Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.
Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.
Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.
I'm not talking about the hobby though. I'm talking about the game and how to improve that aspect of things. Players who only (or even mostly) collect won't influence projections for the ratio of physical play versus VTT play which is what I've been talking about.
You'll also note that my idea was to sell models with cards, which require a proprietary accessory to read, in packs of models and to sell these cards as a physical product in boost packs MtG style. Neither of these risk cannibalizing model sales as people who buy cards were unlikely to purchase models and those who buy models get cards that can be used by them or used/resold to people interested in the VTT. It's a win-win for GW in the same way that MtG: Arena and the digital version of the Pokemon TCG are wins for their parent companies.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.
Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.
Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.
I'm pretty sure we know people who play but never collect either - or who wouldn't collect if they couldn't play. To suggest that playing/collecting is more of the hobby than collecting/playing is a generalization likely to fail as often as it succeeds. It comes down to why each person is doing what they're doing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.
Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.
Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.
I'm pretty sure we know people who play but never collect either - or who wouldn't collect if they couldn't play. To suggest that playing/collecting is more of the hobby than collecting/playing is a generalization likely to fail as often as it succeeds. It comes down to why each person is doing what they're doing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.
Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.
Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.
I'm not talking about the hobby though. I'm talking about the game and how to improve that aspect of things. Players who only (or even mostly) collect won't influence projections for the ratio of physical play versus VTT play which is what I've been talking about.
You'll also note that my idea was to sell models with cards, which require a proprietary accessory to read, in packs of models and to sell these cards as a physical product in boost packs MtG style. Neither of these risk cannibalizing model sales as people who buy cards were unlikely to purchase models and those who buy models get cards that can be used by them or used/resold to people interested in the VTT. It's a win-win for GW in the same way that MtG: Arena and the digital version of the Pokemon TCG are wins for their parent companies.
Not sure that’s ever worked though. Again, anecdotal, but when I finally get my arse into gear, get my Heresy Dark Angels painted and get playing again? I don’t want a digital experience. I want the social interaction of meeting new players, forging friendships and friendly rivalries.
Further anecdote? In all my times as a former GW Till Monkey (three, maybe four separate stunts between 2000 and 2010, always part time)? Parents were happy to shell out precisely because it wasn’t “another bloody computer game”.
Would folk play the way you suggested? Absolutely. But would it overall be worth the time and cash investment needed to get it up and running for GW? Personally I doubt it, because the social aspect it such an intrinsic part of the experience.
Breton wrote: Why are beer and pretzel games less worthy of being balanced? Shouldn't these lists be equally plausible targets for balance and synergy? Especially if they're fluffy?
The issues here are many:
1) It's not possible to balance every combination of options against every other combination of options even while using objectives as a way to smooth things out. For example, a guard army that focuses heavily on anti-GEQ firepower won't have a good time against a list that skews towards high toughness and good saves even though both lists may be fluffy and generally of poor efficiency when compared to a tournament TAC style list.
2) It's tough to find the failure modes in these sorts of games. In a tournament, we can assume most players, especially those that won their first two rounds, are playing to win and making reasonably smart gameplay choices. In a beer and pretzels game, the Ork player may well have decided that sitting on objectives was unOrky and made a game losing charge because it's what his army would do.
3) It's tough to determine skill differences. Tournaments will also have skill gaps but those should mainly occur in the early rounds once you get to 2-0 or 3-0 it can be safely assumed that the low-skill players have been filtered out of the data set.
I'm on board with the concept here, but I'm still unclear on why the Beer and Pretzel Stompa isn't worthy of buffing until it goes to a tournament. I'd also like to know why Trajann needs to be toned down instead of additional options need to be added. How many Datasheets is Trajann fighting for space with? How many of them are a named Special Character which usually provide better-for-cheaper or unique-shenanigan-potential?
You might want to read that again. Semper is arguing that the Stompa, and other units that see zero tournament play, should be buffed while units that are over-represented should be nerfed.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.
Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.
Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.
I'm pretty sure we know people who play but never collect either - or who wouldn't collect if they couldn't play. To suggest that playing/collecting is more of the hobby than collecting/playing is a generalization likely to fail as often as it succeeds. It comes down to why each person is doing what they're doing.
Which wasn’t my claim.
Its what I inferred from these two:
Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.
I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play
And my point is that for most they're inextricably linked. More models sell more rules, more rules sell more models.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Not sure that’s ever worked though. Again, anecdotal, but when I finally get my arse into gear, get my Heresy Dark Angels painted and get playing again? I don’t want a digital experience. I want the social interaction of meeting new players, forging friendships and friendly rivalries.
Okay, but that's not what everybody wants. *Points at League of Legends, the largest video game franchise that has ever existed*
Further anecdote? In all my times as a former GW Till Monkey (three, maybe four separate stunts between 2000 and 2010, always part time)? Parents were happy to shell out precisely because it wasn’t “another bloody computer game”.
There might be a slight bias in your data set just as there would be if you instead worked at a Gamestop that also sold 40k models for some reason.
Would folk play the way you suggested? Absolutely. But would it overall be worth the time and cash investment needed to get it up and running for GW? Personally I doubt it, because the social aspect it such an intrinsic part of the experience.
I don't think you're correct on this. Look at Roblox, VR Chat, Fortnite (especially the cosmetic skin culture that has grown up around it) to see how the younger generation is choosing to interact. For them, a game they can play with zero investment on an iPad is the default mode of entertainment and we're weird for filling our homes with plastic junk that doesn't even do anything.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.
Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.
Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.
I'm not talking about the hobby though. I'm talking about the game and how to improve that aspect of things. Players who only (or even mostly) collect won't influence projections for the ratio of physical play versus VTT play which is what I've been talking about.
You'll also note that my idea was to sell models with cards, which require a proprietary accessory to read, in packs of models and to sell these cards as a physical product in boost packs MtG style. Neither of these risk cannibalizing model sales as people who buy cards were unlikely to purchase models and those who buy models get cards that can be used by them or used/resold to people interested in the VTT. It's a win-win for GW in the same way that MtG: Arena and the digital version of the Pokemon TCG are wins for their parent companies.
I'll also note that I pointed out that ways to play 40k virtually exists and are nearly 100% free and they haven't really taken off. You kind of just glossed over that though.
Breton wrote: And my point is that for most they're inextricably linked. More models sell more rules, more rules sell more models.
I started playing floor wars on a roughly 4x6 rug with things like poker chips, cups, and cardboard boxes as models because I liked the lore and the rules but didn't like painting and modeling or the expense of the model kits. My largest single 40k purchase was second hand and everything else I own was free as friends quit the game. I don't currently play 40k and have no desire to buy or build models because the current gameplay is terrible.
I might play a VTT version of 40k if the cost to get into it was reasonable, as in not $500+ for a 2,000-point army, and there was a free demo for each faction so I could test them out before committing. Heck, maybe they could make a slow grow Free-to-Play model where you start with a 250-point generic list for each faction and need to play to unlock new units and unit upgrades. That would fit GW's MO and the current games as a service climate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: I'll also note that I pointed out that ways to play 40k virtually exists and are nearly 100% free and they haven't really taken off. You kind of just glossed over that though.
None of them are official, none of the clients are designed for 40k, they don't do any rules or movement calculations for the players, they are all clunky and thus not as significant a time savings over a physical game, and they aren't advertised by one of the largest companies in the board game and hobby space. If you can't see why these might be barriers to their popularity then I'm not sure I can help you.
I'll also note that I pointed out that way to play 40k virtually exists and are nearly 100% free and they haven't really taken off. You kind of just glossed over that though.
VTT versions are not neatly packaged. The Dice and Board version is.
GW is never going to get $50 for a card with a code on it that will unlock your newly revamped Captain Chaosy McLoyalistface. or 90+ for 3 cards, an instruction manual and software license.
They've been fairly intelligent. They put their IP out in games that will attract new players, but not in such a way that the tabletop version is rendered redundant.
Breton wrote: And my point is that for most they're inextricably linked. More models sell more rules, more rules sell more models.
I started playing floor wars on a roughly 4x6 rug with things like poker chips, cups, and cardboard boxes as models because I liked the lore and the rules but didn't like painting and modeling or the expense of the model kits. My largest single 40k purchase was second hand and everything else I own was free as friends quit the game. I don't currently play 40k and have no desire to buy or build models because the current gameplay is terrible.
That's pretty much the point I was making. You're not buying models because the rules are terrible. They're linked.
I might play a VTT version of 40k if the cost to get into it was reasonable, as in not $500+ for a 2,000-point army, and there was a free demo for each faction so I could test them out before committing. Heck, maybe they could make a slow grow Free-to-Play model where you start with a 250-point generic list for each faction and need to play to unlock new units and unit upgrades. That would fit GW's MO and the current games as a service climate.
As I understand it, and I may be wrong because I don't do it - VTT's are theoretically free. You may or not have to pay for the VTT itself, but beyond that the 40K specific game assets aren't sold as that would cause some easy IP issues. But you have to go looking for them, and do a lot of legwork yourself. Thus, my point about being neatly packaged. You may enjoy Battlesector or Gladius on Steam. They're closer to tabletop than Space Marine or other First Person Shooters, but they're still not a direct copy.
MtG Arena is more expensive to play the way you would play in paper but is still extremely popular to the point where a large number of in-person events have been cut in favor of digital-only events.
There's also Star Citizen which isn't even a full game yet and has still taken in over $500 million from selling digital spaceships to rich nerds.
GW could easily enter this market and make easy money without harming their model sales, but they'd need to make a game that people want to play before that can happen.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Not sure that’s ever worked though. Again, anecdotal, but when I finally get my arse into gear, get my Heresy Dark Angels painted and get playing again? I don’t want a digital experience. I want the social interaction of meeting new players, forging friendships and friendly rivalries.
Okay, but that's not what everybody wants. *Points at League of Legends, the largest video game franchise that has ever existed*
Further anecdote? In all my times as a former GW Till Monkey (three, maybe four separate stunts between 2000 and 2010, always part time)? Parents were happy to shell out precisely because it wasn’t “another bloody computer game”.
There might be a slight bias in your data set just as there would be if you instead worked at a Gamestop that also sold 40k models for some reason.
Would folk play the way you suggested? Absolutely. But would it overall be worth the time and cash investment needed to get it up and running for GW? Personally I doubt it, because the social aspect it such an intrinsic part of the experience.
I don't think you're correct on this. Look at Roblox, VR Chat, Fortnite (especially the cosmetic skin culture that has grown up around it) to see how the younger generation is choosing to interact. For them, a game they can play with zero investment on an iPad is the default mode of entertainment and we're weird for filling our homes with plastic junk that doesn't even do anything.
I think you’re missing the appeal of miniatures games entirely, and the fact that GW have been posting record takings after record takings at a time when as you say, micro transaction games have been gaming popularity.
It’s not a digital endeavour, and yet GW are making plenty of profit. There’s basically no need for them to follow your suggestion, as it takes money to set it up, money to maintain it (servers and that) and to find a market which I fear you’re somewhat overestimating.
Breton wrote: That's pretty much the point I was making. You're not buying models because the rules are terrible. They're linked.
I'm also not buying models for how cool they look and if I ever get into 40k again I will be doing model swaps and second hand buying to collect my army.
As I understand it, and I may be wrong because I don't do it - VTT's are theoretically free. You may or not have to pay for the VTT itself, but beyond that the 40K specific game assets aren't sold as that would cause some easy IP issues. But you have to go looking for them, and do a lot of legwork yourself. Thus, my point about being neatly packaged. You may enjoy Battlesector or Gladius on Steam. They're closer to tabletop than Space Marine or other First Person Shooters, but they're still not a direct copy.
The current 40k VTT offerings aren't good in my opinion. I've tried both and Vassal is clunky, slow, literally two-dimensional, and has - in the past - had legal issues which means up-to-date releases of new units may or may not even happen. TTS makes me motion sick, has some of the worst keyboard and mouse controls I've ever experienced, and can be slower than playing the physical version of many games because it does nothing to streamline then. Free means nothing if the experience is worthless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think you’re missing the appeal of miniatures games entirely, and the fact that GW have been posting record takings after record takings at a time when as you say, micro transaction games have been gaming popularity.
It’s not a digital endeavour, and yet GW are making plenty of profit. There’s basically no need for them to follow your suggestion, as it takes money to set it up, money to maintain it (servers and that) and to find a market which I fear you’re somewhat overestimating.
GW making money by doing the same old thing they've always done doesn't mean they couldn't be making even more money by focusing on long-neglected areas of their product line. Nor does being risk-averse, as we know GW to be, mean that a company is being fiscally responsible. Given current decade-long trends and what other players in the same and similar markets are doing GW could end up being the next Polaroid if they fail to stay relevent.
Breton wrote: That's pretty much the point I was making. You're not buying models because the rules are terrible. They're linked.
I'm also not buying models for how cool they look and if I ever get into 40k again I will be doing model swaps and second hand buying to collect my army.
You're an enigma. You've "gotten back into" the game what 3 times since 2013. You've had large collections of almost free armies and complaining at the cost of getting started or modern armies despite evidently not keeping the free armies. You claim yourself to be fluff minded and enjoy a casual game whilst also asking if demi-company lists were friendly back in the day and haven't played this edition whilst also saying the rules aren't great.
Dudeface wrote: You're an enigma. You've "gotten back into" the game what 3 times since 2013. You've had large collections of almost free armies and complaining at the cost of getting started or modern armies despite evidently not keeping the free armies.
I still own the free armies, but the current meta would require me to make significant purchases to play something worth bringing to the table. I've considered dumping the entire collection a number of times but haven't because one day I may want to actually play again.
Also, I got back into 40k in those examples by engaging with the forum, watching BatReps, and theory crafting lists I might have bought if I had the time and money for them. I'm into League of Legends because I watch the pros play at a level I'll never reach while playing the game's casual modes and avoiding ranked play. I'm into hockey because I watch the NHL and track prospect stats on my team's subforum on HFBoards (I go by Tables of Stats and post mainly in the Canucks section if anybody wants to look me up).
You claim yourself to be fluff minded and enjoy a casual game whilst also asking if demi-company lists were friendly back in the day
I like both forms of play. I can enjoy both D&D 5e and Gloomhaven which are similar in theme but very different in execution. I can enjoy a silly EDH deck in MtG that doesn't try all that hard to win while also enjoying the challenge of building and refining a cEDH-level deck that I would likely play a few times and then take apart because that kind of deck isn't that fun for my group to play against. I can enjoy a fluffy stupid 40k list played with friends on planet pool table and enjoy theory crafting a meta-level tournament list that I have no intention of ever buying models for.
It's okay to enjoy more than one aspect of a game and I'd go so far as to say that people who engage with a hobby narrowly are probably doing it wrong.
and haven't played this edition whilst also saying the rules aren't great.
You don't need to play a ruleset to see that it's awful. Just look at Votann for proof of that.
Yet your insistence there is a market is purely an opinion - and one based on the currently baseless assumption GWhaven’t considered it.
The only digital thing GW really needs to do are digital Codexes/game specific equivalents. Ideally ones updated as FAQ’s come out.
But making the whole game Digital? What’s the point? If people want to play computer games, they play….computer games.
If I want to be trash talked by some squeaky voiced, spotty faced teenaged oik, there are dozens if not hundreds of games out there I can sign up for already.
Putting the cards into the boxes? Why? It doesn’t save anyone money. And if the cards are sold separately, where’s the financial incentive for GW there? No-one is going to pay GW prices for purely digital equivalents. And if they’re buying the models the hypothetical card is included in? Where’s the profit margin for offering the digital version? It’s extra work, extra cost, for no additional income.
Hard pass on making the game digital. TTS is fine enough for convenience but it will never replace the feeling of playing on a real table in front a someone in the flesh
I think the issue with GW's push up/push down based on tournament data approach is that 40k's competitive scene is small, and the number of professional players disproportionately influence it. Which doesn't mean I think you should take casual games - but does need to impact your decisions.
Lets say we get a Marine Meta. This will make units that are good into Marines seem good (certainly desirable in any case) while units which are bad into Marines will appear bad. If however Marines are not as common - which may happen in certain tournaments, and certainly if Marines were nerfed - this would change. Which is often why I think you used to see different metas emerge in the US, Europe and perhaps especially Australia. This may have been disprortionately due to different game systems (ITC, ETC etc) in the older editions - but I also think it related to "we just don't build lists like that". List "X" into 5 games of "Y" may do less well than into 5 games of "Z".
You don't get anything physical for buying a tank in WoT but people sink $$$ into getting the latest and greatest.
Um:
20×+100% to experience earned in battle for 1 h
20×+50% to credits earned in battle for 1 h
20×+300% to Free and Crew XP earned in battle for 1 h
30×Mission for x5 XP for the ISU-152K
I get the impression they're buying the power leveling not the tank.
This bundle:
25×+100% to experience earned in battle for 1 h
25×+300% to Free and Crew XP earned in battle for 1 h
25×+50% to credits earned in battle for 1 h
by itself with no Tank is 40 bucks on its own.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: [B]ased on the currently baseless assumption GWhaven’t considered it.
Where did I make that assumption? My assumption is that GW probably has looked into it, decided that they aren't interested for whatever reason, and will continue to make excellent models and subpar rules because it's the path of least resistance.
My guess is that GW is leaving money on the table because the idea of restructuring how they approach the game side of 40k isn't one any ranking member of management is interested in working on at the moment. Lots of good ideas die on the vine because leadership doesn't bite on the idea. Sometimes the idea dies there other times the idea pops up at another company and we get to see if it was a good idea or not.
But making the whole game Digital? What’s the point? If people want to play computer games, they play….computer games.
Tell that to the people who play MtG Arena and the physical game and spend money on both.
If I want to be trash talked by some squeaky voiced, spotty faced teenaged oik, there are dozens if not hundreds of games out there I can sign up for already.
The trend is actually away from that kind of communication. A fair few popular games don't have any form of chat between opponents and other games have started to limit chat between members on opposite teams.
Putting the cards into the boxes? Why? It doesn’t save anyone money. And if the cards are sold separately, where’s the financial incentive for GW there? No-one is going to pay GW prices for purely digital equivalents. And if they’re buying the models the hypothetical card is included in? Where’s the profit margin for offering the digital version? It’s extra work, extra cost, for no additional income.
The digital cards in boxes are a very inexpensive loss leader to get people invested in the online game, once you've coded the unit and made the 3d models and animations the cards are basically free. You expect that most codes won't be used but hope that the codes that are used either get an existing player into the digital game or get a new player, who was likely given the cards for free or sold them for below market value, into the game. The best current example, done by the most successful franchise to ever exist, is the Pokemon TCG. They include digital codes in their physical card packs so that one physical pack equals one digital pack but also allow you to buy digital-only cards while just the cards you want are available on the secondary market.
As for why people would pay equal prices or higher for the cards, that's where the blind box card pack model and cosmetics come into play. The basic cards you get in the boxes can only get you the base-level skins that you can't customize. The ones in packs, where most of the cards will be duplicates or for an army you don't play, will have all the cool skins, voice lines, and animations in them. This lets you keep the cost of single packs low while ensuring that, some fraction, of the cards inside still have value because we know cosmetics and blind boxes drive sales.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yet your insistence there is a market is purely an opinion - and one based on the currently baseless assumption GWhaven’t considered it.
Oh I believe there's a market. I also believe GW expressly HAS considered it and rejected it. Aside from the forementioned Total War Warhammer Fantasy games that weren't released until after WHFB was squatted, there's Battlesector and Gladius which are close but not direct replacements. There have been specialist games like Bloodbowl and Epic released as computer games. There have been strategy games that are absolutely not even close like Dawn of War. There have been in genre but not RTS games like Space Marine. I'd say they've been very careful not to risk their bread and butter franchise(s) by diluting them with virtual versions.
There’s also the issue that the meta can be misleading.
Whilst personal choice is personal choice, and this isn’t a criticism, some units can be taken over others due to extreme math hammering, rather than the unit left out being objectively bobbins.
I’ve also encountered bad losers who used a Tournament List, got stomped, and because they didn’t really understand the game, or have experience of a non-optimised themed list, they declared my army broken or unfair etc, when the issue was them missing necessarily open goals I had to leave for my daft plans to work. Or worse, when I’ve played an absolute blinder, being told I simply “diced” them, that the sole deciding factor was favourable rolling, and not the strategy, list and tactics I used to good effect.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not tarring anyone except those persons with this brush. But such claims and attitudes still filter through to join legitimate concerns, muddying the waters as to where a given problem actually lies.
Example of my themed lists? 6th/7th/8th/9th Ed Dark Elves. I went Monster and Chariot heavy, with only Repeater Crossbows as my Core.
It had real power, but was far from a Win Button list. I ran with zero magic when magic did horrible things. The power and my success stemmed from me knowing its capabilities inside out. If I blobbed it, I’d be staring defeat in the face, as unless I could wrangle my advantages (flank and rear charges, Black Dragon and Manticore switching apparent targets etc) I had zero combat resolution.
It was fun to use, and many opponents enjoyed its unique challenge.
You don't get anything physical for buying a tank in WoT but people sink $$$ into getting the latest and greatest.
Um:
20×+100% to experience earned in battle for 1 h
20×+50% to credits earned in battle for 1 h
20×+300% to Free and Crew XP earned in battle for 1 h
30×Mission for x5 XP for the ISU-152K
I get the impression they're buying the power leveling not the tank.
This bundle:
25×+100% to experience earned in battle for 1 h
25×+300% to Free and Crew XP earned in battle for 1 h
25×+50% to credits earned in battle for 1 h
by itself with no Tank is 40 bucks on its own.
The game is old and a lot of players will have little need for the credits, experience, or premium time but WG does like milking new players, players who don't have time to grind whenever they can, or players grinding for the newly announced but not yet unlocked tech tree so they can get all the tanks day 1 before anybody else has them. There are also tanks that are limited time only, only available in loot boxes during holiday events, tanks that have been "retired" and brought back for increased prices, tanks that sell with special crews and skins... So WG will reach into pockets one way or another while charging you $15 per month for premium which you need to break even unless you're a very skilled player.
These companies understand how to part players from their money and do it very well. It's why I suspect that GW could print money if they started doing it too.
The digital cards in boxes are a very inexpensive loss leader
You want them to put a loss leader in the money maker that keeps the doors open and the lights on? That's pretty much WHY there hasn't been a virtual replacement for 40K.
Breton wrote: You want them to put a loss leader in the money maker that keeps the doors open and the lights on? That's pretty much WHY there hasn't been a virtual replacement for 40K.
Yes, because it 100% makes sense to do so. The digital assets that the cards represent have a one-time fixed cost and the cards themselves are pennies on the dollar cheap and would likely have their cost and then some covered by selling players the dongle needed to read them. It's the equivalent of putting a Fortnite code in a PS4 controller box without charging extra for the package.
Server costs can get pricey, but a game of 40k will require less server power than something like World of Warcraft or League of Legends as it's turn-based, can afford to be loose with latency, and could potentially used instanced hosting where one of the two players uses some of their computers spare processing overhead to run the game. So I doubt those costs would be significant at the scale GW operates at.
In short, the cards are basically a drop in the advertising bucket for a digital service designed to make a casino in Vegas look wallet-friendly.
Whilst personal choice is personal choice, and this isn’t a criticism, some units can be taken over others due to extreme math hammering, rather than the unit left out being objectively bobbins.
Yeah. I think the problem with extreme mathhammer is that it can lead you to a mentality of "X beats Y 100% of the time". But this isn't usually the case. For example, wasn't there an Ork list that came third in a major tournament two months ago with 6 Killa Kans? I don't think Kans were considered good (hence the slight points drop) - but they weren't "so awful" they made a list insta-lose every game.
Its interesting to consider what will be considered the counter-meta. If the S-Tier factions are say Guard+Marines (IH, DA maybe etc), is there a counter-pick from factions which don't appear as "neutrally mathematically good" - but are good if you expect to play those lists 3-4 times on your way to the finals? This is where its Orks and Semper's been running the long con.
Breton wrote: You want them to put a loss leader in the money maker that keeps the doors open and the lights on? That's pretty much WHY there hasn't been a virtual replacement for 40K.
Yes, because it 100% makes sense to do so. The digital assets that the cards represent have a one-time fixed cost and the cards themselves are pennies on the dollar cheap and would likely have their cost and then some covered by selling players the dongle needed to read them. It's the equivalent of putting a Fortnite code in a PS4 controller box without charging extra for the package.
Server costs can get pricey, but a game of 40k will require less server power than something like World of Warcraft or League of Legends as it's turn-based, can afford to be loose with latency, and could potentially used instanced hosting where one of the two players uses some of their computers spare processing overhead to run the game. So I doubt those costs would be significant at the scale GW operates at.
In short, the cards are basically a drop in the advertising bucket for a digital service designed to make a casino in Vegas look wallet-friendly.
So, after hiring a games studio to make this virtualised environment, which will need to be pinpoint accurate and beautiful or woe be the company that doesn't drop AAA quality normally, never mind the people on here because GW apparently have infinite money to pay for the best or don't bother, their pitch to the board is:
"We hired a couple dozen expensive staff, spent years and millions creating a virtual tabletop platform we can monetise and we want to include codes to access it inside the boxes of the models"
"What... why?"
"Well we realise there will be significant tech upkeep costs, support costs, extra staff potentially needed... but think of it as a loss leader"
"You mean loss as in someone buys the box, takes the card out and either sells it or the minis robbing us of one revenue stream, endless overheads and bad press?"
"That's the one!"
Meanwhile random Dakkanaut1569 boots up Warhammer Online "Looks gak, GW's minted, it should look better than Starfield.... I'll sell the minis off for 75% rrp and go play this for free on TTS"
Whilst personal choice is personal choice, and this isn’t a criticism, some units can be taken over others due to extreme math hammering, rather than the unit left out being objectively bobbins.
Yeah. I think the problem with extreme mathhammer is that it can lead you to a mentality of "X beats Y 100% of the time". But this isn't usually the case. For example, wasn't there an Ork list that came third in a major tournament two months ago with 6 Killa Kans? I don't think Kans were considered good (hence the slight points drop) - but they weren't "so awful" they made a list insta-lose every game.
Its interesting to consider what will be considered the counter-meta. If the S-Tier factions are say Guard+Marines (IH, DA maybe etc), is there a counter-pick from factions which don't appear as "neutrally mathematically good" - but are good if you expect to play those lists 3-4 times on your way to the finals? This is where its Orks and Semper's been running the long con.
There will always be rogue lists that exploit the meta to generate above-expected results at single events. The issue is they rarely last, can only be played by a very small segment of players lest they get countered by meta shifts, and might have gotten lucky with match-ups and dice in close games to reach their placement. It's cool when these things happen, but they're the exception that proves the rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: So, after hiring a games studio to make this virtualised environment, which will need to be pinpoint accurate and beautiful or woe be the company that doesn't drop AAA quality normally, never mind the people on here because GW apparently have infinite money to pay for the best or don't bother, their pitch to the board is:
"We hired a couple dozen expensive staff, spent years and millions creating a virtual tabletop platform we can monetise and we want to include codes to access it inside the boxes of the models"
"What... why?"
"Well we realise there will be significant tech upkeep costs, support costs, extra staff potentially needed... but think of it as a loss leader"
"You mean loss as in someone buys the box, takes the card out and either sells it or the minis robbing us of one revenue stream, endless overheads and bad press?"
"That's the one!"
Meanwhile random Dakkanaut1569 boots up Warhammer Online "Looks gak, GW's minted, it should look better than Starfield.... I'll sell the minis off for 75% rrp and go play this for free on TTS"
The thing is, that in that case GW still made the same money as they would have off the box of models and now gets a chance to get Dakkanaut42069 to spend money on microtransactions while bitching on forums and giving them free advertisement. It's like you have no understanding of what makes F2P loot box games tick.
Dudeface wrote: So, after hiring a games studio to make this virtualised environment, which will need to be pinpoint accurate and beautiful or woe be the company that doesn't drop AAA quality normally, never mind the people on here because GW apparently have infinite money to pay for the best or don't bother, their pitch to the board is:
"We hired a couple dozen expensive staff, spent years and millions creating a virtual tabletop platform we can monetise and we want to include codes to access it inside the boxes of the models"
"What... why?"
"Well we realise there will be significant tech upkeep costs, support costs, extra staff potentially needed... but think of it as a loss leader"
"You mean loss as in someone buys the box, takes the card out and either sells it or the minis robbing us of one revenue stream, endless overheads and bad press?"
"That's the one!"
Meanwhile random Dakkanaut1569 boots up Warhammer Online "Looks gak, GW's minted, it should look better than Starfield.... I'll sell the minis off for 75% rrp and go play this for free on TTS"
The thing is, that in that case GW still made the same money as they would have off the box of models and now gets a chance to get Dakkanaut42069 to spend money on microtransactions while bitching on forums and giving them free advertisement. It's like you have no understanding of what makes F2P loot box games tick.
It's almost like you refuse to acknowledge that GW aren't a software company and the significant costs involved far outweigh any potential games. The largest majority of F2P games are failures or at best a temporary spike before being abandoned. You constantly refer back to LoL, how many competitors have fallen by the wayside over the years? I'd wager the majority have never been heard of by the bulk of people. a F2P game needs to be good enough to be worth playing. If it's good enough to be worth playing, which you claim 40k isn't interestingly, why ever buy the minis as a gamer? There's literally 0 incentive, they'd be killing their own game. As you allude to online games require more frequent patching and balancing - good luck reflecting that in the physical game.
40k categorically does not translate well to a F2P game.
Dudeface wrote: It's almost like you refuse to acknowledge that GW aren't a software company and the significant costs involved far outweigh any potential games. The largest majority of F2P games are failures or at best a temporary spike before being abandoned.
The thing is, companies are going to fold because they aren't software companies. Just look at the retail world and the difference between companies that integrated online shopping early and had time to get it right versus competitors that aren't tech companies and got steamrolled because they didn't adapt. How many companies that weren't tech companies struggled when it was work from home or shutter the company? In the gaming space, I feel confident in predicting that the way forward will involve more and more integration with our phones and that we're close to a new wave of augmented-reality tabletop games that will threaten the status quo in the TTRPG and Wargaming spaces.
You constantly refer back to LoL, how many competitors have fallen by the wayside over the years?
It looks like it's about 50/50, with probably 25% of MOBAs games going on to be healthy long-term earners. That's pretty good odds in the gaming world and many of the games that failed were the first and only product of developers that were formed to try to break out into the MOBA space. MOBAs, even failed ones, have not brought down otherwise healthy companies.
GW would likely hire an established studio for their game and thus insulate themselves from failure, which could kill the studio but wouldn't seriously harm GW, while hoping to hit big and reap large rewards.
They would also have an advantage by being the first player into the space as no other company with pockets as deep as GW has a virtual wargame with the mechanics of a tabletop game.
I'd wager the majority have never been heard of by the bulk of people. a F2P game needs to be good enough to be worth playing.
Be honest, would you call RAID: Shadow Legends, AFK Arena, or Pokemon Masters good games? If you can't, I won't blame you for not being able to, can you explain why they're popular and make all the money for near zero effort?
If it's good enough to be worth playing, which you claim 40k isn't interestingly, why ever buy the minis as a gamer?
Gamers buy physical goods from their chosen game all the time. There's a pretty large market around figures, shirts, posters, etc. based around games. 40k players would probably love the extra bragging rights they'd get by having their in-game army on the shelf behind them and streamers would have expertly painted armies behind them as part of their set.
GW could also pull a Nintendo/Skylanders and make it so the online-enabled models are more expensive, come preassembled and painted, and include an RFID tag in the base of the lead model of the set. Amibo Primaris Lieutenants could rake in some serious bank.
There's literally 0 incentive, they'd be killing their own game. As you allude to online games require more frequent patching and balancing - good luck reflecting that in the physical game.
GW should frequently patch their physical game rather than letting issues fester as long as they do. That idea is what started this tangent.
40k categorically does not translate well to a F2P game.
I disagree. I think there is a market and that GW should be the first into it before somebody beats them to it and puts them at risk.
Dudeface wrote: Like... TTS? Since it'd be literally the exact same but maybe prettier?
No. It would have a matchmaker; frequent balance updates; a ranked ladder with unique skins for players that reach [insert rank] or higher; a battle pass that rewards players with loot boxes; controls designed around 40k's needs; the ability to resolve attacks, movement, stratagems, etc.; animations, voice-over, and detailed play areas; lobbies that have odds calculated and displayed; side modes that give you a randomized 250-point army from a set pool and then drops you into a 4-player free for all match; emotes so Ork players can spam WAAAAGH! 10,000 times per match (You can mute it but they still get to press the button and see it on their end). There's a ton that a digital 40k game could offer (and monetize) that the physical game and TTS can't.
Can people stop encouraging Canadian 5ths weird alternate world where everyone just abandons in person games in favor of a vidya game versions purely because it exists. GW can't even make their army building app work. How are they going to make a working virtual version of the game? If I wanted to read some reddit tech bros delusions I'd go reddit.
Sim-Life wrote: Can people stop encouraging Canadian 5ths weird alternate world. If I wanted to read some reddit tech bros delusions I'd go reddit.
The world where GW decides they want to make more money for little risk, so strange but I guess I should let people get back to arguing if Marines are going to be OP now for another 50 pages, lord knows Dakka needs more of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: Can people stop encouraging Canadian 5ths weird alternate world where everyone just abandons in person games in favor of a vidya game versions purely because it exists. GW can't even make their army building app work. How are they going to make a working virtual version of the game? If I wanted to read some reddit tech bros delusions I'd go reddit.
I'm still confused as to where you get the idea that I'm suggesting people stop playing physical games comes from? I haven't ever suggested it.
Sim-Life wrote: Can people stop encouraging Canadian 5ths weird alternate world. If I wanted to read some reddit tech bros delusions I'd go reddit.
The world where GW decides they want to make more money for little risk, so strange but I guess I should let people get back to arguing if Marines are going to be OP now for another 50 pages, lord knows Dakka needs more of that.
If GW thought it would make money they would have done it by now. They're an international corporation, they've considered it and passed on it. Hell, they launched A STREAMING SERVICE before they launched a virtual version of the game. Does that tell you nothing?
Automatically Appended Next Post: size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
Sim-Life wrote: Can people stop encouraging Canadian 5ths weird alternate world where everyone just abandons in person games in favor of a vidya game versions purely because it exists. GW can't even make their army building app work. How are they going to make a working virtual version of the game? If I wanted to read some reddit tech bros delusions I'd go reddit.
I'm still confused as to where you get the idea that I'm suggesting people stop playing physical games comes from? I haven't ever suggested it.
You literally said that you think 90% of players would start playing the virtual version of the game over the physical.
Sim-Life wrote: If GW thought it would make money they would have done it by now. They're an international corporation, they've considered it and passed on it. Hell, they launched A STREAMING SERVICE before they launched a virtual version of the game. Does that tell you nothing?
GW also made 7th edition, fought a stupid battle with Chapterhouse, and created finecast. I don't believe them to be paragons of good business so much as they're barely competent enough to coast off skilled model makers and a popular IP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: You literally said that you think 90% of players would start playing the virtual version of the game over the physical.
That's not what I said at all. I said 90% of games would be played online and given the ease of play, the ease of finding a match, and faster match times that could easily be true even if the physical game maintains 100% of its current player base and keeps growing. I'm sorry that you have issues with reading comprehension even after I pointed out that I never said the physical game should die multiple times. If you were thinking that I said that 90% of 40k players would abandon the tabletop for virtual tables that's on you.
Sim-Life wrote: If GW thought it would make money they would have done it by now. They're an international corporation, they've considered it and passed on it. Hell, they launched A STREAMING SERVICE before they launched a virtual version of the game. Does that tell you nothing?
GW also made 7th edition, fought a stupid battle with Chapterhouse, and created finecast. I don't believe them to be paragons of good business so much as they're barely competent enough to coast off skilled model makers and a popular IP.
Look at their takings and then try to say they’re “barely competent” and “coasting” with a straight face.
Because I hate to break it you duder, but chances are GW know more about their market and business than you or I do. Because despite decades now of folk predicting their demise, saying they’ve no clue what they’re doing? They’re still here. They’re still the dominant market force. And they are most definitely still growing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Look at their takings and then try to say they’re “barely competent” and “coasting” with a straight face.
Because I hate to break it you duder, but chances are GW know more about their market and business than you or I do. Because despite decades now of folk predicting their demise, saying they’ve no clue what they’re doing? They’re still here. They’re still the dominant market force. And they are most definitely still growing.
I exaggerated for effect there. GW is good at being a popular IP holder and playing big fish in a small pond, but much like a WWE for example, they also show that they are willing to fire rounds into both feet and are very slow to change even when their format isn't working as well as it could be. I also suspect that they, as do many companies in the physical gaming space, have a serious blindspot when it comes to all things digital and that they would enable themselves to be more successful if they found better ways to leverage their IP in that realm. I don't think 40k has ever done especially well licensing its IP outside of its traditional mediums and would like to see them change that.
Is a VTT thing something they're likely to do? No, it's not their MO. They can barely handle the rules updates needed for a niche wargame let alone what gamers would expect of them. Could they do it and be successful at it? I think they could and that doing so isn't much of a risk and has the potential for a high upside.
To be honest if you are going to have a virtual version of 40k, it makes more sense to expand games like Battlesector, Gladius or Dawn of War that actually take advantage of being a videogame rather than having a virtual version of the TT, because the TT has so many abstractions meant to facilitate physical play that don't make much sense in a virtual game while a virtual environment provides far more tools than a physical one.
Tyran wrote: To be honest if you are going to have a virtual version of 40k, it makes more sense to expand games like battlesector, Gladius or Dawn of War that actually take advantage of being a videogame rather than having a virtual version of the TT, because the TT has so many abstractions meant to facilitate physical play that don't make much sense in a virtual game while a virtual environment provides far more tools than a physical one.
I think that exposes them to more competition and has issues with not capturing existing 40k players to build an initial fanbase.
This thread has been a wild ride, but let's face it, its not going to happen and Canadian 5th you've outright said you don't want to buy GW products due to price. It strongly suggests you're not going to go dump hundreds into a F2P digital 40k that isn't needed and GW aren't capable of managing.
But yes I think the point of predicting whether marines will dominate the meta with free wargear, no longer correlates to the conversation.
If nothing else, if Marines truly dominate the meta, I expect GW to panic and quickly nerf them like the last time Marines dominated the meta.
Marines are so common that they dominating the Meta tends to have a far larger impact than any other faction dominating the meta.
E.g. even before the nerfs Tyranids were something like 10% of the player base and had a 20% representation on the top tables. Clearly an issue, but with Marines that already have around a 50% play rate, a similar overrepresentation on the top tables means 99% of the top tables are Marines.
Tyran wrote: If nothing else, if Marines truly dominate the meta, I expect GW to panic and quickly nerf them like the last time Marines dominated the meta.
Marines are so common that they dominating the Meta tends to have a far larger impact than any other faction dominating the meta.
E.g. even before the nerfs Tyranids were something like 10% of the player base and had a 20% representation on the top tables. Clearly an issue, but with Marines that already have around a 50% play rate, a similar overrepresentation on the top tables means 99% of the top tables are Marines.
This is very true, if Iron Hands have truly come back from the apology tour, I don't think it'll be for long.
Dudeface wrote: This thread has been a wild ride, but let's face it, its not going to happen and Canadian 5th you've outright said you don't want to buy GW products due to price. It strongly suggests you're not going to go dump hundreds into a F2P digital 40k that isn't needed and GW aren't capable of managing.
But yes I think the point of predicting whether marines will dominate the meta with free wargear, no longer correlates to the conversation.
We also need to be realistic.
Once that box of models is sold? GW, as a company, don’t really care what we do with them. They’ve got their bit. Maybe it’ll end up painted to Golden Daemon Standard. Maybe it’ll languish in its shrink wrap, gathering dust on the pile of shame. Maybe it’ll be the star unit in an army which crushes all at multiple tournaments.
GW is solely interested in selling us more models, books, paints, brushes etc.
So with this hypothetical Code In The Box? What does that actually gain GW, other than the running and maintenance costs of a digital platform they’ve done perfectly well without this far?
As others have said, for those like myself with zero interest in digital 40K gaming, the codes would be sold or given away. And nobody is going to pay for a GW kit just to play online.
So where’s the additional revenue stream from which further profits can be derived? How does GW make this idea make more money than their current model already brings in? Because so far as I can see, it’s just A Further Production Cost for no discernible gain.
Sim-Life wrote: Can people stop encouraging Canadian 5ths weird alternate world where everyone just abandons in person games in favor of a vidya game
I was a hardcore video gamer for the longest time. Now in my older age I just truly appreciate the non-digital even though computers are still heavily prominent for me.
You can see how people reacted after being able to get out once COVID had calmed down. Last year, literally all the camp sites booked in February in this area for the oncoming season. People ultimately want to be with other people.
Even the best conceivable digital presence one could imagine still leaves out being able to meet up with a dozen or more buddies, witness the care they took in painting up their models, sharing battle stories, etc. You can't replicate that very easily online.
How exactly did we get two pages deep in a discussion of "GW should make a F2P loot box version of 40k" as a solution to anything? 40k is a horribly designed game that lives because it's the rule set attached to the amazing models and fluff GW produces. If you take away the miniatures you have nothing left and no reason to ever play that game, outside of a handful of competitive players grinding through playtesting matches (which have zero value in balancing discussions) for their next tournament. The idea that a digital version of 40k is going to somehow magically be 90% of matches is, to put it politely, not at all in touch with reality.
(And yes, you could make a popular and successful video game with the IP, but that has nothing to do with the idea of getting balance data from digital games.)
Tyran wrote: If nothing else, if Marines truly dominate the meta, I expect GW to panic and quickly nerf them like the last time Marines dominated the meta.
This is very true, if Iron Hands have truly come back from the apology tour, I don't think it'll be for long.
Eh... I'd tend to agree. But pedantry insists I kick off at "like last time". Marines were top tier OP from the 2.0 release - so August 2019, until lets say the DE 9th edition release, March 2021. (And its not as if Marines immediately became crap into everyone else just because DE were better.) That's about 18 months. Really Marines were still winning tournaments (and certainly regularly placing) for at least another 6 months, if not the rest of 2021.
Now admittedly, before Karol comes sprinting in, this period was clearly majorly disrupted significantly by Covid and many people were locked down for months. But I mean, it wasn't exactly quick.
Marines will probably be top tier through the end of 9th, get a new codex and be top tier for the first year or so of 10th. Then start to drift down as other books come out. Then get some love for the end. As happens essentially uniquely for them every edition.
GW want to sell an entire eco-system of products (miniatures, paint, glue, tools, brushes, terrain, the surface you play on, the rules you use, the dice you use, etc.).
They have no interest in transferring that over to digital.
Tyran wrote: If nothing else, if Marines truly dominate the meta, I expect GW to panic and quickly nerf them like the last time Marines dominated the meta.
Marines will probably be top tier through the end of 9th, get a new codex and be top tier for the first year or so of 10th. Then start to drift down as other books come out. Then get some love for the end. As happens essentially uniquely for them every edition.
This is also my expectation. Marines and the first 5 or so books of any new edition always get outshined and suffer by codex power creep towards the end of the edition.
GW also made 7th edition, fought a stupid battle with Chapterhouse, and created finecast. I don't believe them to be paragons of good business so much as they're barely competent enough to coast off skilled model makers and a popular IP.
There it is folks, Canadian and I finally agree on something! I've always said that GW is successful in spite of itself rather than because of itself
Tyran wrote: If nothing else, if Marines truly dominate the meta, I expect GW to panic and quickly nerf them like the last time Marines dominated the meta.
Marines are so common that they dominating the Meta tends to have a far larger impact than any other faction dominating the meta.
E.g. even before the nerfs Tyranids were something like 10% of the player base and had a 20% representation on the top tables. Clearly an issue, but with Marines that already have around a 50% play rate, a similar overrepresentation on the top tables means 99% of the top tables are Marines.
Marines Dominated 8th for about the first 6 months and only changed the Bobby G gunline because they were tabling opponents at the Cyclic rate, then they finished the edition off by being the most OP codex ever, no offense, but I highly doubt at this late juncture that GW would do anything besides sit on their hands until 10th.
Why are beer and pretzel games less worthy of being balanced? Shouldn't these lists be equally plausible targets for balance and synergy? Especially if they're fluffy?
If you balance the game at the pointy end (Tournament play) it will filter down into the casual setting. And there isn't really a scenario where every single unit should be balanced against each other. If you run 3 maxed squads of eradicators and Multi-melta Devastators into my Green Tide, I expect to win 99x out of 100. Conversely, if I run my DreadWaaagh straight into that anti-tank list I expect to lose 99 out of 100 times. And having played my fair share of Beer and Pretzel (Mostly whiskey and Meat) games I can tell you that sometimes the lists are just so ridiculous that they shouldn't ever stand a chance except against a similarly silly list.
SemperMortis wrote: I'm on board with the concept here, but I'm still unclear on why the Beer and Pretzel Stompa isn't worthy of buffing until it goes to a tournament. I'd also like to know why Trajann needs to be toned down instead of additional options need to be added. How many Datasheets is Trajann fighting for space with? How many of them are a named Special Character which usually provide better-for-cheaper or unique-shenanigan-potential?
And this is an example of my first response, if you balance the Stompa at the competitive level then when you bring it down to the casual level it won't feel pathetic by comparison. As far as "adding more options" thats a whole other rabbit hole we don't need to go down. The point being that if a unit is universally taken regardless of how many other options there are, it should be examined and possibly nerfed a bit while buffing its competitor units.
Which free wargear and points cuts specifically do you think are a problem? Centurion Assault Squads went down 10ppm. Did you see a lot of them before? Will you see a lot of them now? But they get Meltaguns and Hurricane Bolters for free. Devastators went up about 5PPM and a 10 model squad now likely costs more than it did before they got free heavies. The obvious units to cheer about getting free wargear actually didn't. Vanguard Vets (etc.) still pay for jump packs and Thunderhammers. A price dropped Gladiator Valiant averages 88% of the anti-tankish shots, for roughly 80% of the points after the Centurion Devastator Squad got its freebie upgrades AND points drop. So even though their price per model drop was impressive IF that drop makes them viable is still questionable. Should this test balloon have been expanded to the rest of the factions? Probably. And in some ways it was. Look at your Predator price now. Your sponsons are cheaper/free just like the loyalists. Your Havoc Missile too. Your Plague Marines are freebie Upgrades now. Your Foetid Bloat Drones. Strangely the base Chaos Havoc's and bikers still pay, as do the TS Terminators and Vindicators. I'm kind of hoping they come out with another one of these on the 19th with the rest of the things they forgot. It feels like this release was not the final draft. Or Not Supposed to be the final draft.
I think the wargear points cut almost across the board is the problem. I won't argue for the same treatment GW gave my orkz (Here is a 1pt price cut on boyz, now STFU and be happy about it) but they could have gone with something similar to that, instead of 1 make it 3, and reduce the price of upgrades to incentivize taking at least 1 heavy weapon. And of course, have that effect changed a bit but match on other SM units which aren't doing well (AKA Vehicles, etc.) Atm you can literally spam 12 5x Tac Squads with a Multi-Melta and a Sgt with a Combi-Melta and Thunder Hammer for 1,080pts. Not saying that by itself would be good but christ, 60 Marine bodies along with 12 Multi-Meltas, 12 Combi Meltas and 12 Thunderhammers on the field for a bit more than half your points? To fully appreciate how ridiculous that is, a Green Tide ork list can take 12 Squads of 10 and 1 squad of 15 for that same price...no upgrades.... well, I could give each squad a free Big Shoota...but why? its at best a sidegrade to a choppa
I'm just pointing out that in a game primarily focused on taking the midfield objectives and scoring secondaries, its going to be nice as a SM player to be able to take 6-12 Tac Squad troops choices for 25%-50% of your army and fully equip them with hundreds of points of free wargear which gives them a lot of flexibility in how they attack the field of battle. If you need to hold an objective? Camp to your hearts content, and utilize 24' range of your weapons which on short tables and holding the middle means a rather big swathe of the battlefield. Need to tie up a unit? Send in a couple squads of Tac Marines to die valiantly and allow the TH Sgt hidden in the middle to get some swings in. Need to kill an enemy vehicle? Well, each squad has 3 Melta shots a turn, not bad for 90pts. Again, would this be a broken combo? don't know yet, there are probably a hell of a lot better builds that the tourny players will find. But from an outsiders perspective, this isn't going to end well for balance.
Lets say we get a Marine Meta. This will make units that are good into Marines seem good (certainly desirable in any case) while units which are bad into Marines will appear bad. If however Marines are not as common - which may happen in certain tournaments, and certainly if Marines were nerfed - this would change. Which is often why I think you used to see different metas emerge in the US, Europe and perhaps especially Australia. This may have been disprortionately due to different game systems (ITC, ETC etc) in the older editions - but I also think it related to "we just don't build lists like that". List "X" into 5 games of "Y" may do less well than into 5 games of "Z".
The meta is already and almost always has been a "Marine" meta. We've talked about this point in this thread and many others. Marines make up 1/3rd to 1/2 of all players you will encounter in a Tournament. When I say "Marine" I mean Power Armored armies. You have 27 different flavors of Space Marine, you got Chaosy Space Marines you also have Dwarven Space Marines and you have female Space Marines (SoB). Lets not forget the Eggshell White Knights (Grey Knights) and the custard cremes who, while different thematically, are basically the same in practice. And of course you have Xenos armies which favor similar statlines like Tau with their plethora of Crisis battlesuits which are very similar statline to Marines, especially Gravis and Custards. Or how about DE who seem to never leave home with a squad or 3 of Incubi The point i'm making is that weapons are already judged based on how good they are against.....MARINES.
I’ve also encountered bad losers who used a Tournament List, got stomped, and because they didn’t really understand the game, or have experience of a non-optimised themed list, they declared my army broken or unfair etc, when the issue was them missing necessarily open goals I had to leave for my daft plans to work. Or worse, when I’ve played an absolute blinder, being told I simply “diced” them, that the sole deciding factor was favourable rolling, and not the strategy, list and tactics I used to good effect.
Had a tourny player lose to my Ork army in 7th when he was playing Wraith Knight/Scatbike spam Eldar. He almost flipped the table and screamed that orkz were OP....or there was that time that Orkz finally had a legitimately competitive tournament build and were 3rd best in the game, only to table a top DE player who didn't bring anywhere close to a list that could deal with the ork list and GW immediately nerfed the entire Ork army multiple different times while leaving DE/AM as still the #1 and #2 best armies in the game.
With that said, my OP is still a guess and could very well be wrong, but i'm becoming more and more certain by the day that I am right. Already had my first game against the new Space Marines and the thing i learned most was Orky vehicles are effectively dead.
Tyran wrote: If nothing else, if Marines truly dominate the meta, I expect GW to panic and quickly nerf them like the last time Marines dominated the meta.
This is very true, if Iron Hands have truly come back from the apology tour, I don't think it'll be for long.
Eh... I'd tend to agree. But pedantry insists I kick off at "like last time". Marines were top tier OP from the 2.0 release - so August 2019, until lets say the DE 9th edition release, March 2021. (And its not as if Marines immediately became crap into everyone else just because DE were better.) That's about 18 months. Really Marines were still winning tournaments (and certainly regularly placing) for at least another 6 months, if not the rest of 2021.
Now admittedly, before Karol comes sprinting in, this period was clearly majorly disrupted significantly by Covid and many people were locked down for months. But I mean, it wasn't exactly quick.
Marines will probably be top tier through the end of 9th, get a new codex and be top tier for the first year or so of 10th. Then start to drift down as other books come out. Then get some love for the end. As happens essentially uniquely for them every edition.
Iron Hands 2.0 were also one of the first examples of GW immediately nerfing a codex. On release Iron Hands 2.0 were dominating the meta so hard that pretty much all tournament wins were an Iron Hand army, and GW panicked and nerfed both Iron Hands and doctrines.
Sure after the nerfs Marines were still a strong army that mostly dominated the meta, but we went from Marines making the entirety of the top placings immediately after the 2.0 codex to "only" having around 60% of them.
Tyran wrote: If nothing else, if Marines truly dominate the meta, I expect GW to panic and quickly nerf them like the last time Marines dominated the meta.
This is very true, if Iron Hands have truly come back from the apology tour, I don't think it'll be for long.
Eh... I'd tend to agree. But pedantry insists I kick off at "like last time". Marines were top tier OP from the 2.0 release - so August 2019, until lets say the DE 9th edition release, March 2021. (And its not as if Marines immediately became crap into everyone else just because DE were better.) That's about 18 months. Really Marines were still winning tournaments (and certainly regularly placing) for at least another 6 months, if not the rest of 2021.
Now admittedly, before Karol comes sprinting in, this period was clearly majorly disrupted significantly by Covid and many people were locked down for months. But I mean, it wasn't exactly quick.
Marines will probably be top tier through the end of 9th, get a new codex and be top tier for the first year or so of 10th. Then start to drift down as other books come out. Then get some love for the end. As happens essentially uniquely for them every edition.
Hmm this isn't entirely accurate.
Marine domination ended at the start of 9th. The meta at that point was dominated by 8th edition dexes, in particular sisters and harlequins.
Deathguard dex shifted this paradigm a bit, since you needed ways to counter Mortarion. This went on until the Admech/DE age.
Marines have dominated from the IH supplement until their huge nerf in the 9th dex. How long is that?
Hmm this isn't entirely accurate.
Marine domination ended at the start of 9th. The meta at that point was dominated by 8th edition dexes, in particular sisters and harlequins.
Deathguard dex shifted this paradigm a bit, since you needed ways to counter Mortarion. This went on until the Admech/DE age.
Marines have dominated from the IH supplement until their huge nerf in the 9th dex. How long is that?
Not sure this is adding much, hence not responding for a while, but lets go.
I don't agree.
Yes, you are right, in terms of win% harlequins, slaanesh daemons, Sisters were all way above Marines. And more likely to win tournaments.
But tournaments were flooded with Marines - and top 4s were flooded them them in turn.
And this would continue through 2021.
Now if you view Marines as this magic faction, that is really 25% of 40k, and so deserving of 25% of positions, this is fine. Certainly that's seemingly how we were uniquely meant to imagine them.
But I think its stupid, and will continue to think its stupid. No other faction gets this.
And so when in mid to late 2021 we still find Marines getting 1/4 or more of top 4 placings, what are we meant to think?
Because its not like other bad factions are doing this. Eldar for instance are not regularly placing. Tyranids before their DLC buffs are nowhere. CSM are nowhere too. Is this somehow fair enough, because marines "should" represent 1/4-1/2 of the playerbase, and get the results to match it, while random other factions should be doing nothing, until GW gives them their 6 months in the sun?
I guess its the bar between OP and competitive. I feel Marines were dominating tournaments - partly as a function of their player % - from their 2.0 release until the DE codex. But Marines "as a faction" got far more results - and would continue to throughout 2021. And to repeat, if you think of them as a special faction that might be justified. I.E. Marines, other imperials, chaos, xenos. But if you view them as just a thing, like GK, Guard, CSM, Eldar, Orks, GSC etc, they are in a league of their own. And they always are.
Marines have such a massive play rate that even before the recent changes when they were suffering from something like 35% win rates, they were still getting top placings because of sheer attrition.
The sad thing is that they are a special faction, their sheer numbers define meta (hence why everything that is good at killing Marines is spammed) and if we don't want 25%-50% of the top placings being Marines then we need them to be chronically underpowered, but I don't believe that would be fair to Marine players.
Now if you view Marines as this magic faction, that is really 25% of 40k, and so deserving of 25% of positions, this is fine.
Are you saying Marines aren't the most popular faction except through magic, or that the 50/50 theory doesn't mean if they are 25% of the armies in a given event they should show up as 25% of the finalists? I mean, depending on how ridiculous you want to get there are a number of ways of interpreting that, but none of them are good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: we need them to be chronically underpowered,
No we don't. We need them to be the same power level as everybody else. We need them to be a similar price point as everyone else. Even if Marines and Orks and/or Nids were exactly the same power level, Marines would still be more popular for multiple reasons the most difficult to overcome would be price and psychology. And technically when I say the same power level, I was including the boost they'd get for being a non MEQ statline in an MEQ optimized Meta which would go away if this was actually accomplishe- but that's also a benefit they would have in theory. The truth is, You will likely spend more for a 2,000 point Nids army than a 2,000 point Marine army. And competitive play will include some sort of bang-per-point-per-model as well as bang-per-buck math. Especially for as long as Marines are half of every starter set, and W@H moms are parting out starter sets on Ebay for egg money.
And its going to be a non-starter for as long as minority faction players whine about a majority faction just because it is the majority faction.
Breton wrote: Are you saying Marines aren't the most popular faction except through magic, or that the 50/50 theory doesn't mean if they are 25% of the armies in a given event they should show up as 25% of the finalists? I mean, depending on how ridiculous you want to get there are a number of ways of interpreting that, but none of them are good.
If 40k was "balanced", then yes, you would expect that if 25% of armies at events (collectively, individual tournaments will inevitably vary) were Marines, then 25% of placing armies would be Marines.
It has however very rarely been balanced. You have had whole periods where other factions, securing say 5-8% of armies at a given event, don't make the finals at all (or did so very rarely).
This idea that Marines get there "by attrition" is sort of odd, because placing positions in 40k tournaments are dominated by the usual suspects, rather than random names. And they don't play random factions for fun - but optimise in order to increase their chances of winning. I.E. if good tournament players were taking Marines to tournaments, its because they fancied their chances. They didn't care that Dave on the other table with his mass tactical marine Imperial Fists was going to go 0-5.
And we can see this ourselves. Compare say 2021 with the first half of 2022. Now you could say the first half of 2022 might have been an odd period - dominated as it was by Tau and Custodes, Harlequins and then Tyranids. All pushing obnoxious 70% win rates before being brought down to earth. But DE and then Ad Mech were doing similar through 2021. And yet throughout 2021 you can find Marines all over the Top 4 placings, even if they rarely outright won events. By contrast, they seemed to have become functionally extinct in 2022. You can look through a dozen big tournaments and find one Marine list at 5th or something like that.
Breton wrote: Are you saying Marines aren't the most popular faction except through magic, or that the 50/50 theory doesn't mean if they are 25% of the armies in a given event they should show up as 25% of the finalists? I mean, depending on how ridiculous you want to get there are a number of ways of interpreting that, but none of them are good.
If 40k was "balanced", then yes, you would expect that if 25% of armies at events (collectively, individual tournaments will inevitably vary) were Marines, then 25% of placing armies would be Marines.
It has however very rarely been balanced. You have had whole periods where other factions, securing say 5-8% of armies at a given event, don't make the finals at all (or did so very rarely).
If they get 5% of the armies at an event - and there are 4 teams per final four, you need 5 events to get 1 5%er. If you're talking about the final 2, you need 10 events.
This idea that Marines get there "by attrition" is sort of odd, because placing positions in 40k tournaments are dominated by the usual suspects, rather than random names. And they don't play random factions for fun - but optimise in order to increase their chances of winning. I.E. if good tournament players were taking Marines to tournaments, its because they fancied their chances. They didn't care that Dave on the other table with his mass tactical marine Imperial Fists was going to go 0-5.
I didn't mention attrition, Nobody mentioned attrition but you. I just questioned why your claims and complaints don't even stand up to your own exemplar math. You complained Marines would have 25% of the spots in the event, and the finals - even though in a 50/50 balance that's exactly how it's supposed to work out. You complained a faction with far fewer spots in the event also had far fewer spots in the finals. That when we pull the factions involved in your opinion out, the numbers make sense, when we leave the Marines in... well your point makes a different kind of sense.
And we can see this ourselves. Compare say 2021 with the first half of 2022. Now you could say the first half of 2022 might have been an odd period - dominated as it was by Tau and Custodes, Harlequins and then Tyranids. All pushing obnoxious 70% win rates before being brought down to earth. But DE and then Ad Mech were doing similar through 2021. And yet throughout 2021 you can find Marines all over the Top 4 placings, even if they rarely outright won events. By contrast, they seemed to have become functionally extinct in 2022. You can look through a dozen big tournaments and find one Marine list at 5th or something like that.
I didn't mention attrition, Nobody mentioned attrition but you. I just questioned why your claims and complaints don't even stand up to your own exemplar math. You complained Marines would have 25% of the spots in the event, and the finals - even though in a 50/50 balance that's exactly how it's supposed to work out. You complained a faction with far fewer spots in the event also had far fewer spots in the finals. That when we pull the factions involved in your opinion out, the numbers make sense, when we leave the Marines in... well your point makes a different kind of sense.
I mean, I don't know if you have Tyran on ignore, but there's a post just above:
Tyran wrote: Marines have such a massive play rate that even before the recent changes when they were suffering from something like 35% win rates, they were still getting top placings because of sheer attrition.
Admittedly, I perhaps emphasised more than Tyran intended. The issue is that if you assume tournament results were a function of luck, you'd expect every faction to be represented to some degree, and this hasn't been the case.
I'm not complaining that a faction with far fewer spots got far fewer spots in the finals. Clearly if the game was balanced and there was no bias in pick-rate amongst top players you'd expect them to match.
I'm trying to explain that the game *isn't* balanced and factions *don't* place according to their play rate. So if marines are placing its because they are good - and when they stop placing, its because they have become bad.
I disagree with the idea that Marines were not dominant from 9th's release until at least the DE release, and really probably another 3-6 months in 2021. I believe you can determine that by measuring their tournament results. I.E. lots of placings and wins. In terms of win% they were less good yes than certain factions. You see in 2020 for example a lot of larger tournaments (say 40+ players) have just 2-3 Harlequin players, but one of them gets top 4, if not outright wins it. Its hard to claim however it was a Harlequin meta though - with so few players, odds were low you'd even play one before the final. Sisters had a moment before the new Codex but with the upgraded MM ran rampant in win% - but Marines are still all over the placings.
Flash forward to very late 2021, and especially early 2022, and I don't think all the Marine players just spontaneously decided to quit 40k. So the "they make it through attrition" should have continued to apply. But it seems despite still being the most played faction collectively, they essentially ceased to exist on the top tables. So the safe conclusion is that Marines were becoming a lot worse into the rest of the codexes. An age of "There's 1-2 difficult matchups" had given way to "most factions are better, you will need to ride your luck". (Although the BA list seemed to have reliable legs.)
I didn't mention attrition, Nobody mentioned attrition but you. I just questioned why your claims and complaints don't even stand up to your own exemplar math. You complained Marines would have 25% of the spots in the event, and the finals - even though in a 50/50 balance that's exactly how it's supposed to work out. You complained a faction with far fewer spots in the event also had far fewer spots in the finals. That when we pull the factions involved in your opinion out, the numbers make sense, when we leave the Marines in... well your point makes a different kind of sense.
I mean, I don't know if you have Tyran on ignore, but there's a post just above:
Tyran wrote: Marines have such a massive play rate that even before the recent changes when they were suffering from something like 35% win rates, they were still getting top placings because of sheer attrition.
I probably hadn't read it yet.
Admittedly, I perhaps emphasised more than Tyran intended. The issue is that if you assume tournament results were a function of luck, you'd expect every faction to be represented to some degree, and this hasn't been the case.
We're not assuming that. We're assuming tournament results are a fuction of 50/50 win rate balance. That was the entire premise. That a faction with 25% of the entries should have 25% of the top spots because half the time they win, half the time they don't so you just forward through the entry %.
I'm not complaining that a faction with far fewer spots got far fewer spots in the finals. Clearly if the game was balanced and there was no bias in pick-rate amongst top players you'd expect them to match.
I'm trying to explain that the game *isn't* balanced and factions *don't* place according to their play rate. So if marines are placing its because they are good - and when they stop placing, its because they have become bad.
Are you sure?
Yes, you are right, in terms of win% harlequins, slaanesh daemons, Sisters were all way above Marines. And more likely to win tournaments.
But tournaments were flooded with Marines - and top 4s were flooded them them in turn.
And this would continue through 2021.
Because that sounds like you're saying that not only were Marines not the best positioned on Rules, they still had a higher population count so to speak and were thus getting some spots in the finals.
I disagree with the idea that Marines were not dominant from 9th's release until at least the DE release, and really probably another 3-6 months in 2021. I believe you can determine that by measuring their tournament results. I.E. lots of placings and wins. In terms of win% they were less good yes than certain factions. You see in 2020 for example a lot of larger tournaments (say 40+ players) have just 2-3 Harlequin players, but one of them gets top 4, if not outright wins it. Its hard to claim however it was a Harlequin meta though - with so few players, odds were low you'd even play one before the final. Sisters had a moment before the new Codex but with the upgraded MM ran rampant in win% - but Marines are still all over the placings.
Flash forward to very late 2021, and especially early 2022, and I don't think all the Marine players just spontaneously decided to quit 40k. So the "they make it through attrition" should have continued to apply. But it seems despite still being the most played faction collectively, they essentially ceased to exist on the top tables. So the safe conclusion is that Marines were becoming a lot worse into the rest of the codexes. An age of "There's 1-2 difficult matchups" had given way to "most factions are better, you will need to ride your luck". (Although the BA list seemed to have reliable legs.)
I'd point out that you're both not:
Providing participation and win % numbers
Allowing for the lead time in Army switches. It takes time to junk one army for another, get the new one painted up and tabletop ready so the changes you see in June are likely the payoff from changes made in January for example.
Tyran wrote: Marines have such a massive play rate that even before the recent changes when they were suffering from something like 35% win rates, they were still getting top placings because of sheer attrition.
The sad thing is that they are a special faction, their sheer numbers define meta (hence why everything that is good at killing Marines is spammed) and if we don't want 25%-50% of the top placings being Marines then we need them to be chronically underpowered, but I don't believe that would be fair to Marine players.
Marines do not need to be chronically under-powered. Nor am I against Marines making up a decent percent of tournament wins. The problem is that when you know for a fact that 30-50% of the armies you are likely to face at a GT are going to be a Marine statline or something damn close to it, then you will as a result build into that kind of a list. Why did D2 weapons become all the rage? Why did AP2+ become all the rage? It was because players knew that a vast majority of their opponents at GTs would be bringing Marines and therefore they brought the weapons that worked best against them. So the problem isn't underpower or overpower, the problem is popularity and statistical likelihood and before a Marine player comes in here screaming about fairness I want to make point abundantly clear.
Army 1 should be as competitive as Army 2 and army 3 should be just as competitive as armies 1 and 2 etc. But if I know i'm going to play against Army 1 all the time i'm going to list build against them which means I have a better likelihood to win against that army because I have built mine to deal with his specifically. While that might make me weaker against armies 2 and 3, I can make up for that difference in the borderline sure knowledge that they have likely done the same.
At the end of the day, if I list build against Marines I have a significantly better chance to beat that Marine player than he has to beat me because i'll bet you dollars to donuts that he didn't list build with an Ork army in mind who only make up 10% of the playerbase.
The real question I have would be, what is the actual Marine Win rate if you could normalize the armies so that they weren't taking anti-Marine weapons. Id bet its not great but it would probably have been in the low 40s if not higher.
SemperMortis wrote: Marines do not need to be chronically under-powered. Nor am I against Marines making up a decent percent of tournament wins. The problem is that when you know for a fact that 30-50% of the armies you are likely to face at a GT are going to be a Marine statline or something damn close to it, then you will as a result build into that kind of a list. Why did D2 weapons become all the rage? Why did AP2+ become all the rage? It was because players knew that a vast majority of their opponents at GTs would be bringing Marines and therefore they brought the weapons that worked best against them. So the problem isn't underpower or overpower, the problem is popularity and statistical likelihood and before a Marine player comes in here screaming about fairness I want to make point abundantly clear.
I would add to your reasonings that weapon profiles are not differentiated enough, neither in points nor in efficiency against their preferred target. There is very little incentive to take anti-horde weapons even against horde armies. You usually have enough of that kind of firepower on your non-special weapon dudes and the anti-marine stuff is only marginally more expensive than their counterparts.
SemperMortis wrote: Marines do not need to be chronically under-powered. Nor am I against Marines making up a decent percent of tournament wins. The problem is that when you know for a fact that 30-50% of the armies you are likely to face at a GT are going to be a Marine statline or something damn close to it, then you will as a result build into that kind of a list. Why did D2 weapons become all the rage? Why did AP2+ become all the rage? It was because players knew that a vast majority of their opponents at GTs would be bringing Marines and therefore they brought the weapons that worked best against them. So the problem isn't underpower or overpower, the problem is popularity and statistical likelihood and before a Marine player comes in here screaming about fairness I want to make point abundantly clear.
I would add to your reasonings that weapon profiles are not differentiated enough, neither in points nor in efficiency against their preferred target. There is very little incentive to take anti-horde weapons even against horde armies. You usually have enough of that kind of firepower on your non-special weapon dudes and the anti-marine stuff is only marginally more expensive than their counterparts.
I'd say its probably an issue of guns being good against marines tend to be good against vehicles because of decent AP and minimum D2, and also they're good against hordes because they tend to give these weapons a medium to high rate of fire.
So marines are a very significant portion of the player base and have a high level of tournament play (to varying degrees of success), so everyone gears up to kill marines and only take a handful of guns to kill the harder or softer targets, if they take any of those weapons at all.
The game has crept back to older editions where you'd just take plasma and autocannons on everything and brute force your way through, and never the flamers or lascannons designed to kill a more specific target.
I'd point out that you're both not:
Providing participation and win % numbers
Allowing for the lead time in Army switches. It takes time to junk one army for another, get the new one painted up and tabletop ready so the changes you see in June are likely the payoff from changes made in January for example.
Well, from Blood of Kittens, we get that Marines placed top 3 in 197 major ITC tournaments in 9th edition up to 3rd January 2023.
This puts them second to Aeldari (201) and equal with Tyranids. Perhaps surprisingly, that's 33% more placings (154) than Dark Eldar.
I can't be bothered to go through say Reddit's Meta Monday or other sources of data every week for 2.5 years. From what I can see Marines were placing fine in 2020 and continues into 2021. Their numbers then began to decline.
I feel the idea tournament players are taking months to paint up tournament lists is a bit unrealistic. We'd have never seen a Voidweaver shoot in anger.
The game has crept back to older editions where you'd just take plasma and autocannons on everything and brute force your way through, and never the flamers or lascannons designed to kill a more specific target.
Exactly my point on why Heavy Bolters didn't need to go to D2.
If you wanted to fix that representation and ensure you have to REALLY go into a TAC list, make it so you submit the list when entering the tournament, and reject players when a faction has hit a particular number of entries.
I would add to your reasonings that weapon profiles are not differentiated enough, neither in points nor in efficiency against their preferred target. There is very little incentive to take anti-horde weapons even against horde armies. You usually have enough of that kind of firepower on your non-special weapon dudes and the anti-marine stuff is only marginally more expensive than their counterparts.
I don't think the problem is there being not enough targets for flamers or lascanons, as comparing to the plasma gun. The problem is that a flamer doing d6 hits and a lascanon doing d6 wound is a horrible weapon. Both are bad weapons, even if they were free and other options exist, they would still be bad.
Now we could invent stuff to make flamers or lascanon useful, maybe even without making them a lot better. Although flamers doing 3+d3 hits and lascanons doing 3+d3 wounds wouldn't break the game. Maybe flamers could be used to create impassible walls of flame. Maybe a hit from a lascanon would do more, then just do wound. Maybe it has some EMP effect making a vehicle hit worse, or the damage it does is so extensive that it makes other weapons hurt the target easier. It could differentiate the guns from weapons which just flat high damage to targets and no special rules. But it would be really hard to control in a game of 2000pts and potentialy 10-20+ of such weapon per side. Suddenly taking 3 units of sternguard with combi flamers and heavy flamers could make the turn of a marine player last 20 extra minutes. So who knows maybe the problem are the left over skirmish rule in a system, which stopped being a skirmish system editions ago. Maybe we should just have long range anti tank weapon, short range anti tank weapon, same for anti personal, and then some sort of "flamer" type weapon. And the differentiation of how units and armies used, should be based on the units and armies special rules and not what ever GW blessed them with the correct weapon load out.
Afrodactyl wrote: The game has crept back to older editions where you'd just take plasma and autocannons on everything and brute force your way through, and never the flamers or lascannons designed to kill a more specific target.
Multi-meltas are way more efficient than plasma or heavy bolters against monsters/vehicles. Having flamers is pretty good against melee hordes because of Overwatch, unfortunately you need more than one flamer for that to really matter, maybe flamers should just get free Overwatch since they don't represent the same stupid time sink that firing your whole army in the enemy charge phase does.
Because the upcharge for D2 is next to Nil - in fact they gave it to the Heavy Bolter and other places for free. Not just for Marines, but also (Mega)Nobz, DeffCoptas, Tyranid Warriors, (Assorted) Swarms, Bikes, Wraithbone elites, Necron Wraiths, Destroyers, etc.
Why did AP2+ become all the rage?
Again because they gave it out like candy and its also useful on so many non-marine units? I mean, are you really trying to imply people wouldn't take highly efficient AP-2 D2 weapons for all those units and more because the event was the First Annual Xenos Only Invitational?
On a related note, have you thought of hosting such an event as a better way of exorcising your bias instead of pretending so many armies don't have something or many somethings in the same stat band that are auto-take or nearly so to the point we've created the term MEQ to refer to them collectively?
It was because players knew that a vast majority of their opponents at GTs would be bringing Marines and therefore they brought the weapons that worked best against them.
On a related note, have you thought of hosting such an event as a better way of exorcising your bias instead of pretending so many armies don't have something or many somethings in the same stat band that are auto-take or nearly so to the point we've created the term MEQ to refer to them collectively?
I'd point out that you're both not:
Providing participation and win % numbers
Allowing for the lead time in Army switches. It takes time to junk one army for another, get the new one painted up and tabletop ready so the changes you see in June are likely the payoff from changes made in January for example.
Well, from Blood of Kittens, we get that Marines placed top 3 in 197 major ITC tournaments in 9th edition up to 3rd January 2023.
This puts them second to Aeldari (201) and equal with Tyranids. Perhaps surprisingly, that's 33% more placings (154) than Dark Eldar.
I can't be bothered to go through say Reddit's Meta Monday or other sources of data every week for 2.5 years. From what I can see Marines were placing fine in 2020 and continues into 2021. Their numbers then began to decline.
And you're still missing Particiation numbers. How many chances (i.e. how many entries were a Placing Army out of how many total entries per faction?)
I feel the idea tournament players are taking months to paint up tournament lists is a bit unrealistic. We'd have never seen a Voidweaver shoot in anger.
To which I'd point out a single model is (usually)not an entire army, and low model availability/count armies like Harlequinns or Custodes where assembly line painting fewer unique models may not be the most honest exception proving the rule you could have chosen.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wasn't one of the early changes of 9th them making power weapons flat damage? Power swords went to flat 2, and hammers flat 3?
Not really.
A lot of weapons with random damage got a fixed D2 instead of Dd3. Hammers were always D3, but were knocked down a peg to AP-2. Then Power Fists were one of those Dd3 weapons that became D2.
So, here is a top 8 listing from an AoO GT with 228 players(Courtesy of r/warhammercompetitive).
So far, good variety of factions at Adelaide Uprising Top 8 after 6 games:
Adeptus Custodes
T'au Empire
Dark Angels
Adeptus Mechanicus
Chaos Demons
Knights Renegades
Adeptus Custodes
Astra Militarum
That's one Space Marine faction. I get the feeling OP is forgetting that losing Armor of Contempt is a huge blow to Marines and makes everything else deadlier.
Eldarsif wrote: So, here is a top 8 listing from an AoO GT with 228 players(Courtesy of r/warhammercompetitive).
So far, good variety of factions at Adelaide Uprising Top 8 after 6 games:
Adeptus Custodes
T'au Empire
Dark Angels
Adeptus Mechanicus
Chaos Demons
Knights Renegades
Adeptus Custodes
Astra Militarum
That's one Space Marine faction. I get the feeling OP is forgetting that losing Armor of Contempt is a huge blow to Marines and makes everything else deadlier.
Possibly, but we should be careful about drawing conclusions from a single event. I think a lot of the new changes will require SM players to make big changes to their armies which may take a little while to filter through the meta. I'm equally sure there are a bunch of non-SM lists that are now very powerful and we may have seen some of them here.
Slipspace wrote: Possibly, but we should be careful about drawing conclusions from a single event. I think a lot of the new changes will require SM players to make big changes to their armies which may take a little while to filter through the meta. I'm equally sure there are a bunch of non-SM lists that are now very powerful and we may have seen some of them here.
You've got the secondary changes as well.
As an edit, looks like Dark Angels had the highest win rate of the weekend at 65% - but clearly a tiny number of players.
Eldarsif wrote: So, here is a top 8 listing from an AoO GT with 228 players(Courtesy of r/warhammercompetitive).
So far, good variety of factions at Adelaide Uprising Top 8 after 6 games:
Adeptus Custodes
T'au Empire
Dark Angels
Adeptus Mechanicus
Chaos Demons
Knights Renegades
Adeptus Custodes
Astra Militarum
That's one Space Marine faction. I get the feeling OP is forgetting that losing Armor of Contempt is a huge blow to Marines and makes everything else deadlier.
Certainly the marine meta hasn't arisen, but this is also a small dataset and people will take time to get their hands around the changes.
Here's the Meta Monday visualized from most players to least. The two most notable things, in my opinion, are how crushed Nids are and how DA might be the ones to beat. The quantities are still small and DA won no tournaments, so a more granular look is needed at what they took and who they faced.
Also Harlies managed to hang on to 50% even with just a 5++. Only time will tell if that's a middling 50% or not.
drbored wrote: Is it better to have loved, then lost, than to never have loved at all?
Replace love with "having Armor of Contempt"
It always felt like a bandaid, and now that it's been ripped off, GW might actually have to... find another way to balance their game.
The game wasn't balanced with AoC, it wasn't a bandaid it was a wrong turn.
wasn't it? Did marines of all flavor not get a leg up that they sorely needed?
SM were below 45% WR with AoC I think. They might as well have given them free wargear and sticky objectives if they are just going to throw pasta at the wall until it sticks.
Eldarsif wrote: So, here is a top 8 listing from an AoO GT with 228 players(Courtesy of r/warhammercompetitive).
So far, good variety of factions at Adelaide Uprising Top 8 after 6 games:
Adeptus Custodes
T'au Empire
Dark Angels
Adeptus Mechanicus
Chaos Demons
Knights Renegades
Adeptus Custodes
Astra Militarum
That's one Space Marine faction. I get the feeling OP is forgetting that losing Armor of Contempt is a huge blow to Marines and makes everything else deadlier.
Certainly the marine meta hasn't arisen, but this is also a small dataset and people will take time to get their hands around the changes.
Here's the Meta Monday visualized from most players to least. The two most notable things, in my opinion, are how crushed Nids are and how DA might be the ones to beat. The quantities are still small and DA won no tournaments, so a more granular look is needed at what they took and who they faced.
Also Harlies managed to hang on to 50% even with just a 5++. Only time will tell if that's a middling 50% or not.
My read of it is that the Marine Factions that benefited from it the most were those that had a lot of special wargear (DA, SW, BT) that allowed them to take a lot of their more unique gear for free now, especially if they had some really good stuff held in check by how expensive they were. Blood Angles being the exception, and I don't know if that's because they just don't have as much unique wargear or Wargear Synergies to hand out, or if they're just undertuned compared to the three mentioned above.
Blood Angels have the issue that they are an assault subfaction and assault units didn't really got a lot of free wargear and the doctrine changes inherently benefit shooting subfactions (which is why it is a dumb change).
Also they seriously needed AoC to survive enough to get into melee.
Tyran wrote: Blood Angels have the issue that they are an assault subfaction and assault units didn't really got a lot of free wargear and the doctrine changes inherently benefit shooting subfactions (which is why it is a dumb change).
Also they seriously needed AoC to survive enough to get into melee.
How do 1W models with a 4+ Sv survive enough to get into melee?
My read of it is that the Marine Factions that benefited from it the most were those that had a lot of special wargear (DA, SW, BT) that allowed them to take a lot of their more unique gear for free now, especially if they had some really good stuff held in check by how expensive they were. Blood Angles being the exception, and I don't know if that's because they just don't have as much unique wargear or Wargear Synergies to hand out, or if they're just undertuned compared to the three mentioned above.
They saved 200 points on the terminators and 90 on the attack bikes. Probably 400 in total with the character drops.
Honestly it's just saying go ahead and try to kill these transhuman terminators with storm shields who act as if they still have AoC, basically. They probably dump the attack bikes on to anything they think can threaten a block with ranged since almost nothing can shift that one on one in melee.
Also an item of note is that the terrain at this tournament was very heavy, which lends to immovable terminators doing well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: At the Toronto Winter Open it was :
My read of it is that the Marine Factions that benefited from it the most were those that had a lot of special wargear (DA, SW, BT) that allowed them to take a lot of their more unique gear for free now, especially if they had some really good stuff held in check by how expensive they were. Blood Angles being the exception, and I don't know if that's because they just don't have as much unique wargear or Wargear Synergies to hand out, or if they're just undertuned compared to the three mentioned above.
They saved 200 points on the terminators and 90 on the attack bikes. Probably 400 in total with the character drops.
Honestly it's just saying go ahead and try to kill these transhuman terminators with storm shields who act as if they still have AoC, basically. They probably dump the attack bikes on to anything they think can threaten a block with ranged since almost nothing can shift that one on one in melee.
Also an item of note is that the terrain at this tournament was very heavy, which lends to immovable terminators doing well.
Goodness. Yeah that's about what I expected. Terminators in general I expect will be very good in the upcoming meta since all their wargear is free. Yeah the "thunderhammers on everything" list is absurd, but it becomes terrifyingly real when those free thunder hammers and shields are on Termies, and lots of them. Vanguard vets will probably be in a similar boat for those that want fast attack. For vanguard vets you might as well just take regular company vets for the price unless you really want the Special Issue boltguns,since the Company vets get stormshields and their special weapons are all the same price now.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But as long as their win rate sits in that magical 45%-55% Goldilocks zone, everything is A-Ok, right?
Exactly! So what if you go 0-10, some random player on the other side of the world went 10-0 spamming TH/SS terminators and the two of you combined were a perfect 50%. It's the faction as a whole* that matters, not your individual experiences**.
*At least in tournaments. Non-tournament games don't count because collecting that data would be hard.
**Unless you're a playtester, in which case you are encouraged to lobby GW to make your personal army win more as long as you make up for it by nerfing some of the units you don't use.
There are only two ways two players can go 10-0 and 0-10 with the same Faction playing the same Tournament Rules:
[spoiler]One Player has a crap list while the other has a fantastic listOne player is a crap player and the other is a fantastic player[list]
So, yes. It is fine to call that a 50% win rate. Depending on which of the above is true and as more players join in, a more true win-rate will arise. That is why you don't decide anything off of such a low sample size.
alextroy wrote: There are only two ways two players can go 10-0 and 0-10 with the same Faction playing the same Tournament Rules:
One Player has a crap list while the other has a fantastic list
One player is a crap player and the other is a fantastic player
Yes, that's exactly the point. Overall faction win rates tell you very little about the health of the metagame because they can't tell the difference between a faction where every list is at about 50% win rate and a faction where one list is dominating but every other list sucks.
The reason GW focuses on faction win rates instead of more advanced metrics is that it's the easiest data to obtain and by ignoring internal balance issues entirely they can post smug self-congratulatory articles about how great everything is even if 90% of a codex is F-tier garbage.
So, yes. It is fine to call that a 50% win rate.
No it isn't. That's a single blatantly overpowered list being brought down to "fair" levels by including a weaker list/player.
I guess you don't listen to their Metawatch videos. They are also looking at internal balance along with win rate. They want to increase the variety of units being included in list. The AOS videos are more explicit about it, but there is enough talk in the 40K videos to make me think they are looking at unit inclusion rates to determine how to adjust unit points values in those updates.
alextroy wrote: I guess you don't listen to their Metawatch videos. They are also looking at internal balance along with win rate. They want to increase the variety of units being included in list. The AOS videos are more explicit about it, but there is enough talk in the 40K videos to make me think they are looking at unit inclusion rates to determine how to adjust unit points values in those updates.
You mean the unit points like getting rid of wargear costs?
TIWP, win path, etc, allow you to sort out these things. A polarized faction between 10-0 and 0-10 will have a 50% win rate but a high TIWP, reflecting the fact that if you avoid being a loser you're going to consistently be in position to win the tournament. Similarly, a faction with a low TIWP but a 70% win rate is cleaning up the losers bracket but gets promptly booted out of contention for the top tables once it hits a good opponent. And because major events usually require online list submission you can look at the data at a finer resolution than entire factions. You can look at win rates/TIWP/etc for each sub-faction or list archetype, and you can look at usage rates for each unit in the codex to understand the state of internal balance. That 10-0/0-10 faction would be easy to handle if you look at the data and see that one archetype is going 10-0 and the other archetypes are 0-10, meaning you have a few overpowered outlier units in an otherwise very weak faction.
TIWP, win path, etc, allow you to sort out these things. A polarized faction between 10-0 and 0-10 will have a 50% win rate but a high TIWP, reflecting the fact that if you avoid being a loser you're going to consistently be in position to win the tournament. Similarly, a faction with a low TIWP but a 70% win rate is cleaning up the losers bracket but gets promptly booted out of contention for the top tables once it hits a good opponent. And because major events usually require online list submission you can look at the data at a finer resolution than entire factions. You can look at win rates/TIWP/etc for each sub-faction or list archetype, and you can look at usage rates for each unit in the codex to understand the state of internal balance. That 10-0/0-10 faction would be easy to handle if you look at the data and see that one archetype is going 10-0 and the other archetypes are 0-10, meaning you have a few overpowered outlier units in an otherwise very weak faction.
That still abstracts a lot, has no way of accounting for the differences in player skill between different tournaments that don't share the same player pool, and generates a minuscule data pool compared to both the complexity of the system and the total player base. There's a reason I went so hard on suggesting a rules complete, GW developed, VTT with things like skill-based matchmaking as a means of generating a useful level of balancing data. As it is, GW can and should do better but I doubt tournament data is doing anything that a reasonable level of prerelease couldn't accomplish.
If there is a single overpowered list you'd expect to see it everywhere very quickly. This is why placings are generally more of a measure than faction win%. But they tend to go together.
Tyel wrote: If there is a single overpowered list you'd expect to see it everywhere very quickly. This is why placings are generally more of a measure than faction win%. But they tend to go together.
That only tells you that a type of list is broken. It doesn't tell you why it's broken. Like AdMech was mostly broken because it had a high damage first round that was difficult to hide from, did the data capture that?
Lists tend to get published and then copied. So... yes? Not really sure what you mean. Not sure how many people were going "flyers, Ballistarii and big blocks of boosted up Skitarii are fine. Nerf the Kataphron instead."
By and large - and certainly compared to the situation pre 8th - GW at least targets the right things for buffs/nerfs.
Tyel wrote: If there is a single overpowered list you'd expect to see it everywhere very quickly. This is why placings are generally more of a measure than faction win%. But they tend to go together.
That only tells you that a type of list is broken. It doesn't tell you why it's broken. Like AdMech was mostly broken because it had a high damage first round that was difficult to hide from, did the data capture that?
Depends what you mean by "data". Strictly the various stats that track overall army performance? Probably not, but most tournaments require online list submission and those lists are available for people to view. The reality is, if you want to get a good idea of the balance issues of any given faction you need to do a deeper dive than just looking at some high-level stats. They can help guide your approach but there's no substitute for doing a proper in-depth analysis of the lists that are winning tournaments. I'd expect GW to be able to do much more in this area than they currently are.
Tyel wrote: Lists tend to get published and then copied. So... yes? Not really sure what you mean. Not sure how many people were going "flyers, Ballistarii and big blocks of boosted up Skitarii are fine. Nerf the Kataphron instead."
By and large - and certainly compared to the situation pre 8th - GW at least targets the right things for buffs/nerfs.
It means that you don't have any data on the second-order effects your balance changes might have. Look at what happened to DE with each round of nerfs just revealing the new best unit until they were finally dethroned by the new codices arriving. Nor does it give you any data on what else might rise up in the meta once the current top list is no longer holding down other lists that may well be potent in their own right.
Tyel wrote: If there is a single overpowered list you'd expect to see it everywhere very quickly. This is why placings are generally more of a measure than faction win%. But they tend to go together.
That only tells you that a type of list is broken. It doesn't tell you why it's broken. Like AdMech was mostly broken because it had a high damage first round that was difficult to hide from, did the data capture that?
Depends what you mean by "data". Strictly the various stats that track overall army performance? Probably not, but most tournaments require online list submission and those lists are available for people to view. The reality is, if you want to get a good idea of the balance issues of any given faction you need to do a deeper dive than just looking at some high-level stats. They can help guide your approach but there's no substitute for doing a proper in-depth analysis of the lists that are winning tournaments. I'd expect GW to be able to do much more in this area than they currently are.
Yeah, but even that deep dive is only educated guessing without a pool of data to draw from. The disadvantage that GW has is that they simply have no way to gather good data and don't have any way to simulate games in such a way as to gather that data. Outside of using some method to poll many more games than have ever been played over the history of 40k tournaments, the error bars on that data they do get are so large as to make all but the highest-level observations meaningless. I think that's why a VTT with online multiplayer game level of matchmaking and data collection could vastly improve the balance of the game. Beyond that, a purpose-built AI running on high-end hardware could generate the required data with a known skill level but depending on how it was trained that data may have issues of its own that could take a while to parse.
**Unless you're a playtester, in which case you are encouraged to lobby GW to make your personal army win more as long as you make up for it by nerfing some of the units you don't use
H.B.M.C. wrote: But as long as their win rate sits in that magical 45%-55% Goldilocks zone, everything is A-Ok, right?
Exactly! So what if you go 0-10, some random player on the other side of the world went 10-0 spamming TH/SS terminators and the two of you combined were a perfect 50%. It's the faction as a whole* that matters, not your individual experiences**.
You guys are attempting to make a bit of a strawman here. Making sure factions are in the 45 to 55% band is step 1. Reworking internal balance is a gradual step 2. It takes a lot of analysis to take lists, review them, determine their strength, and ponder why they won or lost against a particular list. And access to that data in a format that is processable is non-existent at the moment.
What list beat that DA list?
Aleya
Trajann
SC on Bike
3 Allarus
2x1 Allarus
2x10 Wardens
Vexilus
5 Witchseekers
Rhino
More difficult to remove models.
Here's another DA player that failed even with lots of terminators:
Talonmaster
5 Heavy Intercessors
2x5 Infiltrators
BG Ancient
RW Apoth
1x2 Command
2x10 Termies
2 AB w/ MM 2x3 Outriders
Thunderstrike
1x3 Eradicators
Are they a bad player or did the internal selections weaken the list enough? Their record is 3-5 so surely they must have been terrible, right?
L - 79 to 85, CK
L - 72 to 83, CK
L - 80 to 81, Necrons
W - 85 to 61, Necrons
L - 57 to 91, Nids
L - 39 to 82, Night Lords
W - 93 to 57, Necrons
W - 92 to 53, Votann
This player has a 3-5 record, but 3 of those loses were quite close to wins. Was it the opponents or the lists who were better? Or both? Was it a quirk of the mission or terrain?
Losing the first 3 rounds is going to put you into lower brackets and potentially easier opponents, but most of the lists they faced were pretty reasonable. Was the player pool of a higher caliber at this tournament?
The 7-1 DA player had the following results:
W - 95 to 28, Custodes + Wardogs
W - 76 to 64, Craftworld
W - 97 to 77, Orks
W - 85 to 75, Blood Angels
W - 91 to 90, CK
W - 75 to 71, Space Wolves ( 3x Fangs, 9 Inceptors )
W - 82 to 80, Tau ( 2 HH, 2 Riptides )
L - 65 to 85, Custodes
The vast majority of these games are not blow-outs, either. They barely beat Knights here.
The win rates are riding a razor's edge. Your guy who goes 0-10 and loses by 5 to 10 points every game is not the same as going 0-10 and losing by 30+ a game.
Though I'd even argue that a 45-55% win rate bracket is far too large. People will bring up Chess, while ignoring that it is best played in larger sets with players each taking both black and white an equal number of times. Go has an entire system of handicapping to balance player strength and first-turn advantage. There's also a need factor in perceived strength, how enjoyable a list is to play and play against, faction and list diversity, how different lists perform at different levels of player skill, how board layouts change win-rates, how objectives change things, etc.
In short the data GW can collect cannot meaningfully address game balance for a game like 40k.
I believe balance could be improved if the rules writers showed some restrained concerning special rules that ignore special rules.
Additionally, has anyone made a graph plotting unit average damage and speed vs cost? There are many internal balance issues that could be fixed looking at such a graph.
Brickfix wrote: I believe balance could be improved if the rules writers showed some restrained concerning special rules that ignore special rules.
Additionally, has anyone made a graph plotting unit average damage and speed vs cost? There are many internal balance issues that could be fixed looking at such a graph.
We have very few cases of rules ignoring other rules, and all the existing ones have been there since the first dexes.
People like to whine about power creep, but the very first dex already had a unit which ignored all invul AND all wound gates.
The only "ignore rule" which was added later, was the FAQ to allow the GK warlord trait to ignore the demon saves... because demon saves were not there yet.
So no, that is definitely a factor nor an issue.
Plotting stats gives you very limited info.
The problematic units are almost always a result of stacking of rules, very rarely they are stat issues. When they are, the fix is usually very fast, since just increasing the points solves the issue.
Units not taken in a codex are usually not taken due to the following factors:
1) It is an HQ and another HQ offers better synergy with whatever is meta.
2) The unit is too hard to use efficiently/ a competent opponent can neutralize them too easily.
3) The unit has a too narrow application/another unit covers the same role but with a broader applicability
4) The unit isn't good in the current meta
Apart from some limited case in Space Marines, you almost never have a case where unit x is unit y but better. It is always a matter of how you can use them on the table compared to the alternatives.
Spoletta wrote: Units not taken in a codex are usually not taken due to the following factors:
1) It is an HQ and another HQ offers better synergy with whatever is meta.
2) The unit is too hard to use efficiently/ a competent opponent can neutralize them too easily.
3) The unit has a too narrow application/another unit covers the same role but with a broader applicability
4) The unit isn't good in the current meta
That's just rationalising after the fact. The only thing that actually matters is pts cost. Otherwise we'd never see a Terminator be better in tournaments than a Knight. Because 10 Knights beat 10 Terminators. HQs can be efficient despite a lack of synergy. Despite having counterplay a unit can still be overpowered. Enough melta shots will kill a squad of Ork Boyz. The only thing that matters is points. You can analyze why some units are under or overcosted but if you can't say that every HQ unit which is an inferior option to another HQ is less competitive then your analysis doesn't really tell us anything. You can say that 5 point Plaguebearers have a good damage output, are monstrously durable which lets them hold objectives and they can screen out the table, while 15 point Plaguebearers hit like wet noodles, die to a stiff breeze and don't take up much space, but they're the same unit, the only difference is points. You can calculate how good combos are as well, like comparing a buff castle to units that go on their own and figure out how much effect the +1D Strat has when it's combined with re-rolls to hit and to wound as well as extra AP and get an expected number of extra wounds caused to various targets. GW should absolutely do the basic math on their game.
Spoletta wrote: Units not taken in a codex are usually not taken due to the following factors:
1) It is an HQ and another HQ offers better synergy with whatever is meta.
2) The unit is too hard to use efficiently/ a competent opponent can neutralize them too easily.
3) The unit has a too narrow application/another unit covers the same role but with a broader applicability
4) The unit isn't good in the current meta
That's just rationalising after the fact. The only thing that actually matters is pts cost. Otherwise we'd never see a Terminator be better in tournaments than a Knight. Because 10 Knights beat 10 Terminators. HQs can be efficient despite a lack of synergy. Despite having counterplay a unit can still be overpowered. Enough melta shots will kill a squad of Ork Boyz. The only thing that matters is points. You can analyze why some units are under or overcosted but if you can't say that every HQ unit which is an inferior option to another HQ is less competitive then your analysis doesn't really tell us anything. You can say that 5 point Plaguebearers have a good damage output, are monstrously durable which lets them hold objectives and they can screen out the table, while 15 point Plaguebearers hit like wet noodles, die to a stiff breeze and don't take up much space, but they're the same unit, the only difference is points. You can calculate how good combos are as well, like comparing a buff castle to units that go on their own and figure out how much effect the +1D Strat has when it's combined with re-rolls to hit and to wound as well as extra AP and get an expected number of extra wounds caused to various targets. GW should absolutely do the basic math on their game.
Points matter, 100%.
But rules and statlines do too.
Here's a challenge-I want to assign a points cost to the following unit:
Spoiler:
Move 6"
WS 6+
BS 2+
S 1
T1
W1
A1
Ld 4
Sv 8+
It is armed with 20 Super Annihilators.
Super Annihilator Range 240"
Type Rapid Fire 100
S 20
AP -10
D 100
This weapon can target units not visible to the wielder. This weapon ignores Look Out Sir. This weapon rerolls all failed hits and wounds. On a successful wound, this weapon deals an additional 100 Mortal Wounds. This weapon ignores Wound Caps per turn and/or phase. This weapon cannot be fired if the wielder moved in the preceding movement phase.
Abilities This unit cannot benefit from Look Out Sir or Obscuring Terrain.
This unit automatically fails all saving throws.
Enemy units have +1 to-hit this unit.
I will freely admit that that specific unit is stupid and would never see print. But the concept, that of a glass cannon unit, is so common that it has its own term.
Brickfix wrote: I believe balance could be improved if the rules writers showed some restrained concerning special rules that ignore special rules.
Additionally, has anyone made a graph plotting unit average damage and speed vs cost? There are many internal balance issues that could be fixed looking at such a graph.
The marine bench is stupid deep so good luck making everything in that book coherent.
In any case someone might take 3 MM Attack Bikes for 150, because they can get within 12" without allowing an enemy response, but they have fewer shots than a full MMDev squad with cherub. That Dev Squad is a lot softer and can't get in half range very easily so you're probably forking over another 70 for a pod. You risk getting hit coming out of the pod and the opponent could put chaff in the way to keep you out of half range, but at least you can come down turn 1.
Additionally, you could take a second dev squad of Grav. Now you can pick which squad goes in the pod depending on the opponent, but you have more soft models and a unit that has to walk.
Devs can action and auspex. Bikes are a better target for combat revival and can pick up a -1 to be hit.
There is no calculation that you can apply to value devastators against attack bikes and come to a reasonable conclusion.
Enemy units have +1 to-hit this unit.[/spoiler]I will freely admit that that specific unit is stupid and would never see print. But the concept, that of a glass cannon unit, is so common that it has its own term.
While I agree that rules and stats matter, are you seriously suggesting that you cannot give appropriate point costs to glass cannon units?
**Unless you're a playtester, in which case you are encouraged to lobby GW to make your personal army win more as long as you make up for it by nerfing some of the units you don't use
H.B.M.C. wrote: But as long as their win rate sits in that magical 45%-55% Goldilocks zone, everything is A-Ok, right?
Exactly! So what if you go 0-10, some random player on the other side of the world went 10-0 spamming TH/SS terminators and the two of you combined were a perfect 50%. It's the faction as a whole* that matters, not your individual experiences**.
You guys are attempting to make a bit of a strawman here. Making sure factions are in the 45 to 55% band is step 1. Reworking internal balance is a gradual step 2. It takes a lot of analysis to take lists, review them, determine their strength, and ponder why they won or lost against a particular list. And access to that data in a format that is processable is non-existent at the moment.
What list beat that DA list?
Aleya
Trajann
SC on Bike
3 Allarus
2x1 Allarus
2x10 Wardens
Vexilus
5 Witchseekers
Rhino
More difficult to remove models.
Here's another DA player that failed even with lots of terminators:
Talonmaster
5 Heavy Intercessors
2x5 Infiltrators
BG Ancient
RW Apoth
1x2 Command
2x10 Termies
2 AB w/ MM 2x3 Outriders
Thunderstrike
1x3 Eradicators
Are they a bad player or did the internal selections weaken the list enough? Their record is 3-5 so surely they must have been terrible, right?
L - 79 to 85, CK
L - 72 to 83, CK
L - 80 to 81, Necrons
W - 85 to 61, Necrons
L - 57 to 91, Nids
L - 39 to 82, Night Lords
W - 93 to 57, Necrons
W - 92 to 53, Votann
This player has a 3-5 record, but 3 of those loses were quite close to wins. Was it the opponents or the lists who were better? Or both? Was it a quirk of the mission or terrain?
Losing the first 3 rounds is going to put you into lower brackets and potentially easier opponents, but most of the lists they faced were pretty reasonable. Was the player pool of a higher caliber at this tournament?
The 7-1 DA player had the following results:
W - 95 to 28, Custodes + Wardogs
W - 76 to 64, Craftworld
W - 97 to 77, Orks
W - 85 to 75, Blood Angels
W - 91 to 90, CK
W - 75 to 71, Space Wolves ( 3x Fangs, 9 Inceptors )
W - 82 to 80, Tau ( 2 HH, 2 Riptides )
L - 65 to 85, Custodes
The vast majority of these games are not blow-outs, either. They barely beat Knights here.
The win rates are riding a razor's edge. Your guy who goes 0-10 and loses by 5 to 10 points every game is not the same as going 0-10 and losing by 30+ a game.
Hold on, I'm super confused about scoring now.
I was told that if there's less than a 5 point difference, the game is counted as a draw.
Hold on, I'm super confused about scoring now.
I was told that if there's less than a 5 point difference, the game is counted as a draw.
I imagine there are some TOs out there who might do that, but I have never seen it in the wild. I am not well informed on if that would be a good idea for wider use.
The 20-0 scoring format used by WTC and others and recently adopted in some GW tournaments requires a win by a margin of 6 VP to get an 11-9 victory instead of a 10-10 draw.
EightFoldPath wrote: The 20-0 scoring format used by WTC and others and recently adopted in some GW tournaments requires a win by a margin of 6 VP to get an 11-9 victory instead of a 10-10 draw.
Can you expand on that?
I'm finding the competitive scene far less monolithic in terms of rules. It's really confusing.
Spoletta wrote: Units not taken in a codex are usually not taken due to the following factors:
1) It is an HQ and another HQ offers better synergy with whatever is meta.
2) The unit is too hard to use efficiently/ a competent opponent can neutralize them too easily.
3) The unit has a too narrow application/another unit covers the same role but with a broader applicability
4) The unit isn't good in the current meta
That's just rationalising after the fact. The only thing that actually matters is pts cost. Otherwise we'd never see a Terminator be better in tournaments than a Knight. Because 10 Knights beat 10 Terminators. HQs can be efficient despite a lack of synergy. Despite having counterplay a unit can still be overpowered. Enough melta shots will kill a squad of Ork Boyz. The only thing that matters is points. You can analyze why some units are under or overcosted but if you can't say that every HQ unit which is an inferior option to another HQ is less competitive then your analysis doesn't really tell us anything. You can say that 5 point Plaguebearers have a good damage output, are monstrously durable which lets them hold objectives and they can screen out the table, while 15 point Plaguebearers hit like wet noodles, die to a stiff breeze and don't take up much space, but they're the same unit, the only difference is points. You can calculate how good combos are as well, like comparing a buff castle to units that go on their own and figure out how much effect the +1D Strat has when it's combined with re-rolls to hit and to wound as well as extra AP and get an expected number of extra wounds caused to various targets. GW should absolutely do the basic math on their game.
Points matter, 100%.
But rules and statlines do too.
Here's a challenge-I want to assign a points cost to the following unit:
Spoiler:
Move 6"
WS 6+
BS 2+
S 1
T1
W1
A1
Ld 4
Sv 8+
It is armed with 20 Super Annihilators.
Super Annihilator Range 240"
Type Rapid Fire 100
S 20
AP -10
D 100
This weapon can target units not visible to the wielder. This weapon ignores Look Out Sir. This weapon rerolls all failed hits and wounds. On a successful wound, this weapon deals an additional 100 Mortal Wounds. This weapon ignores Wound Caps per turn and/or phase. This weapon cannot be fired if the wielder moved in the preceding movement phase.
Abilities This unit cannot benefit from Look Out Sir or Obscuring Terrain.
This unit automatically fails all saving throws.
Enemy units have +1 to-hit this unit.
I will freely admit that that specific unit is stupid and would never see print. But the concept, that of a glass cannon unit, is so common that it has its own term.
*Create model for Super Annihilator Weapons Platform.
*Write fluff that is fitting for the model.
*Draft as many versions of alpha rules as possible.
*Get initial impressions from any playtester that is interested.
*Create 3 different beta versions based on feedback.
*The casual playtest group find out which version is more fun and fluffy on the table.
*Finalize rules and calculate how hard it is to kill with various weapons and how much of various units it kills, this gives the unit a point range where it is potentially balanced.
*The competitive playtest group spam the unit in at least 3 games and the mathematically derived points value is adjusted within the calculated range.
*The book is printed after all of this is done.
I'd estimate 4500 points based on how much it can kill each turn regardless of LOS and it's fragility. But I explained above how I'd want GW to write and playtest rules.
EightFoldPath wrote: The 20-0 scoring format used by WTC and others and recently adopted in some GW tournaments requires a win by a margin of 6 VP to get an 11-9 victory instead of a 10-10 draw.
Can you expand on that?
I'm finding the competitive scene far less monolithic in terms of rules. It's really confusing.
The point is that a narrow win is treated as a draw for scoring purposes, the assumption being that if you only win by 1 VP it was pretty much random chance who was going to win and it's scored as a draw.
The scoring system used for recording match results uses a 20 point scale instead of straight win/loss/draw. The winner is awarded between 11 and 20 points based on how large the margin of victory was, the loser gets 20 minus the winner's score. If the margin of victory is 6 VP or less each player gets 10 points. Your total on the 0-20 scale is used for pairings each round and determining the event winner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: I will freely admit that that specific unit is stupid and would never see print.
There you go, now you admit that points are not 100% of balance and "the only thing that actually matters is pts cost" was a false statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: Though I'd even argue that a 45-55% win rate bracket is far too large.
It is not. Remember, 40k has to cope with a bad list factor that doesn't apply in other games. In chess you don't have players taking a list with nothing but pawns because "my lore is that we don't have a queen", in 40k you absolutely have people showing up with bad lists based on their lore. Even if you have a perfectly balanced game at the top tables you're going to have a lot of variability in win rates simply because of random luck involving who showed up on the lower tables. If you try to set a narrower tolerance you significantly increase the risk of over-correcting and "fixing" a problem that never existed, making balance worse than if you'd just accepted a 46% win rate.
And yes, I know you like the idea of a virtual tabletop version of 40k. It isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons and there's no point in discussing how it could be used for balance data.
Aecus Decimus wrote: It is not. Remember, 40k has to cope with a bad list factor that doesn't apply in other games. In chess you don't have players taking a list with nothing but pawns because "my lore is that we don't have a queen"
If the game was balanced replacing certain meta units with more troops shouldn't overly disadvantage you as troops should have a valuable role that other units can't fill. So really, that shouldn't matter even if we expect such lists to be in our current dataset often enough to be more than noise.
vict0988 wrote: I will freely admit that that specific unit is stupid and would never see print.
There you go, now you admit that points are not 100% of balance and "the only thing that actually matters is pts cost" was a false statement.
JNAProductions wrote: I will freely admit that that specific unit is stupid and would never see print. But the concept, that of a glass cannon unit, is so common that it has its own term.
You got your quotes mixed up The only thing that for determining whether a unit is OP or UP is pts cost. A unit can be badly designed if it isn't fun to play with or against or if it doesn't represent the fluff of the unit. The two aren't linked. A well-designed unit can be OP if it costs too little and UP if it costs too much, a badly designed unit like JNA's Super Annihilator Weapons Platform can be OP if it costs 100 points and UP if it costs 100000 points.
Canadian 5th wrote: If the game was balanced replacing certain meta units with more troops shouldn't overly disadvantage you as troops should have a valuable role that other units can't fill. So really, that shouldn't matter even if we expect such lists to be in our current dataset often enough to be more than noise.
That's not how it works. Bad list building is more than just taking lots of troops, it includes building completely dysfunctional lists. Anti-aircraft units can be perfectly balanced when used by players who are making choices based on trying to win the game but that isn't going to prevent you from losing every game if you decide that your lore is that you're playing an anti-aircraft regiment so you're going to take nothing but anti-aircraft units even if the meta has few aircraft. No balancing system can ever account for that kind of thing, which means you're going to have deviations from 50% win rate even in a perfectly balanced game. People will take the dysfunctional lists and bring their faction's win rate down, people will get paired against the dysfunctional lists for easy wins and bring their faction's win rate up. It's effectively noise in the data and if you over-react to that noise you make balance worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: You got your quotes mixed up The only thing that for determining whether a unit is OP or UP is pts cost. A unit can be badly designed if it isn't fun to play with or against or if it doesn't represent the fluff of the unit. The two aren't linked. A well-designed unit can be OP if it costs too little and UP if it costs too much, a badly designed unit like JNA's Super Annihilator Weapons Platform can be OP if it costs 100 points and UP if it costs 100000 points.
There is no point cost that can appropriately balance "if you go first you automatically win the game". If it costs 2000 points or less it is an auto-take because you are guaranteed to win at least half your games and very likely more than half. If it costs 2001 points or more it can't be taken in a legal list for the standard game.
Aecus Decimus wrote: There is no point cost that can appropriately balance "if you go first you automatically win the game". If it costs 2000 points or less it is an auto-take because you are guaranteed to win at least half your games and very likely more than half. If it costs 2001 points or more it can't be taken in a legal list for the standard game.
Sure there is. Let's say we gave the 50/50 ability to a Unique Space Marine Captain (despite your casual playtesters telling you that it's not fun to play with and the competitive players saying that it'd break the game). You'd need a points cost at which including the Unique Captain wouldn't massively change your win rate, so in 2000 points games he'd need to be so expensive that you have basically no shot of winning outside of that ability, somewhere at least 1500 points. Some units aren't meant to be taken in a standard game, making that a requirement is silly. Do you think Phantom Titans need to be reduced from 3000 points to 1500 points and have some kind of ability that gives the opponent a chance to win the game despite facing a Phantom Titan and a handful of other units? Do you think tournaments would be better if Phantom Titans made occasional appearances?
vict0988 wrote: Some units aren't meant to be taken in a standard game
Exactly. Some units can not be played in real games because point cost alone is not a sufficient balancing mechanism. If the required point cost to balance a potential unit is "so high you can never use it" then points have failed.
Are there examples of such units in the current game?
To my mind points can fix issues, because armies are usually aggregates of units, rather than just a unit themselves. Whatever the best army is would be worse if it has to give up 1-2 units (i.e. went up 100-200 points) and whatever it the worst army would be better if they had an additional 1-2 units on the table (say went down 100-200 points.)
Tyel wrote: Are there examples of such units in the current game?
To my mind points can fix issues, because armies are usually aggregates of units, rather than just a unit themselves. Whatever the best army is would be worse if it has to give up 1-2 units (i.e. went up 100-200 points) and whatever it the worst army would be better if they had an additional 1-2 units on the table (say went down 100-200 points.)
Warhounds immediately spring to mind, not sure what price point you'd give them in reality.
vict0988 wrote: Some units aren't meant to be taken in a standard game
Exactly. Some units can not be played in real games because point cost alone is not a sufficient balancing mechanism. If the required point cost to balance a potential unit is "so high you can never use it" then points have failed.
I disagree with your definition of failure.
GW wrote:Points values are used to determine the strength of matched play armies, allowing the effectiveness of a given force to be fine-tuned down to the last bit of wargear.
So if your goal is to create a scenario where you have a high chance of failure playing against a 4000 point army including a 3000 point model using your 2000 point army and failing most of the games in this scenario would be a success for points since it will have helped you determine the strength of the two armies accurately enough for you to achieve the goal of the scenario you were trying to create. The 4+ to win or ultra glass cannon units aren't fun and you're conflating that with not being balanced. The idea that every datasheet should be balanced at 2000 points is silly.
Super Annihilator Range 240"
Type Rapid Fire 100
S 20
AP -10
D 100
This weapon can target units not visible to the wielder. This weapon ignores Look Out Sir. This weapon rerolls all failed hits and wounds. On a successful wound, this weapon deals an additional 100 Mortal Wounds. This weapon ignores Wound Caps per turn and/or phase. This weapon cannot be fired if the wielder moved in the preceding movement phase.
Abilities This unit cannot benefit from Look Out Sir or Obscuring Terrain.
This unit automatically fails all saving throws.
Enemy units have +1 to-hit this unit.
I punched the values into my own points calculator that I use for my homebrew for funsies.
Creature would be 1 point per model, the weapon would be ~326.000.
Context: Guardsman is 9ppm, Space Marine is 40ppm, Predator Annihilator is ~430ppm.
Canadian 5th wrote: If the game was balanced replacing certain meta units with more troops shouldn't overly disadvantage you as troops should have a valuable role that other units can't fill. So really, that shouldn't matter even if we expect such lists to be in our current dataset often enough to be more than noise.
That's not how it works. Bad list building is more than just taking lots of troops, it includes building completely dysfunctional lists. Anti-aircraft units can be perfectly balanced when used by players who are making choices based on trying to win the game but that isn't going to prevent you from losing every game if you decide that your lore is that you're playing an anti-aircraft regiment so you're going to take nothing but anti-aircraft units even if the meta has few aircraft.
Just make it so that AA guns have a useful role in attacking units on the ground. Ask the Allies in WW2 and Korea how effective AA guns can be against troops and light armor. For missile units, give them blast so they have some utility against larger units or just give them an alternate fire mode. You can bring the ceiling and floor of each unit closer together by making smart design choices.
There's also the fact that I was saying that 45-55% balance, on a per faction basis, is too wide a range. Outlier joke lists that don't even end up in the tournament meta at a significant rate, really won't move the needle.
Tyel wrote: Are there examples of such units in the current game?
To my mind points can fix issues, because armies are usually aggregates of units, rather than just a unit themselves. Whatever the best army is would be worse if it has to give up 1-2 units (i.e. went up 100-200 points) and whatever it the worst army would be better if they had an additional 1-2 units on the table (say went down 100-200 points.)
Howabout titans? Warhound. Atm 2k and autolose. How far you drop points? 1k? It is starting to toss on vastly inferior stompa. And still likely lose game...
Howabou warlord titan? Atm 6k but even if it was 2k you autolose game with it. Opponent no need to even bother try to kill it.
Drop it to 1k? Some msu infantry army likely wins anyway but then knights autolose.
Lets be fair, the point of Titans' point costs is to be too high to be viable in a 2k game, because they have never been meant for 2k games.
There is no way to balance a unit that is meant for an entirely different scale. Titans not being viable at 2k games isn't a failure of the point system, it is a feature.
Wasn't there a point in 7th or 8th, where you could literally summon endless "horrors"? I.E. not baked into reserve cost, but they could just keep coming? And that was before Ro3. So it's amazing with a unit like that, that Daemons were not the most broken thing ever. Tau, IG, and GK all ate their lunch. So maybe there is a problem with extremely broken units, but if they don't imbalance the entire codex, it's ok?
Canadian 5th wrote: Just make it so that AA guns have a useful role in attacking units on the ground. Ask the Allies in WW2 and Korea how effective AA guns can be against troops and light armor. For missile units, give them blast so they have some utility against larger units or just give them an alternate fire mode. You can bring the ceiling and floor of each unit closer together by making smart design choices.
That's not how balance works. If AA guns are effective enough against non-aircraft units that an army of nothing but AA guns can have a reasonable chance of winning against an army with no aircraft then one of four things has happened:
1) AA guns are blatantly overpowered, being equal to non-AA units in roles other than shooting down enemy aircraft and also being good against aircraft. If unit A can do everything that unit B can do and also has other benefits that B lacks then why would you ever take B?
2) Faction balance is hopelessly broken. The faction with the all-AA list is so absurdly overpowered relative to the faction of the opposing list that even a completely dysfunctional and one-dimensional AA spam list can expect to win.
3) Aircraft are pushed out of the game entirely, as even non-AA units are fully capable of dealing with them and the additional effectiveness of a dedicated AA gun is of minimal value.
4) Aircraft are just tanks with a different model and there's no such thing as a dedicated AA gun anymore. An AA unit might be 5% more effective than a tank shooting its main gun at planes but, as you say, the floor and the ceiling are close together and it's all just exchanging dice with homogenous units. While technically this isn't a balance failure it's a complete design failure that gives you a mess like 9th edition 40k, where aircraft don't act like aircraft because GW wanted to get rid of distinct unit roles.
Any of these things is a failure and the only way to avoid it is to make AA guns effective against planes but weak against non-aircraft targets and accept that if someone is stubborn enough to bring an all-AA list they're just going to lose.
There's also the fact that I was saying that 45-55% balance, on a per faction basis, is too wide a range. Outlier joke lists that don't even end up in the tournament meta at a significant rate, really won't move the needle.
Deliberate joke lists are rare. Poorly optimized lists are not. The all-AA list was just an exaggerated example to illustrate how the problem works, the fundamental problem is that even if every unit is balanced in isolation that doesn't mean that every combination of those units will also be balanced. There will always be synergies between units, strategies that work better or worse together, a correct level of investment in counter units to expected threats, etc. And if you balance the game such that the well designed lists have the target 50% win rate someone who decides that their fluff requires a poorly designed list will struggle to win games. And in 40k that happens very frequently. Tournaments are full of people on the bottom tables playing their "fluff" list because a tournament is a great opportunity to get 3-5 guaranteed games in a day and those people are going to add a lot of noise to the data. And if you over-react to noise in the data you will make all of your balance problems worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wasn't there a point in 7th or 8th, where you could literally summon endless "horrors"? I.E. not baked into reserve cost, but they could just keep coming? And that was before Ro3. So it's amazing with a unit like that, that Daemons were not the most broken thing ever. Tau, IG, and GK all ate their lunch. So maybe there is a problem with extremely broken units, but if they don't imbalance the entire codex, it's ok?
No, because overall faction win rates aren't the only thing that matters. If demons are at an acceptable win rate but only because of a single list that exploits a major balance issue you have a broken faction where internal balance is nonexistent and if you try to bring anything other than the one functioning list you get wiped off the table. That's a miserable experience and it needs to be fixed.
No, it didn't happen, or no it's not ok to have a broken unit, but an acceptable Codex?
Because for all of 8th and 9th, the most broken units in the game hasn't really had a major impact on win percentages. I mean, look at Harlequins troupes, Smash Captains, and Melta Intercessors. All horribly broken. It was the rules and abilities that broke them, not the stats.
Aecus Decimus wrote: That's not how balance works. If AA guns are effective enough against non-aircraft units that an army of nothing but AA guns can have a reasonable chance of winning against an army with no aircraft then one of four things has happened
E) Look at if aircraft are in scope for a skirmish scale game and consider moving them into a version of the game played on larger tables.
F) Allow a 500-point sideboard so players can switch up units after seeing their opponent's list and sideboard.
G) Make a separate unit that uses the same model as the AA-unit and allow players to switch to it if the opponent's list doesn't contain any fliers. (This would apply to any such hyper-specialized unit and it could be a game design goal to standardize points to where swapping units is easy and expected.)
Deliberate joke lists are rare. Poorly optimized lists are not. The all-AA list was just an exaggerated example to illustrate how the problem works, the fundamental problem is that even if every unit is balanced in isolation that doesn't mean that every combination of those units will also be balanced. There will always be synergies between units, strategies that work better or worse together, a correct level of investment in counter units to expected threats, etc. And if you balance the game such that the well designed lists have the target 50% win rate someone who decides that their fluff requires a poorly designed list will struggle to win games. And in 40k that happens very frequently. Tournaments are full of people on the bottom tables playing their "fluff" list because a tournament is a great opportunity to get 3-5 guaranteed games in a day and those people are going to add a lot of noise to the data. And if you over-react to noise in the data you will make all of your balance problems worse.
You could cut the data from lists that start 0-2 and exclude it from the sample size which should help remove completely terrible lists from the pool, but I think it would make more sense to bring down the powerful units while bringing up the weak ones. Repeat on a short cycle until you get a desired state of balance or the meta shifts and you start the cycle over again.
Canadian 5th wrote: E) Look at if aircraft are in scope for a skirmish scale game and consider moving them into a version of the game played on larger tables.
That's dodging the question. Feel free to replace AA guns with some other specialized unit, AA guns were just the example I happened to pick.
F) Allow a 500-point sideboard so players can switch up units after seeing their opponent's list and sideboard.
Which does nothing because the AA gun player is committed to playing their AA regiment and not swapping out units. If they were willing to swap out units at the expense of the theme they wouldn't be bringing a pure AA gun list in the first place.
G) Make a separate unit that uses the same model as the AA-unit and allow players to switch to it if the opponent's list doesn't contain any fliers. (This would apply to any such hyper-specialized unit and it could be a game design goal to standardize points to where swapping units is easy and expected.)
See above.
And you're completely missing the point of the example. "You can choose not to play the dysfunctional list" and providing lots of solutions for not playing it doesn't address the fact that when people do play the dysfunctional list either they will win few games and skew the faction win rates or you will have a balance problem.
You could cut the data from lists that start 0-2 and exclude it from the sample size which should help remove completely terrible lists from the pool, but I think it would make more sense to bring down the powerful units while bringing up the weak ones. Repeat on a short cycle until you get a desired state of balance or the meta shifts and you start the cycle over again.
You could, but then you're making genuinely under-performing factions look better and in less need of buffs because you excluded their worst results from the data set. It does nothing for balance to get everyone to a 50% win rate by pretending that a 40% win rate faction is now at 50%.
Aecus Decimus wrote: That's dodging the question. Feel free to replace AA guns with some other specialized unit, AA guns were just the example I happened to pick.
What other pure specialist roles are there in a game as shallow as 40k? GW has removed things like WS and Initiative being combat relevant, has made armor useless with a poorly thought-out AP system, and generally seems to want every game to boil down only to lost building, movement, and how much damage you have.
Even anti-horde weapons seem to be pushing into the S5 D2 AP-2 range these days because GW has realized that anything that can't crack a NuMarine isn't worth bringing.
Which does nothing because the AA gun player is committed to playing their AA regiment and not swapping out units. If they were willing to swap out units at the expense of the theme they wouldn't be bringing a pure AA gun list in the first place.
It allows for easier filtering of your data. You can see which players didn't bring and/or didn't use their sideboard and adjust the weight of that data.
And you're completely missing the point of the example. "You can choose not to play the dysfunctional list" and providing lots of solutions for not playing it doesn't address the fact that when people do play the dysfunctional list either they will win few games and skew the faction win rates or you will have a balance problem.
Given that you're asserting that these lists are a large enough proportion of the data set to skew balance, I want you to show me how many of them are actually present in the current data pool. Put up or shut up.
You could, but then you're making genuinely under-performing factions look better and in less need of buffs because you excluded their worst results from the data set. It does nothing for balance to get everyone to a 50% win rate by pretending that a 40% win rate faction is now at 50%.
Only if you're an idiot. You want to filter your data through several lenses and composite what each lens says about game balance. You want to look at faction prevalence, average points per battle, average placement at the end of tournaments, list diversity with that faction, etc. No one way of looking at the data can solve a problem but you can use the data to filter noise from signal if you put in the time.
Canadian 5th wrote: You could cut the data from lists that start 0-2 and exclude it from the sample size which should help remove completely terrible lists from the pool, but I think it would make more sense to bring down the powerful units while bringing up the weak ones. Repeat on a short cycle until you get a desired state of balance or the meta shifts and you start the cycle over again.
That is not a horrible idea. Removing outliers from from the win rate calculation, both high and low, could lead to a more nuanced calculation.
Image removing the top 10% and bottom 10% of each tournaments players players and judging faction win rate by the middle 80% of players? What do you think that would do?
Bias the data in the direction of making the meta look healthier than it really is. The lists/factions/units/etc that have the greatest need for balance changes are the ones that are disproportionately found in the top and bottom 20%, by excluding all of those results from the data set you're deliberately leaving yourself blind to those issues.
Canadian 5th wrote: You could cut the data from lists that start 0-2 and exclude it from the sample size which should help remove completely terrible lists from the pool, but I think it would make more sense to bring down the powerful units while bringing up the weak ones. Repeat on a short cycle until you get a desired state of balance or the meta shifts and you start the cycle over again.
That is not a horrible idea. Removing outliers from from the win rate calculation, both high and low, could lead to a more nuanced calculation.
Image removing the top 10% and bottom 10% of each tournaments players players and judging faction win rate by the middle 80% of players? What do you think that would do?
It would give a distorted view of army performance, making terrible Codices seem better and overpowered ones worse. We already know some armies have much greater representation at the upper or lower end of the win-rate spectrum than they should if balance was better. With balance being so off at the top and bottom ends you'll basically eliminate a lot of the data that tells you a faction is overpowered or underpowered. It's pretty rare for Nids or Harlequins to do very badly in a tournament and also very common for them to do very well, so if you ignore the instances of them doing very well you probably remove most of the data about those armies, but only from one end of scale, skewing their numbers downwards.
An approach where you remove the top and bottom of the data set would work better if the general balance was better than it is. We're still at the stage of entire armies being overpowered or underpowered to the extent that isn't possible yet.
Canadian 5th wrote: What other pure specialist roles are there in a game as shallow as 40k?
Anti-tank, action fodder, movement blocking, etc. 40k is a shallow game but it still has plenty of room to create a bad list even if the individual units in that list are balanced.
It allows for easier filtering of your data. You can see which players didn't bring and/or didn't use their sideboard and adjust the weight of that data.
That's worthless data though. "Did they use the sideboard" tells you nothing of value because you can't distinguish between "didn't use the sideboard because they are committed to not changing their list" and "didn't use the sideboard because the main list was better suited to that matchup". Nor can it even tell if the player had an effective sideboard.
Given that you're asserting that these lists are a large enough proportion of the data set to skew balance, I want you to show me how many of them are actually present in the current data pool. Put up or shut up.
It's common knowledge among tournament players and people who run tournaments that the majority of people at larger events are just there to play a bunch of games in a weekend, not because they have any reasonable expectation of winning. I'm not going to do a bunch of data analysis to prove that water is in fact wet, especially since "bad list" isn't even a quantifiable term and you'll just argue about whether the criteria I set were correct.
Only if you're an idiot. You want to filter your data through several lenses and composite what each lens says about game balance. You want to look at faction prevalence, average points per battle, average placement at the end of tournaments, list diversity with that faction, etc. No one way of looking at the data can solve a problem but you can use the data to filter noise from signal if you put in the time.
Cutting the lists that start 0-2 is equally bad for all of those things! If your sample doesn't include the worst lists then you're deliberately blinding yourself to the fact that those lists are performing very badly. It doesn't matter what metric you use to evaluate the remaining data set because you've already biased the data and made it useless for its intended purpose.
Internal balance is a concern - but internal balance can be worked on later. Its far better all factions have some "good stuff" than none. GW can then look at why the other stuff isn't seeing play. Sometimes the answer will be obvious mathhammer, other times it will be movement/objective scoring/surrendering problems. I don't think this requires a super computer simulating a million games.
Ultimately a balanced game is not one with 45-55% win rates - or even one with perfect 50% win rates. Its one where a top player can pick any faction (not any list) and fancy themselves to do well at a major tournament.
A balanced win rate is a decent short-hand - because if you have factions with 70% win rates and 30% win rates, you are sort of compelling faction choice. But its not the be all and end all. A bad player, running a bad list, and doing badly, is not a balance problem.
This is why there's a view 9th has had better balance (certainly over the past 6 months) - the pool of factions for which the above has been true has been comparatively high by the standards of 40k's history.
Tyel wrote: I'd argue a "balanced" 40k isn't one where factions are falling in 45-55% win rate range (although, it is likely more balanced than where factions are between 30% and 70%). Its one where "good players", can take any faction to a tournament and expect to perform well. Which is basically saying "skill matters" rather than faction choice. In such a scenario, you are likely to have a diverse mix of factions placing, as good players don't just pick from the 2-3 that mop up all the top spots.
Internal balance is a concern - but internal balance can be worked on later. Its far better all factions have some "good stuff" than none. GW can then look at why the other stuff isn't seeing play. Sometimes the answer will be obvious mathhammer, other times it will be movement/objective scoring/surrendering problems. I don't think this requires a super computer simulating a million games.
Problem is that there are at least four different concepts of balance bandied about regularly:
- External balance, as in 'Every army can achieve a winrate around 50% in tournaments'
- Internal balance, as in 'Every unit in an army is worth taking or viable in some circumstances, and no degenerate lists exist'
- Player skill balance, as in 'Every army requires about the same amount of player skill, and noticeable skill differences directly influence the win rates'
- Matchup balance, as in 'No particular Matchup between two given armies is always a forgone conclusion'
On top of that, i'd also say that there's a desireable Stochastic balance, i.e. 'Every army should be susceptible to the inherent randomness of dice rolls to about the same degree', but that is debatable - i think it matters for the tournament scene because it ultimately is linked to Skill balance.
Problem is that there are at least four different concepts of balance bandied about regularly:
- External balance, as in 'Every army can achieve a winrate around 50% in tournaments'
- Internal balance, as in 'Every unit in an army is worth taking or viable in some circumstances, and no degenerate lists exist'
- Player skill balance, as in 'Every army requires about the same amount of player skill, and noticeable skill differences directly influence the win rates'
- Matchup balance, as in 'No particular Matchup between two given armies is always a forgone conclusion'
I'd agree. I think the importance is to try and determine which are a priority. Which will inevitably vary.
To my mind if a lot of factions are placing in competitive tournaments, there must be a degree of external, player skill and matchup balance. Internal balance will be all over the place - but that can then be adjusted for.
Sure its bad if you love a specific unit and it sucks. But at least if you love a specific faction, you can take its good units.
Eldarsif wrote: So, here is a top 8 listing from an AoO GT with 228 players(Courtesy of r/warhammercompetitive).
So far, good variety of factions at Adelaide Uprising Top 8 after 6 games:
Adeptus Custodes
T'au Empire
Dark Angels
Adeptus Mechanicus
Chaos Demons
Knights Renegades
Adeptus Custodes
Astra Militarum
That's one Space Marine faction. I get the feeling OP is forgetting that losing Armor of Contempt is a huge blow to Marines and makes everything else deadlier.
I love the lack of critical thinking involved in this post. "Haha! Marines only won a 2nd place in an 8 round 200+ person GT, clearly you are wrong OP!" They also went 1st and 3rd in the WTC Spain tournament, but in fairness that was a 46 player tournament. SO out of 2 GT sized events they won....3 out of the top 6 places. Yeah definitely not top tier.
I love the lack of critical thinking involved in this post. "Haha! Marines only won a 2nd place in an 8 round 200+ person GT, clearly you are wrong OP!" They also went 1st and 3rd in the WTC Spain tournament, but in fairness that was a 46 player tournament. SO out of 2 GT sized events they won....3 out of the top 6 places. Yeah definitely not top tier.
I think it stands sufficiently in contrast with the opening statement for this thread. Potentially they didn't overvalue AoC. But, of course it is still really early and lots can change.
It is also pretty notable that none of the marines that did ( visibly ) well consisted of any significant amount of shooting.
Super Annihilator Range 240"
Type Rapid Fire 100
S 20
AP -10
D 100
This weapon can target units not visible to the wielder. This weapon ignores Look Out Sir. This weapon rerolls all failed hits and wounds. On a successful wound, this weapon deals an additional 100 Mortal Wounds. This weapon ignores Wound Caps per turn and/or phase. This weapon cannot be fired if the wielder moved in the preceding movement phase.
Abilities This unit cannot benefit from Look Out Sir or Obscuring Terrain.
This unit automatically fails all saving throws.
Enemy units have +1 to-hit this unit.
I punched the values into my own points calculator that I use for my homebrew for funsies.
Creature would be 1 point per model, the weapon would be ~326.000.
Context: Guardsman is 9ppm, Space Marine is 40ppm, Predator Annihilator is ~430ppm.
You may need to tweak that calculator if a gun that can kill entire armies - and literally not figuratively - this one gun deletes all but a few possible opposing armies every turn.
I love the lack of critical thinking involved in this post. "Haha! Marines only won a 2nd place in an 8 round 200+ person GT, clearly you are wrong OP!" They also went 1st and 3rd in the WTC Spain tournament, but in fairness that was a 46 player tournament. SO out of 2 GT sized events they won....3 out of the top 6 places. Yeah definitely not top tier.
I think it stands sufficiently in contrast with the opening statement for this thread. Potentially they didn't overvalue AoC. But, of course it is still really early and lots can change.
It is also pretty notable that none of the marines that did ( visibly ) well consisted of any significant amount of shooting.
Literally the first two results for AoO I have seen, so yeah very much early and I have a strong feeling that its only going to get worse, not better. Because realistically what is the counter to free stuff? Yeah, Marines are squishier now then before, but you can also take more of them. I do find it a bit...interesting, that the two armies that did take troops, still took Infiltrators instead of just tac Marines with a free heavy weapon and a Sgt with an upgraded weapon. I guess the forward deploy and the Free Helix Gauntlet is just too good for 200pts as opposed to 180pts of Tac Marines with 2 Multi-Meltas (Or Lascannons) and 2 Combi Meltas (or plasmas) and 2 Thunderhammers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As a side note, I apologize, there were two other smaller GTs that utilized AoO, so Marines only finished with 4 out of 12 top 3 finishes...2 of which were 1st place.
Having rubbished Breton earlier - I think in this case he has an argument that collecting the models isn't easy.
I.E. if I wanted 2*5 Infiltrators I could go and buy a box tonight. If I wanted two tactical squads with MMs, thunder hammers and combi-meltas, and I was strict on WYSIWG I'm not entirely sure how I'd go about doing it. Or at least not vaguely cost effectively. I'm sure given time people will print their own extra weapons.
Breton wrote: You may need to tweak that calculator if a gun that can kill entire armies - and literally not figuratively - this one gun deletes all but a few possible opposing armies every turn.
The weapon stats are not meant for actual play of course. Just thought it would be funny as a thought excercise. I think it speaks for it to be able to handle any kind of silly profiles
Spoiler:
From a technical "actually" POV, the unit would kill a single enemy unit per turn. In a very gruesome way. And then the rest of the remaining 326k points on the other side would be able to retaliate. At this point, the gun might be horrible overpriced from a meta point, as killing something 100x over is not different from killing something 2x over. But you waste alot of points for it. If you think about it, a game this size with that theoretical weapon might not be as one sided as it seems on first glance.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Anti-tank, action fodder, movement blocking, etc. 40k is a shallow game but it still has plenty of room to create a bad list even if the individual units in that list are balanced.
Anti-tank is also anti-3W infantry. Action fodder could also be used for movement blocking and units only taken to be cheap and useless probably aren't healthy for the game anyway. Movement blockers should probably end up as decent melee units so your screening unit has at least some teeth.
If you work at making it so all units can do a couple of different things and nerfing/buffing the outliers you start seeing fewer single-use units.
That's worthless data though. "Did they use the sideboard" tells you nothing of value because you can't distinguish between "didn't use the sideboard because they are committed to not changing their list" and "didn't use the sideboard because the main list was better suited to that matchup". Nor can it even tell if the player had an effective sideboard.
It's just another way to filter data and try to understand why there was a blowout in any given game.
It's common knowledge
It was once common knowledge that disease was caused by bad smells so excuse me if I'd like hard data.
I'm not going to do a bunch of data analysis to prove that water is in fact wet, especially since "bad list" isn't even a quantifiable term and you'll just argue about whether the criteria I set were correct.
You could show a bad list by showing that lists that take [insert unit or units] tends to do worse than the average list for that faction
Cutting the lists that start 0-2 is equally bad for all of those things!
What? You look at the data with 0-2 starts removed as a lens, not as a thing you apply the other lenses to... It's like you have no clue how to analyze data.
Breton wrote: You may need to tweak that calculator if a gun that can kill entire armies - and literally not figuratively - this one gun deletes all but a few possible opposing armies every turn.
The weapon stats are not meant for actual play of course. Just thought it would be funny as a thought excercise. I think it speaks for it to be able to handle any kind of silly profiles
Spoiler:
From a technical "actually" POV, the unit would kill a single enemy unit per turn. In a very gruesome way. And then the rest of the remaining 326k points on the other side would be able to retaliate. At this point, the gun might be horrible overpriced from a meta point, as killing something 100x over is not different from killing something 2x over. But you waste alot of points for it. If you think about it, a game this size with that theoretical weapon might not be as one sided as it seems on first glance.
the imaginary unit is equipped with 20 of these guns.... so it kills 20 units per turn, i don't know how many armies can survive such an alpha strike
Every army that can buy more than 20 units for the calculated 300000+ points. Which should be even possible if you go unbound and only bring LOWs.
To be honest I thought split firing is per "same kind of weapon", as that's how I ruled it. It only changes the equation from killing one unit really well to killing 20. At the end, you only need to have something standing afterwards to kill that lonely and weak model (if they go first).
Yes, it is FAR too early to make judgements calls on whether this trend will continue, but for someone to come in and say that this is evidence that Marines aren't dominating the meta is a bit....silly. Again, extremely small sample size, but they are winning 50% of the tournaments atm
a_typical_hero wrote: Every army that can buy more than 20 units for the calculated 300000+ points. Which should be even possible if you go unbound and only bring LOWs.
To be honest I thought split firing is per "same kind of weapon", as that's how I ruled it. It only changes the equation from killing one unit really well to killing 20. At the end, you only need to have something standing afterwards to kill that lonely and weak model (if they go first).
To be frank, that uber model would lose every single game if he was 2000 points.
Tabling isn't a winning condition, so you just have to put something in reserve.
Yes, it is FAR too early to make judgements calls on whether this trend will continue, but for someone to come in and say that this is evidence that Marines aren't dominating the meta is a bit....silly. Again, extremely small sample size, but they are winning 50% of the tournaments atm
Custodes made to top 3 at 3 of them and won one, necrons placed twice and won one of them, 2 aeldari in 2nd places and an honourable tau. So it looks like it's a custodes meta as much as a marine one, with a sprinkling of elf bs and necrons getting some teeth back maybe.
In all likelihood a lot of people won't have pivoted fully in or with the meta until after LVO, the early data is interesting but we need nephilim to rotate out fully I think. It doesn't look to be marines so much as a "multi wound 2+ save" meta.
Canadian 5th wrote: Anti-tank is also anti-3W infantry. Action fodder could also be used for movement blocking and units only taken to be cheap and useless probably aren't healthy for the game anyway. Movement blockers should probably end up as decent melee units so your screening unit has at least some teeth.
If you work at making it so all units can do a couple of different things and nerfing/buffing the outliers you start seeing fewer single-use units.
You keep nitpicking the details of how you would prevent the specific example from happening and avoiding the actual point: that even if every unit in a codex is balanced individually not every combination of those units will be balanced. An all-tank list that takes no screening infantry will struggle. An all-infantry list that takes no heavy or special weapons will struggle. A list that refuses to take any buff characters will struggle. A list that doesn't take any action fodder will struggle. Etc. Unless you completely homogenize the entire game so that the only difference between units and armies is aesthetic you will always have the possibility to pick combinations of units that do not work well together and do not have a coherent plan for winning the game. And the people who deliberately do this will always skew your data away from 50% win rates even if the game is perfectly balanced.
It's just another way to filter data and try to understand why there was a blowout in any given game.
But how does it help you understand? Unless you go through each game individually and analyze the specific choices that were made, something that is not practical in large-scale data analysis, the filter tells you nothing of value because it can't distinguish between multiple situations.
You could show a bad list by showing that lists that take [insert unit or units] tends to do worse than the average list for that faction
Except it's not just single units. For example a single 6-man storm trooper squad is an excellent choice for a guard list. It's cheap and it can deep strike so it's excellent action fodder. Deep strike in, score RND, score a table quarters objective, and who cares if it dies after that because it has already done its job. Taking ten of these units would be a bad idea because you don't need that much action fodder and they aren't good at anything else. So there's no way to simply filter by "had a storm trooper squad" and learn anything of value. You'd have to set far more complex search criteria and then argue about whether or not something is really a "bad list" and I'm not doing all that work just to prove that water is in fact wet. If you won't listen to direct statements from the people who run major events then nothing is going to change your mind about this.
What? You look at the data with 0-2 starts removed as a lens, not as a thing you apply the other lenses to... It's like you have no clue how to analyze data.
Lolwut. How does removing 0-2 starts tell you anything without also looking at "faction prevalence, average points per battle, average placement at the end of tournaments, list diversity with that faction, etc"? Removing 0-2 starts is not a metric, it's a modification to the data set. Without looking at one of the metrics you listed (or win rate, TIWP, etc) you have learned literally nothing. If I have a set of numbers {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} and I remove everything below 3 I get {3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} but until I apply some kind of metric to the data all I have is a meaningless list of numbers.
And the reality is that most metrics will be skewed by removing 0-2 starts, with the exception of those that already only look at the top of the standings (top 4 count, TIWP, etc). You can not get accurate results if you start by removing the data that contains a disproportionate share of the balance problems!
Aecus Decimus wrote: And the people who deliberately do this will always skew your data away from 50% win rates even if the game is perfectly balanced.
Only if they only play specific factions and never play mirrors. You also never showed your evidence that they're a large enough fraction of players to have an impact on the data.
But how does it help you understand? Unless you go through each game individually and analyze the specific choices that were made, something that is not practical in large-scale data analysis, the filter tells you nothing of value because it can't distinguish between multiple situations.
If you see trends in lists that always get blown out and see that lists that get blown out tend to sideboard less often than average it can help to understand if there's a balance issue or a player issue.
Except it's not just single units. For example a single 6-man storm trooper squad is an excellent choice for a guard list. It's cheap and it can deep strike so it's excellent action fodder. Deep strike in, score RND, score a table quarters objective, and who cares if it dies after that because it has already done its job. Taking ten of these units would be a bad idea because you don't need that much action fodder and they aren't good at anything else. So there's no way to simply filter by "had a storm trooper squad" and learn anything of value. You'd have to set far more complex search criteria and then argue about whether or not something is really a "bad list" and I'm not doing all that work just to prove that water is in fact wet. If you won't listen to direct statements from the people who run major events then nothing is going to change your mind about this.
Ignoring that there would always be trends in which lists do well and which lists do poorly. It might be that more than one 6-man stormtrooper unit is an indicator of a lower-than-average win rate, or that a specific loadout on a unit is underperforming. It shouldn't be that hard to understand what a bad list is by examining the data.
You run tournaments now because I haven't seen you post any direct statements from anybody.
Lolwut. How does removing 0-2 starts tell you anything without also looking at "faction prevalence, average points per battle, average placement at the end of tournaments, list diversity with that faction, etc"?
You pull the 0-2 starts to get a better look at what skilled players are doing and to filter out the worst lists. You then apply a weight to that data set, then you might look at the set that has the 5-0 and 4-1 lists removed to see what average players are doing.
And the reality is that most metrics will be skewed by removing 0-2 starts, with the exception of those that already only look at the top of the standings (top 4 count, TIWP, etc). You can not get accurate results if you start by removing the data that contains a disproportionate share of the balance problems!
You seem hung up on a single method of filtering data while missing the fact that you'd want to slice up data in many different ways while looking at as much of it as possible. You'd hopefully be able to spot balance issues within the data set pretty easily and might even be able to make a heuristic for what will cause a faction an x% WR bump or cause a unit to appear in x% more lists. This is basically what the League team is able to do by looking at data at different skill brackets and with their system that picks champions for small buffs each patch to generally keep things balanced.
I want to get 40k to that same state and that will take a massive amount of data gathering and analysis.
TLDR; GW needs to do a deep dive into 40k results and find patterns in their data that allow them to cull lists and play patterns that would otherwise poison their data. My specific ideas may not be the best way to do that but I don't believe that such analysis is impossible even if I do think that it would be very difficult and likely beyond GWs scope and skill level to implement. There are also issues of simply not gathering enough data (only looking at sanctioned tournaments) and there not being enough games of 40k played to generate the required data. I think this gap could be filled by AI who could likely be trained to play 40k at least as well as the current playtesting team and at a far quicker rate too.
SemperMortis wrote: Yes, it is FAR too early to make judgements calls on whether this trend will continue, but for someone to come in and say that this is evidence that Marines aren't dominating the meta is a bit....silly. Again, extremely small sample size, but they are winning 50% of the tournaments atm
It's too early to say what the results will be, but it's a terrible idea because GW has no idea what the effect will be, that and the bad game design principles it's based on is enough to say the change shouldn't have been made. If the meta somehow turns out fantastic it'll have been pure luck.
vict0988 wrote: If the meta somehow turns out fantastic it'll have been pure luck.
Yea, I agree with that statement. I don't think they would have had time to test these changes enough for things to be "good" with confidence. We're definitely going to see some messy gak.
The next month or three is going to be indicative of home these changes effect the meta and again, based on my analysis of the buffs and this first 4 GT sized events, I'm thinking my prediction that SM's are going to dominate the meta. And as a reminder, when I say SM I don't mean SM as a whole, but specific chapters are going to excel.
SemperMortis wrote: The next month or three is going to be indicative of home these changes effect the meta and again, based on my analysis of the buffs and this first 4 GT sized events, I'm thinking my prediction that SM's are going to dominate the meta. And as a reminder, when I say SM I don't mean SM as a whole, but specific chapters are going to excel.
SemperMortis wrote: The next month or three is going to be indicative of home these changes effect the meta and again, based on my analysis of the buffs and this first 4 GT sized events, I'm thinking my prediction that SM's are going to dominate the meta. And as a reminder, when I say SM I don't mean SM as a whole, but specific chapters are going to excel.
With space marines it's always a few chapters that are doing very well in tournaments. Just like with every other faction and their subfactions. Even if they're all good there will be optimum ones to take. So that's what people go for.
That said, the important thing here is that marines are doing extremely well so I guess that people will be tooling against space marines even more than normal. And, very importantly, I fear that marines being this strong really won't be fun on a more local and less competitive level.
SemperMortis wrote: The next month or three is going to be indicative of home these changes effect the meta and again, based on my analysis of the buffs and this first 4 GT sized events, I'm thinking my prediction that SM's are going to dominate the meta. And as a reminder, when I say SM I don't mean SM as a whole, but specific chapters are going to excel.
Care to add some nuance, which ones and why?
DA seem to be the front runner right now. My best guess would be that Iron Hands get some mileage from this as well. Blood Angels got a lot less from this than others but still seem to be doing well (way to early to be sure though). I don't pretend to be an expert on all things SM so we will see when the competitive SM players start developing their new lists. I'm looking forward to this weeks tournament results though.
The Meta is out for AoO games for the past weekend and it's a bit of a mixed bag, but marines definitely shining in many areas, but only winning 2 out of 7.
Results are definitely sloppier than Nephilim. Codex Warfare getting nerfed to 1 point per kill for Devastator doctrine kills would probably take a lot of steam away from IH. At present scoring that is just so stupidly simple and it seems pretty clear that whomever wrote the secondaries was not talking to the person who decided to lift the doctrine restrictions.
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: The winning IH list is as follows:
Lieutenant
Techmarine
2x5 Infiltrator
1x5 Incursor
3x Redemptor - Plasma
Contemptor - Volkite
2x5 VVLC & SS 2x Suppressors
2x5 Devs - 2x MM 2x Grav
1x Pod
Items in red are the only real things of consequence, which comes to an extra 230 points.
So I don't think it's free points making IH strong, but rather Codex Warfare and all game Devastator.
Don't forget that some units got cheaper per model as well, which we should include when talking about how Marines fare after the update. I would not brush off 230 extra points from wargear alone. With your regular Marine at 18 points a pop you are looking at ~12 MEQ bodies less on the board to soak damage, do actions or engage enemy units otherwise.
While it definitely helps, it does seem IH and Dark Angels (and potentially IF) are on an entire different tier of their own, with all other Marine subfactions being far far behind.
Tyran wrote: I admit I'm always confused when they put Codex Space Marines as a different faction and it is clearly not a congregate of all Marine subfactions.
Probably because of the different impacts the Super-Doctrines can have?
Out of interest, how many weeks of sub-40% results for LoV before people will admit they got over-nerfed?
Tyran wrote: I admit I'm always confused when they put Codex Space Marines as a different faction and it is clearly not a congregate of all Marine subfactions.
Probably because of the different impacts the Super-Doctrines can have?
Out of interest, how many weeks of sub-40% results for LoV before people will admit they got over-nerfed?
To quote some posters "I hope they go too far and don't sell to teach GW a lesson for at least a year" was in the pre-nerf thread.
a_typical_hero wrote: Don't forget that some units got cheaper per model as well, which we should include when talking about how Marines fare after the update. I would not brush off 230 extra points from wargear alone. With your regular Marine at 18 points a pop you are looking at ~12 MEQ bodies less on the board to soak damage, do actions or engage enemy units otherwise.
There's certainly a handful of other savings, but the community focus has been on free wargear so it's going to be important to distinguish what parts are really driving the wonky results. So far I don't think it's primarily points. Or, if it is points, then it ties in with how the rules interact.
For IH I think it's mostly rules stacking along with a very favorable secondary. For DA I think it's points along with their rules to create super tough and cheap termies.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's certainly a handful of other savings, but the community focus has been on free wargear so it's going to be important to distinguish what parts are really driving the wonky results. So far I don't think it's primarily points. Or, if it is points, then it ties in with how the rules interact.
For IH I think it's mostly rules stacking along with a very favorable secondary. For DA I think it's points along with their rules to create super tough and cheap termies.
I guess you can say it matters for determining what to change (if anything) - but its always going to be a package.
I'm going to keep holding out for example that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with White Scars rules - its just that the alternatives are better.
Daedalus81 wrote: marines definitely shining in many areas, but only winning 2 out of 7.
In Related news The Chicago Bears are looking up with an 84 Ranked Running Back, and the top overall pick in the Draft, but closed out the season with a 3-14 record. The Houston Rockets had three players named to the Jordan Rising Stars event but will be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs shortly after the midseason All-Star Break. Its a bold prognosticator that decides looking like Michael Irvin right before a Cowboys Game is going to improve his credibility.
Lieutenant
Techmarine
2x5 Infiltrator
1x5 Incursor
3x Redemptor - Plasma
Contemptor - Volkite
2x5 VVLC & SS 2x Suppressors
2x5 Devs - 2x MM 2x Grav
1x Pod
Last I checked, Devastators went up in PPM, and still pay (but less so) for MM meaning the MM are not free, and definitely not 80 points worth free. Likewise Vanguard Veterans not only still pay for Jump Packs, Lightning Claws, Stormshields and other things, they still pay the same at least for the Lightning Claws and Storm Shields. They still pay for power fists.
Items in red are the only real things of consequence, which comes to an extra 230 points.
So I don't think it's free points making IH strong, but rather Codex Warfare and all game Devastator.
I was going to ask if you were having an honesty or an accuracy problem but given that your 230 points of "freebies" is off by 114+ or more out of your 230 claimed points, I'm not sure if makes a difference. If you can't get basic facts like the two biggest chunks of what you're going to call free gear aren't actually free and still cost points, how much credibility will your analysis get?
Don't forget that some units got cheaper per model as well, which we should include when talking about how Marines fare after the update. I would not brush off 230 extra points from wargear alone. With your regular Marine at 18 points a pop you are looking at ~12 MEQ bodies less on the board to soak damage, do actions or engage enemy units otherwise.
Don't forget that repeating something that is not true does not make it true. Wanting a thing to be true does not make it true. People who tell you what you want to hear does not make it true. 5 minutes with the official PDF would have also told you this was not true. Willfully ignoring almost a month of people telling you it wasn't all free, and it wasn't free everywhere doesn't make it true. He's off at least 114 points, and an argument could be made for being off by 164 or more.
Don't forget that repeating something that is not true does not make it true. Wanting a thing to be true does not make it true. People who tell you what you want to hear does not make it true. 5 minutes with the official PDF would have also told you this was not true. Willfully ignoring almost a month of people telling you it wasn't all free, and it wasn't free everywhere doesn't make it true. He's off at least 114 points, and an argument could be made for being off by 164 or more.
You can try not to forget to not be a dick about it as well. I don't have a horse in this race as I'm not even playing 9th edition -> I don't really care if Marines are better because of x or y. I was simply pointing out that wargear cost alone is not the full picture if model costs changed as well.
Don't forget that repeating something that is not true does not make it true. Wanting a thing to be true does not make it true. People who tell you what you want to hear does not make it true. 5 minutes with the official PDF would have also told you this was not true. Willfully ignoring almost a month of people telling you it wasn't all free, and it wasn't free everywhere doesn't make it true. He's off at least 114 points, and an argument could be made for being off by 164 or more.
You can try not to forget to not be a dick about it as well. I don't have a horse in this race as I'm not even playing 9th edition -> I don't really care if Marines are better because of x or y. I was simply pointing out that wargear cost alone is not the full picture if model costs changed as well.
And yet, as I pointed out after nearly a month of people pointing out wargear isn't free everywhere even for Marines, we still have people trying to say it is. For not having a horse in the race, you're sure running the narrative.
Don't forget that repeating something that is not true does not make it true. Wanting a thing to be true does not make it true. People who tell you what you want to hear does not make it true. 5 minutes with the official PDF would have also told you this was not true. Willfully ignoring almost a month of people telling you it wasn't all free, and it wasn't free everywhere doesn't make it true. He's off at least 114 points, and an argument could be made for being off by 164 or more.
You can try not to forget to not be a dick about it as well. I don't have a horse in this race as I'm not even playing 9th edition -> I don't really care if Marines are better because of x or y. I was simply pointing out that wargear cost alone is not the full picture if model costs changed as well.
So someone who doesn't play the game & doesn't care is trying to make a point about said game by using incorrect #s/math....
Why??
Breton wrote: I was going to ask if you were having an honesty or an accuracy problem but given that your 230 points of "freebies" is off by 114+ or more out of your 230 claimed points, I'm not sure if makes a difference. If you can't get basic facts like the two biggest chunks of what you're going to call free gear aren't actually free and still cost points, how much credibility will your analysis get?
1) I did a quick run up against the old MFM and made the mistake of assuming that VV had full free upgrades. People make mistakes?
2) I already mentioned I don't care about body cost, because everyone is freaking out about wargear as that is the intent of the initial post.
3) You seem fit to try and attack me as if I am trying to claim that free wargear is bad or something? Honestly I can't tell with your absurd attempt to call me deceitful.
Ultimately this would make it even more the point that IH aren't winning on point cuts and the problem is going to be rule stacking so thanks for helping to reinforce my point, I guess? Take a chill pill next time.
1) I did a quick run up against the old MFM and made the mistake of assuming that VV had full free upgrades. People make mistakes?
Despite a month of people pointing it out, and even frequently pointing specifically to VV as a specific example?
2) I already mentioned I don't care about body cost, because everyone is freaking out about wargear as that is the intent of the initial post.
Except the rise in Devastator Body Cost offsets quite a bit of that free Wargear.
3) You seem fit to try and attack me as if I am trying to claim that free wargear is bad or something? Honestly I can't tell with your absurd attempt to call me deceitful.
Who can tell what you're trying to claim when you drastically overstate the levels of "free" wargear as the reason free wargear is not important - especially without the context of what other units improved or not with the "free" wargear.
Ultimately this would make it even more the point that IH aren't winning on point cuts and the problem is going to be rule stacking so thanks for helping to reinforce my point, I guess? Take a chill pill next time.
Of the two of us, who was in such a hurry to point out yet another problem with Space Marines they tripped over the basic step of looking at the current MFM so they could lay out a new "problem" with Marine armies winning and needs the chill pill? Are you sure you don't want to incorporate some of the other "problems" with Space Marines like the what was it 20 new releases out of 150 or so - you know, more than half - being Space Marines?
The overall point about free wargear is certainly borne out by the real and honest facts. Not so much by repeating the deceitful ones and trying to make a claim that flies in the face of said inaccuracies.
Breton wrote: Are you sure you don't want to incorporate some of the other "problems" with Space Marines like the what was it 20 new releases out of 150 or so - you know, more than half - being Space Marines?
Man, wouldn't it just suck if the person that said that then double-checked themselves, acknowledged what they said was inaccurate, and actually went out of their way to find the actual numbers?
Boy, that would really put a damper on your whole "Anyone who dislikes the massive amount of attention Marines get is just a rabid hater," narrative.
I love the lack of critical thinking involved in this post. "Haha! Marines only won a 2nd place in an 8 round 200+ person GT, clearly you are wrong OP!" They also went 1st and 3rd in the WTC Spain tournament, but in fairness that was a 46 player tournament. SO out of 2 GT sized events they won....3 out of the top 6 places. Yeah definitely not top tier.
I think it stands sufficiently in contrast with the opening statement for this thread. Potentially they didn't overvalue AoC. But, of course it is still really early and lots can change.
It is also pretty notable that none of the marines that did ( visibly ) well consisted of any significant amount of shooting.
Literally the first two results for AoO I have seen, so yeah very much early and I have a strong feeling that its only going to get worse, not better. Because realistically what is the counter to free stuff? Yeah, Marines are squishier now then before, but you can also take more of them. I do find it a bit...interesting, that the two armies that did take troops, still took Infiltrators instead of just tac Marines with a free heavy weapon and a Sgt with an upgraded weapon. I guess the forward deploy and the Free Helix Gauntlet is just too good for 200pts as opposed to 180pts of Tac Marines with 2 Multi-Meltas (Or Lascannons) and 2 Combi Meltas (or plasmas) and 2 Thunderhammers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As a side note, I apologize, there were two other smaller GTs that utilized AoO, so Marines only finished with 4 out of 12 top 3 finishes...2 of which were 1st place.
Those tac marines will get shot out of board generally before getting to shoot.
And seeing how overpriced they were before AND losing AOC...
Of course they could have made tac marines 14pts/model base and weapon price. Better?
Assuming 14 points makes Tacticals viable without being overpowered and makes their weapon options viable without being overpowered then that is obviously better than Tacticals being unviable and their options being relatively overpowered to a naked unit.
14 point tac marines would move them too much toward horde, which many don't like. Between the two solutions I prefer them costing more with the cost of the weapon baked in.
Units of 5 Space Marines should cost the same as units of 10, I just like the 10-man units better, so now you should all have to play 10-man units. /sarcasm
1) I did a quick run up against the old MFM and made the mistake of assuming that VV had full free upgrades. People make mistakes?
Despite a month of people pointing it out, and even frequently pointing specifically to VV as a specific example?
2) I already mentioned I don't care about body cost, because everyone is freaking out about wargear as that is the intent of the initial post.
Except the rise in Devastator Body Cost offsets quite a bit of that free Wargear.
3) You seem fit to try and attack me as if I am trying to claim that free wargear is bad or something? Honestly I can't tell with your absurd attempt to call me deceitful.
Who can tell what you're trying to claim when you drastically overstate the levels of "free" wargear as the reason free wargear is not important - especially without the context of what other units improved or not with the "free" wargear.
Ultimately this would make it even more the point that IH aren't winning on point cuts and the problem is going to be rule stacking so thanks for helping to reinforce my point, I guess? Take a chill pill next time.
Of the two of us, who was in such a hurry to point out yet another problem with Space Marines they tripped over the basic step of looking at the current MFM so they could lay out a new "problem" with Marine armies winning and needs the chill pill? Are you sure you don't want to incorporate some of the other "problems" with Space Marines like the what was it 20 new releases out of 150 or so - you know, more than half - being Space Marines?
The overall point about free wargear is certainly borne out by the real and honest facts. Not so much by repeating the deceitful ones and trying to make a claim that flies in the face of said inaccuracies.
All that and I still think you don't understand what I'm saying.
Breton wrote: I was going to ask if you were having an honesty or an accuracy problem but given that your 230 points of "freebies" is off by 114+ or more out of your 230 claimed points, I'm not sure if makes a difference. If you can't get basic facts like the two biggest chunks of what you're going to call free gear aren't actually free and still cost points, how much credibility will your analysis get?
1) I did a quick run up against the old MFM and made the mistake of assuming that VV had full free upgrades. People make mistakes?
2) I already mentioned I don't care about body cost, because everyone is freaking out about wargear as that is the intent of the initial post.
3) You seem fit to try and attack me as if I am trying to claim that free wargear is bad or something? Honestly I can't tell with your absurd attempt to call me deceitful.
Ultimately this would make it even more the point that IH aren't winning on point cuts and the problem is going to be rule stacking so thanks for helping to reinforce my point, I guess? Take a chill pill next time.
Even if the math is wrong, 100+ points of free gear is still 100+ points of free gear. Individual Rhinos were bad in 7th, but guess what happens when they're essentially free?
I'd wager a couple more tournaments and people will break the free wargear.
EviscerationPlague wrote: It wasn't the right thread, but Breton is right that people overly complain about Loyalist Scum.
I'd wager a couple more tournaments and people will break the free wargear.
Again, rare occasion I agree on all accounts. I also think the free gear thing is a tricky situation as for the largest majority of the player base, casuals and garage hammers, local tourney and groups etc. People aren't likely to run out and buy 27 thunder hammers and rip all their models hands off etc. So any carte blanche changes to base costs will wildly impact the none tournament winners far more.
EviscerationPlague wrote: It wasn't the right thread, but Breton is right that people overly complain about Loyalist Scum.
I'd wager a couple more tournaments and people will break the free wargear.
Again, rare occasion I agree on all accounts. I also think the free gear thing is a tricky situation as for the largest majority of the player base, casuals and garage hammers, local tourney and groups etc. People aren't likely to run out and buy 27 thunder hammers and rip all their models hands off etc. So any carte blanche changes to base costs will wildly impact the none tournament winners far more.
It doesn't need to be Thunder Hammers alone though. Many people, including myself, have used Sergeants with Power Fists on the off chance we need to charge something or get stuck in. It was points you paid for on a situation that you didn't necessarily know if you'd go into.
Big case in point, I revamped a Black Templars list with two squads of Sternguard. Not only did those Multi-Meltas become free, but the Power Fists I paid for on those Sergeants, due to being a melee Chapter and wanting to get mileage of rerolling charges, became free as well.
I think Daed's point is that what makes a good 40k list in the modern game - certainly in the Nephilim season, and presumably continuing into Arks of Omen - is usually beyond pure mathhammer. This isn't to say you want to take units which have explicitly worse mathhammer if they do the same thing. But its usually functionality that ensures you get objectives and deny other people objectives.
So focusing on say "this is stupid, a tactical marine squad with an MM is clearly better than a naked tactical marine squad" doesn't necessarily tell you how either are useful in maxing out your objectives. It tells you they are better in a garage style game where you push your models into each other and the winner is the last man standing - but that's not really the rules any more.
So for example yes, on paper, 5 tactical marines with a thunder hammer, combi-melta and an MM would seem better than 5 infiltrators (which cost more points to boot). But those infiltrators bring things other than damage. They get that forward deploy and the no reinforcements in 12". Its bringing functionality that the tactical marines just don't have. Now admittedly you might say "but what if I really need to kill a tank" but you've probably got other stuff in your list that could do that.
I mean I feel fairly safe in saying a Terminator with a Thunder hammer and Storm Shield shouldn't be 33 points - and while chucking down 30 may not be an auto-win for top players, its going to be incredibly obnoxious for garage hammer when people shove them across the table. But me saying "33 points is bonkers, compare them to say Axe/shield Wraithblades or Hearthguard costing 45" that doesn't tell us a lot about how tournaments are going to go.
EviscerationPlague wrote: It wasn't the right thread, but Breton is right that people overly complain about Loyalist Scum.
I'd wager a couple more tournaments and people will break the free wargear.
Again, rare occasion I agree on all accounts. I also think the free gear thing is a tricky situation as for the largest majority of the player base, casuals and garage hammers, local tourney and groups etc. People aren't likely to run out and buy 27 thunder hammers and rip all their models hands off etc. So any carte blanche changes to base costs will wildly impact the none tournament winners far more.
It doesn't need to be Thunder Hammers alone though. Many people, including myself, have used Sergeants with Power Fists on the off chance we need to charge something or get stuck in. It was points you paid for on a situation that you didn't necessarily know if you'd go into.
Big case in point, I revamped a Black Templars list with two squads of Sternguard. Not only did those Multi-Meltas become free, but the Power Fists I paid for on those Sergeants, due to being a melee Chapter and wanting to get mileage of rerolling charges, became free as well.
The real question isn't about them being free. The question is does the current point value (free wargear and all) properly reflect the unit value in the game?
Assuming your example is a 5 Sternguard with 2 Multi-Meltas and a Power Fist which is closer to the unit's value?
Nephalim (MFM 2022 MkII): 150 points (20/model + 20 per MM + 10 for PF) with AOC
Arks of Omen (MFM 2023 MK1): 100 Points, but no AOC
I'm not saying that Sternguard with no upgrade cost are fine, but that's mostly because you can upgrade every model to a Combi-weapon of some sort, not because you don't pay for Sgt and special/heavy weapon upgrades.
Doesn't this get even sillier when we take chapter bonuses into account? What did BA assault Terminators cost before this, versus now, with all their +1 shenanigans....
Breton wrote: Are you sure you don't want to incorporate some of the other "problems" with Space Marines like the what was it 20 new releases out of 150 or so - you know, more than half - being Space Marines?
Man, wouldn't it just suck if the person that said that then double-checked themselves, acknowledged what they said was inaccurate, and actually went out of their way to find the actual numbers?
Boy, that would really put a damper on your whole "Anyone who dislikes the massive amount of attention Marines get is just a rabid hater," narrative.
Nah, it just makes it an easier point to make as bias replacing facts just happened again by someone who called SM winning a problem.
Of course they could have made tac marines 14pts/model base and weapon price. Better?
Its not going to be just the Tacs. A Tac Body is the baseline cost for Firstborn. So 14pt Tac Marines means 14 Point Assault Marines, and 14 Point Devs. That may or may not translate out to the *-Veteran and Scout Squads but Scouts would be more likely than Veterans. I'm also not really sure why Tacs are more vulnerable than Intercessors, Infiltrators etc. I mean I know what's going to come up, but its not Every Primaris Squad on the board etc.
Assuming they aren't getting split, I'd prefer/suspect to see the Strat either drop first/primaris restrictions, or a second strat for first born working off of their pride and/or experience window dressing to get to the same place.
All that and I still think you don't understand what I'm saying.
What's to understand? You said you think it's not the weapon prices, then told the whole world you didn't listen to the people who had already pointed out not all wargear everywhere was free, or do even the basic research necessary to come to that conclusion before finishing with SM winning being a problem.
I'd wager a couple more tournaments and people will break the free wargear.
I'm less sure. The first few places you're looking to get that free wargear, the wargear isn't free. When people first misrepresented the free wargear, the first thing I did was go to the MFM PDF and look at Vanguard Vets. They don't get it. Neither do Company Vets. Company Vets didn't even drop to 18 points a body. Some units have reslotted themselves in the pecking order, but I don't see radical changes. Sternguard can't get Stormshields. Cent Devs are still too expensive to not get Rerolls. There's some interesting potential for MSU Ravenwing that hasn't been looked at as much as the more obvious Deathwing.
I keep looking at the units that get "free wargear" and most often I see "standing out" on a Primaris unit's weapon swaps. And even then, the unit usually still isn't worth it. Eliminators? Not enough bodies to generate not enough shots, even if the las fusil is free. You can get more/better las talons easier/cheaper/better on multiple platforms. For example the Firestrike. Which still isn't really worth it. Most of the lists I made before hand ended up with about 300'ish points of space after the MFM dropped, but it was nickel and dime stuff like the points drop on characters, Chapter Command, etc. The biggest chunk change was the Aggressors with Boltstorms. And people taking boltstorms were still taking them, people taking Firestorms usually didnt do it because they were cheaper.
That all adds up to this functioning more like simple points drops because the "free wargear" isn't particularly spammable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Doesn't this get even sillier when we take chapter bonuses into account? What did BA assault Terminators cost before this, versus now, with all their +1 shenanigans....
The same as everyone else? I think BA get their Terminators from the SM Codex not their supplement. They get some value-added bonus to their Terminators with Strats and the like but I still think BA want to lean into DC/VV/SG in the Elites slot (They get basically the same Deep Strike ability, and better movement) - possibly using the Jumpers to tarpit a unit until the Terminators can get a charge off. DA are rightly the ones who might want to lean into Terminators as they can give Terminators ObSec, have added Terminator/Deathwing based strats, and can synergize Plasma Canon Terminators with their base Chapter Tactic.
I think the free wargear will play a part in the success of SM in the AoO meta, and I'm pretty sure SM will be successful overall. However, I think a lot of lists and players are concentrating a little too much on stuffing as much of the free wargear as possible into lists right now. The real competitive lists will probably leverage that to a lesser degree but get most of their power from the always-on Devastator doctrine and how silly Codex Warfare is now for chapters that can take advantage of that Doctrine.
Slipspace wrote: I think the free wargear will play a part in the success of SM in the AoO meta, and I'm pretty sure SM will be successful overall. However, I think a lot of lists and players are concentrating a little too much on stuffing as much of the free wargear as possible into lists right now. The real competitive lists will probably leverage that to a lesser degree but get most of their power from the always-on Devastator doctrine and how silly Codex Warfare is now for chapters that can take advantage of that Doctrine.
This seems the sensible take, like Semper likes to say though, as marines are the normal and most common any changes in response to this might tank the faction for everyone but those who can manipulate free things, it's not impossible someone who can access and is willing to redesign their models might be able to pilot a top end list, someone who got lucky on what they own but plays casually might land in that same place playing outside of tourneys, but people who don't cater to this sort of things and just play what they have likely won't see such large upticks and might actually only just be sat at that 50/50 point.
As said earlier in this thread by others, GW's relative success/failure with this change isn't going to be entirely orchestrated, but it'll affect different players in ways massively depending if they try to change tact again.
it's not impossible someone who can access and is willing to redesign their models might be able to pilot a top end list,
Feel free to tell us which ways that happens? A month of people pointing out its not free everywhere, and people still try and float this. So lets hear it. Show us how.
it's not impossible someone who can access and is willing to redesign their models might be able to pilot a top end list,
Feel free to tell us which ways that happens? A month of people pointing out its not free everywhere, and people still try and float this. So lets hear it. Show us how.
Don't be so obtuse, it doesn't matter if they're free or not, the changes in the meta and the shift of what's "best" changes constantly, some players are capable of keeping pace either via access to endless piles of bits, commission painters or it being their literal job.
I don't have the lists of the winning factions but it's shown in here they do have more free stuff, by definition. If a gun that was previously overpriced for a unit is now free, they may switch.
I'm not talking about loading an army full of free gak like in the OP, I mean swapping for example the gun on a hellblaster on a whim due to a points change. Giving sargeants a combi bolter when they wouldn't before. That sort of thing. Small incremental tweaks.
Can you prove that adding in free upgrades doesn't help? You act as if every unit is still having baked in price increases, terminators for DA benefit from free upgrades for example and are showing to be an early top list contender.
Dudeface 808330 11487898 wrote:
Can you prove that adding in free upgrades doesn't help? You act as if every unit is still having baked in price increases, terminators for DA benefit from free upgrades for example and are showing to be an early top list contender.
For any faction? Because Grey knights got point drops, have no doctrines, got no changes to tides, and with the point drops the win rate actualy went down.
Dudeface 808330 11487898 wrote:
Can you prove that adding in free upgrades doesn't help? You act as if every unit is still having baked in price increases, terminators for DA benefit from free upgrades for example and are showing to be an early top list contender.
For any faction? Because Grey knights got point drops, have no doctrines, got no changes to tides, and with the point drops the win rate actualy went down.
GK kicked butt this past weekend in AoO tournaments, if I recall correctly, multiple placings, including at least 1 1st place.
GT 2nd place and GT 3rd place for GK, both lists used 4 Dreadknights, but we don't care about internal balance do we? The stat check podcast is 2 hours long and seems LVO centric and the 40kstats site didn't want to update and show me the win rate so I don't know about that.
Those tac marines will get shot out of board generally before getting to shoot.
And seeing how overpriced they were before AND losing AOC...
Of course they could have made tac marines 14pts/model base and weapon price. Better?
LVO Ork list took a unit of Lootas (go figure). To kill a loota takes basically 5.4 bolter shots. 5.4 shots, 3.6 hits, 1.2 wounds, 1 failed armor save. So to kill 5 of them takes 27 bolter shots. To kill 1 Tac Marine takes 18 bolter shots. So to kill 5 of them takes 90 shots. 5 Lootas are 20pts cheaper than 5 Tac Marines, so there is a points difference, but durability wise...those Marines are literally 3x more durable vs Small Arms. So the argument that a Tac Marine is so flimsy that it gets shot off the table before being able to fire is....nonsense. Can it be done? yeah of course, but if you are focus firing a Tac squad instead of the real threats you will probably not last long.
Now, if you want to drop a Tac Marine down to the value of a Loota? GO for it, but that will just cause the tourny players to swamp the board with Marine bodies because no matter what, a T4 2W 3+ model is still incredibly durable, just not vs weapons that are geared towards killing them (Plasma, Melta etc.)
As far as overpriced....I mean, in a meta where 60% or more of the armies you are going to face are running 3+ armor on average...yeah, but only because as I said, everyone builds into that defensive profile. Why did Ork hordes do well in late 8th? Because nobody was prepared to face 120-150 throw away models that relied on a 5++ and a FNP instead of armor.
Give it another 2-3 weeks and we are going to start seeing the meta normalize. And as I said, i still predict factions of Marines to be the new Top Tier.
vict0988 wrote: GT 2nd place and GT 3rd place for GK, both lists used 4 Dreadknights, but we don't care about internal balance do we? The stat check podcast is 2 hours long and seems LVO centric and the 40kstats site didn't want to update and show me the win rate so I don't know about that.
It is not a question of internal balance, but placing of the faction over all. The GK , when played under Omen rule set, went over all, down in win rates. I remember that when the first ad mecha mega nerfs came out, the faction was considered dead. And for the mythical 99% of players it was, they dropped to like under 40% win rates. At the same time some genius mega brain won a huge tournament with them. Which resulted in more ad mecha nerfs, which may I say was funny to watch.
Placing of single players give in top groups for GK are not as high for other faction, specialy not the ones that 50%+ win rate. GK win rates actualy went down with omen.
Because unlike almost all other loyalist they didn't get the more important buff to army rules. IMO if all factions get point drops, or at least most do, then the impact of the changes is small. And if it is big, GW decides it is a typo an plasmaceptors are back to being not worth taking. .
GK kicked butt this past weekend in AoO tournaments, if I recall correctly, multiple placings, including at least 1 1st place.
but the over all placement of GK armies went down. While for example eldar, Inari and even harlequin, with the last one being very low represented, have very good as in +50%, win rates. That is the difference. It is very hard right now to play, lets say a DA or IH list. At the same time armies that share the doctrine changes did not see a huge bust in win rates, while others like BA have seen a drop, because losing AoC is a huge blow to sang guard.
vict0988 wrote: GT 2nd place and GT 3rd place for GK, both lists used 4 Dreadknights, but we don't care about internal balance do we? The stat check podcast is 2 hours long and seems LVO centric and the 40kstats site didn't want to update and show me the win rate so I don't know about that.
It is not a question of internal balance, but placing of the faction over all. The GK , when played under Omen rule set, went over all, down in win rates. I remember that when the first ad mecha mega nerfs came out, the faction was considered dead. And for the mythical 99% of players it was, they dropped to like under 40% win rates. At the same time some genius mega brain won a huge tournament with them. Which resulted in more ad mecha nerfs, which may I say was funny to watch.
Placing of single players give in top groups for GK are not as high for other faction, specialy not the ones that 50%+ win rate. GK win rates actualy went down with omen.
Because unlike almost all other loyalist they didn't get the more important buff to army rules. IMO if all factions get point drops, or at least most do, then the impact of the changes is small. And if it is big, GW decides it is a typo an plasmaceptors are back to being not worth taking. .
GK kicked butt this past weekend in AoO tournaments, if I recall correctly, multiple placings, including at least 1 1st place.
but the over all placement of GK armies went down. While for example eldar, Inari and even harlequin, with the last one being very low represented, have very good as in +50%, win rates. That is the difference. It is very hard right now to play, lets say a DA or IH list. At the same time armies that share the doctrine changes did not see a huge bust in win rates, while others like BA have seen a drop, because losing AoC is a huge blow to sang guard.
Plasma Inceptors are already back up.
That's literally already happened.
Low win rate can be explained by new players or bad internal balance.
Grey knights aren't exactly a newbie haven so its likely internal balance which means GK only have one or two possible competitive builds, which sucks but the fact remains that they as a faction have placed in GTs since AoO which means they are doing relatively ok compared to others.
Sadly for you, I have this feeling that GK fall into the category of least supported in terms of Power Armor armies. Thousand Sons, Death Guard and now GK. AoC being taken away was a nerf. The host of free stuff given to generic Marines was a massive buff, but a lot of factions which were relying on AoC to survive (TS/DG) got basically nothing compared to what Marines got so there is now a relatively noticeable power difference.
Tyran wrote: I admit I'm always confused when they put Codex Space Marines as a different faction and it is clearly not a congregate of all Marine subfactions.
Probably because of the different impacts the Super-Doctrines can have?
Out of interest, how many weeks of sub-40% results for LoV before people will admit they got over-nerfed?
To quote some posters "I hope they go too far and don't sell to teach GW a lesson for at least a year" was in the pre-nerf thread.
People saying that, quite frankly, are people not worth listening to.
I'm going to ask again, though, as someone who doesn't own a single LoV model, nor the 'dex - how many weeks of sub-40% results for LoV before people will admit they got over-nerfed, at least as it pertains to the state of the game with the AoO pack and current dataslate/MFM?
it's not impossible someone who can access and is willing to redesign their models might be able to pilot a top end list,
Feel free to tell us which ways that happens? A month of people pointing out its not free everywhere, and people still try and float this. So lets hear it. Show us how.
So we're clear here, you said the free stuff would let people tailor their lists. I said (again) that the freebies didn't really extend to the things you'd tailor lists with, so tell us how they're going to tailor lists for free stuff - and then you said:
Don't be so obtuse, it doesn't matter if they're free or not,
So which is it?
the changes in the meta and the shift of what's "best" changes constantly, some players are capable of keeping pace either via access to endless piles of bits, commission painters or it being their literal job.
I don't have the lists of the winning factions but it's shown in here they do have more free stuff, by definition. If a gun that was previously overpriced for a unit is now free, they may switch.
I'm not talking about loading an army full of free gak like in the OP, I mean swapping for example the gun on a hellblaster on a whim due to a points change. Giving sargeants a combi bolter when they wouldn't before. That sort of thing. Small incremental tweaks.
Hellblaster weapon swaps were already free. It's amazing how often the people railing against the evil Space Marines with their free stuff keep pointing to things that either aren't free or were already "free" that will result in things they don't have the list to prove. Who's being obtuse here, the people who point out the actual costs, or the people who don't bother to look up the before and after prices of Hellblasters, Vanguard Vets and Devastators because they just inherently KNOW the truth. Even when its not.
Can you prove that adding in free upgrades doesn't help? You act as if every unit is still having baked in price increases, terminators for DA benefit from free upgrades for example and are showing to be an early top list contender.
Well we could start with the fact that DA Termies always had this extra boost as part of their Chapter Tactics. Then we could swing past the place where I pointed out this is going to operate more like a points drop than cornucopia of free upgrades - and given that the new MFM includes points drop almost everywhere I'd say that's going to have a bigger impact than a few free combiweapons. We could (yet again) swing through the list of units that got the points drops/upgrades - most of which were bad before and did not become good after - landing in a Meh gray area.
HQ:
Most characters have fixed load out and got a 5-15 point drop.
Troops:
Most of the Troops Units also have a fairly locked in loadout with 1 or two Options - or Had a zero point weapon swap. And all but one got a points direct points drop. The one that didn't - Tacs - got most of their options zeroed. The big winner was Heavy Intercessors with a GIANT drop and free HBs.
Elites: A lot of chracters got the same 5-15 drop and have few to no options.
Aggresors - Were probably the big winners - now get free weaponswaps, but I doubt this will make anyone switch. Maybe a Salamander's player who isn't in love with flamers but even then, it's going to be rare.
Company Vets got screwed with their pants on this time around. They're the big loser.
Centurion Assaults - Price Drop, Free Swaps, and little point. They're slow, hard to transport, even if you can its a bad idea, not CORE so far behind equally slow but more synergistic and better point for point value Terminators and Aggressors for the same roles.
Dreads pretty much got points drop - the Firstborns get free gun arm swaps, most of which were minor to free in cost anyway.
Relic Terminators got a significant price drop. All their options were the same price, and you had to take two (plus one optional). Now all their options are still the same price and you still have to take two but they and their options are cheaper.
Reivers got a point drop, and freebie movement upgrades. They still aspire to become Meh and still look upon Firstborn Assault Marines with envy.
Scout Squads are - I think - pretty close to being good. Points drop + free sniper/Camo upgrades could make viable if not decent.
Terminator (shooty) got points drop, and a zero for their heavy weapon. Their fists were already free trades. I'm not sure the Cyclone was worth 2.5 Assault Cannons anyway and the Homer is a one trick pony gimmick.
Terminator Assaults were only paying for the Thunder hammer - and 2LC vs THSS have enough give and take to zero out.
Sternguard Vets - Like Tacs didn't get a price drop (there's a theme here) - but now get free swaps and heavies. Cookie Cutter players will put them in a Pod, as a sacrificial bomb. Its decent but still expensive and wasteful.
Vanguard Vets - Points drop, still pay for Packs, most of the things you want to spam still cost you points but those too usually got a points drop.
Veteran Intercessors - got points drop, free Sgt Upgrades and AuxGL's and are still one of the dumbest things in the codex.
Fast Attack:
Assault Squad: Like Tacs did not get points drops, but now get free upgrades, and Jump Packs - may actually be better than Meh.
Attack Bike Squad - Like Tacs did not get points drops, gets free weapon swaps.
Bike Squad, no points drop, small drop on the Multimelta on the attack bike if/when you take it.
Inceptors - No Points drop, and they stupidly put the points cost back on the Plasma.
Invaders - Points drop and free weapon swaps.
First Born Speeders (assorted)- Like Tacs, no points drop, free weapon swaps.
Outriders - points drop, still limited to 3 and only 3 so of dubious value - they benefit more from the AOO Det than the price drop.
Scout Bikes - Like Tacs, no Points drop, free swaps.
Primaris Speeders: Points drops, no options to pay for even if they did cost - the weapon options are built into the datasheets with no optional options. - but they're interesting at this price point
Heavy Support.
Centurion Devs. Price Drop and Free Weapon swaps. Still not CORE meaning a lot of Infantry Points that don't get a reroll bubble unless they stand next to Bobby G where they get the lesser one. Situational Winner - they're interesting but you'd have to build around them as more tank than Infantry.
Devastator Squads - Price INCREASE, and mostly free weapon swaps.
Eliminator Squads - Like Tacs, Same PPM, free weapon swaps. 3 Snipers 3 shots is still bad. 3 Lasfusils isn't good, but it isn't bad. Phobos theme, or heavy support for an infiltrating Troop has potential. Still not Good.
Eradicators - Like Tacs, Same PPM free weapon swaps. The weapon swaps are something of a double-edged sword if the E-Rads move. I didn't upgrade when they weren't free, still probably not now, though they've dropped from my list too because of the points drops allowing something else.
Firestrike Servo Turrets - No new PPM reduction, free weapon swaps. These guys are the primaris version of Cent Devs and in about the same place (interesting but have to be included with their drawbacks in mind) just even slower.
Gladiator Tanks (assorted) Price Drop, no significant weapon swaps (the Lancer has Stormbolter, or Basically Storm Bolter Launchers) All the dink and dunk Optional Options are now free.
Hellbalsters - PPM drop, and as mentioned their weapon swaps were already free. Giving the Sergeant a plasma pistol is also now free.
Hunter/Stalker - no change. They're the Rock Paper Scissors to aircraft.
Kratos - too new to change - probably Datasheeted with the upcoming MFM in mind.
Land Raiders(assorted). No recent PPM change - Optional Options now free.
Predators (assorted) No PPM change, Sponsons got a price drop.
Repulsors (assorted) Price Drop, Weapon swaps and addons now free. At the bottom edge of Meh if they're lucky.
Thunderfire Cannon - No drop, no swap.
Other Rhino Tank variants (Vindi, Whirlwind) Like Tacs, no points drop, but the optional options and the Launcher swap are now free.
Dedicated Transports:
A) Almost all transports are bad.
Drop Pod - No Drop, weapon swap was already free.
Impulsor - points drop, and rooftop doodad is now free. Makes it better but I'm not sure if that overcomes Transports Are Bad.
Land Speeder Storm No Drop, No Swap
Rhino, No Drop, free extra Storm Bolter.
Razorback no Drop, free swaps on top. - has potential for a mini armored force depending on local terrain density. Even if you don't use it as a transport non-flying metal boxes can have effective speed issues.
Rhino - no drop, free extra storm bolter!
Flyers - No Drop, Free Swaps
Storm Raven has the most cross chapter potential with the most "freebie" stuff given swaps and an Optional Option, plus the possible return of Terminators - offset by Transports Are Bad, and Gladiators/Redemptors get free AA guns that will rarely be used for AA.
The DA Jets, and Ravenwing in general have some interesting options open now that may get some looks after everyone gets past the Death Wing. Sadly the AOO Det does not take a Death/Raven Combination Wing into account - and will likely run out of elites or FA whichever you don't choose - which is the whole reason I picked up some Dark Angels way back in 5th or whatever. Still, using the preexisting double det system can make you what you want, just not as smoothly. Deahtwing Command Squads didn't get a direct drop, but they did get free wargear, Deathwing Knights got no drop, and had no options beyond the one turn one trick Watcher gimmick instead of the one turn one trick Homer Gimmick
That's the list. Most things got a price drop. Many things now get free swaps that will work like a price drop. Most of those things were bad, or the cost of the swap made little sense anyways. Few things got a price drop and free meaningful stuff. Most of these direct and indirect price drops will result in more stuff not necessarily different stuff. In my case it resulted in droppiong some Hellblasters for a couple speeders and tanks- but that was done for variety and shrinking the castle than anything- I could have added a MOF and some Redemptors to grow the castle but I chose not to. Which of those are the Smorgasbord of Free Wargear that's going to revolutionize the meta?
Do you feel better for writing out your thesis? Do those deathwing terminators now get cyclones for free? Assault Cannons for free? How about the rest of their gear?
Which factions in marines are coming out on top? Is it deathwing centric dark angels?
Then we could swing past the place where I pointed out this is going to operate more like a points drop than cornucopia of free upgrades
If I raid my bits box for a chainfist to replace a powerfist and a cyclone launcher, then put them on my (hypothetical) deathwing terminators, have I leveraged free stuff to make a stronger unit?
Are they winning because of the free stuff - no, are they going to be incrementally better because I chose to change an arm/hand and add something to one of the minis? Yes.
This is what I was talking about. Go lay down outside for a bit.
There seems to be more Ravenwing than Deathwing. Black Knights got 5 pts cheaper. Corvus hammers were free before this update for some reason, when clearly they shouldn't be. Making the power sword and power maul free also actually increased the internal balance because corvus hammers are still seemingly the best, now you're just not paying for the privilege of downgrading your weapon.
It'd also be a lot easier to compare points if GW listed changes...
If I raid my bits box for a chainfist to replace a powerfist and a cyclone launcher, then put them on my (hypothetical) deathwing terminators, have I leveraged free stuff to make a stronger unit?
You mean the chain fist that was the same price as a power fist before the change, and is still the same price as a power fist? You know that "thesis" you made fun even even told you this much. I mentioned that Terminator Fists were equal swaps before and they're equal swaps now. Of course, I'd like to know why you didn't raid your bits box for a 5pt Chainfist instead of the 5 point Power Fist in the first place - or why it makes a difference that a 0 poing chain fist can now replace a 0 point power fist - when the all the options cost the same, and you have to pick one of the options its not free wargear its a points drop. And no, you probably haven't leveraged the stuff - free or otherwise - to make a stronger unit. For example one of the reasons those Fists were and still are a flat swap is that you're trading Flat D2 for D3D and a bonus vs Vehicles. Beyond that the difference between the AC, the Plasma Cannon (for the DW specific squad), and the Cyclone are situational and depend on the rest of the unit and the army - especially in the DW Specific squad where you could be swapping Storm Bolters for 2LC or TH/SS
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: There seems to be more Ravenwing than Deathwing. Black Knights got 5 pts cheaper. Corvus hammers were free before this update for some reason, when clearly they shouldn't be. Making the power sword and power maul free also actually increased the internal balance because corvus hammers are still seemingly the best, now you're just not paying for the privilege of downgrading your weapon.
It'd also be a lot easier to compare points if GW listed changes...
The maul was odd man out, but the hammer and the sword were already somewhat even trades for relatively easily save-able D2 vs Hard to save D1. The maul though just had no place. At that point you were far better off - outside niche scenarios - to Plasma Talon whatever you were attacking - plus this swap is Sgt only meaning you'd give the Hammers to everyone else, and the power sword on the Sgt for a "hidden Power fist" effect only with a power sword. But their primary weapon is still the talon. Advance, Assault Plasma, with Strat if necessary - if you're leaning into if you'll also be adding Sammael, Command characters, and the speeder LT giving you another 2-3 Talons, a cannon, and some dakka from a bunch of 3+ 4++ T5 platforms.
Breton, you know what I missed that a chainfist was the same as a powerfist previously. You then immediately (well, a smalle ssay later) give a better example of trading it to a thunderhammer. So maybe less of a pedantic bunghole and discuss in the spirit of the topic?
I've been white Knight branded to oblivion multiple times for sticking up for Marines, despite often not having a horse in the race. I'm now wondering if the detractors were nearer the money than I thought.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'd really like it if Space Marines actually were an "Elite" faction, and had to pay costs appropriate to an "Elite" faction.
GW wants everyone to be elite, Orks are elite, bugs are elite, Guardsmen are elite.
What is the measure of elite?
Because it seems to me, as long as Marines as the most common faction, their baseline will never be elite. Since they're the norm.
It's a very interesting question, to me it's the number of models in the army, compared to most armies marines should have fewer boots on the ground, they should be better enough compared to others basic troops etc they are comparatively few in number.
I'd define it as the opposite of horde, whereas you're defining it as the opposite of common.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'd really like it if Space Marines actually were an "Elite" faction, and had to pay costs appropriate to an "Elite" faction.
GW wants everyone to be elite, Orks are elite, bugs are elite, Guardsmen are elite.
What is the measure of elite?
Because it seems to me, as long as Marines as the most common faction, their baseline will never be elite. Since they're the norm.
It's a very interesting question, to me it's the number of models in the army, compared to most armies marines should have fewer boots on the ground, they should be better enough compared to others basic troops etc they are comparatively few in number.
I'd define it as the opposite of horde, whereas you're defining it as the opposite of common.
That's a fair definition, methinks. As not the one I'd use by default, but a reasonable one to use.
But are Marines elite by that measure? In some cases, for sure-against an Infantry Guard or Nid horde, yes.
In other cases? Not so much-a Guard tankline will have less models than a Marine force, most often, or a Nid Monster Mash.
Insectum7 wrote: They feel more elite when people actually field hordes, but real hordes seem to be rare these days, in which case Marines seem "average"ish.
If you ask me, the proper fix for Marines is to Make Hordes Great Again. I'm dead serious.
Dudeface wrote: Breton, you know what I missed that a chainfist was the same as a powerfist previously. You then immediately (well, a smalle ssay later) give a better example of trading it to a thunderhammer. So maybe less of a pedantic bunghole and discuss in the spirit of the topic?
You mean like you did skipping over where I pointed it out - still used it as an example - and called it a thesis after obviously skipping it rather than answer the question of which of those units was the spammable freebie haul? I went over every unit checking its old points, its new points, where the drops where and how effective they were - like the fists - and you snarked rather than discuss it "in the spirit of the topic". You want a discussion but you didn't even look the stuff up, just going with some doom and gloom - and innacurate - evaluation of the MFM.
I've been white Knight branded to oblivion multiple times for sticking up for Marines, despite often not having a horse in the race.
It shows.
I'm now wondering if the detractors were nearer the money than I thought.
Go ahead, go back and look at the list. Most of the drops are on the bodies, some are on baked in wargear - i.e. Like the fists you're paying for one or the other, but they're both the same price. I'm assuming GW did it that way because they had just fiddled with the Fists etc. trying to get them offsetting-ly good but left them outside the body cost in case they had to correct because they missed the mark - such that they could increase or drop one fist if they weren't actually equal-ish. Your best bets are probably the Aggressors and the Razorbacks, but even they aren't doing what whoever told you. People who were taking Aggressors are going to be taking the same Aggressors they were before. Salamanders will take the flamers, (nearly) everyone else will take the boltstorm even at the old price, and the drop didn't change anything. A bunch of TLHB/TLAC/TLLC Razorbacks have the potential to do it - 1 per Infantry unit, free turret weapon. But you've still got to be able to drive them around, and non-flying vehicles - like fortifications - have issues with the current terrain density and rules. But what do you see?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'd really like it if Space Marines actually were an "Elite" faction, and had to pay costs appropriate to an "Elite" faction.
That's Custodes. I'd like it if they were closer to that, but not too much closer. 2,000 points should put about 50 bodies on the table. Other factions should flux from there.
Because it seems to me, as long as Marines as the most common faction, their baseline will never be elite. Since they're the norm.
The measure of Elite is whatever someone - in this case GW - says it is. At that point higher priced armies are super-elite, lower priced armies are horde and/or normal with a few exceptions proving the rule. Elite doesn't mean anything on its own here. It's just a variable/descriptor X to classify Army Y.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'd really like it if Space Marines actually were an "Elite" faction, and had to pay costs appropriate to an "Elite" faction.
As mentioned ad nauseam, Space Marines will never be elite when they are also the most common faction in the game. You can say they "feel elite" by making them expensive and giving them cool rules and what not, but when they and their ilk make up 40-60% of the player base then everyone is going to build into that mindset which makes them feel squishy which in turn makes them not feel "Elite".
Insectum7 wrote: They feel more elite when people actually field hordes, but real hordes seem to be rare these days, in which case Marines seem "average"ish.
If you ask me, the proper fix for Marines is to Make Hordes Great Again. I'm dead serious.
I don't think many will argue against that.
Hordes might make a comeback, but GW was pretty adamant in their rules writing that they did not want hordes to play in 9th. Blast Weapons, Morale Rules, coherency rules, Close Combat Rules. Horde factions losing their horde buffs, losing their buffs in general which were geared towards large units. I mean hell, we went from Orkz fielding 120-150 boyz in 8th to fielding 10 at most in 9th.
I'd love for Horde builds to become viable again, but their biggest detractors were the very vocal minority who wanted to be able to focus fire space Marines to death and didn't want to have to think about taking anti horde weapons when they really needed to pack in another melta or plasma gun instead.
Right, ok. But isn't that a matter of perspective? In a Custodes force, Custodes are the bread and butter - the troops - even if they are super-elite by another army's standards. In other armies, Servitors might be seen as the elite (not that I'd ever classify bog-standard combat servitors as 'elite', but that's a different discussion) compared to their bread and butter troops.
Would Servitors be elites in a Custodes army (I don't think Custodes can take Servitors, right?).
Also sometimes units are Elites because GW can't into rules and has to artificially place units into a (theoretically) more limited slot so people don't just take lots of them, Scouts being the prime example of that (and, I imagine, this is why Servitors are 'Elites' in some armies).
I feel like Custodian Anything should be the definition of Elite.
But here is a more apt and fair comparrison.
What is more "Elite":
A Custodes Telemon
Or
A IH Relic Leviathan Dread?
By the Fluff - Custodes.
On the table, 9/10 times, the IH Dredd takes the prize.
This is what I mean by Elite. What is the point of paying a premium for an Elite force, that can be blasted off the table by a lesser model/unit. Right now, a squad of IG Infantry is more deadly to a Custodian Guard, than a Primaris Intercessor.
"Elite" has been ruined by power creep. Nothing is elite anymore.
Which is more elite?
Custodian Guard, or Servitors?
By pretty much any actually used definition, the Custodes.
By GW, Servitors.
Sure it is. You've even unconciously made that point yourself in the Guard Infantry vs Guard Tanks post. What's elite? A late WWII Communist draftee, or a Navy Seal? Navy Seal, right. What's elite a Navy Seal or a Space Marine Terminator? What's elite, Matrix style nutrient gruel made from your dead podmates, or a Big Mac? What's elite, a Big Mac or a Ribeye dinner with all the trimmings? Elite is just a relational description on a sliding scale.
I think what JNA is getting at is that "marines aren't elite because they are common, and that is because eliteness is relative to some abstract, subjective judgement".
So by proving eliteness is subjective and typically related to commonness, you would have to either admit that Marines will never been elite while they are common, or explain how "objective eliteness" works .... which I think you just shot in the foot with the Big Mac comment.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
There is no set baseline. Swiss pikemen were pretty elite in the 1400's. They would not be so today.
And Rarity doesn't mean Elite. A Feral world that hasn't seen the light of the Emperor of Man is pretty rare. Having barely mastered fire does not make them elite. Nor is the most common army in the game also the most common army in the setting. The setting doesn't (generally) change based on how many people play any given faction.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
There is no set baseline. Swiss pikemen were pretty elite in the 1400's. They would not be so today.
And Rarity doesn't mean Elite. A Feral world that hasn't seen the light of the Emperor of Man is pretty rare. Having barely mastered fire does not make them elite. Nor is the most common army in the game also the most common army in the setting. The setting doesn't (generally) change based on how many people play any given faction.
I'm not talking in the setting-I'm talking in the real world.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think what JNA is getting at is that "marines aren't elite because they are common, and that is because eliteness is relative to some abstract, subjective judgement".
So by proving eliteness is subjective and typically related to commonness, you would have to either admit that Marines will never been elite while they are common, or explain how "objective eliteness" works .... which I think you just shot in the foot with the Big Mac comment.
I think he's conflating elite on the tabletop with elite in the setting. Elite on the tabletop is theoretically impossible. Elite in the setting is fluff.
Everybody gets 2,000 points. Play along and save your laughs for later here - if GW does their thing right, 2,000 points of X is roughly equivalent to 2,000 points of Y. In other words (In this theory) 500 points of Ork Boys are equivalent to 500 points of Intercessors. The Ork Boys may have 50 bases, while the Intercessors may have 25, but that's just another case of "6 of one, half dozen of the other". At a certain point they're all just abstracts. Is a Storm Speeder Whatchamacallit more elite than a couple Centurion Devs? Not really, nor is the inverse necessarily true. The Stormspeeder has half the bases, but they're both going to perform about the same in that abstract.
Of course, GW has to do their thing well. Now people may laugh.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think what JNA is getting at is that "marines aren't elite because they are common, and that is because eliteness is relative to some abstract, subjective judgement".
So by proving eliteness is subjective and typically related to commonness, you would have to either admit that Marines will never been elite while they are common, or explain how "objective eliteness" works .... which I think you just shot in the foot with the Big Mac comment.
I think he's conflating elite on the tabletop with elite in the setting. Elite on the tabletop is theoretically impossible. Elite in the setting is fluff.
Everybody gets 2,000 points. Play along and save your laughs for later here - if GW does their thing right, 2,000 points of X is roughly equivalent to 2,000 points of Y. In other words (In this theory) 500 points of Ork Boys are equivalent to 500 points of Intercessors. The Ork Boys may have 50 bases, while the Intercessors may have 25, but that's just another case of "6 of one, half dozen of the other". At a certain point they're all just abstracts. Is a Storm Speeder Whatchamacallit more elite than a couple Centurion Devs? Not really, nor is the inverse necessarily true. The Stormspeeder has half the bases, but they're both going to perform about the same in that abstract.
Of course, GW has to do their thing well. Now people may laugh.
Not at all.
If you get 50 Ork Boys for 500 points, even if they perform as well as 500 points of 25 Intercessors, they are less elite.
The Orks are more numerous, and since they're performing roughly as well, would therefore have an inferior statline.
Then nobody is elite, nor should anyone be. The tabletop does not pit 1v1 Grot vs Knight. The Tabletop pits X Points of Y versus X points of Z. The model(s) are just (theoretically) graphical abstracts of points buckets given stats and rules. There could be only 5 Imperial Knights on the entire Ork World populated by billions of Orks and Grots, their buggies and so on totally a value of quadrillions of points, but you're still only going to see (usually) 2,000 points of Orks across the table from them in a game.
Then nobody is elite, nor should anyone be. The tabletop does not pit 1v1 Grot vs Knight. The Tabletop pits X Points of Y versus X points of Z. The model(s) are just (theoretically) graphical abstracts of points buckets given stats and rules. There could be only 5 Imperial Knights on the entire Ork World populated by billions of Orks and Grots, their buggies and so on totally a value of quadrillions of points, but you're still only going to see (usually) 2,000 points of Orks across the table from them in a game.
Define "Elite" for me, please. In the context of 40k.
On the tabletop? Nothing. You may have missed it, but I stressed the point at the end there with the Storm Speeder vs two Cent Devs. Same general price, same general performance, minor tradeoffs here and there on speed vs number of bases etc. But it doesn't matter. 500 points of Blob A, and 500 points of Blob B means neither A nor B is elite. It means they're 500 points of a blob.
On the tabletop? Nothing. You may have missed it, but I stressed the point at the end there with the Storm Speeder vs two Cent Devs. Same general price, same general performance, minor tradeoffs here and there on speed vs number of bases etc. But it doesn't matter. 500 points of Blob A, and 500 points of Blob B means neither A nor B is elite. It means they're 500 points of a blob.
In that case you're operating using a definition of elite that nobody else I've ever encountered would use. Elite, in pretty much any scenario - real world or otherwise - is a measure of the ability/prowess/quality of one individual against another. That would seem, by definition, to mean that in a scenario with a horde of Orks versus a unit of Custodian Guard the Guard are the elite unit. They are individually more powerful, therefore more elite.
When people say they want SM to feel elite, what they mean is they are, in general, better than most other armies on a one-for-one basis. "Better" meaning overall more skilled, resilient and dependable. Sure, some armies may have access to specialists who are superior to most SM units (Eldar Incubi, for example) but taken as a whole army SM should still feel more elite than DE. One of the problems GW has had since they threw out restrictive army building rules is that many armies can now focus only on their specialised elite troops and that's cheapened the effective eliteness of SM. Combine that with how lethal the game is and SM being so common and you have the perfect recipe for the erosion of the elite feel of SMs.
Where's my 60 Space Marines vs. 140 Ork games. Those were fun. I've also got 120 Termagants painted up but little desire to use them in the current paradigm.
Where's my 60 Space Marines vs. 140 Ork games. Those were fun. I've also got 120 Termagants painted up but little desire to use them in the current paradigm.
This, I've not had chance to use my gsc much and while they're not in huge blobs of 30, having guys whose purpose is to plink off some damage and die is an angle I quite enjoy. I like playing the under dogs and having to drag the elite guys down screaming.
Tyran wrote: I'm pretty sure the infantry squad is more expensive, both in points and in real money, than an Intercessor.
Doesn't look like it - technicallyGW aren't selling an Infantry Squad at the moment, but Cadians are £30 for a squad, while Catachans are £21. Krieg reach £35 a squad, but they've got the extra KT stuff in there too. Intercessors? £36 a squad.
In terms of points? Cadians are 65/squad, Catachans are (oddly) 70/squad, Krieg reach 75/squad (could go as high as 90, if you take all three upgrades), and the unsold basic Infantry Squad are 65/squad (going as high as 75 with two upgrades), all for 10 men. A 5 man Intercessor squad is 90 points, so a fully-upgraded Krieg squad can match them, with double the men.
On the tabletop? Nothing. You may have missed it, but I stressed the point at the end there with the Storm Speeder vs two Cent Devs. Same general price, same general performance, minor tradeoffs here and there on speed vs number of bases etc. But it doesn't matter. 500 points of Blob A, and 500 points of Blob B means neither A nor B is elite. It means they're 500 points of a blob.
In that case you're operating using a definition of elite that nobody else I've ever encountered would use. Elite, in pretty much any scenario - real world or otherwise - is a measure of the ability/prowess/quality of one individual against another. That would seem, by definition, to mean that in a scenario with a horde of Orks versus a unit of Custodian Guard the Guard are the elite unit. They are individually more powerful, therefore more elite.
When people say they want SM to feel elite, what they mean is they are, in general, better than most other armies on a one-for-one basis. "Better" meaning overall more skilled, resilient and dependable. Sure, some armies may have access to specialists who are superior to most SM units (Eldar Incubi, for example) but taken as a whole army SM should still feel more elite than DE. One of the problems GW has had since they threw out restrictive army building rules is that many armies can now focus only on their specialised elite troops and that's cheapened the effective eliteness of SM. Combine that with how lethal the game is and SM being so common and you have the perfect recipe for the erosion of the elite feel of SMs.
In fairness to Breton, his posts are in response to someone trying to claim that Servitors are more elite than Custodes...
Dudeface wrote: This, I've not had chance to use my gsc much and while they're not in huge blobs of 30, having guys whose purpose is to plink off some damage and die is an angle I quite enjoy. I like playing the under dogs and having to drag the elite guys down screaming.
What's stopping you?
I mean this debate seems a bit weird. "Marines don't feel elite because my opponents won't just spam chaff into me". Okay. But surely they aren't going to do that unless said chaff becomes so effective it has a substantial advantage into ye-generic Marines list? I think its better Orks have a codex where other stuff is worth taking than 150~ Boyz and hoping your opponent didn't have the tools to remove half of them in a turn.
I doubt a 3 Tervigon+180~ Termagants meme list would ever be that effective because its kind of one-dimensional. It seems like you could lose some elements and take other stuff to get more functionality. And eventually you'd probably scrap the whole lot for something quite different. But there's nothing really stopping you running it barring access to the models.
Dudeface wrote: This, I've not had chance to use my gsc much and while they're not in huge blobs of 30, having guys whose purpose is to plink off some damage and die is an angle I quite enjoy. I like playing the under dogs and having to drag the elite guys down screaming.
What's stopping you?
I mean this debate seems a bit weird. "Marines don't feel elite because my opponents won't just spam chaff into me". Okay. But surely they aren't going to do that unless said chaff becomes so effective it has a substantial advantage into ye-generic Marines list? I think its better Orks have a codex where other stuff is worth taking than 150~ Boyz and hoping your opponent didn't have the tools to remove half of them in a turn.
I doubt a 3 Tervigon+180~ Termagants meme list would ever be that effective because its kind of one-dimensional. It seems like you could lose some elements and take other stuff to get more functionality. And eventually you'd probably scrap the whole lot for something quite different. But there's nothing really stopping you running it barring access to the models.
The debate is "marines don't feel elite because they're too common" or "marines don't feel elite because the rest of the game murders them and nullifies their supposed advantage too often".
Nothing is stopping me, but as other have pointed out, there's no incentive atm to run a good large blob of something when a smaller blob of warriors for example are just better all round. The lose more mechanics of morale combined with blast and coherency changes punish hordes unfairly this edition.
I agree orks shouldn't just be boyz or nothing but it shouldn't be an active disadvantage to take a unit of 30 boyz.
In fairness to Breton, his posts are in response to someone trying to claim that Servitors are more elite than Custodes...
Nope, that response about Servitors was someone pointing out why Breton's original definition is problematic. That original definition was tantamount to "words mean whatever I want them to mean".
Dudeface wrote: The debate is "marines don't feel elite because they're too common" or "marines don't feel elite because the rest of the game murders them and nullifies their supposed advantage too often".
Nothing is stopping me, but as other have pointed out, there's no incentive atm to run a good large blob of something when a smaller blob of warriors for example are just better all round. The lose more mechanics of morale combined with blast and coherency changes punish hordes unfairly this edition.
I agree orks shouldn't just be boyz or nothing but it shouldn't be an active disadvantage to take a unit of 30 boyz.
This is true - although I could argue there's still the potential of the "MSU horde" or something similar. You could say take 9 units of 10 Boyz, termagants etc - but there's not much obvious incentive to do so when other units are better. Hopefully 10th look at the horde situation. I think after cries of buff-stacking in 8th (some of which continued into 9th) it was a reasonable precaution. I feel GW have sort of tried to cut buff stacking/wombo-combos down - but it always seems to be one step forward, two steps back.
So 5 Custodian Troops should always wipe the floor with any other troop unit, excluding Clowns, because their entire faction is basically Custodian Xenos. The Ultra Elite of the Ultra Elite Xenos. But yeah, even they cost a fraction of what Custodian Troops cost.
So that being the case, should a Space Marine unit of 5Intercessors, with free gear, ever lose a fight ta full IG squad? Because right now, that can literally happen. A full squad of guard, with free gear, can more than take a Space marine squad extremely easily.
Space Marines are no longer elite. They pay horde prices and can field "elite" level models, but they are not Elite. What moves them into the conversation of elite troops is their access to all sorts of CP stupidity like Transhuman, Red Thirst, Rapid Fire, Gene-Wrought Might, etc.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'd really like it if Space Marines actually were an "Elite" faction, and had to pay costs appropriate to an "Elite" faction.
GW wants everyone to be elite, Orks are elite, bugs are elite, Guardsmen are elite.
What is the measure of elite?
Because it seems to me, as long as Marines as the most common faction, their baseline will never be elite. Since they're the norm.
Stormcast are the most common faction (i think) in AoS yet they still feel elite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: They feel more elite when people actually field hordes, but real hordes seem to be rare these days, in which case Marines seem "average"ish.
If you ask me, the proper fix for Marines is to Make Hordes Great Again. I'm dead serious.
And thats probably why stormcast feel elite : lots of shitters in AoS to contrast with the shiny boys.
But yeah, GW triple nerfing hordes in the core rules was too much.
Revert coherency rules
Make blast min3 on 11+ and max shots on 16+
Make fighting coherency "anything within 2" can fight"
VladimirHerzog wrote: Stormcast are the most common faction (i think) in AoS yet they still feel elite.
Stormcast and variants thereof don't collectively represent half the armies in the game and a majority of the armies seen played on the tabletop. If Marines were a deviation from the norm, then they'd feel elite. As it stands they're the most common statline in the game, and other armies are incentivized to take their Marine-like elites as you note, so of course they're going to feel like the baseline.
But even if hordes were decent again, having the one Ork player in the shop running bigger blobs of infantry wouldn't make the ten Marine (or Spiky Marine, or Bigger Marine, or Golden Marine, or Nun Marine) armies feel 'elite' as they fight amongst themselves. They're still just the default by virtue of the most heavily represented statline on the table.
And it gets worse when that means that everyone tailors to kill Marines. For the people defining 'elite' as 'better one-on-one than other armies', well, that is how it's always been. It has never been the case that the basic troops of other armies could take on Marines one-on-one. In 8th, we even had a situation where the specialists of other armies (things like Genestealers or Howling Banshees) couldn't beat basic Intercessors one-on-one. But Marine players still complained about their troops not feeling tough and elite because they still died like dogs to massed plasma, and you took lots of plasma and other high-volume decent-AP weapons because you're playing Marinehammer 40K and that's just the way it is.
I'm actually fine with GW making other armies feel more elite- even Guard- just because the ship of Marines being unique has long since sailed. It isn't devaluing Marines so much as making the troops of other armies less worthless by comparison.
On the tabletop? Nothing. You may have missed it, but I stressed the point at the end there with the Storm Speeder vs two Cent Devs. Same general price, same general performance, minor tradeoffs here and there on speed vs number of bases etc. But it doesn't matter. 500 points of Blob A, and 500 points of Blob B means neither A nor B is elite. It means they're 500 points of a blob.
In that case you're operating using a definition of elite that nobody else I've ever encountered would use. Elite, in pretty much any scenario - real world or otherwise - is a measure of the ability/prowess/quality of one individual against another.
That's pretty much exactly what I said. Elite is a sliding descriptor. But when talking about X points of Faction A vs X points of Faction B (in theory) there is no elite. X points of this army or that army should be equal. The only difference is cosmetic usually involving counting bases in an arbitrary points bucket. There are any number of cliches you've probably heard of - for example Quantity has a Quality all its own.
Usually this "elite" point is made with "lethality" buzzwords. They want the durable models to get shot up less often. That's a great goal to have. I want all the models to get shot up less often. I want attrition (the play result, not Attrition the rule) to be a grind. I want the "horde" players to feel like their units dwindle but not that they should just put them on magnetized movement trays for faster casualty removal after a wholesale slaughter. 200 points in 20 bases of X going against 200 points in 10 bases of Y should do Z points worth of damage. 200/10 points of Y going after 200/20 points of X should do Z damage. The fact that Z damage whatever it is would be twice as many bases doesn't make either 200 points elite, because they started with twice as many bases giving them a quality in quantity the 10 didn't have.
This is true - although I could argue there's still the potential of the "MSU horde" or something similar. You could say take 9 units of 10 Boyz, termagants etc - but there's not much obvious incentive to do so when other units are better. Hopefully 10th look at the horde situation. I think after cries of buff-stacking in 8th (some of which continued into 9th) it was a reasonable precaution. I feel GW have sort of tried to cut buff stacking/wombo-combos down - but it always seems to be one step forward, two steps back.
I still dream of the day when each (sub)faction has at least two distinctly different viable competitive list styles going at the same time. Puff Puff Pass.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
Common in game =/= common in fluff which is what y'all messed up on AGAIN. Otherwise you'd have to argue on whether Harlequins are actually more elite than any other Eldar army.
On the tabletop? Nothing. You may have missed it, but I stressed the point at the end there with the Storm Speeder vs two Cent Devs. Same general price, same general performance, minor tradeoffs here and there on speed vs number of bases etc. But it doesn't matter. 500 points of Blob A, and 500 points of Blob B means neither A nor B is elite. It means they're 500 points of a blob.
In that case you're operating using a definition of elite that nobody else I've ever encountered would use. Elite, in pretty much any scenario - real world or otherwise - is a measure of the ability/prowess/quality of one individual against another.
That's pretty much exactly what I said. Elite is a sliding descriptor. But when talking about X points of Faction A vs X points of Faction B (in theory) there is no elite. X points of this army or that army should be equal. The only difference is cosmetic usually involving counting bases in an arbitrary points bucket. There are any number of cliches you've probably heard of - for example Quantity has a Quality all its own.
Usually this "elite" point is made with "lethality" buzzwords. They want the durable models to get shot up less often. That's a great goal to have. I want all the models to get shot up less often. I want attrition (the play result, not Attrition the rule) to be a grind. I want the "horde" players to feel like their units dwindle but not that they should just put them on magnetized movement trays for faster casualty removal after a wholesale slaughter. 200 points in 20 bases of X going against 200 points in 10 bases of Y should do Z points worth of damage. 200/10 points of Y going after 200/20 points of X should do Z damage. The fact that Z damage whatever it is would be twice as many bases doesn't make either 200 points elite, because they started with twice as many bases giving them a quality in quantity the 10 didn't have.
The general usage of elite would be that a single squad of three doing the damage and having the resilience of three squads of ten is the elite one. Using your definition of "It doesn't exist" is not conducive to communication and understanding.
EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
Common in game =/= common in fluff which is what y'all messed up on AGAIN. Otherwise you'd have to argue on whether Harlequins are actually more elite than any other Eldar army.
I've been clear that I'm not talking in-universe. I'm talking real-world.
In the actual world we live in, Marines don't generally feel elite because they're the baseline that most things are measured from.
I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
But the t4 3+ save 2 wound guys do die to the indiscriminate volume of ap-1+ d2 at pretty much the same rate as the t3 5+ guys. The issue isn't the defensive profile, the issue is the defensive profile isn't worth much in the game right now given the freedom of access to shed loads of decent ap and damage attacks out there.
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
But the t4 3+ save 2 wound guys do die to the indiscriminate volume of ap-1+ d2 at pretty much the same rate as the t3 5+ guys. The issue isn't the defensive profile, the issue is the defensive profile isn't worth much in the game right now given the freedom of access to shed loads of decent ap and damage attacks out there.
make damage spread like in AoS and then marines will feel tougher maybe?
a damage 2 shot would kill one marine but two guardsmen, instead of 1 of each for example
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
But the t4 3+ save 2 wound guys do die to the indiscriminate volume of ap-1+ d2 at pretty much the same rate as the t3 5+ guys. The issue isn't the defensive profile, the issue is the defensive profile isn't worth much in the game right now given the freedom of access to shed loads of decent ap and damage attacks out there.
make damage spread like in AoS and then marines will feel tougher maybe?
a damage 2 shot would kill one marine but two guardsmen, instead of 1 of each for example
I'm not against it personally, it does lead to some weird circumstances like multi damage sniper weapons etc. But by and large it works imo. As people keep pointing out, use keywords for it as well, make the spill over specific to certain keyword interactions.
Tyel wrote: How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
There is no conceivable stat line that can ever make marines feel elite. The overwhelming most common army in the game will always feel, by definition, average. You can turn every non-marine unit into unplayable cannon fodder where you need to buy 1000 orks to play a 2000 point army but marines vs. orks will still feel like average vs. dear god these are trash. The only thing that will ever make marines feel elite is for GW to somehow make them no longer the majority. Take the lore and advertising focus away from marines, make a rule that marines can only ever be taken as a single squad in a normal army, I don't know what exactly the answer is. But it can not come from buffing marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: make damage spread like in AoS and then marines will feel tougher maybe?
a damage 2 shot would kill one marine but two guardsmen, instead of 1 of each for example
How does that even work on a conceptual level? A lascannon, a precisely aimed single beam intended to do massive damage to a point target, suddenly kills multiple guardsmen per hit? Now that lascannon is the best anti-tank weapon and also a great anti-horde weapon. The balance effects from this change would be horrific.
How does that even work on a conceptual level? A lascannon, a precisely aimed single beam intended to do massive damage to a point target, suddenly kills multiple guardsmen per hit? Now that lascannon is the best anti-tank weapon and also a great anti-horde weapon. The balance effects from this change would be horrific.
big laser goes through puny guardsmen and hits steve,joe,bob and ryan behind him.... not super hard to imagine. Or you give it a keyword "precise" that means it doesnt spread or whatever.
And you would obviously rebalance the points if that was the case.
VladimirHerzog wrote: big laser goes through puny guardsmen and hits steve,joe,bob and ryan behind him.... not super hard to imagine. Or you give it a keyword "precise" that means it doesnt spread or whatever.
Sorry, but the idea that your target guardsmen are all lining up in perfect formation to be killed by the lascannon is just absurd. And yes, you can give it a special rule that it ignores the standard damage rules, but if you have to hand out special "no, don't use this after all" rules as commonly as you'd need to do with this one then the general rule is probably not a good one.
And you would obviously rebalance the points if that was the case.
And how long are you willing to suffer through broken balance before GW can figure out how to make such a fundamental change work? How many pendulum swings between "always take nothing but lascannons" and "lascannons suck, never take them"?
Tyel wrote: How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
There is no conceivable stat line that can ever make marines feel elite. The overwhelming most common army in the game will always feel, by definition, average. You can turn every non-marine unit into unplayable cannon fodder where you need to buy 1000 orks to play a 2000 point army but marines vs. orks will still feel like average vs. dear god these are trash. The only thing that will ever make marines feel elite is for GW to somehow make them no longer the majority. Take the lore and advertising focus away from marines, make a rule that marines can only ever be taken as a single squad in a normal army, I don't know what exactly the answer is. But it can not come from buffing marines.
Much like a lot of people here assume to be confusing elite with rare. Elite, by literal definition is:
"the richest, most powerful, best educated, or best trained people in a particular group or society"
They can be the most common army in the game if they feel like they're the well trained and equipped specialists able to fight up into tough odds, such as being outnumbered.
The number of people on here who seem to think it must mean that each model singularly butchers entire forces is unreal. 10 marines facing down 30 guardsmen is enough to make them look elite, lasguns that actually bounce off them and having a Swiss army knife of skills without over committing to any one of them will make them feel elite in thar scenario.
The old adage they should be better at whatever the other factions bad at but worse than what they're great at.
To use orks, Marines should be outnumbered and at a disadvantage in melee, however they should be better at range and more organised via higher leadership. Against tau they should be worse at range but more mobile and better in melee and so on.
That's the concept of the "elite" marine force. The 8th/9th progressive stats bloat and watering of identity in a lot of places has stopped a lot of this.
Dudeface wrote: Much like a lot of people here assume to be confusing elite with rare. Elite, by literal definition is:
"the richest, most powerful, best educated, or best trained people in a particular group or society"
By definition that means rare. "The best in the group" has to be a small minority or it is no longer the best. Elite education means the best students from the best schools. Elite wealth means the handful of billionaires. Etc. If you define a sub-group so broadly that it is no longer rare then it is also no longer elite, you've included a whole bunch of average members of the group along with the best.
10 marines facing down 30 guardsmen is enough to make them look elite, lasguns that actually bounce off them and having a Swiss army knife of skills without over committing to any one of them will make them feel elite in thar scenario.
Except that's not how it works. The perception of marines is defined by the total experience across all games, not by individual game scenarios. Having marines face down 30 guardsmen and win makes guardsmen look like cannon fodder (arguably the way it should be) but marines still feel average overall because they're the majority of the game and the most common game scenario is red marines vs. blue marines or green marines vs. spiky marines.
And it only gets worse once you account for the marine meta in list building. You don't see a marine squad facing down 30 guardsmen with lasguns, you see 30 dual plasma Cadians where the lasguns are just meatshields for the plasma gunners and the primary role of the 30 guardsmen is to stand in front of the plasma LRBT that is busy killing marines. So not only are marines by definition average they don't even get to face very many situations where they are elite and dominate an inferior enemy because nobody ever brings stuff that isn't good against marines.
That's the concept of the "elite" marine force.
No, that's a concept of "jack of all trades, master of none". Being average at doing many things does not feel elite, especially when the force in question is by far the most common in the game. Not only does it make marines literally the average it makes them feel like a deliberate reference point, like how the theoretical all-3s stat line used to be the intended average human reference in old editions. Marines are average, Eldar are fast. Marines are average, Tau shoot well. Etc.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
Common in game =/= common in fluff which is what y'all messed up on AGAIN. Otherwise you'd have to argue on whether Harlequins are actually more elite than any other Eldar army.
Dudeface wrote: Much like a lot of people here assume to be confusing elite with rare. Elite, by literal definition is:
"the richest, most powerful, best educated, or best trained people in a particular group or society"
By definition that means rare. "The best in the group" has to be a small minority or it is no longer the best. Elite education means the best students from the best schools. Elite wealth means the handful of billionaires. Etc. If you define a sub-group so broadly that it is no longer rare then it is also no longer elite, you've included a whole bunch of average members of the group along with the best.
10 marines facing down 30 guardsmen is enough to make them look elite, lasguns that actually bounce off them and having a Swiss army knife of skills without over committing to any one of them will make them feel elite in thar scenario.
Except that's not how it works. The perception of marines is defined by the total experience across all games, not by individual game scenarios. Having marines face down 30 guardsmen and win makes guardsmen look like cannon fodder (arguably the way it should be) but marines still feel average overall because they're the majority of the game and the most common game scenario is red marines vs. blue marines or green marines vs. spiky marines.
And it only gets worse once you account for the marine meta in list building. You don't see a marine squad facing down 30 guardsmen with lasguns, you see 30 dual plasma Cadians where the lasguns are just meatshields for the plasma gunners and the primary role of the 30 guardsmen is to stand in front of the plasma LRBT that is busy killing marines. So not only are marines by definition average they don't even get to face very many situations where they are elite and dominate an inferior enemy because nobody ever brings stuff that isn't good against marines.
That's the concept of the "elite" marine force.
No, that's a concept of "jack of all trades, master of none". Being average at doing many things does not feel elite, especially when the force in question is by far the most common in the game. Not only does it make marines literally the average it makes them feel like a deliberate reference point, like how the theoretical all-3s stat line used to be the intended average human reference in old editions. Marines are average, Eldar are fast. Marines are average, Tau shoot well. Etc.
The protagonists are humans, the 3's statline is still the intended human. Marines are above average in the stats distribution for the game, or are supposed to be. They can be common, but that doesn't mean their stats aren't above average.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
Common in game =/= common in fluff which is what y'all messed up on AGAIN. Otherwise you'd have to argue on whether Harlequins are actually more elite than any other Eldar army.
I've been clear that I'm not talking in-universe.
Then what you're saying doesn't matter then
Why does the fictional matter more than the real?
This is not the background forum. This is the general discussion forum.
No they aren't. The protagonists are marines. They're the face of the franchise, they get the most lore, they are the literal protagonists in most of the books, they have the largest model range with constant new content, and they're the most common army on the table. Normal humans are background NPCs and secondary factions.
Marines are above average in the stats distribution for the game, or are supposed to be. They can be common, but that doesn't mean their stats aren't above average.
How exactly can a stat line be above average if that stat line is 75% or more of the game? If I have the set of values {3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5} then 4 is very clearly the average. It doesn't matter if some 30 year old reference document says that 3 is supposed to be the average, the reality of the actual game being played is that 4 is the average.
so by that definition marines can never feel elite because people IRL will always make lists with them in mind
Even if marines have 10 wounds each and a 1+ save, people bringing the best guns against that profile will make them feel no elite
You want them to feel elite, make the game deeper and bring rules that play on that depth. (Make morale matter for real, make positioning matter, etc.)
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
Common in game =/= common in fluff which is what y'all messed up on AGAIN. Otherwise you'd have to argue on whether Harlequins are actually more elite than any other Eldar army.
I've been clear that I'm not talking in-universe.
Then what you're saying doesn't matter then
Why does the fictional matter more than the real?
This is not the background forum. This is the general discussion forum.
Because otherwise we would be talking about how 10 point Marines is the way to fix them.
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
Again, I'd flip that around and say that Marines don't feel elite because nobody wants to play anything that's "lesser" than Marines. Where are the Guardsmen? Where are the Boyz? Where are the Eldar Guardians? Where are the Termagants and Hormagaunts?
And to ask a trickier question . . . Is the reason we don't see many of these units because they're absolute ***t against Marines now that they have 2 wounds? If it takes 13 Termagants with Fleshborers to kill a Marine, and Marines are the most common army. . . why would anyone ever take Termagants for anything but camping objectives. And is comping objectives fun for players? Does that make a unit cool?
And once you make Marines 2 wounds, how high do you have to pump the Terminators, Custodes and the like for those to feel elite? And then how do Termagants feel against them? How far behind do you leave the "common" troops, and does anybody want to take them anymore?
If nobody is taking the "lesser" troops, Marines themselves become the bottom tier in practice.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Because otherwise we would be talking about how 10 point Marines is the way to fix them.
But saying "marines are elite, it says so in this novel" isn't a solution either. You can't have a constructive discussion on how to fix the rules for marines if you can't acknowledge how marines being the most common army takes away from the perception that they are elite. Marines on the table are average no matter how many fluff sources you point to saying otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: so by that definition marines can never feel elite because people IRL will always make lists with them in mind
Even if marines have 10 wounds each and a 1+ save, people bringing the best guns against that profile will make them feel no elite
Exactly. All you will accomplish is that W10/1+ is the average stat line for the game and anything which can't deal with W10/1+ simply won't be played. The game will be 75% W10/1+ armies and 25% non-marine armies tailored to beat marines.
And yes, deeper mechanics could mitigate this a bit (as well as making a better game in general) but that still doesn't address the root of the problem: that an army can't feel elite when it is 75% of the game.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
Common in game =/= common in fluff which is what y'all messed up on AGAIN. Otherwise you'd have to argue on whether Harlequins are actually more elite than any other Eldar army.
I've been clear that I'm not talking in-universe.
Then what you're saying doesn't matter then
Why does the fictional matter more than the real?
This is not the background forum. This is the general discussion forum.
Because otherwise we would be talking about how 10 point Marines is the way to fix them.
10 PPM marines would be OP, but it wouldn’t make them feel elite.
It’d do the opposite.
Balance and being elite aren’t related-a 1,000 point Questoris Knight is elite compared to 3 PPM guardsmen, despite the guard being far better.
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
Again, I'd flip that around and say that Marines don't feel elite because nobody wants to play anything that's "lesser" than Marines. Where are the Guardsmen? Where are the Boyz? Where are the Eldar Guardians? Where are the Termagants and Hormagaunts?
And to ask a trickier question . . . Is the reason we don't see many of these units because they're absolute ***t against Marines now that they have 2 wounds? If it takes 13 Termagants with Fleshborers to kill a Marine, and Marines are the most common army. . . why would anyone ever take Termagants for anything but camping objectives. And is comping objectives fun for players? Does that make a unit cool?
And once you make Marines 2 wounds, how high do you have to pump the Terminators, Custodes and the like for those to feel elite? And then how do Termagants feel against them? How far behind do you leave the "common" troops, and does anybody want to take them anymore?
If nobody is taking the "lesser" troops, Marines themselves become the bottom tier in practice.
Nobody was taking them when Manlet Marines only had W1, so the notion about W2 changing anything is wrong.
No they aren't. The protagonists are marines. They're the face of the franchise, they get the most lore, they are the literal protagonists in most of the books, they have the largest model range with constant new content, and they're the most common army on the table. Normal humans are background NPCs and secondary factions.
Marines are above average in the stats distribution for the game, or are supposed to be. They can be common, but that doesn't mean their stats aren't above average.
How exactly can a stat line be above average if that stat line is 75% or more of the game? If I have the set of values {3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5} then 4 is very clearly the average. It doesn't matter if some 30 year old reference document says that 3 is supposed to be the average, the reality of the actual game being played is that 4 is the average.
Oh come on, who do space marines fight for again? What's that, the imperium of astartes kind? Humans are the protagonist, they're the reasons marines exist, why they fight.
If you believe 4 is the average strength and toughness across infantry for all factions I think you may be in for a shock.
Dudeface wrote: Oh come on, who do space marines fight for again? What's that, the imperium of astartes kind? Humans are the protagonist, they're the reasons marines exist, why they fight.
If you believe 4 is the average strength and toughness across infantry for all factions I think you may be in for a shock.
Nobody who plays Horus Heresy considers basic Tactical Marines to be 'elite'. It doesn't matter what the background says or that they're considerably better than the Imperial Militia that one dude at the shop might play. In the lived reality of Horus Heresy gaming, a Tactical Marine is as basic a standard cannon fodder footsoldier as it gets, and none of that fluff about him being a peerless superman has any impact on the tabletop. He's the bottom rung on a roster of even more super-duper-elite troops.
40K isn't that far off. It doesn't matter who your fictional toy soldier men are fictionally fighting for when it's Primaris vs Chaos on the tabletop and T4/W2/3+ is the basic statline for both armies.
If you walk into any random GW and look at the armies being played, chances are the most common statline will be some flavor of MEQ. S3/T3 isn't the average because this isn't a game and franchise centered on humans, it's centered on Marines.
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
Again, I'd flip that around and say that Marines don't feel elite because nobody wants to play anything that's "lesser" than Marines. Where are the Guardsmen? Where are the Boyz? Where are the Eldar Guardians? Where are the Termagants and Hormagaunts?
And to ask a trickier question . . . Is the reason we don't see many of these units because they're absolute ***t against Marines now that they have 2 wounds? If it takes 13 Termagants with Fleshborers to kill a Marine, and Marines are the most common army. . . why would anyone ever take Termagants for anything but camping objectives. And is comping objectives fun for players? Does that make a unit cool?
And once you make Marines 2 wounds, how high do you have to pump the Terminators, Custodes and the like for those to feel elite? And then how do Termagants feel against them? How far behind do you leave the "common" troops, and does anybody want to take them anymore?
If nobody is taking the "lesser" troops, Marines themselves become the bottom tier in practice.
Nobody was taking them when Manlet Marines only had W1, so the notion about W2 changing anything is wrong.
I took them, because I'm loyal to my faction. CSMs took them, because they didn't get their upgrade until mid 9th.
But you know what also saw a lot of table time during early 8th? GEQ. Clouds of them, even. And Tyranid armies also featured a lot of Hormagaunts in competetive builds too. Get those hordes back into the game.
Dudeface wrote: Oh come on, who do space marines fight for again? What's that, the imperium of astartes kind? Humans are the protagonist, they're the reasons marines exist, why they fight.
If you believe 4 is the average strength and toughness across infantry for all factions I think you may be in for a shock.
Nobody who plays Horus Heresy considers basic Tactical Marines to be 'elite'. It doesn't matter what the background says or that they're considerably better than the Imperial Militia that one dude at the shop might play. In the lived reality of Horus Heresy gaming, a Tactical Marine is as basic a standard cannon fodder footsoldier as it gets, and none of that fluff about him being a peerless superman has any impact on the tabletop. He's the bottom rung on a roster of even more super-duper-elite troops.
40K isn't that far off. It doesn't matter who your fictional toy soldier men are fictionally fighting for when it's Primaris vs Chaos on the tabletop and T4/W2/3+ is the basic statline for both armies.
If you walk into any random GW and look at the armies being played, chances are the most common statline will be some flavor of MEQ. S3/T3 isn't the average because this isn't a game and franchise centered on humans, it's centered on Marines.
It's going to stay that way until the balance begins to make the little guys more viable again.
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
Again, I'd flip that around and say that Marines don't feel elite because nobody wants to play anything that's "lesser" than Marines. Where are the Guardsmen? Where are the Boyz? Where are the Eldar Guardians? Where are the Termagants and Hormagaunts?
And to ask a trickier question . . . Is the reason we don't see many of these units because they're absolute ***t against Marines now that they have 2 wounds? If it takes 13 Termagants with Fleshborers to kill a Marine, and Marines are the most common army. . . why would anyone ever take Termagants for anything but camping objectives. And is comping objectives fun for players? Does that make a unit cool?
And once you make Marines 2 wounds, how high do you have to pump the Terminators, Custodes and the like for those to feel elite? And then how do Termagants feel against them? How far behind do you leave the "common" troops, and does anybody want to take them anymore?
If nobody is taking the "lesser" troops, Marines themselves become the bottom tier in practice.
Nobody was taking them when Manlet Marines only had W1, so the notion about W2 changing anything is wrong.
I took them, because I'm loyal to my faction. CSMs took them, because they didn't get their upgrade until mid 9th.
Bruh, people were taking Cultists instead of the Chaos Legionaires, pre and post W2.
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
Again, I'd flip that around and say that Marines don't feel elite because nobody wants to play anything that's "lesser" than Marines. Where are the Guardsmen? Where are the Boyz? Where are the Eldar Guardians? Where are the Termagants and Hormagaunts?
And to ask a trickier question . . . Is the reason we don't see many of these units because they're absolute ***t against Marines now that they have 2 wounds? If it takes 13 Termagants with Fleshborers to kill a Marine, and Marines are the most common army. . . why would anyone ever take Termagants for anything but camping objectives. And is comping objectives fun for players? Does that make a unit cool?
And once you make Marines 2 wounds, how high do you have to pump the Terminators, Custodes and the like for those to feel elite? And then how do Termagants feel against them? How far behind do you leave the "common" troops, and does anybody want to take them anymore?
If nobody is taking the "lesser" troops, Marines themselves become the bottom tier in practice.
Nobody was taking them when Manlet Marines only had W1, so the notion about W2 changing anything is wrong.
I took them, because I'm loyal to my faction. CSMs took them, because they didn't get their upgrade until mid 9th.
Bruh, people were taking Cultists instead of the Chaos Legionaires, pre and post W2.
Some were, some weren't.
The point stays the same though. 2W Marines makes it harder for the GEQs of the setting to compete in ways that make them compelling to take, and 2W Marines also drive up the heights of what "hyper elite" models have to be.
Dudeface wrote: Oh come on, who do space marines fight for again? What's that, the imperium of astartes kind? Humans are the protagonist, they're the reasons marines exist, why they fight.
If you believe 4 is the average strength and toughness across infantry for all factions I think you may be in for a shock.
Nobody who plays Horus Heresy considers basic Tactical Marines to be 'elite'. It doesn't matter what the background says or that they're considerably better than the Imperial Militia that one dude at the shop might play. In the lived reality of Horus Heresy gaming, a Tactical Marine is as basic a standard cannon fodder footsoldier as it gets, and none of that fluff about him being a peerless superman has any impact on the tabletop. He's the bottom rung on a roster of even more super-duper-elite troops.
40K isn't that far off. It doesn't matter who your fictional toy soldier men are fictionally fighting for when it's Primaris vs Chaos on the tabletop and T4/W2/3+ is the basic statline for both armies.
If you walk into any random GW and look at the armies being played, chances are the most common statline will be some flavor of MEQ. S3/T3 isn't the average because this isn't a game and franchise centered on humans, it's centered on Marines.
Given the horus heresy setting is almost exclusively centred on space marines on bith sides to the exclusion of any xenos etc, that's a different context entirely.
But again it's another example of "most players in this room" that is not the same as the range of stats employed across the game.
There are more core infantry across the game with lower stats than marines. Their stats are not common across the rules as written. Do not confuse real world representation with design scope of the armies. In the situation there happened to be more knights players in the room that day would you be arguing that S/T 8 is common/average for the game?
I don't know how else this can be reiterated, it's not about the number of people on the room playing marines, it's about their relative stats etc compared to the rest of the game.
Edit: I'll pipe down now, not worth an extended argument, I'm happy for how each and everyone defines what is elite to themselves.
Dudeface wrote: But again it's another example of "most players in this room" that is not the same as the range of stats employed across the game.
It's not the same, but one of these actually matters to how an army feels in practice, and the other is trivia.
An argument for Marines being elite based on where they exist in the range of stats is ignoring the reality that 1. there are still plenty of things with more elite stats than them, and 2. whether an army feels elite on the tabletop depends on how the game tends to actually play out on the tabletop, not a dry analysis of the stats.
And yes, if you show up to the club and find that most players there only play Knights, they are not going to tell you that an Armiger feels like a massive powerhouse of destruction, they're going to tell you it's a weak support unit that gets blown off the board because their reference point for most of their games is a full-sized Knight. See also: Battletech, where a 20-ton war machine is a significant battlefield force in the lore, and the game does have rules for infantry and light vehicles, but in practice most games revolve around 50-100 ton robots and so the 20-tonners are little more than scouts and chaff.
If in some alternate reality most players had Guard, then GEQ would be the baseline, and then Marines would feel elite- although still far from the best of the best, so long as the Marines+1 armies like Custodes exist. But as it stands Marines are de facto the yardstick against which everything else is judged, and that makes them the baseline against which Guard are crappy cannon fodder by comparison.
I think that people do take the "lesser troops" - but they generally don't spam whole armies of them.
I feel you can see say Guard armies right now which are running 40-60 guardsmen (or Cadians etc). But that's 15-20% or so of a 2k point list. Chuck in 2-3 squads of Kasrkin etc. But then you add say half a dozen LRBTs which is the bulk of their army.
If Tyranid players were all running 3*10 Termagants and that's it for cheap/chaff units it would only be 10% of their points. The rest is warriors or monsters.
I think the only codex where we see mass GEQ is GSC. There was a list at the weekend that went 4-1 which was something like 40 Acolytes, 80 Neophytes and 20 bikers.
As Eldar for instance, I think Guardians are still kind of okay. But would you really want to run 200 or something of them? It doesn't seem very sensible.
People took hordes in 8th, Marines players complained that hordes were overpowered, GW nerfed hordes into the ground and now Marines players complain that they don't feel elite because there aren't any hordes anymore.
Tyel wrote: I think that people do take the "lesser troops" - but they generally don't spam whole armies of them.
I feel you can see say Guard armies right now which are running 40-60 guardsmen (or Cadians etc). But that's 15-20% or so of a 2k point list. Chuck in 2-3 squads of Kasrkin etc. But then you add say half a dozen LRBTs which is the bulk of their army.
If Tyranid players were all running 3*10 Termagants and that's it for cheap/chaff units it would only be 10% of their points. The rest is warriors or monsters.
I think the only codex where we see mass GEQ is GSC. There was a list at the weekend that went 4-1 which was something like 40 Acolytes, 80 Neophytes and 20 bikers.
As Eldar for instance, I think Guardians are still kind of okay. But would you really want to run 200 or something of them? It doesn't seem very sensible.
People used to take more in 8th when you got rewarded for taking more detachments. Players complained that it wasn't fair that some armies could fill out detachments easier than others resulting in less starting CP. With flat CP and more limited detachment slots, some armies ended up with more elite lists.
My point about making them "feel" elite has always been about making their plays actually do cost an actual "elite" amount.
What about the idea of paying extra to make your army an "elite Army" full of veterans with buffed stats.
Say instead of 4+/4+ Guard troops, you get all veterans or Kasarkin, with 3+/3+, but instead of 64/squad, you pay 110.
Same with Intercessors. You can take base squads, or full Vet squads for twice the price, with better gear options, and better BS/WS.
There should be an option to actually force an elite army to be ELITE. Right now the only Elite faction is Literally Custodes. No one else pays the 50ppm troop tax.
Nah, just get rid of/nerf Custodes so other elites are elite again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: People took hordes in 8th, Marines players complained that hordes were overpowered, GW nerfed hordes into the ground and now Marines players complain that they don't feel elite because there aren't any hordes anymore.
The circle of 40k.
This is unfortunately true.
Balance was just about right in the two months or so before Marines 2.0 came out in 8th.
JNAProductions wrote: The general usage of elite would be that a single squad of three doing the damage and having the resilience of three squads of ten is the elite one. Using your definition of "It doesn't exist" is not conducive to communication and understanding.
Except the squad of 3 space marines being "elite" to 3 squads of grots doesn't make them "elite" because 3 squads of those same marines are not elite to three squads of Imperial Knights. Nothing is Elite except as compared to something else that may or may not be more elite. So nothing is elite.
EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. And what is the baseline?
Would it be the most common army in the game?
Common in game =/= common in fluff which is what y'all messed up on AGAIN. Otherwise you'd have to argue on whether Harlequins are actually more elite than any other Eldar army.
I've been clear that I'm not talking in-universe. I'm talking real-world.
In the actual world we live in, Marines don't generally feel elite because they're the baseline that most things are measured from.
You can measure from anything and set Elite where you what. If you measure from Navy Seals and call them elite, a lot of National Guard units will not be elite even though you measured from the Seals. Part of the issue may be that "MEQ" has been distrubuted to too many other factions - and that may have some truth to it given the way they backed it out on Necrons.
Tyel wrote: I'll admit this may just be a case of the grass being greener - but I think a lot of this "Marines don't feel elite" is because people only play marines. You therefore don't appreciate the fact your T4 3+ SV 2 wound guys don't die to a stiff breeze of bolter fire like T3 5+ 1 wound guys do.
As it stands a Heavy Intercessor isn't far off a Tyranid Warrior (and will probably get moved closer with surely inevitable 10th edition buffs). Terminators and Bladeguard aren't a million miles away from Custodes.
How much more elite do you want them to be? Should a basic tactical marine be 30 points and have rules to match? With the inevitable uplift of all the "Marines but even better" units to follow?
Actually most of the people posting in favor of making Marines elites are the ones who don't play them. I do play them (though not exclusively) and I'm not really on board - though more from a premise/principle standpoint.
Dudeface wrote: Oh come on, who do space marines fight for again? What's that, the imperium of astartes kind? Humans are the protagonist, they're the reasons marines exist, why they fight.
I don't think you understand what "protagonist" means.
If you believe 4 is the average strength and toughness across infantry for all factions I think you may be in for a shock.
The weighted average, yes. Walk into a typical store and calculate the average S/T of all infantry models on all games being played. Odds are it's pretty close to 4 because most players are playing marines with 4s for those stats. The only reason you'd expect to diverge from that result is that marines also have significant amounts of T5 infantry so depending on the exact marine lists that could push the average higher.
Dudeface wrote: I don't know how else this can be reiterated, it's not about the number of people on the room playing marines, it's about their relative stats etc compared to the rest of the game
So here's a hypothetical: GW introduces a new faction with M1"/WS7+/BS 7+/S1/T1/A1/W1/SV8+, armed with Heavy 1/R1"/S1/AP0/D1 weapons. They cost 500 points per model and $500 per model with some absolutely terrible sculpts so nobody ever plays this army. Are guardsmen now an elite unit? They have considerably higher stats than this new faction and a guardsman is way closer to a marine than to the new faction. Or do you acknowledge that the fact that nobody plays this army means that it doesn't really count and guardsmen are still evaluated relative to the armies people do play, where they are the opposite of elite?
This is not the background forum. This is the general discussion forum.
Your interpretation of the real. The fictional matters because it sets the expectation that Marines are elite, and Guardsmen are not. In the Revolutionary War, the Brits were the "elite", They were also more common than the Continental Army. They were even more common than the German Mercenaries (Guardsmen) that supplemented them. Hollywood and the Victors Writing The History books have turned the Continental Militia as opposed to the Continental Army into the Elite.
No they aren't. The protagonists are marines. They're the face of the franchise, they get the most lore, they are the literal protagonists in most of the books, they have the largest model range with constant new content, and they're the most common army on the table. Normal humans are background NPCs and secondary factions.
Marines are above average in the stats distribution for the game, or are supposed to be. They can be common, but that doesn't mean their stats aren't above average.
How exactly can a stat line be above average if that stat line is 75% or more of the game? If I have the set of values {3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5} then 4 is very clearly the average. It doesn't matter if some 30 year old reference document says that 3 is supposed to be the average, the reality of the actual game being played is that 4 is the average.
Because you're not counting the trillions upon trillions of T2 and T3 "civilians" on all these worlds, and the people who say 3 is the average do not. Compared to the average civilian every military unit is elite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Again, I'd flip that around and say that Marines don't feel elite because nobody wants to play anything that's "lesser" than Marines. Where are the Guardsmen? Where are the Boyz? Where are the Eldar Guardians? Where are the Termagants and Hormagaunts?
Collecting dust during the era of absolutely horrid blast rules?
Marines would/could feel elite in a Necromunda-setting where every other faction is normal humans. In 40K though? There are only about 6 factions with worse baseline stats (IG, GSC, Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Traitor guard). Then there are factions whose line infantry either has superior or the same Equipment as marines, but some worse stats (Squats, Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Sisters). And even fluffwize it's totally fine that these factions are on par with Marines 1:1 on the tabletop. In the scale of 40K a Marine, despite being a genetically altered supersoldier, is just not that awesome because he's facing superrobots, aliens with super tech or aliens that have experience of 10K years.
A whole army of Marines in Gravis armour already stretches the fluff because they're "too elite", their base stats are nearly on par with Custodes who should be much better. 1:1 a Marine shouldn't be better than an aspect warrior, immortal, harlequin or ork nob. Because these are all elite compared to a guardsman, but they're all common units of their faction.
So no, Marines simply aren't elite in the scale of 40K (didn't even touch knights), and it felt really bad for narrative focused play when most other armies had cannon fodder stats compared to them at the start of 9th.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Marines would/could feel elite in a Necromunda-setting where every other faction is normal humans. In 40K though? There are only about 6 factions with worse baseline stats (IG, GSC, Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Traitor guard). Then there are factions whose line infantry either has superior or the same Equipment as marines, but some worse stats (Squats, Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Sisters). And even fluffwize it's totally fine that these factions are on par with Marines 1:1 on the tabletop. In the scale of 40K a Marine, despite being a genetically altered supersoldier, is just not that awesome because he's facing superrobots, aliens with super tech or aliens that have experience of 10K years.
A whole army of Marines in Gravis armour already stretches the fluff because they're "too elite", their base stats are nearly on par with Custodes who should be much better. 1:1 a Marine shouldn't be better than an aspect warrior, immortal, harlequin or ork nob. Because these are all elite compared to a guardsman, but they're all common units of their faction.
So no, Marines simply aren't elite in the scale of 40K (didn't even touch knights), and it felt really bad for narrative focused play when most other armies had cannon fodder stats compared to them at the start of 9th.
Edited for Daemons
Is a guardian, the base infantry for eldar, equivalent to a marine? Is a fire warrior as well rounded and capable as a marine?
Even moving on to aspects and nobz, who by fluff are traditionally better at their specialisation than a marine but worse elsewhere. Is a dark reaper as good in melee as a marine? Is a nob as good at shooting?
They keep the old paradigm in place: a marine is better and more well rounded than base infantry for other armies, they're capable of outplaying a foe at what they're weak at and flexible enough that they can pick on that weakness no matter who it is.
That's the fluff and general premise of the marines. It's not super visible any more now that you have things like s5 ap -1 flesh borers knocking about, but they've actually kept that parity going largely.
This is not the background forum. This is the general discussion forum.
Your interpretation of the real. The fictional matters because it sets the expectation that Marines are elite, and Guardsmen are not. In the Revolutionary War, the Brits were the "elite", They were also more common than the Continental Army. They were even more common than the German Mercenaries (Guardsmen) that supplemented them. Hollywood and the Victors Writing The History books have turned the Continental Militia as opposed to the Continental Army into the Elite.
No they aren't. The protagonists are marines. They're the face of the franchise, they get the most lore, they are the literal protagonists in most of the books, they have the largest model range with constant new content, and they're the most common army on the table. Normal humans are background NPCs and secondary factions.
Marines are above average in the stats distribution for the game, or are supposed to be. They can be common, but that doesn't mean their stats aren't above average.
How exactly can a stat line be above average if that stat line is 75% or more of the game? If I have the set of values {3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5} then 4 is very clearly the average. It doesn't matter if some 30 year old reference document says that 3 is supposed to be the average, the reality of the actual game being played is that 4 is the average.
Because you're not counting the trillions upon trillions of T2 and T3 "civilians" on all these worlds, and the people who say 3 is the average do not. Compared to the average civilian every military unit is elite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Again, I'd flip that around and say that Marines don't feel elite because nobody wants to play anything that's "lesser" than Marines. Where are the Guardsmen? Where are the Boyz? Where are the Eldar Guardians? Where are the Termagants and Hormagaunts?
Collecting dust during the era of absolutely horrid blast rules?
I've lost your point several times over amidst all the bluster about how elite is even defined and how, inconsistent and easily changed, fluff somehow matters to that definition. What point were you trying to make again?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Marines would/could feel elite in a Necromunda-setting where every other faction is normal humans. In 40K though? There are only about 6 factions with worse baseline stats (IG, GSC, Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Traitor guard). Then there are factions whose line infantry either has superior or the same Equipment as marines, but some worse stats (Squats, Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Sisters). And even fluffwize it's totally fine that these factions are on par with Marines 1:1 on the tabletop. In the scale of 40K a Marine, despite being a genetically altered supersoldier, is just not that awesome because he's facing superrobots, aliens with super tech or aliens that have experience of 10K years.
A whole army of Marines in Gravis armour already stretches the fluff because they're "too elite", their base stats are nearly on par with Custodes who should be much better. 1:1 a Marine shouldn't be better than an aspect warrior, immortal, harlequin or ork nob. Because these are all elite compared to a guardsman, but they're all common units of their faction.
So no, Marines simply aren't elite in the scale of 40K (didn't even touch knights), and it felt really bad for narrative focused play when most other armies had cannon fodder stats compared to them at the start of 9th.
Edited for Daemons
Is a guardian, the base infantry for eldar, equivalent to a marine? Is a fire warrior as well rounded and capable as a marine?
Even moving on to aspects and nobz, who by fluff are traditionally better at their specialisation than a marine but worse elsewhere. Is a dark reaper as good in melee as a marine? Is a nob as good at shooting?
They keep the old paradigm in place: a marine is better and more well rounded than base infantry for other armies, they're capable of outplaying a foe at what they're weak at and flexible enough that they can pick on that weakness no matter who it is.
That's the fluff and general premise of the marines. It's not super visible any more now that you have things like s5 ap -1 flesh borers knocking about, but they've actually kept that parity going largely.
I'd say an Eldar Guardian is more like militia, like a Cultist for CSM and not really the baseline warrior. But I'm not sure if we even have a disagreement?
All I'm saying is Marines are fine overall in comparison to other units. They were too strong at the start of 9th when they were the only ones' with 2 wounds and everything that should have been on par with them was weak (not necessarily pointswize, but statwize). I dislike the Gravis direction, though. T5 3 wound troops as a baseline should be something reserved for... Death Guard maybe, Custodes certainly, but not for Marines.
The real problem is the escalation of AP and damage values which made defense stats less important, but Marines themselves with Ap-2 Bolters started that trend.
Breton wrote: Collecting dust during the era of absolutely horrid blast rules?
i'd argue blast is the lesser evil when it comes to hordes being nerfed
Coherency and engagement range mean that the main draw to playing a horde (board control) is neutered AND your units don't even get to participate 100% in combat if theyre melee-centric
I've lost your point several times over amidst all the bluster about how elite is even defined and how, inconsistent and easily changed, fluff somehow matters to that definition. What point were you trying to make again?
Well considering you just listed my point; I'm guessing you're being dishonest just to get in the insult.
Breton wrote: Collecting dust during the era of absolutely horrid blast rules?
i'd argue blast is the lesser evil when it comes to hordes being nerfed
It may be the lesser of the impediments but it's the first one and it makes the followups moot. Even large throngs of shoota boys or Termagants don't really exist. Or 10 man Marine Squads (Part of that is the free Sergeants but only a small part)
Is a guardian, the base infantry for eldar, equivalent to a marine?
Fairly so. The packaging is different, 2 bases to 1 or so, hidden power swords, support platforms for extra punch or an invuln. 2 Hidden Power swords vs two hidden AGLs, or a Sergeant with a power fist etc... sure - They even have shooty and slashy specific sub-versions. But yeah they end up pretty equivalent point for point in a rules vaccuum.
Is a fire warrior as well rounded and capable as a marine?
I hope not, Fire Warriors - and the Tau in general are intentionally not well rounded on a unit by unit basis.
Is a guardian, the base infantry for eldar, equivalent to a marine?
Fairly so. The packaging is different, 2 bases to 1 or so, hidden power swords, support platforms for extra punch or an invuln. 2 Hidden Power swords vs two hidden AGLs, or a Sergeant with a power fist etc... sure - They even have shooty and slashy specific sub-versions. But yeah they end up pretty equivalent point for point in a rules vaccuum.
So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.
The only thing that for determining whether a unit is 
