You know, it's these definitive proclamations about how to play the game correctly, combined with unsubtle insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bad player, that make the fact that you have never actually played the game immediately relevant to the discussion.
I must have hallucinated playing back in high school and well into my early 20's and then again in 8th edition... Thanks for snapping me free of my delusions I guess I should see a psychiatrist now.
Or I'll just hit the report button because your reply is entirely off-topic.
Have you played a game of 9th edition?
Because that's what we're talking about. Or are you...
Because you can't have it both ways. Either you have relevant knowledge from first-hand play experience, or you don't. You can't in good conscious call out someone else for talking about a game they've not played when you're talking about a game you've not played.
That bit with the comma separating two clauses in a sentence. It's pretty clear.
You never mentioned 8th. If you said it somewhere else fine, but you would think, in being asked "So ... you don't even play 40k?", you'd have at least said "Played a few games of 8th". Not that "a few games of 8th" has much to do with where we are in 9th but at any rate, you didn't mention it.
A few games of 8th mean very little overall so I didn't care to mention them.
And you originally said you couldn't actually get your group to play games like 40k, but now you don't play because of lockdown? I mean fair enough, that applies to most of us, but "I don't play because I can't get my group to play 40k (but I have played a few games) ≠ I haven't played recently due to lockdown. lol
My group doesn't want to invest in 40k. I can't go to clubs because of lockdown, no contradiction at all.
Racerguy180 wrote: I've never played it, as I have no use for it. simple as that.
A fair amount of my friends do and everytime they show me the gameplay...it reinforces my decision. I get the appeal, its just unappealing to me.
Same for MTG/pokemon/any other CCG. I remember when Magic came out and my opinion of the game hasn't changed.
So you're mocking games you have next to no knowledge of because you don't think they're relevant to 40k but you can't actually know that because you have nothing beyond a surface-level knowledge of them...
You know, it's these definitive proclamations about how to play the game correctly, combined with unsubtle insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bad player, that make the fact that you have never actually played the game immediately relevant to the discussion.
I must have hallucinated playing back in high school and well into my early 20's and then again in 8th edition... Thanks for snapping me free of my delusions I guess I should see a psychiatrist now.
Or I'll just hit the report button because your reply is entirely off-topic.
I've seen you say, more than once, that you haven't played since 5th. This isn't 5th. It's not the same game. You playing again in 8th is interesting, considering you haven't mentioned that when this topic has come up before. But: This isn't 8th either. The secondary objectives in this thread didn't exist in 8th, so even if you have played 8th, you haven't actually used the system we're talking about. And yet here you are telling people to L2P.
I think the fact that you aren't speaking from a position of experience is pretty relevant, but if you're feeling defensive about getting called out for armchair quarterbacking, you go right ahead.
catbarf wrote: I've seen you say, more than once, that you haven't played since 5th. This isn't 5th. It's not the same game. You playing again in 8th is interesting, considering you haven't mentioned that when this topic has come up before. But: This isn't 8th either. The secondary objectives in this thread didn't exist in 8th, so even if you have played 8th, you haven't actually used the system we're talking about. And yet here you are telling people to L2P.
My posting history here is public information. You can look it up and see that I've talked about playing games in 8th on this forum. That's the last I'll say on the subject.
Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field
Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field
Marines 48% wr - 36% of field
Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
Ice_can wrote: Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
Esentially if 50% of marines games is vrs marines guess what even if they win evey other game the maximum win ratio they can achieve is 75%.
When a Marine Supplement gives you access to nearly a Codex worth of differences from another Marine Supplement, I don't think it is unreasonable to track them separately. It not like Guard where the difference between one Regiment and another is the regimental doctrine, access a maximum of two unique units, a warlord trait, a relic, and a stratagem.
Ice_can wrote: Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
Esentially if 50% of marines games is vrs marines guess what even if they win evey other game the maximum win ratio they can achieve is 75%.
When a Marine Supplement gives you access to nearly a Codex worth of differences from another Marine Supplement, I don't think it is unreasonable to track them separately. It not like Guard where the difference between one Regiment and another is the regimental doctrine, access a maximum of two unique units, a warlord trait, a relic, and a stratagem.
So marines are as bloated as we knew them to be. Good to know, but care to elaborate what that has to do with them ignoring basically all kill secondaries? If for whatever reason they are to weak after (as if) they can be tweaked then.
Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field
Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field
Marines 48% wr - 36% of field
Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
On FLG, the last Major and GT that were played included 60 players, this was the faction break down.
Space Marines of all flavors (Excluding Custodes): 21
Custodes: 4
Harlies: 2 (same guy in both events)
Imperial Guard: 2
Imperium: 2
Necrons: 12
Chaos of all flavors: 8
Orkz: 4
SoB: 2
Mechanicus: 2
Nids: 1
So when you say No mirror matches....umm, yeah, there's a ton.
So fully 1/3rd (actually a bit more) of the game was running Space Marines, 4 more were playing Space Marines +1 (Custodes) and 2 were playing Female Space Marines (SoB) and possibly 2 more were SMs with allies. So you are talking half the lists being SM's or other imperial factions wearing power armor. And the chaos guys were at least 3/8ths Chaos Marine as well. Ironically, the only other faction that was well represented was...Necrons, the newest Xenos release faction. So...if GW supports xenos...it gets bought...weird.
Anyway, the point was that SM's are the most over represented faction in the game, and my own point is that you can't use W/L rate as a good measure of how good an army is. If you have 10 players playing SM and 9 of them suck and barely know how to move their pieces is it fair to represent this by saying the army has a 10% W/L rate? No. Likewise for 40k stats the more important stat is top finishes. And in those 2 events SM's finished 1st in one and Quins finished first in the other.
Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field Marines 48% wr - 36% of field Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
On FLG, the last Major and GT that were played included 60 players, this was the faction break down.
Space Marines of all flavors (Excluding Custodes): 21 Custodes: 4 Harlies: 2 (same guy in both events) Imperial Guard: 2 Imperium: 2 Necrons: 12 Chaos of all flavors: 8 Orkz: 4 SoB: 2 Mechanicus: 2 Nids: 1
So when you say No mirror matches....umm, yeah, there's a ton.
So fully 1/3rd (actually a bit more) of the game was running Space Marines, 4 more were playing Space Marines +1 (Custodes) and 2 were playing Female Space Marines (SoB) and possibly 2 more were SMs with allies. So you are talking half the lists being SM's or other imperial factions wearing power armor. And the chaos guys were at least 3/8ths Chaos Marine as well. Ironically, the only other faction that was well represented was...Necrons, the newest Xenos release faction. So...if GW supports xenos...it gets bought...weird.
Anyway, the point was that SM's are the most over represented faction in the game, and my own point is that you can't use W/L rate as a good measure of how good an army is. If you have 10 players playing SM and 9 of them suck and barely know how to move their pieces is it fair to represent this by saying the army has a 10% W/L rate? No. Likewise for 40k stats the more important stat is top finishes. And in those 2 events SM's finished 1st in one and Quins finished first in the other.
Not completely true. The most important data point is placing/share of players, and marines are doing quite badly.
Daedalus is actually right but wrong at the same time.
Yes, marines are not exactly crushing it on the competitive scene right now. The real winners right now are Sisters, Mechanicus and Necrons, but the share of top places to other factions is wide. The top meta right now is extremely good health wise. He is also wrong though, because the issue with marines has always been that they are too good on the casual level and this hurts the game on that level. The problem doesn't lie in the competitive side of the game. Marines are OP in casual play, and since 90% of the games are of this kind, and this board is famous for not knowing left from right when it comes to competitive 40K, this thread got to 11 pages, because it is an issue that is quite felt.
Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field
Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field
Marines 48% wr - 36% of field
Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
Ice_can wrote: Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
Esentially if 50% of marines games is vrs marines guess what even if they win evey other game the maximum win ratio they can achieve is 75%.
When a Marine Supplement gives you access to nearly a Codex worth of differences from another Marine Supplement, I don't think it is unreasonable to track them separately. It not like Guard where the difference between one Regiment and another is the regimental doctrine, access a maximum of two unique units, a warlord trait, a relic, and a stratagem.
So marines are as bloated as we knew them to be. Good to know, but care to elaborate what that has to do with them ignoring basically all kill secondaries? If for whatever reason they are to weak after (as if) they can be tweaked then.
Imperial SM are 11 factions. We would need to go through some impressive logic loops to state the contrary.
Also, it wouldn't matter. We follow what is written on the codici and the official rulings. GW considers them 11 different factions.
Doing otherwise would be the same as considering the xenos a single faction.
Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field
Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field
Marines 48% wr - 36% of field
Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
Right numbers, wrong analysis.
Marines have an inherent advantage in secondary scoring, which isn't tied to what we are discussing.
This advantage is called Oath of the Moment + another special snowflake secondary.
The advantages in scoring that we see are due to the fact that marines have access to special secondaries which are many times 15 easy points.
I sincerely hope that the next GT book will remove faction secondaries.
Speed Freakz buggies are ~100 points each and give only a single point. If you bring literally nothing but buggies and the HQs, then yes, the secondaries should give me an offset.
I bring 3 Scrapjets, a Kustom Boosta Blasta and 6 Smasha Gunz among other things pretty much everytime. It's already 10 VPs for Bring It Down and just 660 points.
Orks lists simply don't work without redundancy. Do you want buggies? There's no need to spam 8+ of them, but there's the need to spam units with similar profiles. Take as many Mek Gunz, flyers, trukks, BWs, dreads, etc as you can and those buggies will do their job.
Mix up 90 boyz, supporting characters (mandatory with footslogging boyz) and vehicles worthy of 10-15 VPs and you can't possibly have a competitive list.
You are saying exactly what I was saying. You are trying to overload the opponent with a single type of profile.
That is a kind of list that gets targeted by secondaries, and there is nothing wrong with that. Working as intended.
You can't have competitive ork lists without bleeding secondaries? That isn't true.
Spoiler:
Patrol: deathskulls
HQ
Warboss w power klaw + kustom shoota=83pts
Relic: killa klaw.
Warlord: kunnin but brutal. Upgrade:.
Da biggest boss. -1cp
Big Mek w SAG =120pts
Troops
10x gretchin =50pts
Fast Attack
5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts
5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts
Dedicated Transport
trukk =65pts
trukk =65pts
trukk =65pts
Vanguard: deathskulls
HQ
Big Mek w SAG=120pts
Big Mek w SAG =120pts
Elites
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 kommandos including boss Nob (1x tankbusta bomb) =45pts
But even if it were, that's a codex issue, and should be solved in a codex. Surely it isn't something you change mission design around.
Not what I said. I stated that you can't have competitive ork lists if you mix up vehicles and infantries. If you want more serious stuff than the cheapest artillery or the cheap transport you need to spam a lot of vehicles, that's what I said. And I'm happy to autoconcede 10-15 VPs to Bring it Down if also my list is capable of scoring and killing more.
Second list you quoted is proving my point: there's only 3 Mek Gunz (120 points) as the only vehicles in the list, it's actualy the typical greentide with basically no vehicles. First one is a good example, although it's from an Australian tournament and we've seen odd downunder lists that placed high in tournaments but they're not reprentative of the current state of 40k. It's also extremely anti meta and skew oriented with 15 meganobz, it's something you can expect from people who own collections of 10k of stuff.
The first list has also 3 scrapjets, but honestly I don't care.
I'm not going to claim that I have any experience with orks, so if you tell me that over a certain treshold you need to go hard on vehicles, I believe it. I just don't see it as an issue.
If you want a list that is very heavy on vehicles, and you give me a few extra points advantage for that, then the secondary is working as designed.
If you try to overload me with a single profile and negate part of my list weapons, I get ~5 points of advantage, which means that you will have to hold one objective more than me for a turn. Seems fair.
Exactly, it's not an issue. Which is also the point I'm trying to make. Autolosing 10-15 VPs from a secondary it's not bad if the faction also gets good odds to win the game. The list you posted with 3 trukks and 3 scrapjets granted the full 15 VPs from Bring it Down just by killing 6 light vehicles (All T6 4+ save), and yet it had a great result.
Which is why I don't consider the old Abhor or Assassinate bad game design or I don't conisder as bad a secondary that hurts elite. TS or GK may be hurt badly by Abhor, but they can also have psychic supremacy at no cost. Fair trade IMHO, if they don't compete they simply need a better codex.
Just like I give up some VPs with my vehicles based ork list but I also have more chances of winning games considering the models I have available.
catbarf wrote: I've seen you say, more than once, that you haven't played since 5th. This isn't 5th. It's not the same game. You playing again in 8th is interesting, considering you haven't mentioned that when this topic has come up before. But: This isn't 8th either. The secondary objectives in this thread didn't exist in 8th, so even if you have played 8th, you haven't actually used the system we're talking about. And yet here you are telling people to L2P.
My posting history here is public information. You can look it up and see that I've talked about playing games in 8th on this forum. That's the last I'll say on the subject.
Thing is the fact that you have never played 9th shows in your posts. It is not just you, others (I think those who go on for pages about whether a 6+ save gives a 16% or a 20% percent increase in durability don't play either, else they would probably want to discuss more "tactical", "gameplay" or other issues that actually matter).
IMHO dakka is plagued by posts from people who don't even play the game, or played ten years ago. These posts are often very loosely related to the topic (armour values for instance cropping up -3 f...ing pages long- in a topic about the latest FAQ... I mean come on people...).
So go on report me too. I will explain to any mod how tiring it is to read endless, off-topic stuff just to get to the interesting bits. For example many here have made suggestions about elite infantry secondaries for example, which people who play can use. You can say why you disagree with a suggestion, that is helpful too. Because perhaps I won't be using that suggestion after all, thanks to your input. You saved me the trouble.
In short, there are many ways to contribute to such a topic. I don't play Commander format of MtG, only Standard. I don't see why anyone could use my input on a Commander thread, so I why would I give some ? "hey guys i don't play, but I have a great idea, one that none of you have thought of, I am such a genious I don't need to actually play to KNOW STUFF...(I think that is how you come across man, sorry but someone has to put it bluntly at some point).
I said my piece on this, I will say no more. I apologize in advance to the mods, sorry if what I said here being is being reported and gives you more work.
Because that's what we're talking about. Or are you...
Is any of this on topic for the thread? *checks thread title and OP* it isn't. *Presses report button*
The problem people are highlighting is it's almost impossible to discuss the game with someone who hasn't played it because there are certain aspects of gameplay that are much more difficult to understand without any experience of them.
Your Trukk example is a case in point. The problem with using a Trukk to block isn't that it's impossible, but that it's so extremely situational it's unlikely to be much use as a tactic the majority of the time. The Trukk is a non-flying vehicle so in an actual game it doesn't have the ability to get where it needs to go a lot of the time, even with its good movement. Terrain will slow it down as it moves through or around it, and large parts of the board are impassable to a Trukk. Then, even if it can block a corridor, as you claim, it's often irrelevant because those corridors are often formed by gaps between ruins that infantry can walk through with impunity, making the blocking all but useless. That's even more the case when most infantry will already be in those ruins so it's not like they're going out of their way to go around the Trukk. This is all stuff that's kind of obvious once you've tried to use these tactics in a real game of 9th.
It's not exactly helped by snide remarks about bad players when it comes from someone with no experience of the edition being discussed.
Speaking or Orks, I think the change to BID has probably helped them a little on the secondaries since they'll give up few enough points now for vehicles it may not be worth taking it against them. That leads to a question that may or may not have been answered during this thread: how many points do people think it's reasonable for a secondary to award, assuming the choice to take it was a good one?
addnid wrote: (I think those who go on for pages about whether a 6+ save gives a 16% or a 20% percent increase in durability don't play either, else they would probably want to discuss more "tactical", "gameplay" or other issues that actually matter).
I've yet to get any proper games of 9th in, due to Covid, but I fully plan on playing as soon as I can.
But that's part of the reason I focus on math-though I'll probably still do that even once I have experience! (I like math.) It's because I can see whether or not the math is right-applying it to the tabletop is something I'll need experience to do properly, but the math itself is just as accessible to me whether or not I've played.
That being said, my apologies for bogging down the discussion with that. I'll try to avoid getting snookered by mathematics too much!
I don't think there is an issue with secondaries offering you 12-15 points *if you table the opponent* - or near as, because they might have some support characters and 3 troops left. The changes to Bring It Down resolve the issues there. The problem for Vehicles/Monsters is melta offering ludicrous returns as discussed in the other thread.
As for whether Marines are performing well or badly in competitive games - I'm not convinced on this "look at the averages" approach. Marines are the most popular faction. They are disproportionately people's first army. I usually think this is special pleading - but for Marines I think there is something in it.
I also reckon there some units are more busted than others. The days of Marines 2.0 hyperbole, of "they can bring anything, even 30 reivers, and its an inevitable win", are gone.
But lists with a weighing towards Eradicators/MM Attack Bikes/Plasma Inceptors/Claw-Shield Vanguard/Bladeguard and probably Redemptor Dreadnoughts are very solid. I don't think that's anything like a mid-tier faction.
In a similar spirit, if you weren't running at least some Repentia and MM Retributors+Celestians as Sisters you'd probably raise questions as to why (especially if you are a recent convert). But people's Marine collections tend to be more eclectic.
addnid wrote: (I think those who go on for pages about whether a 6+ save gives a 16% or a 20% percent increase in durability don't play either, else they would probably want to discuss more "tactical", "gameplay" or other issues that actually matter).
I've yet to get any proper games of 9th in, due to Covid, but I fully plan on playing as soon as I can.
But that's part of the reason I focus on math-though I'll probably still do that even once I have experience! (I like math.) It's because I can see whether or not the math is right-applying it to the tabletop is something I'll need experience to do properly, but the math itself is just as accessible to me whether or not I've played.
That being said, my apologies for bogging down the discussion with that. I'll try to avoid getting snookered by mathematics too much!
Math is important in 40k, no one can dispute that. But as you say it is the "bogging down" part that is an issue for anyone reading the thread. It is mighty decent of you to own it like that though.
Which is why I don't consider the old Abhor or Assassinate bad game design or I don't conisder as bad a secondary that hurts elite. TS or GK may be hurt badly by Abhor, but they can also have psychic supremacy at no cost. Fair trade IMHO, if they don't compete they simply need a better codex.
Just like I give up some VPs with my vehicles based ork list but I also have more chances of winning games considering the models I have available.
Have you seen the warp craft missions? Abhore was and still is, scored for everything psyker, which in case of GK is every unit and every characters ,bar servitors. At the same time warpcraft secondaries require you to use a character, get it in to really close range, not do any other thing with it, when all your good rules from PA work of HQs, because they are the only ones that can take the new psychic powers, and at the same time, you can not just be stoped by getting killed while trying to do the objective, but also by being stoped by an anti psyker roll.
Ah and Abhore lets you do other kill secondaries at the same time, and stop the GK player from doing his WWSWF.
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
Ultramarines are +10
Salamanders are -2
Blood Angels are -9
Iron Hands are -10
Ultramarines are +10
Salamanders are -2
Blood Angels are -9
Iron Hands are -10
What does that tell us about "marines"?
That Marine Chapter bonuses are not balanced, and that over time players will almost inevitably move on to the better ones, but for now* people are doing whatever and this is therefore clouding the Marine win percentage?
*Or up to whenever these stats were put together. Statistics on win% by flavour of Marine seem to be all over the place.
Slipspace wrote: Your Trukk example is a case in point. The problem with using a Trukk to block isn't that it's impossible, but that it's so extremely situational it's unlikely to be much use as a tactic the majority of the time. The Trukk is a non-flying vehicle so in an actual game it doesn't have the ability to get where it needs to go a lot of the time, even with its good movement.
You do realize that I was basing that off of a battle report and interview with a tournament-winning Ork player who used his Trukks exactly as I described to enhance his green tide list. So clearly it is both a tactical and list building idea that has merit even against some of the best people playing.
On FLG, the last Major and GT that were played included 60 players, this was the faction break down.
Anyway, the point was that SM's are the most over represented faction in the game
Yea, as I mentioned the data is going to change. I would personally expect a lot of marines after a codex release, but I find it a little silly that you're stretching to classify everything with PA as marines. How is it that Harlies are scoring secondaries against marines? They're certainly not suffering. Necrons also seem to be doing quite well and they don't have ez-mode codex secondaries.
I don't know what GT you're referencing, but there's one on 1/9 that had 30 people and not a single marine in the top 10 and the marines are outnumbered 3 to 1. Again, these are just points in time and nothing truly significant, but I still think it is premature for an anti-elite secondary.
Slipspace wrote: Your Trukk example is a case in point. The problem with using a Trukk to block isn't that it's impossible, but that it's so extremely situational it's unlikely to be much use as a tactic the majority of the time. The Trukk is a non-flying vehicle so in an actual game it doesn't have the ability to get where it needs to go a lot of the time, even with its good movement.
You do realize that I was basing that off of a battle report and interview with a tournament-winning Ork player who used his Trukks exactly as I described to enhance his green tide list. So clearly it is both a tactical and list building idea that has merit even against some of the best people playing.
Yes, it can work in some situations, but not all and probably not the majority. As a general rule it's going to be more difficult than you think to do what you're describing given the issues I highlighted. The difference is you're basing your experience off reading a battle report of a game you didn't play (for a game you don't play) while other people are talking about the realities of playing the game in a more general sense and how your situation is not likely to be applicable in a large number of cases.
Slipspace wrote: Your Trukk example is a case in point. The problem with using a Trukk to block isn't that it's impossible, but that it's so extremely situational it's unlikely to be much use as a tactic the majority of the time. The Trukk is a non-flying vehicle so in an actual game it doesn't have the ability to get where it needs to go a lot of the time, even with its good movement.
You do realize that I was basing that off of a battle report and interview with a tournament-winning Ork player who used his Trukks exactly as I described to enhance his green tide list. So clearly it is both a tactical and list building idea that has merit even against some of the best people playing.
Yes, it can work in some situations, but not all and probably not the majority. As a general rule it's going to be more difficult than you think to do what you're describing given the issues I highlighted. The difference is you're basing your experience off reading a battle report of a game you didn't play (for a game you don't play) while other people are talking about the realities of playing the game in a more general sense and how your situation is not likely to be applicable in a large number of cases.
Canadian 5th you really do need to play 9th on TTS (since you seem to not have an alternative, which of course is not your fault). I see you shaking your head behind your screen. Please stop doing that. Download the thing already ! Then once you get a few games in, you will be able to speak from (slightmy more) experience. I will never play on TTS because I am lucky to have a (skeleton) crew to play with of about 5-6 people. But those of them who also play on TTS say it is good training, so I will take their word for it.
You don't need any models, TTS is free (or so I hear), what say you ?
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
Ultramarines are +10
Salamanders are -2
Blood Angels are -9
Iron Hands are -10
What does that tell us about "marines"?
Well it tells us one thing. People who play Ultramarines are just better players than other marine players. We already knew that though .
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
Ultramarines are +10
Salamanders are -2
Blood Angels are -9
Iron Hands are -10
What does that tell us about "marines"?
Looks like you forgot to remove the WTC missions which for reasons I don't understand have some odd results.
Using just Book missions for all players not even trying to split out the best players.
Salamanders +9VP
Black Templars +10VP
Whitescars +5VP
Custodes +4VP
Ultramarines +4VP
Imperial Fists +3VP
SpaceWolfs +.5VP ???
Iron hands +6VP
Raven guard-2VP ???
Dark Angels 0VP???
Blood Angles -10VP???
Okay blood angles might have an issue but they are also the only marine sub faction to fall below 45% wins.
Slipspace wrote: Yes, it can work in some situations, but not all and probably not the majority.
Then can you tell me why a tournament-winning list would include trukks and use them for that purpose if they can't be expected to work most of the time?
The difference is you're basing your experience off reading a battle report of a game you didn't play (for a game you don't play)
You mean a game I haven't played since 8th due to a pandemic and a friend group who has other priorities. There are other players in this discussion who are in the same position.
while other people are talking about the realities of playing the game in a more general sense and how your situation is not likely to be applicable in a large number of cases.
My hypothetical about using trukks is based on facts but more importantly, was brought up to show that boyz are good units because they work well with other synergies within their codex. A unit of boyz on an objective are going to be better off if you can park a roadblock between them and the objective, or tie up the opponent's troops in a preemptive melee, or tie them up while conga lining back to the objective, or... The point was that boyz should be judged on how many PEQ models are removed by x shoota boyz because that isn't their job.
addnid wrote: Canadian 5th you really do need to play 9th on TTS (since you seem to not have an alternative, which of course is not your fault). I see you shaking your head behind your screen. Please stop doing that. Download the thing already ! Then once you get a few games in, you will be able to speak from (slightmy more) experience. I will never play on TTS because I am lucky to have a (skeleton) crew to play with of about 5-6 people. But those of them who also play on TTS say it is good training, so I will take their word for it.
You don't need any models, TTS is free (or so I hear), what say you ?
I own TTS already, my issue with it is that I loathe how it controls. I've tried it for far simpler games than 40k and found it a total chore to use. I'd much rather use Vassal, even if it's 2D and less accurate than TTS would be but I don't think any of the 40k projects for it are current.
I'll consider TTS, but I make no promises about actually using it given its issues.
What I will do is thank you for the constructive suggestion. It's a great olive branch and something I'm happy to see from you!
Spoletta wrote: That's why I don't use 40k stats.
The data is too outdated when we get 1/2 codici per month.
Okey, this kind of a kills any form ofdiscussion up until the edition restard. Because only then we can with 100% accuracy say what was bad and what was not. At the same time it doesn't stop non marines players from making 80 pages thread about how their armies should be better and marines should be nerfed.
How accurate do we have to be to agree on something like, the Tau are REALLY bad in 9th or Harlequins are REALLY good in 9th? Do we have to review every game ever played with those armies, in every meta around the world? Because if yes, then w40k forums non dedicted to painting or converting make no sense to exist.
Spoletta wrote: That's why I don't use 40k stats.
The data is too outdated when we get 1/2 codici per month.
Okey, this kind of a kills any form ofdiscussion up until the edition restard. Because only then we can with 100% accuracy say what was bad and what was not. At the same time it doesn't stop non marines players from making 80 pages thread about how their armies should be better and marines should be nerfed.
How accurate do we have to be to agree on something like, the Tau are REALLY bad in 9th or Harlequins are REALLY good in 9th? Do we have to review every game ever played with those armies, in every meta around the world? Because if yes, then w40k forums non dedicted to painting or converting make no sense to exist.
The problem with 40k stats (the website) is that it was still showing Castellan and Ynnari as having their obscene winrate even after they got gutted. Its just not precise enough. Now that we're at the start of a new edition with codexes rolling out (relatively) quickly, 40kstats will most of the time show outdated results.
Spoletta wrote: That's why I don't use 40k stats.
The data is too outdated when we get 1/2 codici per month.
Okey, this kind of a kills any form ofdiscussion up until the edition restard. Because only then we can with 100% accuracy say what was bad and what was not. At the same time it doesn't stop non marines players from making 80 pages thread about how their armies should be better and marines should be nerfed.
How accurate do we have to be to agree on something like, the Tau are REALLY bad in 9th or Harlequins are REALLY good in 9th? Do we have to review every game ever played with those armies, in every meta around the world? Because if yes, then w40k forums non dedicted to painting or converting make no sense to exist.
Data are definitely useful, but only if put into context and elaborated. Pure numbers do not provide information.
We aren't here to certify who's the best, we're discussing the game. I do mostly to improve as a player and the ultimate goal is to have better games. I couldn't care less about Australian tournaments, I know metas there are different from here but I can still get some interesting ideas by having a look at data or winning lists. The latter especially are definitely meta dependant because they're affetcted by house rules (time limitations, no Legends, etc...), not to mention that are heavily tailored to counter the flavour(s) of the month, and I've seen several lists that placed high in tournaments but were not so special if not flat out mediocre in a full regular game against TAC lists.
You say that Harlies are really good in 9th? You're probably right, they're extremely competitive and due to the fact that their codex only have 8 datasheets an average collection is already close to a competitive list. But in reality they aren't even remotely as problematic as SM in casual play.
I think Harlies are extremely problematic for casual play, because you need skill to counter them.
I remember when in 6th ed I was still what I consider to be a casual player, our casual eldar player with his wraithknight and his distortion weapon grav plaforms would just crush me and all the other poor fools part of our player group.
Did not take a genius to figure out how to play eldar back then, doesn't take one to play harlequin currently.
A secondary to balance clowns would be great, they don't have many wounds, don't have much toughness, they just don't have the digits to get on the radar of any kind of "kill secondary mission".
Army wide ignore basic rules is just the worst design philosophy ever
Harlequins' effectiveness drops a lot outside tournaments because it's true that they have a solid codex and don't suffer much from secondary but their rating is high because they're extremely anti meta.
They're also not so easy to play as you claim, still a glasscannon army with mid-short range.
And tournament meta is not casual meta. They do benefit a lot if people highly tailor against SM and then bump into Harlequins. In casual play if someone has to face Harlequins he of course will tailor somehow as clowns' units all have the same profiles (either light vehicles or T3 models), SM instead can play a wide range of models with several different efficient builds.
Not everyone plays against strangers, there's a large portion of players who know in advance who (and typically also what faction) is gonna play with. And change/refine their list due to that.
Even considering single pick up games: if you bring a real TAC list, with solid answers to T3-T4 1W models and not a pure tailor against primaris/gravis, you should get decent odds against Harlequins.
Blackie wrote: Harlequins' effectiveness drops a lot outside tournaments because it's true that they have a solid codex and don't suffer much from secondary but their rating is high because they're extremely anti meta.
They're also not so easy to play as you claim, still a glasscannon army with mid-short range.
And tournament meta is not casual meta. They do benefit a lot if people highly tailor against SM and then bump into Harlequins. In casual play if someone has to face Harlequins he of course will tailor somehow as clowns' units all have the same profiles (either light vehicles or T3 models), SM instead can play a wide range of models with several different efficient builds.
Not everyone plays against strangers, there's a large portion of players who know in advance who (and typically also what faction) is gonna play with. And change/refine their list due to that.
Even considering single pick up games: if you bring a real TAC list, with solid answers to T3-T4 1W models and not a pure tailor against primaris/gravis, you should get decent odds against Harlequins.
Not really. -1 to wound aura is literally an I win button.
Blackie wrote: Harlequins' effectiveness drops a lot outside tournaments because it's true that they have a solid codex and don't suffer much from secondary but their rating is high because they're extremely anti meta.
They're also not so easy to play as you claim, still a glasscannon army with mid-short range.
And tournament meta is not casual meta. They do benefit a lot if people highly tailor against SM and then bump into Harlequins. In casual play if someone has to face Harlequins he of course will tailor somehow as clowns' units all have the same profiles (either light vehicles or T3 models), SM instead can play a wide range of models with several different efficient builds.
Not everyone plays against strangers, there's a large portion of players who know in advance who (and typically also what faction) is gonna play with. And change/refine their list due to that.
Even considering single pick up games: if you bring a real TAC list, with solid answers to T3-T4 1W models and not a pure tailor against primaris/gravis, you should get decent odds against Harlequins.
Not really. -1 to wound aura is literally an I win button.
So a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 4+ with 1 Wound is impossible to take down, but a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 3+ with 2 Wounds is fine?
JNAProductions wrote: So a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 4+ with 1 Wound is impossible to take down, but a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 3+ with 2 Wounds is fine?
Of course, because the second model is Astartes and they deserve an "I win" button.
JNAProductions wrote: So a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 4+ with 1 Wound is impossible to take down, but a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 3+ with 2 Wounds is fine?
Of course, because the second model is Astartes and they deserve an "I win" button.
yeah, wound roll modifications are strong only when the base unit benefitting from it is already decently resilient. the shadowseer aura isnt the strongest part of the codex.
Blackie wrote: But in reality they aren't even remotely as problematic as SM in casual play.
This is a common claim, but it isn't supported by much. According to TiWP daemons are easy to pilot and strong where GSC is not easy to pilot, but still strong. Marines are like daemons, but just more common. That doesn't make marines more problematic - just more noticed.
Blackie wrote: But in reality they aren't even remotely as problematic as SM in casual play.
This is a common claim, but it isn't supported by much. According to TiWP daemons are easy to pilot and strong where GSC is not easy to pilot, but still strong. Marines are like daemons, but just more common. That doesn't make marines more problematic - just more noticed.
The number if player's in a casual environment that happen to have the correct models for the top demon lists has in my experiance been extremely small.
Most demon players have more of a mix of units in my experiance than the top lists contain
JNAProductions wrote: So a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 4+ with 1 Wound is impossible to take down, but a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 3+ with 2 Wounds is fine?
Of course, because the second model is Astartes and they deserve an "I win" button.
You really need some therapy, dude.
In answer to JNA's question, 4+/4+/1W should definitely be viewed as easier to kill than 4+/3+/2W, if we're looking at basic profiles - heck, even if the former is around half the cost of the latter, the latter is a stronger profile, assuming AP0 D1 weapons. The relative value may shift a bit as AP and D numbers change, especially as I think the Hari save is a 4++ not a 4+, isn't it?
I'm not really convinced by the view Harlequins are "hard to play" - but I do think as a collection is not terribly attractive to most casual players.
It would be interesting to try and track whether the number of Harlequin players has increased. Custodes certainly seemed to explode when 9th launched (something like the 2nd most played faction?), but I feel they've been on a bit of a downer since the new codexes appeared and people have got a better grasp of the game.
Harlequins have so much speed and fly/ignore terrain, I have seen casual games where the harly player just locks almost every threat down in melee.
There are not the easiest army to play, but the lack of choices mean a casual dude building his army will not be taking too much crap stuff.
Also it is not a « true beginner » army, the only people who play it are veterans and returning players, from what I have seen. So you get like the least « crap at playing the game » casuals playing harly against casuals usually not as good, again from what I have seen (in no less than three clubs !)
addnid wrote: Harlequins have so much speed and fly/ignore terrain, I have seen casual games where the harly player just locks almost every threat down in melee.
There are not the easiest army to play, but the lack of choices mean a casual dude building his army will not be taking too much crap stuff.
Also it is not a « true beginner » army, the only people who play it are veterans and returning players, from what I have seen. So you get like the least « crap at playing the game » casuals playing harly against casuals usually not as good, again from what I have seen (in no less than three clubs !)
my experience with harlie players has been the complete opposite, every club i've played at, they were exclusively played by new players.
T3 1W 4++ and -1 to hit is actually very weak for 14ppm plus weapons. A single dude could actually cost 19-24 points.
Of course they look problematic if you are mainly focussed on dealing with a bunch of T5 multiwounds models, but if you're ready to face an horde army you shouldn't have problems with Harlequins. I mean you should get a fair game, with reasonable odds to win. For "problematic" I mean that out of 10ish games most of them end up one-sided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: My for fun Argent Shroud sister list is choke full of flamers... I don't think that harleys would be a real issue.
I've no idea about your list's composition, but Adepta Sororitas are highly competitive and it's entirely possible to play a powerful list with Argent Shroud. Typically Adepta Sororitas vs Harlequins shouldn't be problematic for both sides, they're powerful factions that can deal with every kind of opponent.
I call it a "For fun" list because I have fun with it
More seriously, it is an Adepta Sororitas list where I purposefully avoid all the top meta choices. No BR and VH, no Exorcists, no melta retributors, no repentia, no mortifiers, no imagifiers... and I use a whole lot of basic sister squads (and squads with nothing but flamers!).
Still works quite well, but that's because the Sororitas book is quite balanced internally. You don't gimp yourself so much even by avoiding all top picks.
Why? Because I won't cheer on glorious corporation GW?
No, because the ridiculous ongoing attacks on "Astartes players" as if they are a single homogeneous group with any control over what rules are published for their factions.
And then there's the ongoing irrationality regarding the Imperium in 40k Background, too.
+ + +
Sounds an interesting list, Spoletta - how many flamers do you end up with in there, normally?
No, because the ridiculous ongoing attacks on "Astartes players" as if they are a single homogeneous group with any control over what rules are published for their factions.
And then there's the ongoing irrationality regarding the Imperium in 40k Background, too.
Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.
Astartes players complained about the Kellermorph, they're very much invested in other players not have a good play experience.
Why? Because I won't cheer on glorious corporation GW?
No, because the ridiculous ongoing attacks on "Astartes players" as if they are a single homogeneous group with any control over what rules are published for their factions.
And then there's the ongoing irrationality regarding the Imperium in 40k Background, too.
+ + +
Sounds an interesting list, Spoletta - how many flamers do you end up with in there, normally?
With the usual setup 8 flamers, 8 combi flamers and 10 heavy flamers.
Hecaton wrote: Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.
They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.
If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.
yeah, wound roll modifications are strong only when the base unit benefitting from it is already decently resilient. the shadowseer aura isnt the strongest part of the codex.
Only they can also have it apply to their jetbikes with a strat which have three wounds and force a -1 to be hit, which is its most common use case because most competitive Harlequin lists don't actually have any foot troops.
The shadowseer is in every single competitive list and more to the point never actually switches out its -1 to be wounded that I can think of.
The apologist behavior for the strongest faction in the game and the desperate attempts at painting Astartes as a whole as being stronger is pretty embarrassing tbqh.
If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.
Yeah they heroically fight to preserve slavery for the vast majority of Imperial citizens and cart countless billions to be sent to their deaths for sometimes trivial reasons, like heroes.
Yeah isn't it strange how eldar player, who claim harlquins are disntict from eldar, do not start 80 pages long rants about how harlis have a 60% win rate, and even have good match ups vs horde armies.
yeah, wound roll modifications are strong only when the base unit benefitting from it is already decently resilient. the shadowseer aura isnt the strongest part of the codex.
Only they can also have it apply to their jetbikes with a strat which have three wounds and force a -1 to be hit, which is its most common use case because most competitive Harlequin lists don't actually have any foot troops.
The shadowseer is in every single competitive list and more to the point never actually switches out its -1 to be wounded that I can think of.
The apologist behavior for the strongest faction in the game and the desperate attempts at painting Astartes as a whole as being stronger is pretty embarrassing tbqh.
If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.
Yeah they heroically fight to preserve slavery for the vast majority of Imperial citizens and cart countless billions to be sent to their deaths for sometimes trivial reasons, like heroes.
Yet here is the thing your missing
Oh not a 4++, what a shame most factions basic shooting is Ap0 D1.
So 3+, or 2+ 2w vrs 4++ 1W guess which is easier to kill for most lists. Oh yeah the 1w T3 4++, which even with -1 to wound you wound on 4+, ironically the same as T4, 3+, 2W but the marines make more saves.
Also oh no a Sub T7 vehical so wounding in on 3+/4+, becomes oh wounding on a 4+/5+ vrs T7 or 8 being wounded on 4+ or 5+'s anyway.
Harlequines do have lots of tricks and some really good match ups but outside of hyper competitive those not hard anti marine squew lists with Ap0 and not giving Harlequines nice targets means they have some bad matchups.
Please tell me which faction is the hard counter to Salamanders? Ultramarines?
Yet here is the thing your missing
Oh not a 4++, what a shame most factions basic shooting is Ap0 D1.
Except Marines (this is most of what you fight btw). And Necrons. And Custodians. And Admech, depending on which troop you take. And Harlequins themselves (with the pistol almost everyone takes). And Imperial or Chaos Knights. And Tau if taking their most competitive troop choice (which still doesn't say much). And Thousand Sons.
All of these have as their "basic shooting" some amount of AP on their guns, which brings the 3+ of an Intercessor up to a 4+ or worse. None can bring a Harlequin to worse than a 4++.
Now let's look at the factions who indeed are limited to AP0 1 damage shooting:
Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, Death Guard, Genestealer Cults, Grey Knights, Orks, and Tyranids. Of all these factions, Harlequins only have a negative win rate against Daemons (one of the best armies in the game btw) and Dark Eldar.
"But what if I tailor my list to beat Harlequins for casual play" you say? Tailor them in what way? There is almost no list you can build where Harlequins can't kill what you bring, perhaps no list. Which brings us to why Harlequins are so strong and better than most Marine factions: they will always get to set the terms of engagement. No other army is as fast as Harlequins, no one else really comes close. This is why they have the best go second win rate in the game: they have unrivaled ability to hit the board where it is weakest and take control of the tempo of the game.
So 3+, or 2+ 2w vrs 4++ 1W guess which is easier to kill for most lists. Oh yeah the 1w T3 4++, which even with -1 to wound you wound on 4+, ironically the same as T4, 3+, 2W but the marines make more saves.
Do you live in a fairytale wonderland where people in most games don't bring guns with AP or something? I don't know why you're being such a stickler about the 3+ vs. the 4++: against most good shooting units the 4++ is better. It's the one wound that makes the troupe easier to kill, but who cares? Most of the time they'll be chilling out in one of the best, possibly the best, transports in the game which can move them 22" into and out of LoS with ease.
Also oh no a Sub T7 vehical so wounding in on 3+/4+, becomes oh wounding on a 4+/5+ vrs T7 or 8 being wounded on 4+ or 5+'s anyway.
And most of the time being hit on anywhere from a 4+ to a 5+.
Just about the cheapest T7 is what? A rhino? Which is more expensive than a skyweaver, is much slower, has worse shooting, isn't open-topped, lacks an invulnerable, and doesn't give a -1 to be hit at all times.
So which T7-T8 vehicles are you comparing harlequin vehicles to? And I hope you are talking about harlequin vehicles and not their bikes, because those guys can have a 3++ on top of their other defensive buffs my man. The comparison won't look great.
Harlequines do have lots of tricks and some really good match ups but outside of hyper competitive those not hard anti marine squew lists with Ap0 and not giving Harlequines nice targets means they have some bad matchups.
Harlequins have almost no bad targets. Their haywire cannons on the bikes vaporize tanks, can take chunks out of hordes due to being S4 AP1 and being blast, and can even threaten MEQ a bit. Their melee due to sheer volume of attacks can mulch hordes and are high-quality enough to threaten tougher stuff as well. Their fusion pistol spam blows up tankes and makes gravis units' lives a living knightmare.
They have the occasional bad match-up, but they have very few. What do you consider a bad match-up for Harlequins?
Please tell me which faction is the hard counter to Salamanders? Ultramarines?
Uh, Harlequins.
Were you joking? Because Harlequins buttstomp both of those chapters. They do well against most Marine chapters but they particularly dogstomp most gunline or generalist chapter lists.
If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.
No, Karol. That's bronze-age thinking, and most people have a moral sensibility, including most Poles. If you think that's the case, get better friends.
If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.
No, Karol. That's bronze-age thinking, and most people have a moral sensibility, including most Poles. If you think that's the case, get better friends.
For once he's right though, although I'm not entirely sure how this relates to elite killing secondaries.
As for harlies, never fought them so not sure how to tackle them. But if they get off as light on killing secondaries as marines they need to be looked at. I personally think GW is incapable of balancing armies via a roundabout way such as secondaries. So yeah give us elite army killing secondaries and if magically harlies and SM become balanced or under powered let's address them then.
Hecaton wrote: Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.
They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.
If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.
Thats really not the premise of the game and if you truly think that the imperium is the good guys, you'll struggle in life and have high chances of joining groups that have dubious ideologies.
Only they can also have it apply to their jetbikes with a strat which have three wounds and force a -1 to be hit, which is its most common use case because most competitive Harlequin lists don't actually have any foot troops.
The shadowseer is in every single competitive list and more to the point never actually switches out its -1 to be wounded that I can think of.
The apologist behavior for the strongest faction in the game and the desperate attempts at painting Astartes as a whole as being stronger is pretty embarrassing tbqh.
right, i'd forgotten about their PA changes, i played them for so long when the aura only affected infantry and stopped playing them when they became meta so i didnt get that reflex. And i'm not desperatly trying to paint astartes as all being stronger, im just saying that these sorts of buffs are strong on tougher units (which jetbikes do count as).
Yet here is the thing your missing
Oh not a 4++, what a shame most factions basic shooting is Ap0 D1.
So 3+, or 2+ 2w vrs 4++ 1W guess which is easier to kill for most lists. Oh yeah the 1w T3 4++, which even with -1 to wound you wound on 4+, ironically the same as T4, 3+, 2W but the marines make more saves.
Gotta love Lambdan Lions with their AP-3 HSLGs... Or... Iotan Dragons, whilst with onlyAP-2 they can deep strike a whole mess of units into RF range and get given FRFSRF to really do some damage to high Sv+, no Inv++ armies...
Karol wrote: Yeah isn't it strange how eldar player, who claim harlquins are disntict from eldar, do not start 80 pages long rants about how harlis have a 60% win rate, and even have good match ups vs horde armies.
Harlequin ARE distinct from eldar tho.... And no, their winrate isnt a good thing for the game IMO. At least in casual scenes their winrate is much lower because theyre a difficult army to play.
So the Marine is 20% more durable against AP3, while being about 30% more expensive than the troupe if it is a mere tactical marine?
And yes, I'm aware that more differentiates them than just their relative durability against high AP fire. Like for example the troupe has more attacks, higher movement, can move through models, can advance and charge, and can fall back and charge. While the Marine has a better gun, toughness, and strength. Faction rules can help make a bit of a difference, and let's be clear: the base troupe as a datasheet is fine, but isn't what makes Harlequins top tier in of themselves.
Plus the Marines can benefit from cover, while the Quins cannot.
For the troupes that's true. Not true for the bikes incidentally.
right, i'd forgotten about their PA changes, i played them for so long when the aura only affected infantry and stopped playing them when they became meta so i didnt get that reflex. And i'm not desperatly trying to paint astartes as all being stronger, im just saying that these sorts of buffs are strong on tougher units (which jetbikes do count as).
My apologies if that wasn't what you were doing but I see it all the time here. The amount of butthurt people get when you suggest Harlequins might be better than Space Marines overall (which is undeniably true, only the best chapters can compare) is pretty ridiculous.
Blackie wrote: T3 1W 4++ and -1 to hit is actually very weak for 14ppm plus weapons.
Looking at this profile misses so much of what makes Harlequins tick. Doing drive-bys with fusion pistols from the back of a Starweaver that moved 22" means none of that profile really matters.
Yet here is the thing your missing
Oh not a 4++, what a shame most factions basic shooting is Ap0 D1.
Except Marines (this is most of what you fight btw). And Necrons. And Custodians. And Admech, depending on which troop you take. And Harlequins themselves (with the pistol almost everyone takes). And Imperial or Chaos Knights. And Tau if taking their most competitive troop choice (which still doesn't say much). And Thousand Sons.
All of these have as their "basic shooting" some amount of AP on their guns, which brings the 3+ of an Intercessor up to a 4+ or worse. None can bring a Harlequin to worse than a 4++.
Now let's look at the factions who indeed are limited to AP0 1 damage shooting:
Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, Death Guard, Genestealer Cults, Grey Knights, Orks, and Tyranids. Of all these factions, Harlequins only have a negative win rate against Daemons (one of the best armies in the game btw) and Dark Eldar.
Thats funny I shall need to complain to GW as All the troops in my Tau codex have Ap0 weapons. Even worse so do the drones and even the battlesuits.
Didn't realise you always roll 6's for your Shuriken weapons or are you basing this on everyone having an optional weapon?
Admech don't use Ap0 weapon troops do they not I shall have to inform the locals they are playing their admech wrong then.
So Marines are fine because they are hard countered by Harlequins which make up 6% of the total lists played in 9th edition events.
Must be so tough to be hard countered by a faction your likly to play 1 in 20 games against.
Never said Harlequines can't beat marines just you seem to believe as they are the hard counter to 60% of the armies ie marines they are automatically more OP. Yet when I point out plent of armies actually bring tools that are far more efficient againt Harlequines as a byproduct of needing objective campers you decied to die on the hill that marines arnt the bigger problem in casual play.
Blackie wrote: T3 1W 4++ and -1 to hit is actually very weak for 14ppm plus weapons.
Looking at this profile misses so much of what makes Harlequins tick. Doing drive-bys with fusion pistols from the back of a Starweaver that moved 22" means none of that profile really matters.
So we need to be nuanced and take in all that makes Harlies tick and win as much as they do but not for Marines, because...?
Go figure the relatively cheap elite infantry faction which can equip its basic troops choice with a melta pistol is really good at killing Space Marines, but thanks to their relative cheapness and 4++ they are a really hard counter to those same Space Marines.
Harlies are not over powered, or if they are very slightly so. The problem is that when SM players run into them they die because guess what those SM players are list building to face? Other SM players. So all those AP-(1-4) weapons are functionally useless, congrats on paying for really expensive bolters. As far as the -1 to wound shenanigans...a basic SM bolter goes from 3s to 4s, which is what its used to fighting against. Yeah the vehicles get tougher, but they were already weaker to begin with.
And as far as harlies beating up everyone else. Against Orkz they are 6 wins 5 losses, and i've seen some of those ork lists and let me put it this way, they deserved to lose.
Honestly, this is just a wonderful example of how an anti-meta faction can throw a monkey wrench into the works. All these people complaining about Harlies were the same ones screaming that Orkz were OP when 8th dropped because we were anti-meta for a bit...right until girlyman gunline took over
Hecaton wrote: Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.
They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.
If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.
This isn't true at all, even for sci-fi universes where all humans are basically gathered under the same flag. Watch Avatar if you want proof of that.
Blackie wrote: T3 1W 4++ and -1 to hit is actually very weak for 14ppm plus weapons.
Looking at this profile misses so much of what makes Harlequins tick. Doing drive-bys with fusion pistols from the back of a Starweaver that moved 22" means none of that profile really matters.
And Starweavers are 6W T5 4++ -1 to hit. Not exactly that hard to kill for SM, and not all troupes in the list will have fusion pistols.
Just bring something that can deal with Harlies, Daemons or Orks instead of the typical SM lists that are mostly designed to fight other SM.
Karol wrote: Yeah isn't it strange how eldar player, who claim harlquins are disntict from eldar, do not start 80 pages long rants about how harlis have a 60% win rate, and even have good match ups vs horde armies.
Harlequin ARE distinct from eldar tho.... And no, their winrate isnt a good thing for the game IMO. At least in casual scenes their winrate is much lower because theyre a difficult army to play.
It is impossible to determine a "casual scene winrate", because casuals don't report their results. You can only tell us what you see harlequins do in the casual environement around you, just like I can only tell you what I have seen.
Void__Dragon has demonstrated pretty well the good stuff all comp players know harlequins to have, and you can argue slaneesh demons are stronger/a bad match up for harlequins, but the rest is quite hard to argue with honestly.
I really don't think a casual player should have any trouble using harlequins effectively. It really isn't rocket science to play with stuff that ignores terrain, you just hide everything and don't worry about circling around terrain and enemy units. Armies with stuff that doesn't fly are IMO much harder to master, because you have to plan your moves a lot more carefully (and in advance).
Hecaton wrote: Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.
They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.
If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.
addnid wrote: I really don't think a casual player should have any trouble using harlequins effectively. It really isn't rocket science to play with stuff that ignores terrain, you just hide everything and don't worry about circling around terrain and enemy units. Armies with stuff that doesn't fly are IMO much harder to master, because you have to plan your moves a lot more carefully (and in advance).
I think the point about Harlequins is that you have to control the engagement. So yes, you have to know to hide behind terrain. It should be obvious - but the number of people who put stuff 24" away and just run at each other is very high. In the same way knowing how to tie things up - and then fall back and go into another thing is a skill.
I feel what makes Harlequins the best faction in the game right now is mastering going all in. On paper killing troupes and starweavers - or even the bikes - is not that difficult. But the Harlequin player shouldn't ever let you run through your optimised shooting/assault phase. Its not immediately obvious though how you do this. I think you need to know the game and have a bit of practice.
As per the above, its different to say "I play Marines, he plays Orks, we line up 24" away and run/shoot/charge into each other, but I seem to win more games. Is this because of my mad skills, or just because the odds are stacked in my favour".
This isn't true at all, even for sci-fi universes where all humans are basically gathered under the same flag. Watch Avatar if you want proof of that.
You mean the movie in which human colonists are butchered, because one guy decides he no longer wants to be human, switchs sides and becomes the hero to the enemy?
Harlies are not over powered, or if they are very slightly so. The problem is that when SM players run into them they die because guess what those SM players are list building to face? Other SM players. So all those AP-(1-4) weapons are functionally useless, congrats on paying for really expensive bolters. As far as the -1 to wound shenanigans...a basic SM bolter goes from 3s to 4s, which is what its used to fighting against. Yeah the vehicles get tougher, but they were already weaker to begin with.
As I said. SM players bad, because they don't know how to play.They just need to tailor and buy a second marine army to play specificaly against harlequins. 60% win rate of harlis is very slightly so better then the norm, but when IH had 63% the world was ending and the game would die in a week time, if GW doesn't do something. This is the same talk non eldar players got to hear when Inari were an actualy played army. Just slightly better, but nothing you couldn't beat, if you played the scenarios, had proper build army and the right skills to play the army. All it lacks is the even if it is a bit too good, harlis are rare played so they only make it unfun for people playing marines. Because somehow making the majority of playerbase unhappy by being clearly skewed against them is somehow okey. But if marines are more or less balanced against each other, and worse in general, then the best armies, they are the ones destroying the game. Got it.
You realise your almost 6 times more likely to play a loyalist Codex Adaptes Astartes based Army in a tournament than a Harlequines Army.
That's excluding Choas Marines, Grey Knights, Thosand Sons and Deathguard.
So your suggestion is that the 70% of the player base that doesn't play marines should suck it up and except being dunked on?
Becuase we can't say that marines as 30% of the player base maybe shouldnt have 50% of the top 10 places in an event incase it offends some marine fan boy?
Also while if your not a tournament regular you might not notice this but that harlequins probably would NOT be doing so well if they didnt keep running into a army they have an easy match up against like Marines Harlequines will drop in win rate when GW actually puts some effort into balance and other factions start being able to actually play 9th edition.
As I said. SM players bad, because they don't know how to play.They just need to tailor and buy a second marine army to play specificaly against harlequins. 60% win rate of harlis is very slightly so better then the norm, but when IH had 63% the world was ending and the game would die in a week time, if GW doesn't do something. This is the same talk non eldar players got to hear when Inari were an actualy played army. Just slightly better, but nothing you couldn't beat, if you played the scenarios, had proper build army and the right skills to play the army. All it lacks is the even if it is a bit too good, harlis are rare played so they only make it unfun for people playing marines. Because somehow making the majority of playerbase unhappy by being clearly skewed against them is somehow okey. But if marines are more or less balanced against each other, and worse in general, then the best armies, they are the ones destroying the game. Got it.
No, SM players are smart and build their lists to be able to fight the armies that have the biggest meta share right now : Marines. Harlequins and demons prey on these lists that rely on low RoF + AP. If Demons or Quins became a large share of the meta, SM would adapt and run more low ap dakka to raise their chances of winning.
So we need to be nuanced and take in all that makes Harlies tick and win as much as they do but not for Marines, because...?
Well, yes, because marines are on foot and what makes them work is pretty straightforward. Harlequins get to choose the time and place of their engagement and take a little more planning.
There are marine lists winning without Eradicators. Ever see what White Scar VV with LC can do while under their super doc, which they can force?
Absolutely, SM have so many OP units to choose from that they can even get rid of Eradicators and remain OP. I play full firstborn SM lists and they perform quite well for a sub-optimal selection of units.
As I said before, just bring a more TAC oriented list, and you shouldn't have problems against Harlies or some skew anti meta lists.
There are marine lists winning without Eradicators. Ever see what White Scar VV with LC can do while under their super doc, which they can force?
Absolutely, SM have so many OP units to choose from that they can even get rid of Eradicators and remain OP. I play full firstborn SM lists and they perform quite well for a sub-optimal selection of units.
As I said before, just bring a more TAC oriented list, and you shouldn't have problems against Harlies or some skew anti meta lists.
Its boiling down to that wonderful old argument where certain players are upset that their specialist unit which is insanely OP and kills its specific target really well isn't as good against its weakest option and therefore the only way to make the game balanced is to make their weapon better at killing EVERYTHING while remaining as good at killing its preferred target.
I've watched too many players complain that their Anti-vehicle unit isn't good at kill hordes so therefore either nerf hordes or increase ROF of their anti-vehicle weapons. Not once in their heads do they think "Huh, maybe I should bring some anti-horde stuff". Or my other favorite is when they do wrap their heads around the logic of bringing Anti-horde stuff they than complain that it isn't fair that they have to bring weapons to deal with horde when they know they are going to face mostly Space Marines.
The concept of TAC to a lot of people doesn't exist. Its either meta net list or nothing.
