me! lol  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Check out my army! Eldar Corsair Army

I'm also on the Splintermind Podcast! http://www.facebook.com/splintermindpodcast/

Offline SeekingOne

  • Exarch
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Country: ru
  • May Hoeth guide our ways...
  • Armies: Eldar (Saim-Hann), Space Wolves
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2017, 08:40:02 AM »

Mathhammer says my armies were "not optimized" last edition, yet I won a ludicrous amount of game. Level of competition, terrain, deployment etc were all HUGE factors in those games. In fact it was THOSE factors, not raw offensive output that defined my playstyle and led to so much success.

Mathhammer (in such simple form) cannot help to optimise an army, unless you're choosing between two specific units for a specific job. I'd argue that you won a ludicrous amount of game simply because the 7th edition codex was outstandingly good overall, with very few choices being distinctly bad. In comparison, most other codexes were closer to the typical GW standard, with at least over half of the units being mediocre or bad. As a result, it required a non-Eldar player to put some serious effort into list optimisation to just go toe to toe with a generic balanced Eldar list. Without such effort, Eldar usually were in a position for an auto-win, which caused crazy amounts of internet rage. Throughout the whole 7th edition I kept saying that it would be great if all other codexes are redesigned on the same quality level as the Eldar one - but, alas, that was not to happen.

I fight against Chaos and for Order, because it means fighting for Life against Death. There is no other battle truly worth fighting.

"If it's not for a tournament then play whatever it is that you like. Without the pressure of having to utterly destroy your opponent it opens up alot more opportunity to have fun." - Lazarus

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2017, 09:47:03 AM »
Irisado, could you please explain me this: why do you even need to be persuaded that they should cost 13 points per model?

I've already answered that here:

My reasoning is twofold.  First, there needs to be more in game experience documented of how Dire Avengers are performing in conjunction with other Eldar units and in different gaming environments (there are usually some differences between the US and the UK gaming scene, for example).  In essence, my first point alludes to the observations of the previous paragraph in my first reply to you.  Second, the majority of Eldar players tend to ask for higher cost reductions than are justified, based on past experience of wishlisting (be it using anecdotal evidence or maths), so experience has taught me to be sceptical of anything which isn't a modest proposal.

In addition to this earlier answer, it seems to me that armies have become more expensive in eighth edition.  There are fewer units on the table than in other recent editions and when factoring in relative cost across the Eldar army and other armies, a reduction to a points cost based on editions employing far more complex rules seems, to me at least, difficult to justify.

So, if anything, it is the initial increase of the DAs point cost beyond 13 pts that has to be specifically justified, not vice versa.

What would you say to this?

What I would say to this particular point is that if you want a justification, you'll need to ask GW, since they're the only ones who know the answer.  If they answer Tweedz's question on their Facebook page you may receive some sort of answer to this question.  If not, you could always ask them a similar question :).
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 10:44:28 AM by Irisado »
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline TheEldarGuy

  • Infinity Circuit
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1460
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2017, 10:06:26 AM »
Oy vey!

So the only argument here worth its salt to the likes of Games Workshop (if this is the bar to which we are going to use to measure - as in "How would I explain my wish to GW if I had 2 minutes") is thus:

For the Power Level of the unit to be 3 Power Levels for 5 Dire Avengers, how does this equate? In more instances than not 1 Power Level could be gauged at 20 to 25 points per Level, even at its most expensive option 15 points Per Dire Avenger (including the Exarch!) is not unreasonable.

Anything less than using their own benchmarks to prove a point sounds more like whining than valid argument, and no one is going to listen.

Offline Tweedz

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: 00
  • Death is only the beginning.
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2017, 02:00:56 PM »
  If they answer Tweedz's question on their Facebook page you may receive some sort of answer to this question.  If not, you could always ask them a similar question :).

On that note: FB people said they are passing my question along to the writers. I would not expect too quick a response, but it seems it is being looked at.

Offline The Mattler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Eldar
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2017, 02:11:00 PM »
The section that I emphasised in bold contradicts that which you wrote in the reply which precedes this one.  Again, therefore, I think that it would be beneficial for you to clarify whether you still stand by the statement in bold:

Theoryhammer in the sense you're describing is bad, since it's almost always results oriented thinking, i.e. players forming opinions of units by trying them out without actually doing any calculations to see what they're actually good at beforehand.  Up until the last few years, the overwhelming majority of "tactic" or "strategy" articles on 40k were almost purely anecdotal nonsense, and the only calculations in them ignored points values entirely.  Ask yourself many times you've seen a discussion get bogged down in "they're T3, so they're bad" or "they have a 3+ save, so they're good", as if that was relevant without considering the whole unit in the context of its points cost.
I have no idea why you think there's a contradiction.  The bold text is how I described results-oriented thinking.  That results-oriented thinking generates conclusions from direct experience with limited data sets (i.e., your own games), and sharing those conclusions generates anecdotes.  Those anecdotes don't have good predictive value because they only show what happened, not what could happen and how likely the various outcomes are, so they aren't nearly as useful for informing future decisions as probability calculations.  Hence, I labeled articles using results-oriented thinking, and especially in the absence of calculations based on points efficiency, as "anecdotal nonsense".  None of what I said is incompatible with the idea that our learning is enhanced by sharing information, which is why I agreed with you on the importance of doing so. 

In addition, your assertion that anecdotal experience is nonsense is, at best, open to question.  I've learnt far more from reading the advice posted by players who have posted their experience of fielding units on the table, discussing the results, and working out whether problematic units could be used more effectively or are not overly worthwhile including in the majority of army lists.
...
Gaming experience wins over maths every time.  I've read many a discussion about the maths underpinning unit performance and they have never told me anything that I hadn't already worked out from playing the game.
...
Maths has its place, but all it reliably provides is an indicator of performance of a unit in isolation.
As I said before, you took "anecdote" to mean something much broader than I do; you seem to mean it as "[almost?] everything except maths".  You then write about the importance of gathering data and sharing it.  Fine, but I think that approach is insufficient on its own.  You then run into some contradiction of your own in the words I've highlighted in red because what you're describing is mathematical comparison.  Even if you don't explicitly mention any numbers in that process, the comparison you're describing is rooted in judgments of relative value in a subset of specific game states with limited variables ("unit in isolation", but I'll forgive your hyperbole because you clearly don't mean it).  When you draw conclusions about whether a unit would be useful in a majority of lists, you're doing it based on the perception of probability that a given cluster of variables in the aforementioned game states will actually occur in future games.  That's exactly the kind of modelling you said had little value, and you steadfastly resist kind of quantification that makes what you're already doing yield more precise results.
 
I'm not making any demands.  I am demonstrating to you that model making is not a be all and end all of playing this game and that more often than not it is fundamentally misleading because of all the omitted variables.  In addition, I argue that all this unnecessarily complicated mathematics is not required to understand how to play this game well.  Basic probability is useful and working out various averages can be handy too, but ultimately it's in game experience of how to use units effectively in conjunction with each other which, in my experience of gaming and reading, is the key to playing all armies well,
As I just explained above, you and I are advocating the some approach except 1) that your aversion to writing out the numbers had led to your rejection of their usefulness, and 2) that rejection prevents you from quantifying a given unit's expected performance, so you have to rely solely on in-game data from your own experience or that of others.  Sometimes I worry about the degree to which you and I get stuck in these debates as if our positions are somehow mutually exclusive.

Which is why I would never consider actually doing it.  This level of modelling simply isn't required for a game.  In addition, the whole point of 40K Online and other forums is to share experiences and ideas, not to carry out in depth research and modelling.  Of course, if anyone really wants to engage in such research they can, but it tends to have a limited audience, owing to the complexity of the maths involved.
I was disputing the claims that 1) there were game elements that could not be modeled, and 2) that showing that all elements could be modeled required actually building comprehensive model.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that methods of probability or other mathematical modeling/simulation are somehow less legitimate/appropriate pieces of information to share on forums.  The internet is packed with people asking questions like "How can I do X better [or at all]?", and many of the answers to such questions involve presenting new tools and methods that make it easier to solve both current and future problems.  Sure, it takes some effort to learn how to use those tools and methods, but the payoff is worth it.  The pool of human knowledge is as deep as it is because we share our tools and methods; instead of re-inventing the wheel, we get to benefit from the collective effort of millions of individuals, each of whom might contribute an idea that affects the whole population. 

For example, I recently learned about the Lanchester square laws.  Knowing them years ago would have saved me a huge amount of time.  Similarly, I've been working an a spreadsheet to serve as a kind of developing tool for tinkering with 40k unit loadouts so I can provide better feedback to GW, or possibly design my own game at some point.  I had no idea how to write 80% of the formulas in that sheet less than a month ago, so I looked at a similar file made by Neil Philips shortly after 8th edition was released.  I wanted to write a spreadsheet anyway, but it would have taken me a lot more time to learn how to do it if I didn't have Neil's work as a starting point.

Regarding the small audience, after being away from TheWarmaster40k for almost two years, the first post I saw in their Eldar forum upon my return was by a player who admired my "The Mattler's Mathhammer" series and had written their own article in a similar style, listed me as a source of inspiration, and even quoted me in one of the preamble sections.  I've been doing what I do for a while, and I'd still do it without an audience, but I learn a lot in the process of sharing it with others.  It also seems to be making a difference to at least one other person, and that's a nice bonus. :)

Getting back to the issue of Dire Avengers.  I think that it's clear that few would argue that they are not currently overpriced, however, I think that it remains very much open to question how much they should actually cost.  I've seen nothing here that persuades me that they should be 13 points per model.  I think that we need a lot more battle reports involving Dire Avengers to be posted to have a better idea of working out their cost.  This is how we used to operate for the Eldar Redux, that is to say we played a lot of games to come up with a points value, so if anyone wants to make a convincing case for Dire Avengers to be costed thus, I'd recommend actually playing a number of games using this value for Dire Avengers and then seeing whether it's justified.  That, to my mind, makes for a more more compelling argument and constructive discussion.
Fair enough.  Even tools like the Lanchester square formula need their results to be viewed in the context of factors it doesn't (always) take into account, especially movement, and your opponent's might surprise you with a situation you haven't considered.  Something to keep in mind, though, is that it isn't the Dire Avengers you'd need to keep an eye on during play testing.  Their performance per model on the table will be the same regardless of their points cost.  The real benefit to having a lower points cost is being able to field more units, which are usually different from the cheaper unit being play tested.  An extra 40pts per full Dire Avenger squad can add up quickly if it means extra models or better armament for something else.

In addition to this earlier answer, it seems to me that armies have become more expensive in eighth edition.  There are fewer units on the table than in other recent editions and when factoring in relative cost across the Eldar army and other armies, a reduction to a points cost based on editions employing far more complex rules seems, to me at least, difficult to justify.
That's a good point, which is why I based my argument for a lower points cost for the Dire Avengers on the current cost of a Tactical Space Marine because 1) it's the standard infantry model of another elite faction, 2) its points cost remained stable from 7th to 8th despite other units becoming more expensive, and 3) both models fill very similar roles in their respective factions.  Seems like an reasonable comparison to me.

@Irisado- I bow as ever to your debating skills Irisado.
Heh, laying it on a bit thick there.  However, I will say that Irisado maintains the highest standard of professionalism of anyone discussing 40k on the internet.  Seriously!

I totally agree with you on math-hammer failing to tell the whole story.
It can, but it almost never does.  You can make it super complicated if you want to account for every contingency, but for forum posting or even article writing it's not necessary.  (...says the guy building universal hit/wound/save/damage formulas in Excel, including all special rules.  :o )

Anything less than using their own benchmarks to prove a point sounds more like whining than valid argument, and no one is going to listen.
Well, the points costs themselves are as much their own benchmarks as the power system, and a ton of their power costs are way off as well, and not just relative to points costs.  The Wraithknight sword build is a huge ripoff because the power cost is scaled for the heavy guns, and both power and points costs of everything on the model probably need re-evaluation in the context of Imperial Knights.  They're close, but not close enough to avoid suspicion.  If you want to see a really stark contrast on power for points costs (other than Dire Avengers, who are great for power but terrible for points), compare Warp Spiders to Shadow Spectres.
Shuriken weaponry is the pinnacle of antiSpocklizardry in 40k.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2017, 04:54:48 PM »
I have no idea why you think there's a contradiction.  The bold text is how I described results-oriented thinking.  That results-oriented thinking generates conclusions from direct experience with limited data sets (i.e., your own games), and sharing those conclusions generates anecdotes.  Those anecdotes don't have good predictive value because they only show what happened, not what could happen and how likely the various outcomes are, so they aren't nearly as useful for informing future decisions as probability calculations.  Hence, I labeled articles using results-oriented thinking, and especially in the absence of calculations based on points efficiency, as "anecdotal nonsense".  None of what I said is incompatible with the idea that our learning is enhanced by sharing information, which is why I agreed with you on the importance of doing so.

The contradiction is that, on the one hand, you argue that playing games is valid experience, yet at the same moment you assert that any discussion based purely on gaming experience is not valid because calculations have not been factored into the discussion in advance.  In essence, you seem to advocating a deductive based approach as being the only valid and reliable way to give advice to others, whereas I would argue that the inductive approach is just as valid and arguably more so.

Quote
As I said before, you took "anecdote" to mean something much broader than I do; you seem to mean it as "[almost?] everything except maths".  You then write about the importance of gathering data and sharing it.  Fine, but I think that approach is insufficient on its own.

Just as I believe that mathematical modelling is, on its own, equally insufficient ;).  I doubt that we're going to make much headway in changing each other's mind on this point, so I'll turn to the next one, in order to avoid the discussion getting too bogged down.

Quote
You then run into some contradiction of your own in the words I've highlighted in red because what you're describing is mathematical comparison.  Even if you don't explicitly mention any numbers in that process, the comparison you're describing is rooted in judgments of relative value in a subset of specific game states with limited variables ("unit in isolation", but I'll forgive your hyperbole because you clearly don't mean it).  When you draw conclusions about whether a unit would be useful in a majority of lists, you're doing it based on the perception of probability that a given cluster of variables in the aforementioned game states will actually occur in future games.  That's exactly the kind of modelling you said had little value, and you steadfastly resist kind of quantification that makes what you're already doing yield more precise results.

I make all my assessments of units based on my own experience and reading those of others not by modelling in advance.  It is true that there is likely to be a perception of probability involved when taking tactical decisions during the game and assessing unit effectiveness both in advance and during the game.  The key difference with my approach and yours, however, is that I would visualise unit performance in terms of the battlefield, i.e. a pictorial mindset, and not model the numbers using the modelling that you employ.  In addition, perception in of itself is qualitative not quantitative in my view, so I cannot see how that could be effectively modelled, although probability in of itself is definitely mathematical and lends itself to statistical models.
 
As I just explained above, you and I are advocating the some approach except 1) that your aversion to writing out the numbers had led to your rejection of their usefulness, and 2) that rejection prevents you from quantifying a given unit's expected performance, so you have to rely solely on in-game data from your own experience or that of others.  Sometimes I worry about the degree to which you and I get stuck in these debates as if our positions are somehow mutually exclusive.

Our positions are mutually exclusive in the sense that we have a different perspective in terms of the importance given to modelling in advance and the significance of the numbers.  I agree that numbers have their uses, but I disagree about the need to quantify everything and to model the value of every unit in advance, in order to be able to play the game well or to give advice to others about how to get the most out of their army lists and units.

I was disputing the claims that 1) there were game elements that could not be modeled, and 2) that showing that all elements could be modeled required actually building comprehensive model.

We will continue to disagree on this point in that case, as I maintain that it's not possible to model all game elements, while I remain very dubious that all elements which can be modelled could be taken as valid or reliable, without using a more complex model.

Quote
I'm not sure where you get the idea that methods of probability or other mathematical modeling/simulation are somehow less legitimate/appropriate pieces of information to share on forums.  The internet is packed with people asking questions like "How can I do X better [or at all]?", and many of the answers to such questions involve presenting new tools and methods that make it easier to solve both current and future problems.  Sure, it takes some effort to learn how to use those tools and methods, but the payoff is worth it.  The pool of human knowledge is as deep as it is because we share our tools and methods; instead of re-inventing the wheel, we get to benefit from the collective effort of millions of individuals, each of whom might contribute an idea that affects the whole population.

The question you've just posed as an example can be answered more effectively qualitatively in my view.  The only types of questions where maths and models provide the best answers are questions of the type 'Do Dire Avengers generate more wounds on average than Guardians?' or similarly worded questions.  I have never read any article, be it professionally or as part of this hobby, where a quantitative analysis has told me something that I didn't already know or couldn't have worked out for myself without using a quantitative model.  This is why I say that while numbers do have their place in terms of confirming data, it's the actual playing of the game, the experience of actually using all those units together on the table top against different armies, on diverse tables, and in varied environments which provides the enriching experience and narrative that is required to generate debate and discussion about unit choices, as well as strategy and tactics overall.

Quote
Regarding the small audience, after being away from TheWarmaster40k for almost two years, the first post I saw in their Eldar forum upon my return was by a player who admired my "The Mattler's Mathhammer" series and had written their own article in a similar style, listed me as a source of inspiration, and even quoted me in one of the preamble sections.  I've been doing what I do for a while, and I'd still do it without an audience, but I learn a lot in the process of sharing it with others.  It also seems to be making a difference to at least one other person, and that's a nice bonus. :)

It's always pleasing to receive positive feedback about work that you put in and to feel as though you are making a difference.  The amount of work you put into working out these numbers and putting together your arguments is to be commended.  As I've alluded to previously, I can only really go on my own experience, which differs to yours.  I've been reviewing Eldar army lists for ten years across different forums and rarely have I encountered a large audience for a numerically driven approach.  The forum that you mention could be an exception, especially given that it was founded by someone coming from the top tier tournament scene, whose players, I suspect, are much more likely to adopt this kind of approach to the game.  It is also worth pointing out that forum members are only a small part of the hobby, especially these days, as most of the young players are getting their information elsewhere, sadly, but that's a discussion for a different topic.

Quote
Fair enough.  Even tools like the Lanchester square formula need their results to be viewed in the context of factors it doesn't (always) take into account, especially movement, and your opponent's might surprise you with a situation you haven't considered.  Something to keep in mind, though, is that it isn't the Dire Avengers you'd need to keep an eye on during play testing.  Their performance per model on the table will be the same regardless of their points cost.  The real benefit to having a lower points cost is being able to field more units, which are usually different from the cheaper unit being play tested.  An extra 40pts per full Dire Avenger squad can add up quickly if it means extra models or better armament for something else.

I see what you are saying here and this was, if my memory serves me correctly, one of the issues that was discussed during play testing for the Eldar Redux.  This is why I think that it would be very interesting to see some play testing conducted, in order to see what the actual impact is.

I do wonder whether part of the problem here is that a lot of us have memories of third edition where Dire Avengers rarely featured because Guardians fulfilled the same role more effectively?  I think that this is the main concern underpinning the thought processes in this thread.  While it is tempting to search for fixes and to make changes, I feel that it's still too early to be getting too focused on issues such as the Dire Avenger cost problem.  This is because the Eldar codex is bound to be released sooner rather than later, and there may well be changes made there which render the majority of this discussion moot.  I think that we all need to view the index books as transitory, set in water, rather than in stone, if you will and react accordingly.

The alternative is to wait for the response to this:

On that note: FB people said they are passing my question along to the writers. I would not expect too quick a response, but it seems it is being looked at.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline SeekingOne

  • Exarch
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Country: ru
  • May Hoeth guide our ways...
  • Armies: Eldar (Saim-Hann), Space Wolves
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here\'s why :)
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2017, 05:04:01 PM »
As for armies becoming more expensive, this is not entirely correct. There are three distinct unit categories that did indeed become more expensive across most armies:
- Vehicles/Monsters, which got a substantial boost of durability;
- Bikes, which (except our Eldar ones) also got a durability boost in the form of a universally added extra wound (CWE bikes also got an extra wound but lost a point of save which kept their durability on the same level);
- Super-heavy infantry like terminators, centurions and wraithguard - which also got extra wounds.

One unit category that did not get a universal cost increase was light and medium infantry that has stayed at 1 wound per model. In other words, outside of the CWE Index I have yet to see a single unit of basic infantry that would get a sizeable points increase without getting some significant improvements.

So, this argument in favour of expensive DA doesn't really work.

Post Merge: July 24, 2017, 05:45:47 PM
In the future, please use the modify button. Double posting is against the forum rules, and for that reason, the system merged your posts.

Just read that the newly released SM codex has Sternguard Veterans for just +1 pt per model over the current cost of DAs. Those veterans are marines armed with 30" boltguns with AP of a missile launcher.
I'll just leave it here without any further comments.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 05:45:47 PM by SeekingOne »
I fight against Chaos and for Order, because it means fighting for Life against Death. There is no other battle truly worth fighting.

"If it's not for a tournament then play whatever it is that you like. Without the pressure of having to utterly destroy your opponent it opens up alot more opportunity to have fun." - Lazarus

Offline The Mattler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Eldar
Re: Dire Avengers should cost **13pts**...and here's why :)
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2017, 02:49:24 PM »
The contradiction is that, on the one hand, you argue that playing games is valid experience, yet at the same moment you assert that any discussion based purely on gaming experience is not valid because calculations have not been factored into the discussion in advance.  In essence, you seem to advocating a deductive based approach as being the only valid and reliable way to give advice to others, whereas I would argue that the inductive approach is just as valid and arguably more so.
The key word here is "purely".  Cheating or unintentional illegal play aside, nothing can happen in the game that isn't in the rules, so every outcome (and its probability) can be predicted using deductive reasoning.  We agree that and exhaustive approach is unnecessary, but it's still possible to get more precise predictions, and more quickly, by doing a few calculations about a unit's likely performance before using it in a game compared to playing a bunch of games with the unit and trying to extrapolate its performance in the future.  By all means play the games in either case, but some number crunching in advance puts the data you gain from the games in the greater context of the relevant probabilities.  My own experience is that people (myself included) underestimate the impact of what appear to be small advantages.  For example, I've had to explain to several people that a 5++ save doesn't make the model 33% more resilient to lascannons, but rather 50% more resilient because only taking 2/3 of the damage means that 3/2 times as many shots (on average) are required to bring down such a target.  During the game, the 5++ feels like 33%, and a 6++ like 17%, but the advantage they confer is actually 50% and 20%, respectively.  Terminators sustain wounds 1/6 of the time with their armour save, but since the model is expensive to field and its signature feature is its supposed durability, our ego gets stung all the more when we see a 1 on the saving die.  Having a better appreciation of the actual probabilities in advance helps curb our unrealistic expectations and leads to a better play experience in addition to more competent decisions.

The key difference with my approach and yours, however, is that I would visualise unit performance in terms of the battlefield, i.e. a pictorial mindset, and not model the numbers using the modelling that you employ.  In addition, perception in of itself is qualitative not quantitative in my view, so I cannot see how that could be effectively modelled, although probability in of itself is definitely mathematical and lends itself to statistical models.
I find that fiddling with my unit evaluation methods often involves a visual process; as soon as the weapon ranges or movement rates differ between the models I compare, I have to imagine how they move on the table in order to, for example, weight the number of turns one model or the other is likely to be in Rapid Fire range.  That part is definitely trickier than just finding the damage as an average or a binomial distribution, but it can still be accounted for by numbers.
 
Our positions are mutually exclusive in the sense that we have a different perspective in terms of the importance given to modelling in advance and the significance of the numbers.  I agree that numbers have their uses, but I disagree about the need to quantify everything and to model the value of every unit in advance, in order to be able to play the game well or to give advice to others about how to get the most out of their army lists and units.
It's possible to give good advice without knowing the math, but it takes a lot more time if it's just data-driven.  You can give better advice if you've worked with the numbers as well, and by spending a little time doing that up front you can shorten the overall time it takes to be able to compile good advice.

We will continue to disagree on this point in that case, as I maintain that it's not possible to model all game elements, while I remain very dubious that all elements which can be modelled could be taken as valid or reliable, without using a more complex model.
I know that number crunching isn't your cup of tea, but you've touched upon an interesting struggle here.  I once took a course on phylogenetic analysis, which is how biologists build the tree diagrams to show the relationships between various living and extinct species through common ancestors.  Comprehensive modelling of those relationships is computationally intensive, to the point where if you tried to compare the ancestry of 50 species simultaneously by an exhaustive search, the number of states you need to express the result is greater than the number of electrons in the observable universe.  You would literally need an additional universe acting as a computer to solve that particular problem, quantum shenanigans aside (perhaps), a la Hitchhiker's Guild to the Galaxy.

The point is that a lot of modelling involves making choices that are "good enough" that their predictions are useful, while recognizing that you often get diminishing returns in time spent and precision if you just try to account for everything all the time.

The question you've just posed as an example can be answered more effectively qualitatively in my view.  The only types of questions where maths and models provide the best answers are questions of the type 'Do Dire Avengers generate more wounds on average than Guardians?' or similarly worded questions.  I have never read any article, be it professionally or as part of this hobby, where a quantitative analysis has told me something that I didn't already know or couldn't have worked out for myself without using a quantitative model.
Questions like the one you just posed, are usually subsets of another question, such as "Which unit is a better fit for [role]?".  To answer that broader question properly involves considering (at the very least) the damage output, resilience, and mobility relative to points cost.  There are other considerations, too, such as psykers for Deny the Witch, auras or psychic powers that buff friendly troops, whether their weapon options diversify the armies loadout or are redundant, etc.  It's all amenable to calculation, though, and it helps you quantify how much better one unit's abilities are compared to another in order to judge the opportunity costs properly.

I do wonder whether part of the problem here is that a lot of us have memories of third edition where Dire Avengers rarely featured because Guardians fulfilled the same role more effectively?  I think that this is the main concern underpinning the thought processes in this thread.  While it is tempting to search for fixes and to make changes, I feel that it's still too early to be getting too focused on issues such as the Dire Avenger cost problem.  This is because the Eldar codex is bound to be released sooner rather than later, and there may well be changes made there which render the majority of this discussion moot.  I think that we all need to view the index books as transitory, set in water, rather than in stone, if you will and react accordingly.
I see the Indices as an opportunity to check GWs work and provide feedback while the Codices are still in development.  To me, the Dire Avenger points cost is just one example of why we should have these discussions sooner rather than later.  It still baffles me that GW hasn't gone to a "free rules, paid fluff" like Covrus Belli and Steamforged Games, or even adopted a sensible pricing scheme for their digital books.  Their continued insistence on hard copies for everything makes everyone's lives more difficult when it comes to updating rules.
Shuriken weaponry is the pinnacle of antiSpocklizardry in 40k.

 


Powered by EzPortal