for what its worth (i.e. not much) as a former IG footslogger player, ork footslogger player and nid hungry horde buffet player I really welcomed the removal of blast templates..
yes in theory my poor gribbles took more hits from "d6" hits over a circular disc but by gods the game got faster both to resolve shooting but because there was now no need to worry too much how the models inside a blob were positioned
also on the elite/non elite bit.. keep in mind you can have a model thats elite or a unit thats elite, and frankly if the moons align and the point values work out they are equal
for me "elite" should be more "this unit has more options as to how it can act" where as non-elite should be more limited in what it can do - i.e. sort of make it reflect training and flexibility
leopard wrote: for what its worth (i.e. not much) as a former IG footslogger player, ork footslogger player and nid hungry horde buffet player I really welcomed the removal of blast templates..
yes in theory my poor gribbles took more hits from "d6" hits over a circular disc but by gods the game got faster both to resolve shooting but because there was now no need to worry too much how the models inside a blob were positioned
also on the elite/non elite bit.. keep in mind you can have a model thats elite or a unit thats elite, and frankly if the moons align and the point values work out they are equal
for me "elite" should be more "this unit has more options as to how it can act" where as non-elite should be more limited in what it can do - i.e. sort of make it reflect training and flexibility
That sums it up for me in far fewer words, thank you.
tneva82 wrote: So iron hands atm 2nd wr % with 55.. Dark angels 53. Rest below 50. Combined marines 45. Lowest wr with blood angels.
Yep. All those free guns sure broke the game.
From last weekend on Goonhammer's Page.
CROSS-SWORDS GT:
1: Dark Angels
2: Space Wolves
3: Drukhari
4: Salamanders
Bastion Games Ulster Warlords 2.0: Wrath of Angels GT:
1:Chaos Marines
2: Space Marines
3: GSC 4: Death Guard
Torneo The Guild León GT:
1: Iron Hands
2: Chaos Knights
3: Imperial Knights
4: Imperial Knights
2 1st place finishes out of 3, 2 2nd place finishes out of 3.
From the weekend prior (used this website: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/10pxeec/meta_monday_13023_arks_of_omen_eventsthe_new_meta/)
Bembel Clash 6: DA got 4th place
Da Bolton Waaagh 2023: Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Iron Hands took first-third. Another IH player got 5th.
DZTV 40KGT Dark Angels got 2nd and Grey Knights 3rd, another DA player came in 5th.
Oxford Onslaught Custards and 2 grey knights lists took 3rd - 5th
UCG’s Galaxy In Grasp V: Iron Hands took 1st.
Zlobr GT 2023: IH took 4th
Winter War 2.0 DA took 1st
The worst Marines did in ANY event they listed was 4th place. But yeah, Marines definitely aren't doing well and aren't starting to run away with tournaments just like I predicted they would. Lets just focus on W/L rate because that is a better metric for how broken a factions top lists can be.
Nobody was taking them when Manlet Marines only had W1, so the notion about W2 changing anything is wrong.
...Umm...Orkz were running horde armies of 120-180 Boyz in 8th. Our best build in 7th was Greentide of 100-300 Boyz. 4th-6th the adage was "Boyz before Toyz". So wtf are you actually talking about? Orkz literally just stopped taking boyz in 9th because the rules for them are trash and the math is bad against our most common opponent...SM. Even with the "buff" to 8ppm Ork boyz instead of 9ppm the math still doesn't pan out edition to edition. The cost to kill a Marine in CC went up from 18pts killing 15pts to 32pts to kill 18pts. So those Ork boyz lost 40%+ of their combat effectiveness against Marines, that is why they fell off in popularity.
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
Congrats, D3+3 weapons just became some of the best anti-horde/infantry weapons in the game. Hey, why are players spamming plasma/Lascannons/Melta more than ever? Oh, its because its better at everything than every other type of weapon.
Classic GW: make a rule that works badly, then make some additional rules to modify the basic rule for all the many situations where it needs to be changed. That's how you know the rumor is probably true.
Classic GW: make a rule that works badly, then make some additional rules to modify the basic rule for all the many situations where it needs to be changed. That's how you know the rumor is probably true.
Nah, adding keywords to the game would actually help tremendously. Make dedicated anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons, that way you don't get lasguns wounding tanks and meltas being the best TAC weapon types
Classic GW: make a rule that works badly, then make some additional rules to modify the basic rule for all the many situations where it needs to be changed. That's how you know the rumor is probably true.
Nah, adding keywords to the game would actually help tremendously. Make dedicated anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons, that way you don't get lasguns wounding tanks and meltas being the best TAC weapon types
You don't need keywords and special rules for that, you just go back to the original to-wound table.
I do think adding some keywords to weapons (and relic versions of weapons) would be of benefit, if only to streamline certain special rules that could reference them.
BOLT, for instance, or LAS or HOT-SHOT, just to think of examples from the SM or IG books - I'm sure people can think of others.
Dysartes wrote: I do think adding some keywords to weapons (and relic versions of weapons) would be of benefit, if only to streamline certain special rules that could reference them.
BOLT, for instance, or LAS or HOT-SHOT, just to think of examples from the SM or IG books - I'm sure people can think of others.
Can't speak for Shuriken, Poison or Malefic, as they're in books I don't own (Eldar, Dark Eldar, and CSM respectively, right?)
Using the latest IG book's reference table, there's no sign of a keyword for Bolt, Flamer, Melta or Sniper. Page 144 goes so far as to explain what counts as a Las or Hot-Shot weapon, rather than just simply give them a damn keyword.
Plague Weapon sort of works, too, though I'm amused that in the Death Guard book there's a paragraph saying, if you'll allow me to paraphrase, "When we refer to Plague Weapons, we mean any weapon with the Plague Weapon ability."
Assault and Blast might qualify, to be fair, though Assault being a type muddies the waters a bit.
All I'm saying is that we have the space in weapon profiles to have a Keyword column. Blast and Plague Weapon could migrate there easily enough, Bolt/Las/Hot-Shot/Flamer/Melta/Plasma can all sit in there too, etc.
You don't then need the paragraphs of copy explaining when a weapon is a certain type in some of the books - in the rules that reference them you can just say "a weapon (or Relic) with the XXXX keyword" instead, and it is a lot tidier.
We're using Keywords (and Faction Keywords) for units - why not use them for weapons, too?
I'm 50/50 on whether I'd want to shunt more special rules to sit behind keywords - I can see advantages and disadvantages either way.
Dysartes wrote: Can't speak for Shuriken, Poison or Malefic, as they're in books I don't own (Eldar, Dark Eldar, and CSM respectively, right?)
Using the latest IG book's reference table, there's no sign of a keyword for Bolt, Flamer, Melta or Sniper. Page 144 goes so far as to explain what counts as a Las or Hot-Shot weapon, rather than just simply give them a damn keyword.
Plague Weapon sort of works, too, though I'm amused that in the Death Guard book there's a paragraph saying, if you'll allow me to paraphrase, "When we refer to Plague Weapons, we mean any weapon with the Plague Weapon ability."
Assault and Blast might qualify, to be fair, though Assault being a type muddies the waters a bit.
All I'm saying is that we have the space in weapon profiles to have a Keyword column. Blast and Plague Weapon could migrate there easily enough, Bolt/Las/Hot-Shot/Flamer/Melta/Plasma can all sit in there too, etc.
You don't then need the paragraphs of copy explaining when a weapon is a certain type in some of the books - in the rules that reference them you can just say "a weapon (or Relic) with the XXXX keyword" instead, and it is a lot tidier.
We're using Keywords (and Faction Keywords) for units - why not use them for weapons, too?
I'm 50/50 on whether I'd want to shunt more special rules to sit behind keywords - I can see advantages and disadvantages either way.
you misunderstood what i meant, theyre not keywords but they already behave like them
(well, shuriken, blast, poison, plague, malefic are keywords but are treated as abilities, so same difference really)
for me "elite" should be more "this unit has more options as to how it can act" where as non-elite should be more limited in what it can do - i.e. sort of make it reflect training and flexibility
^^^THIS too!
In pre 8th (well, pre 7th for an important bit of this), my Marines had a few more options available to them. The Sweeping Advance mechanic after breaking a unit in combat meant that they could take on lesser troops of much greater numbers by engaging favorably in Assault and then wiping them out for big gains. Additionally, every Marine could use their Krak Grenades in CC with Vehicles, meaning a squad of Marines could do some excellent AT work if I got them there. Both of those options made them feel like absolute badasses. Just 5 Bolter Marines could make a serious impact if they were in the right place and rolling decent.
Also, just pinning things in CC was immensely valuable, and Marines with ATSKNF did that very well.
No Strats, no fancy gear, none of that. Just 5, run-of-the-mill, basic Marines.
On top of that, the Flamer was actually great against hordes back then too, so you could be further equipped for anti-horde in an effective way.
leopard wrote: for me "elite" should be more "this unit has more options as to how it can act" where as non-elite should be more limited in what it can do - i.e. sort of make it reflect training and flexibility
So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.
Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".
Nah, adding keywords to the game would actually help tremendously. Make dedicated anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons, that way you don't get lasguns wounding tanks and meltas being the best TAC weapon types
I'd use the Aircraft approach as a guide. Coexisting on the same board but rarely interacting. Add a second stat band for tanks/vehicles T11-20 for example. Add a Size (or whatever you want to call it stat) to weapons and models. Size 3 (MultiMelta) vs Size 3 (Chaos Landraider) hits on normals. Size 3 (Multi-melta) vs Size 2 hits on less. Say cumulative -2 to hit or only hits on 5's - just as an example actual effect needs testing and more thought - Size 3 vs Size 1 only hits on 6's Meanwhile the Bolter is Size 1, S4 and can't scratch the paint on T20. Pistols and Melee get two profiles, vs Infantry and vs Vehicles sort of. Make the big guns incredibly ineffective vs man sized - this makes tough man sized still tough because anti-tank can't be repurposed against them - and make the man sized guns ineffective against vehicles - this makes vehicles tougher because only the anti-tank stuff really has a shot at them, while preserving their vulnerability to up close sabotage and big guns. As mentioned Close Combat, pistols and some of the hybrid weapons (Missile launchers with dual profile, Grav Cannon and a few others from each faction that can be fluffed as dual purpose) should get rules and/or dual profiles towards versatility/backups.
So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.
Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".
It wasn't a question. It's perfectly obvious they're not the same, stop trying to argue they are the same.
So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.
Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".
The reason they asked is because it seems like you don't understand the discussion. This entire strand is about eliteness, so the relative power of one model versus another is precisely the point, which you seem to be unable to grasp. I don't know why you keep focusing on equal points as that has nothing to do with what's being discussed.
So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.
Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".
It wasn't a question. It's perfectly obvious they're not the same, stop trying to argue they are the same.
Its also perfectly obvious people don't generally run one Guardian vs one Tactical Marine, that those models are taken in units with a points/power system, and a unit of Guardians vs a roughly equal points unit of Marines are in fact somewhat equivalent.
So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.
Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".
The reason they asked is because it seems like you don't understand the discussion. This entire strand is about eliteness, so the relative power of one model versus another is precisely the point, which you seem to be unable to grasp. I don't know why you keep focusing on equal points as that has nothing to do with what's being discussed.
The relative power of one model that isn't taken as one model? Does the Datasheet say 1-10? Do armies take X number of models or X number of points worth of models? Sure, if the Marine player takes 30 Intercessors and a Captain so the Ork player is limited to 30 boys and a Warboss the Marines will feel and even BE elite, but that's not the same points level is it? Even if you follow the same restrictions of troops + 1 HQ, the Ork player is going to have closer to 60 boys won't he? What's to grasp here? People want Space Marines to play as elite in a scenario they're not supposed to, then use a scenario we don't play to show that they.. actually are elite in the scenario we don't play?
If you need three models to equal one other model, and the one model is three times the points of the three, they're balanced.
But the one model is more elite.
Eliteness is not a measure of how overpowered or underpowered a unit is.
Guardian Defenders and Tactical Marines are equivalent in that they are both infantry with firearms. In every other way they are different. Using points efficiency as a measure of eliteness is completely bogus. Points shouldn't even feature into the discussion since a unit can have an unfairly high or low pts cost because of a typing error or a fairly low or high cost because of a design choice (maybe you want Space Marines to run transports or you want Space Marines not to spam FW units).
SM have 2 wounds T4 3+ Sv each and 2 S4 attacks on the charge as well as WS/BS 3+. That's all the proof you need to show they are elite compared to a 1 wound T3 Sv 4+/5+ unit with 1 S3 attack.
vict0988 wrote: Guardian Defenders and Tactical Marines are equivalent in that they are both infantry with firearms.
And the inconic troops unit, and obsec, and a host of other things they have in commmon.
In every other way they are different. Using points efficiency as a measure of eliteness is completely bogus. Points shouldn't even feature into the discussion since a unit can have an unfairly high or low pts cost because of a typing error or a fairly low or high cost because of a design choice (maybe you want Space Marines to run transports or you want Space Marines not to spam FW units).
I don't make the points so what I want isn't relevant - meanwhile points are, because without them you're not getting either model on the table. You're both hiding and basing your Evalution on points efficiency. It Marines were 40 points a model, nobody would call them elite. That low or high cost can also affect the Marine - thus why I point out equivalent Points values and why theoretical discussions include the theoretical "world" not the hypothetical one. In theory everything is balanced against each other on a razor's edge. In a hypothetical world the units that disprove your theory don't count.
SM have 2 wounds T4 3+ Sv each and 2 S4 attacks on the charge as well as WS/BS 3+. That's all the proof you need to show they are elite compared to a 1 wound T3 Sv 4+/5+ unit with 1 S3 attack.
And for roughly the same points you get two wounds of (assorted) Eldar Guardians, one that shoots about as well, and one that chops even better.
Let me try this a different way - the models in the game are abstracts. Even a given unit isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the faction has a whole. Poxwalkers for example aren't very beefy, but Deathguard as a faction are. To decide if a faction is elite you have to look at the entire abstract. Meaning you have to look at the Poxwalkers and the Deathshroud Terminators (or what have you). You have to look at the force multiplication heroes, and the beat sticks, and so on. (assuming it was legal) An army of just Captains is pretty beefy. Apothecaries wouldn't be very strong, but an army of Apothecaries, Aggressors and Eradicators would be. They added CORE mechanics because the "weakest" Primarch in a 1v1 Brother-vs-Brother match was upsetting the apple cart when he had his mates around him. One model in isolation is frequently not a measure of the faction as a whole.
Wikipedia on abstract art wrote:Strictly speaking, abstract art refers to art unconcerned with the literal depiction of things from the visible world—it can, however, refer to an object or image which has been distilled from the real world, or indeed, another work of art. Artwork that reshapes the natural world for expressive purposes is called abstract; that which derives from, but does not imitate a recognizable subject is called nonobjective abstraction.
If we use art terminology 40k rules are abstract but they should not be nonobjective abstraction, 40k rules should be derived from the fluff of 40k and the miniatures produced by GW. That means that a Guardian Defender and a Tactical Marine should not have the same rules, for example if you were to try to represent your Space Marine army using the Eldar codex you'd have a hard time because the stat lines aren't based on the fluff and miniatures Space Marines have. When Space Marines have 2 wounds it's representing them having 2 hearts and being huge, it's an abstract way of doing so because a single lasgun shot to the eyesocket could probably kill a Space Marine in the fluff and the model isn't large enough to demand having multiple wounds, but it's representing the miniatures and the fluff of Space Marines abstractly. Using the rules of Guardian Defenders to represent Tacticals wouldn't work because 1W T3 5+ Sv does not fit the fluff of Space Marines, so even if the points efficiency of the two units where the same, the experience of playing them is different because they have different strengths and weaknesses.
We are not talking about which factions are elite or which army lists are unique, that's you derailing the conversation. You are never going to convince anyone that a Grot is elite or that a green tide is an elite list, because what people are looking at is stats for individual models and number of models for lists, not win rate or points efficiency, increasing the points costs of Space Marines would make them more elite in some people's eyes because armies with them would contain fewer models. The only person who would consider a competitive 7th edition SM list with 100 Marines + 10 vehicles more elite than a casual 9th edition list with 40 gravis Marines is you.
Dysartes wrote: Any chance y'all can keep the "elite" discussion in that other thread, and let this one be kept for results and/or discussion of the results.
Semper - how large were those events, and what proportion of players in each event were playing a Codex: Space Marines army?
It ran out of steam after evidence was requested and none provided, so they've come back here to peddle the same crap.
Dysartes wrote: Any chance y'all can keep the "elite" discussion in that other thread, and let this one be kept for results and/or discussion of the results.
Semper - how large were those events, and what proportion of players in each event were playing a Codex: Space Marines army?
It ran out of steam after evidence was requested and none provided, so they've come back here to peddle the same crap.
You keep lying about what other people are doing. Bodes well for the strength of your arguments. New Post, I saw two new ones to reply to, which is why there are two different quote replies there.
Stud or Snotling 2023: Marines finished 1, 5 and 6.
Northern Wastes VIII: Marines finished 2nd
Beachhead Brawl 2023: Marines finished 1st and 3rd.
Out of 5 reported events (So far) from last weekend Marines took 1st in 2 of them.
Well played on the early Space Marine prediction. Are you worried about World Eaters? They seem really strong to me into other melee factions. Attack one unit, it fights on death. Attack two, they fight on death one, interrupt with the other. Their secondaries seem a bit too "just doing what you were going to do" as well.
Extra kick there for Semper, paraphrasing slightly as I cba to skip backwards: "Orks should be able to build a fun niche shooty list but it shouldn't be their strongest or go-to option, we want them in there bashing people with a choppa. If Ork shooting is considered the way forwards then we've done it wrong." - 40k design team
I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
Not necessarily, they could restrict the amount of shooty models one can deploy by reducing unit sizes and putting ranged units in the same role slots. They could also use the sub-faction objectives to favor melee units.
There are other ways to incentivize melee without forcing shooty units to be subpar.
EDIT: Also wow but I just realized that was basically a slap on the face on all Bad Moons players. That's an entire subfaction whose lore is about it being all about the dakkadakka. Hell dakkadakka is an ork coined term.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
Accept they need melee elements and that they're not intended to be the "competitive" build. So nothing changes I guess?
Tyran wrote: I wonder if Space Marines vehicles are so bad because Space Marines are not intended to be a mechanized faction.
It sounds almost and dumb and horrendous but maybe? They're often depicted via drop off/drop pods/teleport, very rarely are they in novels being taxi'd about for any real length of time.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
Not necessarily, they could restrict the amount of shooty models one can deploy by reducing unit sizes and putting ranged units in the same role slots. They could also use the sub-faction objectives to favor melee units.
There are other ways to incentivize melee without forcing shooty units to be subpar.
EDIT: Also wow but I just realized that was basically a slap on the face on all Bad Moons players. That's an entire subfaction whose lore is about it being all about the dakkadakka.
Hell dakkadakka is an ork coined term.
Are we sure these designers even read the lore?
I mean, to be fair, you can love something all you want and just not be good at it. King Of The Hill had Dale not be good at basket weaving (what a great episode). I've also seen many musicians have passion for their instrument and just be awful at it. Hell, Steven Seagal has released MULTIPLE albums and he's one of the worst blues guitarists I've ever heard.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
Accept they need melee elements and that they're not intended to be the "competitive" build. So nothing changes I guess?
@EviscerationPlague: You've actually listened to Steven Seagall's albums? Please, tell me you listened to Kill on repeat for several hours just to "cleanse" your ears.
Gadzilla666 wrote: @EviscerationPlague: You've actually listened to Steven Seagall's albums? Please, tell me you listened to Kill on repeat for several hours just to "cleanse" your ears.
Pretty lucky guess Kill is my favorite album by them (I'm not big on Barnes because his personality alone ruins his albums for me), but Seagal is some pretty mediocre to bad stuff. I listened to two albums, Crystal Cave and Mojo Priest. This was the single best song he did off those two albums, and hear how bad it is:
Gadzilla666 wrote: @EviscerationPlague: You've actually listened to Steven Seagall's albums? Please, tell me you listened to Kill on repeat for several hours just to "cleanse" your ears.
Pretty lucky guess Kill is my favorite album by them (I'm not big on Barnes because his personality alone ruins his albums for me), but Seagal is some pretty mediocre to bad stuff. I listened to two albums, Crystal Cave and Mojo Priest. This was the single best song he did off those two albums, and hear how bad it is:
Yeah, that's pretty bad. And Kill is my favorite as well. And fully agreed on Barnes vs Fischer. George is hands down the best front man in Death Metal, IMHO (anyone whose seen them live can attest to that. And yes, my old has seen them with both).
Edit: We're getting a bit OT here. If you want to talk "Extreme Metal", feel free to PM me, Plague.
Tyran wrote:I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
Dudeface wrote:
Hecaton wrote: What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
Accept they need melee elements and that they're not intended to be the "competitive" build. So nothing changes I guess?
There's a right way and a wrong way to handle army specialization.
The wrong way is to give a faction only bad options for a particular specialty. Only giving Orks overcosted shooting units would be a tacit encouragement to min-max into melee and eschew shooting altogether. You see this all the time with subfactions that favor certain units; you don't sprinkle some melee into a shooting-buffing faction, you go all-in on shooting units.
The right way is to structure the army so that they cannot lean into the capability you're trying to make them weak at. I've got two examples in mind- Kroot, and Tyranids.
Tau have never been a melee army, deriving their melee capability from Kroot. But Kroot don't have to be a bad unit or lack synergy with the rest of the army in order to encourage Tau players to focus on shooting and avoid a melee-heavy army. They just need to not be hardcore melee specialists, and so Kroot are a unit with decent shooting and decent melee, but not spectacular at or specialized into either. An army that's heavy on Kroot is still a shooting-capable army, and can never go toe-to-toe with Orks or Blood Angels. Kroot can be worth their points and attractive as a melee supplement for Tau forces while still having the army lackluster at melee overall.
Meanwhile, from 3rd-5th Tyranids seriously lacked for ranged anti-tank. So you could build a gunline easily enough, but without good anti-tank you would struggle against armies with much in the way of armor. The good Tyranid anti-tank weapons were psykers with limited range and melee units, so there was natural incentive to take stuff other than just shooting.
If GW made Kroot dedicated melee specialists but then deliberately overcosted them, or gave Tyranids anti-tank shooting units but made all Tyranid shooting overcosted, the end result would be no Kroot and no Tyranid shooting on the table. That's bad design.
So for Orks, rather than have dedicated Ork shooting units be bad for the cost, if the goal were for the army to need melee (something I don't really agree with- Orks have always been about dakka) I'd look at instead promoting more hybrid units; things cost-ineffective if used just for shooting, but having melee capability that's worth using. I'd also try to insert some conspicuous gaps, like lack of long-range shooting, requiring a more in-your-face approach. These units could be good and well-pointed for what they are, just lacking the capabilities to facilitate a pure gunline.
And if GW wants Marines to be infantry-heavy, the right way to do that is not to make Space Marine tanks all crap for their points. It's to ensure that the army has roles that can only be filled by infantry, encouraging their use and making an all-tank SM army ineffective for reasons other than raw points efficiency.
(Or, of course, they could always use the FOC to limit army composition, but clearly that ship has sailed)
SemperMortis wrote: Based on the new updates I honestly predict SM to start running away with tournaments when these changes are implemented. I just don't see how a faction can't dominate the meta when they are allowed to take almost every upgrade for free.
A Devastator squad equipped with 4 Lascannons just went from 155pts (Cherub) to 115pts and you can give the Sgt free upgrades as well
A Sternguard Vet squad equipped with Combi-Meltas and 2 Heavy meltas and Sgt with PF just went from 165pts to 100pts
A Aggressor Squad with Boltstorm/grenade launcher just went from 135pts to 90pts.
And those are just some of the ridiculous levels of power increase I'm talking about. With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.
Ironically, in a rare twist, with these ridiculous levels of points drops across the board for Marines; Several units which hadn't been playable before are now going to be OP and a few others will go from collecting dust to competitive. I just fear they went too far in the points cuts and drastically overvalued how much AoC was really worth.
guard get almost every upgrade for free and aren't dominating the meta...its not so much about the upgrades as the stats of units and the upgrades, which the marines are behind on.
Meanwhile, from 3rd-5th Tyranids seriously lacked for ranged anti-tank. So you could build a gunline easily enough, but without good anti-tank you would struggle against armies with much in the way of armor. The good Tyranid anti-tank weapons were psykers with limited range and melee units, so there was natural incentive to take stuff other than just shooting.
Not quite, 3-5th Tyranids had venom cannons and rupture cannons were introduced in 5th. And they were blatant examples of wargear that was designed to be bad.
Hive Guard also were introduced in 5th and they were like one of the only 5 good units in that book.
jumping into the ork argument late and without full context, but I think Orks should kinda be middle of the road at everything on an individual level, with their numbers being what decides how good an individual army is at one or the other.
BS5+ with lots of shots per weapon, and lots models shooting would mean they're pretty good at shooting (assuming their guns have decent stats)
S5 T5 WS4+ and 1A per boy isn't too bad when you've got 9 of them and a nob with 2 attacks for example.
I do like the idea of them being slightly better at melee over all though.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
Accept they need melee elements and that they're not intended to be the "competitive" build. So nothing changes I guess?
i find this idea absolutely stupid tbh.
i get balancing rules is difficult but if they intentionally make some sub faction rules stronger that's super dumb. fortunately i don't think that's the case since pretty much any combination of guard rules is pretty competitive right now, with only 1 or 2 that i think are weak in game but super fluffy.
Re the orks, as a reminder that's not my opinion I was just pasing on the comment from the video and I think catbarf hits the nail on the head. I'd also onot be shocked to see subfactions going away tbh as they're a fantastic flavour option but nightmare balance wise.
Dudeface wrote: Re the orks, as a reminder that's not my opinion I was just pasing on the comment from the video and I think catbarf hits the nail on the head. I'd also onot be shocked to see subfactions going away tbh as they're a fantastic flavour option but nightmare balance wise.
They really aren't a nightmare balance wise. It's the Strats and Warlord Traits that get locked to specific armies, or the fact that certain armies, like Dark Angels, get rules on top of rules on top of rules because reasons.
Dudeface wrote: Re the orks, as a reminder that's not my opinion I was just pasing on the comment from the video and I think catbarf hits the nail on the head. I'd also onot be shocked to see subfactions going away tbh as they're a fantastic flavour option but nightmare balance wise.
They really aren't a nightmare balance wise. It's the Strats and Warlord Traits that get locked to specific armies, or the fact that certain armies, like Dark Angels, get rules on top of rules on top of rules because reasons.
Yes, they got subfaction rules, there isn't a single book in print where there isn't a best and or worst subfaction. Often a subfaction completely makes or breaks an army/build as well.
The issue is that subfaction abilities have grown too powerful.
So to go with Orks again, its not just the issue of "sub-par shooting". The problem is you've got Goffs boosting Boyz equivalent by over 50% into say Marines. By contrast Bad Moons boost shooting damage output by 3% - and yes, potentially you get to shoot with your extra range, but that's probably not an issue due to how close-in 40k is.
Unsurprisingly one of these things you build an army around - and another is a token bonus that very moderately impacts your game.
But its not clear it has to be this skewed.
I'm not really sure GW even want armies to "look" a certain way. Plastic sold is plastic sold. I just think that basically up to this edition they had a collector first/player second mindset. So the idea would be that you'd bring a bit of everything, some good, some bad, aka White Dwarf armies. But clearly this meant (probably from the get go - but with ever increasing frequency from about 5th onwards) that you just took 3 of the best thing, then 3 of the next best thing. Its only really been in 9th that they've tried to make most things good in their own terms - and that's why there's fewer outright terrible options than in past editions. But synergy still makes some things better - sometimes a lot better - than others.
Different plastic sold is more plastic sold. I think they just haven't trickled out yet. They've done it with BA vs DA vs UM, vs SW but they haven't done it with Orks yet.
GW has a history of rolling out ideas in SM first, then from there to everyone else - at times they've even done it with UM first, then SM, then everyone else. Doctrines started in UM, then went to all marines, then other armies. Many of the Doctrines/etc are even lifted out of a SM chapter and dropped into another army whether it fits or not - UM and Black Legion are usually mirrors of each other for example. Sautekh and Ravenwing are very similar. Space Wolves Hunter Unleashed, Goff No Muckin' About. I'd guess you could find/make a lot of the Super Doctrine type things out of the DIY Chapter stuff in the SM Codex.
Tyran wrote:Not quite, 3-5th Tyranids had venom cannons and rupture cannons were introduced in 5th.
And they were blatant examples of wargear that was designed to be bad.
Hive Guard also were introduced in 5th and they were like one of the only 5 good units in that book.
I remember venom cannons putting in work against infantry, but against vehicles that 'only glances' rule was pretty rough.
And yeah, Rupture Cannons having AP4 is the thing I point to when my buddies ask 'why don't you play your Tyranids in our 5th Ed campaign?'.
EviscerationPlague wrote:They really aren't a nightmare balance wise. It's the Strats and Warlord Traits that get locked to specific armies, or the fact that certain armies, like Dark Angels, get rules on top of rules on top of rules because reasons.
Tyel wrote:The issue is that subfaction abilities have grown too powerful.
IMO the fundamental problem isn't the power level, it's the fact that they're free. Even if subfaction abilities are kept relatively weak, they're a tacit incentive to min-max into units that benefit from the ability and allow the army to punch above its weight. The actual value of a subfaction trait varies between zero (you took the subfaction because it's your fluff but none of your models actually benefit from it) to significant (every model in the army has been chosen to maximize the subfaction trait) or somewhere in between, and that's impossible to predict or appropriately cost.
You end up with these flanderized armies where Blood Angels have melee and nothing else, Hydra is all little critters and not a Carnifex in sight, Catachans are tank and artillery carparks (huh?), and so on. I don't know if the vision the designers had in mind was that a well-rounded army would be a little better at their fluff specialty, but the practical result is that you don't take a well-rounded army, you specialize.
I'd much rather represent subfaction traits as things like:
-Optional upgrades- you're the tank subfaction, so you can pay a points cost per tank to upgrade it; you don't get indirectly punished for taking infantry and not just spamming tanks.
-Fluff-appropriate options rather than straight buffs- you play Catachans, so you can take heavy flamers on your infantry as a heavy weapons choice.
-Unique units- you're Ultramarines, you get Tyrannic War Veterans.
No freebies, just options appropriate to the subfaction.
catbarf wrote: I'd much rather represent subfaction traits as things like:
-Optional upgrades- you're the tank subfaction, so you can pay a points cost per tank to upgrade it; you don't get indirectly punished for taking infantry and not just spamming tanks.
-Fluff-appropriate options rather than straight buffs- you play Catachans, so you can take heavy flamers on your infantry as a heavy weapons choice.
-Unique units- you're Ultramarines, you get Tyrannic War Veterans.
No freebies, just options appropriate to the subfaction.
I agree with all of the above and want to highlight one downside to that method.
Let's assume we are being oldschool and want to represent Blood Angels by giving them the ability to have Furious Charge.
- If they could pay per unit, but don't have to take it, only melee units will get it. You even might end up with two identical melee units, where one got FC and the other didn't. It feels wrong from a POV if you think FC is because of their genetics.
- If they have to pay for it for every model, it encourages melee only / melee focused lists again, as shooty elements become less efficient than those from other chapters.
It can work. And definitely helps "balance" the abilities. Should all Night Lords have Night Vision? Probably. But I'm perfectly happy to pay for Preysight. Because it's that strong. Just getting it for free would be too much, IMO.
Dudeface wrote: Re the orks, as a reminder that's not my opinion I was just pasing on the comment from the video and I think catbarf hits the nail on the head. I'd also onot be shocked to see subfactions going away tbh as they're a fantastic flavour option but nightmare balance wise.
They really aren't a nightmare balance wise. It's the Strats and Warlord Traits that get locked to specific armies, or the fact that certain armies, like Dark Angels, get rules on top of rules on top of rules because reasons.
Yes, they got subfaction rules, there isn't a single book in print where there isn't a best and or worst subfaction. Often a subfaction completely makes or breaks an army/build as well.
Representation for various Marines has been good though. Each problem comes from a super specific rule. You think Dark Angels are bringing Terminators because they always stand still for a +1 to hit? You think Iron Hands just ignore the Devasator doctrine?
It's always the rules inside rules and you know that.
I guess the issue is that I don't really mind flanderisation.
I mean sure - if you are a BA player because you really love red tanks and devestators, then I guess that sucks. But I'd be tempted to say "2nd Ed Marine subfactions" are their own issue.
If say you are an Eldar player, you have a wider roster of units. Its very unlikely however that any random selection is going to match every other random selection in terms of power. It therefore feels the "list building centrifuge" is going to produce a single list (or 90% of its set and you get one flavour choice).
Notionally at least subfactions was a way to break this. You could have rules that favoured Psykers+Guardians, Aspect warriors, wraith units, etc. Assuming your collection was a bit more than 2k points, you could then pick and choose as whim struck. You get more list archetypes - and GW could design with such in mind (sorry if this is canned strategy etc, but its a thing in other games.)
It hasn't worked that way - and this system has then been expanded to factions who only have about 4 units so its purely a function of power - but as an idea I don't think its a bad one. (Yes I said the same of formations why are you looking at me like that....)
Maybe you can do this but just assign points values for all the options so you don't tread on vanilla choices. But GW's points have been so hit and miss across the decades its hard to believe that wouldn't just work out the same.
catbarf wrote: I'd much rather represent subfaction traits as things like:
-Optional upgrades- you're the tank subfaction, so you can pay a points cost per tank to upgrade it; you don't get indirectly punished for taking infantry and not just spamming tanks.
-Fluff-appropriate options rather than straight buffs- you play Catachans, so you can take heavy flamers on your infantry as a heavy weapons choice.
-Unique units- you're Ultramarines, you get Tyrannic War Veterans.
No freebies, just options appropriate to the subfaction.
I agree with all of the above and want to highlight one downside to that method.
Let's assume we are being oldschool and want to represent Blood Angels by giving them the ability to have Furious Charge.
- If they could pay per unit, but don't have to take it, only melee units will get it. You even might end up with two identical melee units, where one got FC and the other didn't. It feels wrong from a POV if you think FC is because of their genetics.
- If they have to pay for it for every model, it encourages melee only / melee focused lists again, as shooty elements become less efficient than those from other chapters.
That's true, but I'd be fine with the 'only some have it' approach. A fluff-oriented player is probably going to take the upgrade on all of their melee units. Even if they don't, I have no problem fluffing that the greener units don't yet have the experience to take maximal advantage of their genetic lineage, or something along those lines. It's less grating to my suspension of disbelief than the flanderized depictions of factions that really ought to be more well-rounded than typically depicted on the tabletop.
You could also specify that all instances of a datasheet must have the upgrade, or list out which units get the upgrade and which don't. The thing to avoid is having to buy Furious Charge for your Devastators, because wasting points on unnecessary upgrades brings you back to just not taking Devastators to begin with.
Tyel wrote: Notionally at least subfactions was a way to break this. You could have rules that favoured Psykers+Guardians, Aspect warriors, wraith units, etc. Assuming your collection was a bit more than 2k points, you could then pick and choose as whim struck. You get more list archetypes - and GW could design with such in mind (sorry if this is canned strategy etc, but its a thing in other games.)
It also tends to railroad you into those archetypes. If there's a unit that you like but no subfaction bonus that really benefits it, then building an army around that unit is doomed to mediocrity. And the further you stray from min-max, the worse your army gets. If you've got a subfaction bonus that gives you a free upgrade on all wraith units, the 'right' way to build a list is to cram as many wraith units into it as possible. Iyanden might use more wraith constructs than other craftworlds, but an army that is almost all wraith constructs is where it becomes one-note.
If you instead paid a certain number of points for a given wraith unit to upgrade it to 'Ancestors of the Iyanden' or something, you'd have a bit more freedom in army construction while still having the opportunity to specialize in wraith constructs.
And of course, representing subfactions with minor bonuses greatly limits what you can do. The 3.5Ed Guard codex let you take an airborne army by paying for Deep Strike on every unit, or represent better-equipped armies by paying for carapace armor. Deep Strike or a flat +1 to your save are both too powerful to give out for free, but with an appropriate points cost can be reasonably balanced.
Get off W/L rate and look at tournament results. Those 47% win rates = 40% First place finishes. W/L isn't indicative of how strong a top build is. Every tournament i've ever been to has a host of SM players showing up with fluffy or badly written lists because they want to play their fluffy list or are new to the game/tournament scene and end up getting blasted off the table. In contrast, I haven't seen many first time Ork, nidz, or DE Players showing up.
From the 9th to the 10th there were 8 events, Power armored factions won 3 of them (4 if you count custards). So basically a 50% tournament win rate. No other faction comes close to that.
So for Orks, rather than have dedicated Ork shooting units be bad for the cost, if the goal were for the army to need melee (something I don't really agree with- Orks have always been about dakka) I'd look at instead promoting more hybrid units; things cost-ineffective if used just for shooting, but having melee capability that's worth using. I'd also try to insert some conspicuous gaps, like lack of long-range shooting, requiring a more in-your-face approach. These units could be good and well-pointed for what they are, just lacking the capabilities to facilitate a pure gunline.
To be blunt, they already tried what you are suggesting with the new "Dakka" weapons which (because GW is incapable of writing ork rules) became literally worse than the old Dakka Dakka Dakka Rule to the point where Shoota boyz have literally not been taken by a single list in 9th edition that went on to place in a GT.
johnpjones1775 wrote: guard get almost every upgrade for free and aren't dominating the meta...its not so much about the upgrades as the stats of units and the upgrades, which the marines are behind on.
Guard get almost ZERO upgrades for free. Those free upgrades are on infantry squads. And in an edition where T4 2W 3+ save isn't considered very durable what do you think a T3 1w 5+ save is going to do? a more apt comparison would have been if IG tanks/vehicles got free upgrades....which they don't. SM getting free upgrades and points cost was just too much which is why, as stated above, Marines are now running around with an almost 50% Tournament Win Rate.
johnpjones1775 wrote: jumping into the ork argument late and without full context, but I think Orks should kinda be middle of the road at everything on an individual level, with their numbers being what decides how good an individual army is at one or the other.
BS5+ with lots of shots per weapon, and lots models shooting would mean they're pretty good at shooting (assuming their guns have decent stats)
S5 T5 WS4+ and 1A per boy isn't too bad when you've got 9 of them and a nob with 2 attacks for example.
I do like the idea of them being slightly better at melee over all though.
Not only no, but hell no. BS5+ but with lots of shots per weapon! COOL! Oh...whats that? Your entire army or at least the majority of it gets -1 to hit? Ok, well there goes 50% of my dmg output.
S5 T5 WS4+ and 1 attack? you realize you just made Ork boyz worse in almost every way possible right? Those boyz are currently S4 T5 2A per boy, most are Goff so they get S5 on the charge...and on the WAAAGH turns its S6 They also get 3 attacks thanks to choppas and 4 on the WAAAGH turns. Also they swing at WS3+ not 4+. And to be blunt, a Boy has ALWAYS been better than a Marine in CC and almost as good at Ranged combat (when they finally got in range) as those Marines (All of this is Pt for Pt) . Marines used to be Jack of all Trades master of none but with heavy armor. It didn't matter that Boyz could almost match a Marine at 18' range because those Marines were killing Orkz at 24' range compared to the Orkz 18' range assault guns.
Back in the day a Boy was 6pts and a Marine was 15pts. So for every Marine you could take 2.5 boyz. 5 boyz at 18' range with shootas was 10 shots, 3.3 hits 1.65 wounds and 0.55 dead Marines. Those 2 Marines were 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds for 0.67 dead Boyz.
In CC those 5 boyz averaged 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds and 1.66 Dead Marines, those Marines in turn averaged 2 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds and 0.55 dead Boyz.
This game has boiled down to how certain players feel their army should play/perform rather than balance and its a bit ridiculous.
JNAProductions wrote: You have a strong point, Semper, but Custodes aren’t Marines. They’ve similarities, but they’re definitely distinct forces.
Fair enough. Call it 3/8th wins if you want. We are still just 2-3 weeks into AoO results and Marines are winning the plurality of tournaments and DA seem to be the front runner at the moment.
Get off W/L rate and look at tournament results. Those 47% win rates = 40% First place finishes. W/L isn't indicative of how strong a top build is. Every tournament i've ever been to has a host of SM players showing up with fluffy or badly written lists because they want to play their fluffy list or are new to the game/tournament scene and end up getting blasted off the table. In contrast, I haven't seen many first time Ork, nidz, or DE Players showing up.
From the 9th to the 10th there were 8 events, Power armored factions won 3 of them (4 if you count custards). So basically a 50% tournament win rate. No other faction comes close to that.
So for Orks, rather than have dedicated Ork shooting units be bad for the cost, if the goal were for the army to need melee (something I don't really agree with- Orks have always been about dakka) I'd look at instead promoting more hybrid units; things cost-ineffective if used just for shooting, but having melee capability that's worth using. I'd also try to insert some conspicuous gaps, like lack of long-range shooting, requiring a more in-your-face approach. These units could be good and well-pointed for what they are, just lacking the capabilities to facilitate a pure gunline.
To be blunt, they already tried what you are suggesting with the new "Dakka" weapons which (because GW is incapable of writing ork rules) became literally worse than the old Dakka Dakka Dakka Rule to the point where Shoota boyz have literally not been taken by a single list in 9th edition that went on to place in a GT.
johnpjones1775 wrote: guard get almost every upgrade for free and aren't dominating the meta...its not so much about the upgrades as the stats of units and the upgrades, which the marines are behind on.
Guard get almost ZERO upgrades for free. Those free upgrades are on infantry squads. And in an edition where T4 2W 3+ save isn't considered very durable what do you think a T3 1w 5+ save is going to do? a more apt comparison would have been if IG tanks/vehicles got free upgrades....which they don't. SM getting free upgrades and points cost was just too much which is why, as stated above, Marines are now running around with an almost 50% Tournament Win Rate.
johnpjones1775 wrote: jumping into the ork argument late and without full context, but I think Orks should kinda be middle of the road at everything on an individual level, with their numbers being what decides how good an individual army is at one or the other.
BS5+ with lots of shots per weapon, and lots models shooting would mean they're pretty good at shooting (assuming their guns have decent stats)
S5 T5 WS4+ and 1A per boy isn't too bad when you've got 9 of them and a nob with 2 attacks for example.
I do like the idea of them being slightly better at melee over all though.
Not only no, but hell no. BS5+ but with lots of shots per weapon! COOL! Oh...whats that? Your entire army or at least the majority of it gets -1 to hit? Ok, well there goes 50% of my dmg output.
S5 T5 WS4+ and 1 attack? you realize you just made Ork boyz worse in almost every way possible right? Those boyz are currently S4 T5 2A per boy, most are Goff so they get S5 on the charge...and on the WAAAGH turns its S6 They also get 3 attacks thanks to choppas and 4 on the WAAAGH turns. Also they swing at WS3+ not 4+. And to be blunt, a Boy has ALWAYS been better than a Marine in CC and almost as good at Ranged combat (when they finally got in range) as those Marines (All of this is Pt for Pt) . Marines used to be Jack of all Trades master of none but with heavy armor. It didn't matter that Boyz could almost match a Marine at 18' range because those Marines were killing Orkz at 24' range compared to the Orkz 18' range assault guns.
Back in the day a Boy was 6pts and a Marine was 15pts. So for every Marine you could take 2.5 boyz. 5 boyz at 18' range with shootas was 10 shots, 3.3 hits 1.65 wounds and 0.55 dead Marines. Those 2 Marines were 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds for 0.67 dead Boyz.
In CC those 5 boyz averaged 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds and 1.66 Dead Marines, those Marines in turn averaged 2 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds and 0.55 dead Boyz.
This game has boiled down to how certain players feel their army should play/perform rather than balance and its a bit ridiculous.
ummm...winning 3/8 tournaments is a 37% win rate. custodes are a different faction, you don't just get to pad stats to fit your opinion by including other factions that just so happen to have won.
45% win rate comes from the tournaments. it has nothing to with any other method or style of gaming because theres no way to accurately track wins or losses for factions outside of tournaments.
SM won 3/8 tournaments, but how many SM players participated? how many made it to top 5? how big were these tournaments? how many of those SM made it to top 10?
SM are hands down the most popular faction so you're going to see a lot of them every where, and likely a lot of them will be seen winning. thats why we go off of win rates rather than just raw numbers.
guard get a gak ton of upgrades for free. IS, CST, krieg, catachan all get free special and/or heavy weapons. officers get free power swords and bolt pistols. FOBs get free upgrads, sentinels get all of their guns for free, rough riders get all of their upgrades for free, command squads get medics and standards for free, oh yeah everyone gets vox casters for free. the only things that really costs points in the guard codex are plasma pistols, power fits, and hull/sponson guns for tanks.
you can talk gak about guard stats all you want, but they're not supposed to be individually strong or tough. at 65 points per squad i can take 20 plus squads with double plasma or double melta, and still have 700 points left over for HQ, FA, elites and HS slots.
doesn't matter much if they have gak stats, thats 40 special weapons (likely all hitting on a 3+ with +1 AP) followed by 140 lasgun shots, and likely 40 autogun shots, for less than 1500 pts. most armies will likely kill a lot maybe even 20-30 per turn if they're kitted to wreck GEQ, but if that's the case they'll then struggle to deal with the supporting units like dorns and russes or bull/ogryns.
also this game has never ever been balanced, which makes the fact that a tournament scene sprouted up absolutely ridiculous, so forgive people for wanting their army to play like the lore that most likely got most of them to pick said army.
JNAProductions wrote: You have a strong point, Semper, but Custodes aren’t Marines. They’ve similarities, but they’re definitely distinct forces.
Fair enough. Call it 3/8th wins if you want. We are still just 2-3 weeks into AoO results and Marines are winning the plurality of tournaments and DA seem to be the front runner at the moment.
the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh
I guess the issue is just that overpoweredness is measured in different ways.
Barring something changing it appears Marines are the best faction by tournament results. But equally, by win%, they don't appear in Tau/Custodes/Harlequins/Tyranids spot where you could take essentially any units and expect to crush your friends, because they were comically busted, hence the 70%~ win rates.
Its why I think there's a major clash with say GSC. If you play the game to the objectives they seem quite capable. Indeed there were sort of whispers of that in the last season. But if you play them to just "go fight your friend", their mathhammer kind of sucks and odds are you are going to get crushed.
That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
Tyel wrote: I guess the issue is just that overpoweredness is measured in different ways.
Barring something changing it appears Marines are the best faction by tournament results. But equally, by win%, they don't appear in Tau/Custodes/Harlequins/Tyranids spot where you could take essentially any units and expect to crush your friends, because they were comically busted, hence the 70%~ win rates.
Its why I think there's a major clash with say GSC. If you play the game to the objectives they seem quite capable. Indeed there were sort of whispers of that in the last season. But if you play them to just "go fight your friend", their mathhammer kind of sucks and odds are you are going to get crushed.
Not really sure how GW resolve the clash.
win ratio and tournament results are essentially the same thing since that’s how win rates are calculated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that? Never participated in one, but don’t they charge entry fees?
I imagine the profit margins are pretty low for most tournaments already, limiting the number of participants just seems like a fiscally bad idea…
It doesn’t matter how many marines are entering a tournament.
If there’s 100 players and 50 are marines, and a marine list wins and another comes in 5th that doesn’t mean marines are strong or the best.
People really do overlook how much luck plays a role in this game, and then after that player skill.
The dude who won the LVO with BA probably could have made top 10 with ANY faction assuming he maintained the same level of luck.
johnpjones1775 wrote: win ratio and tournament results are essentially the same thing since that’s how win rates are calculated.
Lol no, you can have a fantastic win rate and still fail to place well on a tournament, because tournament placing isn't just determined by if you won but also by how well you won (aka how many VP or equivalent you got)
Get off W/L rate and look at tournament results. Those 47% win rates = 40% First place finishes. W/L isn't indicative of how strong a top build is. Every tournament i've ever been to has a host of SM players showing up with fluffy or badly written lists because they want to play their fluffy list or are new to the game/tournament scene and end up getting blasted off the table. In contrast, I haven't seen many first time Ork, nidz, or DE Players showing up.
From the 9th to the 10th there were 8 events, Power armored factions won 3 of them (4 if you count custards). So basically a 50% tournament win rate. No other faction comes close to that.
Whoa whoa whoa, did we just go from Space Marines to (multiple, combined) "Power Armored Factions" vs no other (singular by itself, no less?) faction?
Has anyone seen the goalposts? They were just here a minute ago...
Really should go back to FOC restrictions. 1 superheavy per faction and make it beastly, 1 set of flash gits per three squads of boys but make the gits beastly.
1 terminator squad for every 3 tactical/interssor squad but make terminators beastly, etc.
Dawn of war had this figure out years ago. You can have factions balanced against faction and difrent thing within those factions can be extra special if they are heavily limited Ted in number.
Otherwise everything has to have equal power to points and none of it feels special.
johnpjones1775 wrote: win ratio and tournament results are essentially the same thing since that’s how win rates are calculated.
Lol no, you can have a fantastic win rate and still fail to place well on a tournament, because tournament placing isn't just determined by if you won but also by how well you won (aka how many VP or equivalent you got)
and guess what, no one is winning with fewer points than other people either. you can't lose 53% of the games you play and win a tournament, that's the point.
no one is losing a bunch of games, but winning tournaments. you have to win games to win tournaments. lose a game you're probably not winning the tournament.
the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh
what factions won those other 5 events?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's broken when the faction played by ~40% of the participants wins ~40% of the Tournaments.
the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh
what factions won those other 5 events?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's broken when the faction played by ~40% of the participants wins ~40% of the Tournaments.
Free upgrades. If the game has devolved to the point where that doesn't matter, then it's broken. Don't care about tournament win rates, but if upgrades just don't matter anymore? Then the game is a burning dumpster. Don't really care, personally, as I've been done with this for almost a year now, but it's absolutely fascinating to watch the train wreck progress......
and guess what, no one is winning with fewer points than other people either. you can't lose 53% of the games you play and win a tournament, that's the point.
no one is losing a bunch of games, but winning tournaments. you have to win games to win tournaments. lose a game you're probably not winning the tournament.
And you can win games and still not place that well on a tournament. While a good win rate facilitates good tournament results, they are not the same thing.
the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh
what factions won those other 5 events?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's broken when the faction played by ~40% of the participants wins ~40% of the Tournaments.
Free upgrades. If the game has devolved to the point where that doesn't matter, then it's broken. Don't care about tournament win rates, but if upgrades just don't matter anymore? Then the game is a burning dumpster. Don't really care, personally, as I've been done with this for almost a year now, but it's absolutely fascinating to watch the train wreck progress......
A) That doesn't explain why a faction played by 40% of the entrants shouldn't win 40% of the tournaments.
B) So it doesn't matter if you take the 5 point chainfist or the 5 point powerfist for minor differences resulting in roughly equal tradeoffs its broken if you can choose two roughly equal mandatory options for equal points or no points? We've done the "Free Upgrades" are more often points drops than "free upgrades".
EviscerationPlague wrote: That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?
The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.
EviscerationPlague wrote: That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?
The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.
There are statistical tools that lets you account for faction playrates and see who performs above rate. If we take a slice of Necron data we can see they had a 48% win rate, an average first loss at round 1.92, field % of 4.53% and TiWP ratio of 1.13. So that means in the given data set they end up in a position to win tournaments a slightly disproportionate amount of the time compared to their play rate.
In the same data set Harlequins have 54.88% win rate, an average first loss at round 2.30, field % of 2.44% and TiWP ratio of 1.22 so they are less represented and they end up in a position to win tournaments in a more disproportionate amount of the time compared to their play rate.
In the same dataset Astra Militarum have a 0.69 TiWP ratio, which means they are underrepresented in lists that are in a position to win tournaments compared to their play rate.
We'll probably get AoO data on this in a month or two, it's important to remember that LVO used the previous mission pack. The data presented in this post is not for AoO.
EviscerationPlague wrote: That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?
The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.
and guess what, no one is winning with fewer points than other people either. you can't lose 53% of the games you play and win a tournament, that's the point.
no one is losing a bunch of games, but winning tournaments. you have to win games to win tournaments. lose a game you're probably not winning the tournament.
And you can win games and still not place that well on a tournament. While a good win rate facilitates good tournament results, they are not the same thing.
so we shouldn't be looking at tournament winners at all then, because if a player is getting big points it's because they're making better tactical decisions, meaning that unless you're specifically trying to win tournaments, tournament winners is pointless knowledge and W/L rate is the only thing that realistically matters to the overwhelming majority of players.
i don't know anyone who will feel bad about winning by 1 point.
Boosykes wrote: Really should go back to FOC restrictions. 1 superheavy per faction and make it beastly, 1 set of flash gits per three squads of boys but make the gits beastly.
1 terminator squad for every 3 tactical/interssor squad but make terminators beastly, etc.
Dawn of war had this figure out years ago. You can have factions balanced against faction and difrent thing within those factions can be extra special if they are heavily limited Ted in number.
Otherwise everything has to have equal power to points and none of it feels special.
nah, making beastly units and adding a tax to them in the form of other units is boring as feth, just make every unit balanced
the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh
what factions won those other 5 events?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's broken when the faction played by ~40% of the participants wins ~40% of the Tournaments.
Free upgrades. If the game has devolved to the point where that doesn't matter, then it's broken. Don't care about tournament win rates, but if upgrades just don't matter anymore? Then the game is a burning dumpster. Don't really care, personally, as I've been done with this for almost a year now, but it's absolutely fascinating to watch the train wreck progress......
A) That doesn't explain why a faction played by 40% of the entrants shouldn't win 40% of the tournaments.
B) So it doesn't matter if you take the 5 point chainfist or the 5 point powerfist for minor differences resulting in roughly equal tradeoffs its broken if you can choose two roughly equal mandatory options for equal points or no points? We've done the "Free Upgrades" are more often points drops than "free upgrades".
it's people like my brother who are salty that marines always get a lot of love, despite them under performing most of this edition they're angry that marines are getting more love and they just want to complain about it.
I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?
you don’t really understand statistics do you?
Elucidate me.
Don’t just say “You’re wrong” explain what’s right.
40-50% of players play SM of some flavor, and if the LVO is any example of the typical spread and entry rates, they dominate tournaments based on participation. If you make up 40% or more of the participants and your win rate is under 40% at those tournaments that’s statistically under performing.
Someone did a much better job of explaining it via the actual math a few posts above. SM are under represented in terms of 1st places at tournaments based on their rate of participation, and other factions are over represented in terms of 1st places finishes based on their participation rate.
I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?
you don’t really understand statistics do you?
Elucidate me.
Don’t just say “You’re wrong” explain what’s right.
40-50% of players play SM of some flavor, and if the LVO is any example of the typical spread and entry rates, they dominate tournaments based on participation. If you make up 40% or more of the participants and your win rate is under 40% at those tournaments that’s statistically under performing.
Someone did a much better job of explaining it via the actual math a few posts above. SM are under represented in terms of 1st places at tournaments based on their rate of participation, and other factions are over represented in terms of 1st places finishes based on their participation rate.
There are more than six factions in the game.
If there are eight tournaments we're looking at, and SM won three, that means that if every single other tournament was won by a different faction, any factions past six didn't win ANY tournaments.
What site is used for these stats? I'd want to take a look at them myself.
I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?
you don’t really understand statistics do you?
Elucidate me.
Don’t just say “You’re wrong” explain what’s right.
40-50% of players play SM of some flavor, and if the LVO is any example of the typical spread and entry rates, they dominate tournaments based on participation. If you make up 40% or more of the participants and your win rate is under 40% at those tournaments that’s statistically under performing.
Someone did a much better job of explaining it via the actual math a few posts above. SM are under represented in terms of 1st places at tournaments based on their rate of participation, and other factions are over represented in terms of 1st places finishes based on their participation rate.
There are more than six factions in the game.
If there are eight tournaments we're looking at, and SM won three, that means that if every single other tournament was won by a different faction, any factions past six didn't win ANY tournaments.
What site is used for these stats? I'd want to take a look at them myself.
idk where the person who initially brought it up got the data from, but just working off his numbers that’s a sub38% win rate for a faction that’s played by 40-50% of people is not very good.
It can be better or worse depending on the total numbers of players in each tournament.
Isn't it misleading to say "SMs are under performing?"
I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.
If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?
I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.
If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?
Again, not privy to the data right now, but given how 9th edition works... I don't think that you're gonna see many Guard armies taking a single unit of Marines.
And anything non-Imperium flat-out CAN'T take any Marine units. Excepting Votann, I think-though that might be an upcoming rule.
I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.
If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?
Again, not privy to the data right now, but given how 9th edition works... I don't think that you're gonna see many Guard armies taking a single unit of Marines.
And anything non-Imperium flat-out CAN'T take any Marine units. Excepting Votann, I think-though that might be an upcoming rule.
Fallen violate the non-imperium rule right? You can technically field a detachment of fallen DA with Cypher or whatever he's called. Did that go bye bye in 9th? I've completely stopped keeping track of what is no allowed in 9th now.
But yes, I doubt many would give up their purity bonus for a squad of say, hell blasters. But DA Terminators are still the most deadly soup option on the menu. Bar that, BA Assault Terminators or Death Company troops with JPs and TH/SS
I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.
If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?
Again, not privy to the data right now, but given how 9th edition works... I don't think that you're gonna see many Guard armies taking a single unit of Marines.
And anything non-Imperium flat-out CAN'T take any Marine units. Excepting Votann, I think-though that might be an upcoming rule.
Fallen violate the non-imperium rule right? You can technically field a detachment of fallen DA with Cypher or whatever he's called. Did that go bye bye in 9th?
That hasn't been a thing done even in 8th WHEN Fallen had rules LOL
EviscerationPlague wrote: That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?
The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.
thats not the community’s job.
I never said it was, just to more prove a point that GW creates a bad game and that it can be proven.
I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.
If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?
Again, not privy to the data right now, but given how 9th edition works... I don't think that you're gonna see many Guard armies taking a single unit of Marines.
And anything non-Imperium flat-out CAN'T take any Marine units. Excepting Votann, I think-though that might be an upcoming rule.
Fallen violate the non-imperium rule right? You can technically field a detachment of fallen DA with Cypher or whatever he's called. Did that go bye bye in 9th?
That hasn't been a thing done even in 8th WHEN Fallen had rules LOL
EviscerationPlague wrote: That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?
The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.
thats not the community’s job.
I never said it was, just to more prove a point that GW creates a bad game and that it can be proven.
if you don't like it, don't play. no one is forcing you to.
Marines are currently about 20% of all tournament lists. So yes, winning 38% of tournaments would be somewhat disproportionate.
Win% and placings are also not the same thing, although typically there will be some correlation. If you have a low win%, you probably do badly into the more popular lists. And if you do badly into popular lists, going 5-0 at a tournament is going to be difficult.
Marines finished 1st, 5th 6th and 10th. So 40% appearance in the top 10. They had a grand total of 22 lists who didn't drop out which makes them 17% of that specific tournament.
So 17% of the playing field took 40% of the top finishes including 1st place. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
Beachhead Brawl: (129 players)
Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th. So 50% of the top 10 placings. 25 Marine players so 19% of the player base.
19% of the playing field took 50% of the top finishes including 1st. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
When more big tournaments happen which include AoO I highly suspect that this trend will continue. n
Automatically Appended Next Post: Smaller Events:
*Note: These little events have a high drop rate*
Viking Invasion (30 Players) Marines had 7 lists 23% of the lists, Marines finished 4th and 8th.
Lords Of War (22 Players) Marines had 6 lists 27% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th
Norcal Open (25 Players) Marines had 7 lists 25% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 7th and 9th.
So 3 events which were listed as "GTs" on FLG's page, Marines took 1st place in 2 of them and managed a 4th place in the event they didn't win.
Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
But neither of those are a thing.
Is a Tactical at 18 PPM, 90 for a min squad, fine? Yeah-arguably slightly too expensive for how lethal 9th is.
Is a Tactical at 18 PPM, 90 for a min squad, but with a free Multimelta, Combi-Melta on Sarge, and a Thunder Hammer fine? I'd say no-that's a lot of firepower for not a lot of points, and the Multimelta is pretty durable behind the four chumps, relatively speaking.
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
But neither of those are a thing.
Is a Tactical at 18 PPM, 90 for a min squad, fine? Yeah-arguably slightly too expensive for how lethal 9th is.
Is a Tactical at 18 PPM, 90 for a min squad, but with a free Multimelta, Combi-Melta on Sarge, and a Thunder Hammer fine? I'd say no-that's a lot of firepower for not a lot of points, and the Multimelta is pretty durable behind the four chumps, relatively speaking.
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Being facetious a little, if I presented the new space marine transhuman-centipede, a 10 wound infantry model with those guns and deteriorates via losing shots, I'm not sure anyone would consider it revolutionary for 90pts.
It's actually not a million miles off an invader atv which nobody ever bothers with, it trades 2 wounds, 2 bolter shots, a melta shot and melee for +1 T, +8" movement and perk of auto advance at 70 pts.
Marines finished 1st, 5th 6th and 10th. So 40% appearance in the top 10. They had a grand total of 22 lists who didn't drop out which makes them 17% of that specific tournament.
So 17% of the playing field took 40% of the top finishes including 1st place. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
Beachhead Brawl: (129 players)
Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th. So 50% of the top 10 placings. 25 Marine players so 19% of the player base.
19% of the playing field took 50% of the top finishes including 1st. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
When more big tournaments happen which include AoO I highly suspect that this trend will continue. n
Automatically Appended Next Post: Smaller Events:
*Note: These little events have a high drop rate*
Viking Invasion (30 Players) Marines had 7 lists 23% of the lists, Marines finished 4th and 8th.
Lords Of War (22 Players) Marines had 6 lists 27% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th
Norcal Open (25 Players) Marines had 7 lists 25% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 7th and 9th.
So 3 events which were listed as "GTs" on FLG's page, Marines took 1st place in 2 of them and managed a 4th place in the event they didn't win.
are you going to provide or source or just keep expecting people to take your word for it?
Marines finished 1st, 5th 6th and 10th. So 40% appearance in the top 10. They had a grand total of 22 lists who didn't drop out which makes them 17% of that specific tournament.
So 17% of the playing field took 40% of the top finishes including 1st place. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
Beachhead Brawl: (129 players)
Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th. So 50% of the top 10 placings. 25 Marine players so 19% of the player base.
19% of the playing field took 50% of the top finishes including 1st. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
When more big tournaments happen which include AoO I highly suspect that this trend will continue. n
Smaller Events:
*Note: These little events have a high drop rate*
Viking Invasion (30 Players) Marines had 7 lists 23% of the lists, Marines finished 4th and 8th.
Lords Of War (22 Players) Marines had 6 lists 27% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th
Norcal Open (25 Players) Marines had 7 lists 25% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 7th and 9th.
So 3 events which were listed as "GTs" on FLG's page, Marines took 1st place in 2 of them and managed a 4th place in the event they didn't win.
Not to denigrate these statistics, counting Top 10 in 22-30 player events isn't exactly the same as for a 130 player event. That is the top 7.75% of Beachhead Brawl versus the top 45% of Lords of War. Heck, having 4 of 6 list in the Top 50% of a tournament isn't really statistically abnormal.
Still, I am very curious as to the overall Win Percentage Space Marines are putting up versus their overall field percentage along with other statistics.
Marines finished 1st, 5th 6th and 10th. So 40% appearance in the top 10. They had a grand total of 22 lists who didn't drop out which makes them 17% of that specific tournament.
So 17% of the playing field took 40% of the top finishes including 1st place. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
Beachhead Brawl: (129 players)
Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th. So 50% of the top 10 placings. 25 Marine players so 19% of the player base.
19% of the playing field took 50% of the top finishes including 1st. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
When more big tournaments happen which include AoO I highly suspect that this trend will continue. n
Automatically Appended Next Post: Smaller Events:
*Note: These little events have a high drop rate*
Viking Invasion (30 Players) Marines had 7 lists 23% of the lists, Marines finished 4th and 8th.
Lords Of War (22 Players) Marines had 6 lists 27% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th
Norcal Open (25 Players) Marines had 7 lists 25% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 7th and 9th.
So 3 events which were listed as "GTs" on FLG's page, Marines took 1st place in 2 of them and managed a 4th place in the event they didn't win.
so how many other factions were regularly taking 1st place and what were their participation rates?
Is a Tactical at 18 PPM, 90 for a min squad, fine? Yeah-arguably slightly too expensive for how lethal 9th is.
Is a Tactical at 18 PPM, 90 for a min squad, but with a free Multimelta, Combi-Melta on Sarge, and a Thunder Hammer fine? I'd say no-that's a lot of firepower for not a lot of points, and the Multimelta is pretty durable behind the four chumps, relatively speaking.
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
I neither like nor dislike the points drops. I think the points drops are/were a test bed for turning Points into operating like Power Level. I think GW needs or very much wants Power Level to be a thing, but people aren't going for it. So, they're just going to turn Points into Power Level and this is the Beta or maybe the Alpha. I think it makes list building a little harder, and at times counterintuitive. The points/unit values (i.e. quality per point) is off, and they don't land on plateaus right - Nor were the upgrade paths built with that in mind (I'd guess based on the way I would have changed that part too). Its pretty easy to land on a 1975 or so point list that's better than 2000 points lists. Even your example - two -Melta, and a TH. You hit the same threat band over and over for a Tac Squad as opposed to a TAC threat band with a Multi-melta, Combi-plas and Power Sword or something similar. Maybe if you're going vs Knights, or Tank Companies or making a Melta Tac with a Plasma Tac paired setup, but that wasn't part of your example. Nor did you compare vs other units - I get you're probably talking about a Drop Pod Bomb type of unit - but then you didn't include the Drop Pod Points - at which point you're better off going Sternguard with all Combi-Meltas. And the power fist. And if you're not Podding, but plodding, you're better off going Eradicators for more T, and double firing. Even if you are Podding, the Erads might not be able to Pod, but you can get even more Erads with the cost of the Pod.
I'm hoping the points drops are just the first stage of the next evolution.
To get back on topic, I'm kind of curious how we went from Marine Players are 40% of a tournament to now Marine Players are less than 20%.
Marines finished 1st, 5th 6th and 10th. So 40% appearance in the top 10. They had a grand total of 22 lists who didn't drop out which makes them 17% of that specific tournament.
So 17% of the playing field took 40% of the top finishes including 1st place. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
Beachhead Brawl: (129 players)
Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th. So 50% of the top 10 placings. 25 Marine players so 19% of the player base.
19% of the playing field took 50% of the top finishes including 1st. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
When more big tournaments happen which include AoO I highly suspect that this trend will continue. n
I'm going to come back and look at the above two later.
I will note, though, that the above two events are for 11/12 Feb, while the below three are for 18/19 Feb. Not sure how important that is, unless you can read it as a sign of the meta evolving over time. As the above two events are on BCP, I'll do the same evaluations as below later.
SemperMortis wrote: Smaller Events: *Note: These little events have a high drop rate*
This seems to be a drop rate before the event began, rather than during the event. - Viking Invasion: 30 registered, 28 show in pairings - Lords of War: 24 registered, 22 show in pairings - NorCal Open: 31 registered, 24 started event (placings show 25, but 25th played no games), 2 dropped after 3 rounds
I wouldn't call 2 mid-event drops across 3 events totalling 74 players a "high drop rate". I might describe the pre-event drop rate for NorCal Open as high, though.
SemperMortis wrote: Viking Invasion (30 Players) Marines had 7 lists 23% of the lists, Marines finished 4th and 8th.
While tagged as 30 players, only 28 signed up for the event, and 2 dropped before it began.
Let's look at this in more detail, shall we?
Spoiler:
28 Players registered, 2 dropped before event began (as neither show in the pairings)
Participation % Adeptus Custodes - 7.69% Adeptus Mechanicus - 3.85% Chaos Space Marines - 7.69% Eldar - 3.85% Imperial Guard - 7.69% Imperial Knights - 7.69% Knights Renegades - 11.54% Necrons - 3.85% Orks - 3.85% Space Marines - 26.92% Thousand Sons - 3.85% Tyranids - 11.54%
Borrowing MTG's tournament structure, top 8 would make the cut. Factions in top 8 were: Adeptus Custodes x2 Tyranids x1 Space Marines x2 Imperial Knights x1 Orks x1 Imperial Guard x 1
Given participation in the field at this event, appearances in the top 8 seem about right for SM & Tyranids. Knights Renegades *underperformed*. Adeptus Custodes appear to have *overperformed* quite significantly.
Note - Given number of entrants, this can't be said to be statistically significant.
SemperMortis wrote: Lords Of War (22 Players) Marines had 6 lists 27% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th
Stated results are inaccurate (as Grey Knights are not a Space Marines Supplement, so shouldn't be rolled into their figures).
More detail
Spoiler:
24 Players registered, 2 dropped before event began (as neither show in the pairings)
Factions entered Adeptus Custodes - ||| (11, 10, 17) Adeptus Mechanicus - | (20) Black Templars - | (6) Blood Angels - | (15) Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh) - | (13) CSM - | (3) CSM (Emperor's Children) - | (14) Dark Angels - | (7) Dark Eldar - | (19) Death Guard - | (16) Eldar - | (9) Genestealer Cult - | (18) Grey Knights - | (1) Imperial Guard - | (5) Iron Hands - | (12) Salamanders - | (4) Tau - || (22, 2) Tyranids (Behemoth) - | (21) Ynnari - | (8)
Grouped by core Codex Adeptus Custodes - ||| (10, 11, 17) Adeptus Mechanicus - | (20) Chaos Daemons - | (13) CSM - || (3, 14) Dark Eldar - | (19) Death Guard - | (16) Eldar - | (9) Genestealer Cult - | (18) Grey Knights - | (1) Imperial Guard - | (5) Space Marines - ||||| (4, 6, 7, 12, 15) Tau - || (2, 22) Tyranids - | (21) Ynnari - | (8)
Participation % Adeptus Custodes - 13.64% Adeptus Mechanicus - 4.55% Chaos Daemons - 4.55% CSM - 9.09% Dark Eldar - 4.55% Death Guard - 4.55% Eldar - 4.55% Genestealer Cult - 4.55% Grey Knights - 4.55% Imperial Guard - 4.55% Space Marines - 22.73% Tau - 9.09% Tyranids - 4.55% Ynnari - 4.55%
Borrowing MTG's tournament structure, top 8 would make the cut. Factions in top 8 were: Grey Knights x1 Tau x1 Chaos Space Marines x1 Space Marines x3 Imperial Guard x1 Ynnari x1
Given participation in the field, SM overperformed by one top 8 slot, while Custodes underperformed by not getting any.
Note - Given number of entrants, this can't be said to be statistically significant.
SemperMortis wrote: Norcal Open (25 Players) Marines had 7 lists 25% of lists, Marines finished 1st, 7th and 9th.
Note that only 24 people appear to have played a game, despite it being tagged as 25 players .
More detail
Spoiler:
31 Players registered, 7 dropped before event began (even if one shows as 25th in placings), 2 dropped after round 3 (marked with a *)
Borrowing MTG's tournament structure, top 8 would make the cut. Factions in top 8 were: Space Marines x2 Adepta Sororitas x1 Chaos Daemons x1 Eldar x1 Imperial Guard x1 Necrons x1 Tyranids x1
Given participation in the field, Space Marines got exactly the number of top 8 slots you'd expect, while Imperial Knights underperformed by not appearing in the top 8.
Note - Given number of entrants, this can't be said to be statistically significant.
SemperMortis wrote: So 3 events which were listed as "GTs" on FLG's page, Marines took 1st place in 2 of them and managed a 4th place in the event they didn't win.
SM (or their sub-factions) took 1st place in one event, and managed 4th in the two they didn't win. Once reduced to core Codex (rather than Supplements/Sub-Factions), they were the largest single faction at each event.
What happens if we combine the numbers for these three events?
Spoiler:
74 players entered, two dropped after round 3 (shown with a *)
Factions entered Adepta Sororitas - || Adeptus Astartes - | Adeptus Custodes - ||||| Adeptus Mechanicus - || Black Templars - | Blood Angels - ||||| | Chaos Daemons - | Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh) - | CSM - || CSM (Emperor's Children) - |||* CSM (Night Lords) - | Dark Angels - ||| Dark Eldar - | Death Guard - || Eldar - |||| Genestealer Cult - | Grey Knights - || Imperial Fists - |* Imperial Guard - |||| Imperial Knights - ||||| Iron Hands - | Knights Renegades - |||| Necrons - | Necrons (Nihilakh) - | Orks (Goffs) - | Raven Guard - | Salamanders - | Space Wolves - | Tau - || Thousand Sons - || Tyranids - ||| Tyranids (Behemoth) - | Tyranids (Leviathan) - | White Scars - | Ynnari - |
Grouped by core Codex Adepta Sororitas - || Adeptus Custodes - ||||| Adeptus Mechanicus - || Chaos Daemons - || CSM - ||||| |* Dark Eldar - | Death Guard - || Eldar - |||| Genestealer Cult - | Grey Knights - || Imperial Guard - |||| Imperial Knights - ||||| Knights Renegades - |||| Necrons - || Orks - | Space Marines - ||||| ||||| ||||| ||||* Tau - || Thousand Sons - || Tyranids - ||||| Ynnari - |
Participation % Adepta Sororitas - 2.7% Adeptus Custodes - 6.76% Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.7% Chaos Daemons - 2.7% CSM - 8.11%* Dark Eldar - 1.35% Death Guard - 2.7% Eldar - 5.4% Genestealer Cult - 1.35% Grey Knights - 2.7% Imperial Guard - 5.4% Imperial Knights - 6.76% Knights Renegades - 5.4% Necrons - 2.7% Orks - 1.35% Space Marines - 25.68%* Tau - 2.7% Thousand Sons - 2.7% Tyranids - 6.76% Ynnari - 1.35%
Top 8 places (% of top 8 places) Adepta Sororitas x1 (4.17%) Adeptus Custodes x2 (8.33%) Chaos Daemons x1 (4.17%) Chaos Space Marines x1 (4.17%) Eldar x1 (4.17%) Grey Knights x1 (4.17%) Imperial Guard x3 (12.5%) Imperial Knights x1 (4.17%) Necrons x1 (4.17%) Orks x1 (4.17%) Space Marines x7 (29.17%) Tau x1 (4.17%) Tyranids x2 (8.33%) Ynnari x1 (4.17%)
Comparing participation % to top 8 %, SM appear to over perform slightly - maybe by one top 8 spot. However, I'd flag the Imperial Guard as a larger offender, securing 2.5x the number of top 8 spots you'd expect from the number of entrants. Knights Renegades are probably the biggest underperformer, as they didn't get a top 8 slot at all, despite being 5.4% of the field.
Note that these expectations are purely looking at the percentages, which assume players and factions are equal.
I'm still not convinced this is enough data to be statistically significant, however.
Great analysis, thank you. So it seems we're in the land of apace marines are strong enough to have an appropriate proportional representation of top finishes. Which is pretty much the ideal really. The only outstanding query is impact of free upgrades.
Marines finished 1st, 5th 6th and 10th. So 40% appearance in the top 10. They had a grand total of 22 lists who didn't drop out which makes them 17% of that specific tournament.
So 17% of the playing field took 40% of the top finishes including 1st place. I would argue that is heavily over represented.
10th place was Grey Knights, not Space Marines (or a Supplement thereof). I count 21 Space Marine lists (as there were 3 GK), but it is possible the list on the Roster tab that said "Imperium" was a SM - I don't have an account with BCP, so wasn't digging further.
Stud or Snotling
Spoiler:
134 players registered, 130 played at least 1 game, 9 dropped during the event (shown with a *)
Key:
Dropped after 1 round - Dropped after 2 rounds - Dropped after 3 rounds - Dropped after 4 rounds - Dropped after 5 rounds - Dropped after 6 rounds
Participation % (out of 130)
Adepta Sororitas - 3.08%
Adeptus Custodes - 10.77%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 3.08%
Chaos - 0.77%
Chaos Daemons - 6.15%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.85%
Dark Eldar - 3.85%
Death Guard - 2.31%
Eldar - 4.62%
Genestealer Cult - 2.31%
Grey Knights - 2.31%
Harlequins - 2.31%
Imperial Guard - 7.69%
Imperial Knights - 4.62%
Imperium - 0.77%
Knights Renegades - 3.08%
Leagues of Votann - 5.38%
Necrons - 3.85%
Orks - 3.08%
Space Marines - 16.15%
Tau Empire - 5.38%
Tyranids - 2.31%
Ynnari - 1.54%
Top 8 places (12.75% each)
Space Marines x3
Chaos x1
Imperial Guard x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Tau Empire x2
Space Marines outperform their participation percentage significantly (16.15% vs. 37.25%), as do Tau (5.38% vs. 25%). Adeptus Custodes are the big under-performer here, with no top 8 slots despite 10.77% of the field.
Top 16 places (6.25% each)
Space Marines x5
Chaos x1
Chaos Daemons x2
Grey Knights x1
Imperial Guard x2
Imperial Knights x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Tau Empire x2
Tyranids x1
Space Marines countinue to out-perform their participation % in the top 16 (16.15% vs. 31.25%). Chaos Daemons, Imperial Guard and Tau Empire also outperform in the top 16 compared to their participation % (6.15%, 7.69% and 5.38% vs. 12.5%). Adeptus Custodes remain the primary underperformer here, as they still didn't manage to get anyone in the top 16.
And why the heck get yourself marked as "Dropped" after the final round?
Grouped by core Codex
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| ||||| | (21, 28, 38, 41, 47, 61, 69, 70*, 74, 90*, 102)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (35)
Chaos Daemons - ||||| || (2, 11, 22, 49, 73, 115*, 124*)
Chaos Space Marines - | (31)
Dark Eldar - ||||| (16, 59, 66*, 84, 101*)
Death Guard - ||| (42, 85, 104)
Eldar - ||||| ||| (4, 18, 51, 56, 80, 95, 98*, 111*)
Genestealer Cult - ||| (6, 14, 44)
Grey Knights - |||| (26, 50, 78, 94*)
Harlequins - | (87*)
Imperial Guard - ||||| |||| (17, 25, 30, 45, 52, 63*, 86, 92, 124*)
Imperial Knights - ||| (23, 24, 57)
Knights Renegades - |||| (5, 46, 105, 109*)
Leagues of Votann - ||||| || (8, 54, 64, 65, 72, 93, 113*)
Necrons - |||| (15, 48, 103*, 117)
Orks - ||||| ||| (13, 39, 40, 60, 83, 97, 99, 124*)
Space Marines - ||||| ||||| ||||| ||||| ||||| |||| (1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 19, 20, 27, 29, 33, 34, 36*, 43, 53, 62, 71, 75, 77, 79, 81, 88*, 91, 100, 112, 114*, 118, 121*, 123*, 124*)
Tau - ||||| ||||| | (37, 58, 68*, 76, 82, 89, 107, 110, 120*, 122*, 124*)
Thousand Sons - || (32)
Tyranids - ||||| | (55, 96, 106, 108, 116, 119*)
World Eaters - | (67) - I'm not 100% sure if World Eaters would be using their own book on an event running 11/2-12/2, but I've left them distinct for now Ynnari - | (12)
Participation % (of the 129 players who completed at least one game)
Adeptus Custodes - 8.53%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 0.76%
Chaos Daemons - 5.43%
Chaos Space Marines - 0.76%
Dark Eldar - 3.86%
Death Guard - 2.33%
Eldar - 6.2%
Genestealer Cult - 2.33%
Grey Knights - 3.1%
Harlequins - 0.76%
Imperial Guard - 6.98%
Imperial Knights - 2.33%
Knights Renegades - 3.1%
Leagues of Votann - 5.43%
Necrons - 3.1%
Orks - 6.2%
Space Marines - 22.48%
Tau - 8.52%
Thousand Sons - 1.55%
Tyranids - 4.65%
World Eaters - 0.76%
Ynnari - 0.76%
Top 8 places (12.5% per slot)
Space Marines x3
Chaos Daemons x1
Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x1
Knights Renegades x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines are outperforming their participation % in the top 8, by one spot. Genestealer Cult is probably the surprise package here, given only 2.33% of the participants, though every faction other than Space Marines was below 12.5% individually.
Top 16 places (6.25% per slot)
Space Marines x5
Chaos Daemons x2
Dark Eldar x1
Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x2
Knights Renegades x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Necrons x1
Orks x1
Ynnari x1
If we broaden the view to top 16, then SM still overperform by about one slot - 22.48% participation would lead to 3-4 top 16 on average. Chaos Daemons and Genestealer Cults also overperform, given 5.43% and 2.33% participation, respectively.
I am curious why this event had such a high drop rate, though.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.
If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?
Again, not privy to the data right now, but given how 9th edition works... I don't think that you're gonna see many Guard armies taking a single unit of Marines.
And anything non-Imperium flat-out CAN'T take any Marine units. Excepting Votann, I think-though that might be an upcoming rule.
Fallen violate the non-imperium rule right? You can technically field a detachment of fallen DA with Cypher or whatever he's called. Did that go bye bye in 9th?
That hasn't been a thing done even in 8th WHEN Fallen had rules LOL
EviscerationPlague wrote: That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?
The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.
thats not the community’s job.
I never said it was, just to more prove a point that GW creates a bad game and that it can be proven.
if you don't like it, don't play. no one is forcing you to.
Don't be mad at me for critiquing what is obviously a badly designed game.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Because options SHOULD be worth taking.
If we're going to have different options, they should all be worthwhile, at least in their niche.
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
Against What? Neither is better or worse?
Can you name a target that the Flamer will outperform the Grav Cannon?
I was talking external balance, which might be decent.
Internal balance (for Marines at least) is gak.
Harder to hit targets with Low T, 1W and low/no armor save? ~3.5 auto hits are better than ~2.0-2.668 when the rest doesn't matter. As you just alluded to, and I pointed out elsewhere, the Flamer is just plain bad (and that's probably one of the reasons it was chosen for this example) - but "in a vaccuum" neither is better than the other.
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
Against What? Neither is better or worse?
Can you name a target that the Flamer will outperform the Grav Cannon?
I was talking external balance, which might be decent.
Internal balance (for Marines at least) is gak.
Harder to hit targets with Low T, 1W and low/no armor save? ~3.5 auto hits are better than ~2.0-2.668 when the rest doesn't matter. As you just alluded to, and I pointed out elsewhere, the Flamer is just plain bad (and that's probably one of the reasons it was chosen for this example) - but "in a vaccuum" neither is better than the other.
Name an ACTUAL unit the Flamer outperforms the Grav Cannon against.
Not a hypothetical one-an actual one.
And bear in mind, the Flamer has to outperform it by a good margin, since the Grav Cannon has twice the range.
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Because options SHOULD be worth taking.
If we're going to have different options, they should all be worthwhile, at least in their niche.
Flamers aren’t worthwhile even when options all have different points costs.
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Because options SHOULD be worth taking.
If we're going to have different options, they should all be worthwhile, at least in their niche.
There are two seemingly conflicting things - All options should be "equally" viable. All options are not equally viable. Both of those are true, and not actually contradictory.
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Because options SHOULD be worth taking.
If we're going to have different options, they should all be worthwhile, at least in their niche.
There are two seemingly conflicting things - All options should be "equally" viable. All options are not equally viable. Both of those are true, and not actually contradictory.
That's true.
But the reason they're not contradictory is that GW is doing a crap job of balancing different options. That's not a good thing.
In other words, when shooting at Aeldari murder clowns within 12" of the shooter. 3.5 Hits versus 2 Hits (due to -1 to Hit), wounding on 3+ for both weapons, and both going into a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
A niche target, but there you go
That being said, it shows how bad flamers are that they aren't better even against a simple target like say Ork Boyz.
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
Against What? Neither is better or worse?
Can you name a target that the Flamer will outperform the Grav Cannon?
I was talking external balance, which might be decent.
Internal balance (for Marines at least) is gak.
Harder to hit targets with Low T, 1W and low/no armor save? ~3.5 auto hits are better than ~2.0-2.668 when the rest doesn't matter. As you just alluded to, and I pointed out elsewhere, the Flamer is just plain bad (and that's probably one of the reasons it was chosen for this example) - but "in a vaccuum" neither is better than the other.
Name an ACTUAL unit the Flamer outperforms the Grav Cannon against.
Not a hypothetical one-an actual one.
And bear in mind, the Flamer has to outperform it by a good margin, since the Grav Cannon has twice the range.
You get situational things like range, and I don't get situational things like -1 to hit Harlequinn Troupes in Hard Cover? And now that I've pointed out the theory of the tradeoff, you want to move the goalposts to outperform by a good margin?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: In other words, when shooting at Aeldari murder clowns within 12" of the shooter. 3.5 Hits versus 2 Hits (due to -1 to Hit), wounding on 3+ for both weapons, and both going into a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
A niche target, but there you go
That being said, it shows how bad flamers are that they aren't better even against a simple target like say Ork Boyz.
I'm pretty sure that's why flamers vs Grav Cannon was chosen. They're two of the most extreme ends of the options.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
A) How many places can someone swap between plasma, bolt, and las pistols? How many places is it more than once per unit?
B) Profiles should be based on neither of those things - not the least because the fluff changes based on what faction the narrator is.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
Las pistol: pistol 3 s3 ap-, user may make 1 attitipnal close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Bolt pistol: pistol 1 s4 ap- usr may make 1 additional close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Plasma pistol: pistol 1 s7 ap-3
Stop crusading for a needless world where you have intentionally gak weapons nobody takes because of a 0.01% increase in the cost of your army allows you to take a better option.
It's been shown enough times, without a totla rewrite of points as a base concept in this game you cannot balance those pistols as they are anyway using points.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
A) How many places can someone swap between plasma, bolt, and las pistols? How many places is it more than once per unit?
B) Profiles should be based on neither of those things - not the least because the fluff changes based on what faction the narrator is.
Astra Militarum used to have about 5 I think, not sure how many of them have been removed, but that doesn't matter because you still have the problem of plasma pistols costing 0 for AM Sergeants with laspistols and 0 pts for SM Sergeants with bolt pistols.
So because there isn't a set canon there is no way to tell whether a Space Marine or a Gretchin is stronger or whether an Imperial Knight is tougher than a Rhino? How would you feel if someone wanted to use the Imperial Knights codex to represent their Gretchin? Who are you to tell them that Gretchin aren't tougher than Rhinos after all. You cannot really invoke balance since you don't mind if balance is bad.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
Las pistol: pistol 3 s3 ap-, user may make 1 attitipnal close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Bolt pistol: pistol 1 s4 ap- usr may make 1 additional close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Plasma pistol: pistol 1 s7 ap-3
Stop crusading for a needless world where you have intentionally gak weapons nobody takes because of a 0.01% increase in the cost of your army allows you to take a better option.
It's been shown enough times, without a totla rewrite of points as a base concept in this game you cannot balance those pistols as they are anyway using points.
Plasma pistols is worth x+y more than your las pistol and only x more than your bolt pistol because bolt pistols are worth y more than las pistols, you failed. How is weapons following their fluff needless? Why shouldn't plasma guns be S3 and lasguns S7? You are crusading for intentionally gak balance with las pistols and bolt pistols that cost the same, how can you accuse me of what you're doing when I'm doing the opposite? Just play 40k chess if you don't care about fluff, a Gretchin pawn can beat a Tactical Marine pawn. You can have AoS double turns if you want to add randomness in the game.
What do you want me to accept as proof of your theory? That plasma pistols have been overcosted for a long time? But now they're an auto-include, doesn't that show that we need points?
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
A) How many places can someone swap between plasma, bolt, and las pistols? How many places is it more than once per unit?
B) Profiles should be based on neither of those things - not the least because the fluff changes based on what faction the narrator is.
Astra Militarum used to have about 5 I think, not sure how many of them have been removed, but that doesn't matter because you still have the problem of plasma pistols costing 0 for AM Sergeants with laspistols and 0 pts for SM Sergeants with bolt pistols.
So because there isn't a set canon there is no way to tell whether a Space Marine or a Gretchin is stronger or whether an Imperial Knight is tougher than a Rhino? How would you feel if someone wanted to use the Imperial Knights codex to represent their Gretchin? Who are you to tell them that Gretchin aren't tougher than Rhinos after all. You cannot really invoke balance since you don't mind if balance is bad.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
Las pistol: pistol 3 s3 ap-, user may make 1 attitipnal close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Bolt pistol: pistol 1 s4 ap- usr may make 1 additional close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Plasma pistol: pistol 1 s7 ap-3
Stop crusading for a needless world where you have intentionally gak weapons nobody takes because of a 0.01% increase in the cost of your army allows you to take a better option.
It's been shown enough times, without a totla rewrite of points as a base concept in this game you cannot balance those pistols as they are anyway using points.
Plasma pistols is worth x+y more than your las pistol and only x more than your bolt pistol because bolt pistols are worth y more than las pistols, you failed. How is weapons following their fluff needless? Why shouldn't plasma guns be S3 and lasguns S7? You are crusading for intentionally gak balance with las pistols and bolt pistols that cost the same, how can you accuse me of what you're doing when I'm doing the opposite? Just play 40k chess if you don't care about fluff, a Gretchin pawn can beat a Tactical Marine pawn. You can have AoS double turns if you want to add randomness in the game.
What do you want me to accept as proof of your theory? That plasma pistols have been overcosted for a long time? But now they're an auto-include, doesn't that show that we need points?
Explain to me on a 5pt model how a laspistol is worth 0, a bolt pistol worth 1 and a plasma pistol worth 5.
Give me a justified use case for each.
I reality I expect you can't because the 1 point upgrade for a single point of strength on a sidearm is never going to be worth a 20% increase on the thing holding it, the 5 points for the plasma pistol is more than 100% increase in lethality even ignoring the overcharge, but is it worth exactly 5 times a bolt pistol? If you use that as the benchmark for what 1 point is worth, I'd say it needs to be more, but then you're more than doubling the cost of a model for a sidearm upgrade.
If the plasma is noticeably better it becomes an auto-take because its a tiny volume of points in the whole army, the bolt pistol exists to make your army exactly 2k because nobody cares enough about its change in output to waste the points and you only care about a laspistol if you have no other choice basically.
I'd also note you didn't address my example, you also refer to points as an abstract varaible because you can't yourself work out how many they should be.
Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
A BS4+ las pistol into a marine expects to do half a point of damage. A BS4+ bolt pistol expects to do a mighty 0.75 points of damage. This is "bad shooting" in the context of 40k in general from any model costing more than about 3 points. You'd be better off throwing a grenade instead. How many points is expecting to do an additional 0.25 points worth of damage if you get to fire your pistol? Its certainly not a point. Or half a point. 0.1 of a point maybe? This can be safely rounded to zero and have no impact on game balance at all. What are you going to say - "He had 10 free bolt pistols so was playing 2001 points to my 2000, nerf pls"?
Plasma pistols probably should be worth something - but how much is a fair argument. 3 points maybe? But again, if someone has a free 5-6 plasma pistols in your list, is that really going to be the difference? Again, "they had 2015 points, nerf pls, I could have had an extra 2-3 termagants" seems kind of weak.
The issue with the free stuff and points drops is if it compounds to the point where an army of 2k points really should be 2100-2200 in the context of wider 40k, and this is why its disproportionately winning.
Tyel wrote: Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
A BS4+ las pistol into a marine expects to do half a point of damage. A BS4+ bolt pistol expects to do a mighty 0.75 points of damage. This is "bad shooting" in the context of 40k in general from any model costing more than about 3 points. You'd be better off throwing a grenade instead. How many points is expecting to do an additional 0.25 points worth of damage if you get to fire your pistol? Its certainly not a point. Or half a point. 0.1 of a point maybe? This can be safely rounded to zero and have no impact on game balance at all. What are you going to say - "He had 10 free bolt pistols so was playing 2001 points to my 2000, nerf pls"?
Plasma pistols probably should be worth something - but how much is a fair argument. 3 points maybe? But again, if someone has a free 5-6 plasma pistols in your list, is that really going to be the difference? Again, "they had 2015 points, nerf pls, I could have had an extra 2-3 termagants" seems kind of weak.
The issue with the free stuff and points drops is if it compounds to the point where an army of 2k points really should be 2100-2200 in the context of wider 40k, and this is why its disproportionately winning.
The other side of that being the "lesser" options need some utility or other virtues to make them something other than "the worst one", I'm not against things being pointed as long as it's worthwhile doing so. If you can balance a laspistol vs a bolt pistol to parity at the same cost/free then a plasma pistol being more points but outright better is ok. Otherwise the simple answer is to consolidate the profiles into "sidearm" and "better sidearm" as needed.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
A) How many places can someone swap between plasma, bolt, and las pistols? How many places is it more than once per unit?
B) Profiles should be based on neither of those things - not the least because the fluff changes based on what faction the narrator is.
Astra Militarum used to have about 5 I think, not sure how many of them have been removed, but that doesn't matter because you still have the problem of plasma pistols costing 0 for AM Sergeants with laspistols and 0 pts for SM Sergeants with bolt pistols.
You could have stopped at "You don't know". And if your example is a Guard Squad Sgt vs a SM Sergeant that can both take all of 1 per unit... I hadn't realized how powerful a plasma pistol was. What difference does it make if you have AM/SM Sgts with Plasma Pistols for 5 points or for 0 points? They're staying the same ratio - 1 pistol per 1 sgt per 1 unit, roughly x units per 2K.
So because there isn't a set canon there is no way to tell whether a Space Marine or a Gretchin is stronger or whether an Imperial Knight is tougher than a Rhino? How would you feel if someone wanted to use the Imperial Knights codex to represent their Gretchin? Who are you to tell them that Gretchin aren't tougher than Rhinos after all. You cannot really invoke balance since you don't mind if balance is bad.
Liar says what? I said balance shouldn't be based on fluff, not that I don't mind if balance is bad. When you lie about what other people have said - and lie so obviously about it - it makes you look bad. I can remember fluff that had three primarchs basically playing catch with a Land Raider destroyed by one of them in a one-punch scenario. I'll say this again - Fluff can get ridiculous and should not be the factor for game balance.
Tyel wrote: Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
Either way, it seems contradictory to say that the exact type of sidearm an officer is carrying is important enough to warrant letting you pick which one he gets... but then also so unimportant that that choice shouldn't be worth anything, even when one option is clearly better.
My two cents is that the distinction between a laspistol and a bolt pistol mattered a lot more when the latter ignored Guard armor, an officer could credibly pop a Marine with either every once in a while, and the game scale was small enough that how you kitted out your lieutenant made a difference. 40K's way beyond that, but it still preserves these legacy options that don't really matter anymore. When you're running into the case where an upgrade is so miniscule that it's difficult to set a cost, then maybe it's time to take a long and hard look at which options are actually relevant and which ought to be either streamlined out or re-worked to matter again.
The issue with the free stuff and points drops is if it compounds to the point where an army of 2k points really should be 2100-2200 in the context of wider 40k, and this is why its disproportionately winning.
Wasn't it just established they're not disproportionately winning?
Are the other armies that got a points drop also playing at over 2,000 points? CSM got many of the same changes - are they playing at 2,100-2,200 points?
I've heard Votann were undercosted and have been getting points INCREASES. Are they playing at 1500 points?
JNAProductions wrote: Name an ACTUAL unit the Flamer outperforms the Grav Cannon against.
Not a hypothetical one-an actual one.
And bear in mind, the Flamer has to outperform it by a good margin, since the Grav Cannon has twice the range.
wyches in overwatch?
thats the whole schtick of the flamers, theyre good overwatch weapons. thing is, its so trivial to deny an overwatch that they become useless anyway (unless youre some tzeentch flamers that are clearly TOO good)
alextroy wrote: In other words, when shooting at Aeldari murder clowns within 12" of the shooter. 3.5 Hits versus 2 Hits (due to -1 to Hit), wounding on 3+ for both weapons, and both going into a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
A niche target, but there you go
That being said, it shows how bad flamers are that they aren't better even against a simple target like say Ork Boyz.
And they didn't even touch my point of Multi-Melta vs a Plasma Gun.
Explain to me how a hurricane bolter is worth 0 compared not to a bolt pistol, but to nothing. The problem is GW's lack of method to balancing their game. Let's start by saying things that are worth more than 0 should not cost zero and things that are better in every sense should cost more points. Then GW can look at ROI rates and compare the mobility and durability of units to get acceptable points ranges of each unit and adjust based on tests before and tournaments after release. This dartboard garbage they've got going on is working surprisingly well for external balance at the moment I will admit though.
Upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol is worth more than 0, if you're unwilling to set the smallest non-zero points value in 40k below 1 then 1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on, at the same time if your models happen to be equipped with bolt pistols you're not losing anything significant, it's just 1 pt/model and you are getting something worth more than 0. This is preferable because there is at least some reason to get the bolt pistol, if they cost the same there is zero reason to get the laspistol, ergo internal balance is improved if bolt pistols cost more than 0 and plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols.
5 is a little high for a plasma pistol, but I am not an expert, that's why I use values abstract values which I know you can't argue against. Someone who has points leftover will prefer the plasma pistol at 5 pts to the bolt pistol which is overcosted at 1 pt, but at least you're saving 4 pts by taking the bolt pistol instead of the plasma pistol instead of saving 0 pts by taking the bolt pistol instead of the plasma pistol, ergo, balance is better.
15 pts isn't an external balance problem, it's an internal balance problem. Tesla Immortals being 2 pts/model overcosted didn't hurt anyone other than Necron players. Bolt pistols do not need utility to make them on-par with plasma pistols, that's hogwash. Do Rhinos need utility to make them on-par with Land Raiders?
Apple fox wrote: If the weapons are so functionally similar in end result, depending entirely on opportunity.
Then I think players should be choosing when that is shown. When putting minis on the table is the only place really I feel.
Which weapon do you think is going to end up on more miniatures?
Tyel wrote: Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
Either way, it seems contradictory to say that the exact type of sidearm an officer is carrying is important enough to warrant letting you pick which one he gets... but then also so unimportant that that choice shouldn't be worth anything, even when one option is clearly better.
My two cents is that the distinction between a laspistol and a bolt pistol mattered a lot more when the latter ignored Guard armor, an officer could credibly pop a Marine with either every once in a while, and the game scale was small enough that how you kitted out your lieutenant made a difference. 40K's way beyond that, but it still preserves these legacy options that don't really matter anymore. When you're running into the case where an upgrade is so miniscule that it's difficult to set a cost, then maybe it's time to take a long and hard look at which options are actually relevant and which ought to be either streamlined out or re-worked to matter again.
If you don't care about fluff I don't know why you're mentioning laspistols since they're not in the SM codex and if we don't care about fluff we should all just move over to the most popular faction so GW can balance that to the best of their ability.
vict0988 wrote: Explain to me how a hurricane bolter is worth 0 compared not to a bolt pistol, but to nothing.
Because the only place you see a Hurricane Bolter or Nothing is on the Stormraven Gunship and making them free makes the Stormraven Gunship more viable.
Edit to Add: Because they already dropped the thing 50 points, and they didn't want to drop it another 30, then have people use the thing without the Hurricane Bolters thus having it fit in a smaller window of some lists?
vict0988 wrote: Upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol is worth more than 0, if you're unwilling to set the smallest non-zero points value in 40k below 1 then 1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
So you might say... they're worthless. Because the only justification you can have for spending that point is "nothing else to spend them on".
at the same time if your models happen to be equipped with bolt pistols you're not losing anything significant, it's just 1 pt/model and you are getting something worth more than 0. This is preferable because there is at least some reason to get the bolt pistol
You just said there wasn't a reason outside of wasting points.
if they cost the same there is zero reason to get the laspistol, ergo internal balance is improved if bolt pistols cost more than 0 and plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols.
If you never see bolt pistols because they're a point wasting mechanic, by your own admission, then internal balance isn't actually any better.
5 is a little high for a plasma pistol, but I am not an expert, that's why I use values abstract values which I know you can't argue against.
I can, because you're by your own earlier admission unable to point a bolt pistol in the game appropriately compared to a laspistol. They have to be abstract because it's not possible.
Someone who has points leftover will prefer the plasma pistol at 5 pts to the bolt pistol which is overcosted at 1 pt, but at least you're saving 4 pts by taking the bolt pistol instead of the plasma pistol instead of saving 0 pts by taking the bolt pistol instead of the plasma pistol, ergo, balance is better.
But again your whole argument hinges on spending unwanted points. Why would you ever take a bolt pistol - you wouldn't by your own admission. Instead either the plasma pistol is really good and worth spending 5pts on, or it isn't and you just take the free one. I won't argue a plasma pistol is better than a laspistol but I will argue you cannot appropriately point it, which you confirm.
15 pts isn't an external balance problem, it's an internal balance problem. Tesla Immortals being 2 pts/model overcosted didn't hurt anyone other than Necron players.
What are you on about? what about 15 points? if an army is 15 points cheaper/more expensive than it should be than it's an external and internal issue if it's not mitigatable via other options, although I doubt anyone would notice that 0.75% of an army. As for tesla, yes that's an internal balance issue exclusively as it has peers to compete with without impact the armies overall performance.
Bolt pistols do not need utility to make them on-par with plasma pistols, that's hogwash.
They do if they're the same price, but for whatever reason you're stuck on everything must be on a raw scale of output with no imagination to make the gap up.
Do Rhinos need utility to make them on-par with Land Raiders?
Is a land raider an optional upgrade to the Rhino. This is an instance where there are large quantifiable changes between 2 units that justify the difference in price. Conversely, the Land raider *does* offer utility to validate the increased price.
Tyel wrote: Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
Either way, it seems contradictory to say that the exact type of sidearm an officer is carrying is important enough to warrant letting you pick which one he gets... but then also so unimportant that that choice shouldn't be worth anything, even when one option is clearly better.
My two cents is that the distinction between a laspistol and a bolt pistol mattered a lot more when the latter ignored Guard armor, an officer could credibly pop a Marine with either every once in a while, and the game scale was small enough that how you kitted out your lieutenant made a difference. 40K's way beyond that, but it still preserves these legacy options that don't really matter anymore. When you're running into the case where an upgrade is so miniscule that it's difficult to set a cost, then maybe it's time to take a long and hard look at which options are actually relevant and which ought to be either streamlined out or re-worked to matter again.
If you don't care about fluff I don't know why you're mentioning laspistols since they're not in the SM codex and if we don't care about fluff we should all just move over to the most popular faction so GW can balance that to the best of their ability.
What a weird tangent to go off on, what has space marines relative popularity of divorcing the fluff got to do with anything? Catbarf is absolutely correct that there's 0 harm in having a guardsman sidearm profile for both and then only worry about the plasma.
Dudeface wrote: The other side of that being the "lesser" options need some utility or other virtues to make them something other than "the worst one", I'm not against things being pointed as long as it's worthwhile doing so. If you can balance a laspistol vs a bolt pistol to parity at the same cost/free then a plasma pistol being more points but outright better is ok. Otherwise the simple answer is to consolidate the profiles into "sidearm" and "better sidearm" as needed.
I don't know if this is true. The bad options can simply serve as a baseline to show how much better the good options are and that is a fine baseline of utility for something that has to exist for fluff reasons.
The issue with the free stuff and points drops is if it compounds to the point where an army of 2k points really should be 2100-2200 in the context of wider 40k, and this is why its disproportionately winning.
Wasn't it just established they're not disproportionately winning?
Are the other armies that got a points drop also playing at over 2,000 points? CSM got many of the same changes - are they playing at 2,100-2,200 points?
I've heard Votann were undercosted and have been getting points INCREASES. Are they playing at 1500 points?
yes it’s been established there’s no evidence marines are OP now, but internet people can rarely admit they’re wrong, and just double down on their arguments
Dudeface wrote: The other side of that being the "lesser" options need some utility or other virtues to make them something other than "the worst one", I'm not against things being pointed as long as it's worthwhile doing so. If you can balance a laspistol vs a bolt pistol to parity at the same cost/free then a plasma pistol being more points but outright better is ok. Otherwise the simple answer is to consolidate the profiles into "sidearm" and "better sidearm" as needed.
I don't know if this is true. The bad options can simply serve as a baseline to show how much better the good options are and that is a fine baseline of utility for something that has to exist for fluff reasons.
Sometimes, but do we need multiple bad options? To lean on the guard officer pistol debacle, the bolt pistol isn't really adding much of anything to justify its existence other than "fluff says it should". But like I pointed out before you can actually drag the laspistol up by giving it extra utility or tweaking it's profile to give a comparison.
EviscerationPlague often points at the gravcannon as another weapon that sits in that slot where it's either either:
- default best and overlaps most other weapons roles
- utterly pointless and might as well not exist
- mid-range in power but simply shows up the other weapons as not needing to be there
Simple answer is get rid of the grav cannon, but if people insist on continuing everything that ever did or will exist as its own profile, then you will never balance them in their current iterations.
Calculating WS and BS of a model into its base point cost is a trap in practice.
It is sufficient to take it into consideration when you come up with points for the weapon options.
Any given weapon has a cost of X as the combination of all of its values like range, type, strength and so on. X is the value if it would hit 6/6 times.
A model with BS 2+ pays 5/6 of the cost.
A model with BS 3+ pays 4/6 of the cost and so on.
I don't think that it is possible to stat the BS of a model into its base cost if you give it a selection from literally nothing to Thunder hammer. At least I couldn't come up with one.
Dudeface wrote: Sometimes, but do we need multiple bad options? To lean on the guard officer pistol debacle, the bolt pistol isn't really adding much of anything to justify its existence other than "fluff says it should". But like I pointed out before you can actually drag the laspistol up by giving it extra utility or tweaking it's profile to give a comparison.
There's no real utility gained in doing such as neither option will ever be worth much regardless. I'd rather focus the same effort on abilities that players actually use.
EviscerationPlague often points at the gravcannon as another weapon that sits in that slot where it's either either:
- default best and overlaps most other weapons roles
- utterly pointless and might as well not exist
- mid-range in power but simply shows up the other weapons as not needing to be there
Simple answer is get rid of the grav cannon, but if people insist on continuing everything that ever did or will exist as its own profile, then you will never balance them in their current iterations.
The Grav Cannon could be space for more unique rules having a place. Tune it to do less damage than Plasma but do something like reduce a unit's movement or disrupt charges when it scores a hit in overwatch, or both if one or the other alone is too weak.
I do think that a formula would be helpful, as a starting point.
I don't think you can, at least with currently available maths and sciences, make a formula that can give you a good end point. You're gonna have to playtest and tweak it.
JNAProductions wrote: I do think that a formula would be helpful, as a starting point.
I don't think you can, at least with currently available maths and sciences, make a formula that can give you a good end point. You're gonna have to playtest and tweak it.
Agreed, which is why it requires manual tweaking (of both the formulas itself AND the result on some units)
JNAProductions wrote: I do think that a formula would be helpful, as a starting point.
I don't think you can, at least with currently available maths and sciences, make a formula that can give you a good end point. You're gonna have to playtest and tweak it.
Agreed, which is why it requires manual tweaking (of both the formulas itself AND the result on some units)
Honestly, I think it'd be better to just get good playtesting.
A formula might be useful when complete, but achieving that is... Not an easy task, to say the least.
If you're able to get to a good spot on balance, via playtesting, you can then reverse engineer a formula much more easily than trying it from scratch.
Basically, in theory a formula is perfect, but in practice playtesting and other existing techniques are likely to be more effective for now.
VladimirHerzog wrote: GW should just make a mathematical formula to figure out the points value of their units/weapons
A boltgun on a BS2+ unit whould be worth more points than a boltgun on a BS4+ unit.
make the math as complex as it needs to be, taking into account, range,type,ap, damage AND the platform its on (toughness, speed, skill).
Strip stratagems so there is only generic ones (1-2 per phase) and mmmaybe one on some specific characters only.
Make subfactions/relics/warlord traits cost something (again, with variations depending on the unit its on).
Bundle all of that on a solid, free, listbuilding application so it's not complicated for people to calculate it.
Then you can do manual refinement if something is overbearing, and update it seamlessly in the app.
Why would a bolter cost more a BS2+ than on a BS4+? The weapon should cost the same across the board because you’re already paying a premium on the 2+ model compared to the 4+ model.
VladimirHerzog wrote: GW should just make a mathematical formula to figure out the points value of their units/weapons
A boltgun on a BS2+ unit whould be worth more points than a boltgun on a BS4+ unit.
make the math as complex as it needs to be, taking into account, range,type,ap, damage AND the platform its on (toughness, speed, skill).
Strip stratagems so there is only generic ones (1-2 per phase) and mmmaybe one on some specific characters only.
Make subfactions/relics/warlord traits cost something (again, with variations depending on the unit its on).
Bundle all of that on a solid, free, listbuilding application so it's not complicated for people to calculate it.
Then you can do manual refinement if something is overbearing, and update it seamlessly in the app.
Why would a bolter cost more a BS2+ than on a BS4+? The weapon should cost the same across the board because you’re already paying a premium on the 2+ model compared to the 4+ model.
yeah, which is part of the calculation, i didnt explain myself properly.
Marine statblock with BS2 + boltgun = 100pts
Marine statblock with BS6 + boltgun = 10pts
but then expand it to every weapon/combinations
Marine statblock with BS2 + Melta= 200pts, Melta is costed at 100pts
Marine statblock with BS6 + Melta = 15pts, Melta is costed at 5pts
(actual values are obviously not what i'd recommend, just to show what i mean)
a_typical_hero wrote: Calculating WS and BS of a model into its base point cost is a trap in practice.
It is sufficient to take it into consideration when you come up with points for the weapon options.
Any given weapon has a cost of X as the combination of all of its values like range, type, strength and so on. X is the value if it would hit 6/6 times.
A model with BS 2+ pays 5/6 of the cost.
A model with BS 3+ pays 4/6 of the cost and so on.
I don't think that it is possible to stat the BS of a model into its base cost if you give it a selection from literally nothing to Thunder hammer. At least I couldn't come up with one.
How does this work with, for example, giving a power sword to the Sergeant leading a Devastator squad? It's technically a power boost and he does have the same WS as a Sergeant leading another unit but the impact of the weapon is much reduced due to the unit's role.
a_typical_hero wrote: Calculating WS and BS of a model into its base point cost is a trap in practice.
It is sufficient to take it into consideration when you come up with points for the weapon options.
Any given weapon has a cost of X as the combination of all of its values like range, type, strength and so on. X is the value if it would hit 6/6 times.
A model with BS 2+ pays 5/6 of the cost.
A model with BS 3+ pays 4/6 of the cost and so on.
I don't think that it is possible to stat the BS of a model into its base cost if you give it a selection from literally nothing to Thunder hammer. At least I couldn't come up with one.
How does this work with, for example, giving a power sword to the Sergeant leading a Devastator squad? It's technically a power boost and he does have the same WS as a Sergeant leading another unit but the impact of the weapon is much reduced due to the unit's role.
you should still pay for the sword, and evaluate during listbuilding if you value it, yeah it will lead to "trap-option" but a dedicated shooty unit should not randomly want to bring close combat weapons
johnpjones1775 wrote: Why would a bolter cost more a BS2+ than on a BS4+? The weapon should cost the same across the board because you’re already paying a premium on the 2+ model compared to the 4+ model.
It costs more because the boltgun hits more often. That's why in practice it needs to be the other way around. You don't pay for the BS of a model when looking at the model cost.
How much is BS2+ worth on any model? You can't tell because it depends on the weapons available. 2+ on a model that can only take a laspistol is relatively worth nothing compared to a model that can take a lascannon. I elaborated on it a few posts prior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: How does this work with, for example, giving a power sword to the Sergeant leading a Devastator squad? It's technically a power boost and he does have the same WS as a Sergeant leading another unit but the impact of the weapon is much reduced due to the unit's role.
Currently, I make no exception for it. I understand that you could make an argument for it because a ranged unit - in theory - should engage less often in melee combat. That is were finetuning would come in afterwards, after establishing a baseline.
VladimirHerzog wrote: you should still pay for the sword, and evaluate during listbuilding if you value it, yeah it will lead to "trap-option" but a dedicated shooty unit should not randomly want to bring close combat weapons
There is a points value where it's a good option to help them get unstuck from a chaff unit tying them up but the full price likely isn't it.
Also, where does this leave a base unit of Marines? Are they a shooty unit or a choppy unit? Do we balance around them or around the impact a weapon has in a more dedicated role?
In my calculator given above, a basic Intercessor comes out at 40 points with grenades, bolt rifle and TSKNF. (Some special calculation methods apply, f.e. grenades costing 1p each)
A power sword is 4 points at WS3+. (Melee weapons receive a bit of an indirect discount, as they don't have range and attacks taken into their calculation. A nod to the fact that melee units usually have a harder time applying their weaponry than shooty units)
Games are played at a usual size of 2500-3500 points. Let's just say until now, it never came up as a problem to fit some "unoptimised" wargear on your units. I do see your point, though.
Also, where does this leave a base unit of Marines? Are they a shooty unit or a choppy unit? Do we balance around them or around the impact a weapon has in a more dedicated role?
depends on how you build them up, do you want them standing back with a lascannon and taking pot shots at tanks or do you want them moving up the board with a flamer to kill small infantry.
4 naked marines + lascannon are clearly a shooty unit
Sergeant with power sword + 3 bolter dudes + flamethrower becomes a hybrid unit on which a melee weapon makes more sense.
can the lascannon wielding squad still end up in CC , yes but you as a player need to gauge if you really want to pay those xpts to maybe get them out of combat or not.
catbarf wrote: If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
Either way, it seems contradictory to say that the exact type of sidearm an officer is carrying is important enough to warrant letting you pick which one he gets... but then also so unimportant that that choice shouldn't be worth anything, even when one option is clearly better.
My two cents is that the distinction between a laspistol and a bolt pistol mattered a lot more when the latter ignored Guard armor, an officer could credibly pop a Marine with either every once in a while, and the game scale was small enough that how you kitted out your lieutenant made a difference. 40K's way beyond that, but it still preserves these legacy options that don't really matter anymore. When you're running into the case where an upgrade is so miniscule that it's difficult to set a cost, then maybe it's time to take a long and hard look at which options are actually relevant and which ought to be either streamlined out or re-worked to matter again.
If you don't care about fluff I don't know why you're mentioning laspistols since they're not in the SM codex and if we don't care about fluff we should all just move over to the most popular faction so GW can balance that to the best of their ability.
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I care about fluff; but I don't believe that every last little bit of fluff needs to be modeled in the rules. There's a point where these distinctions stop being relevant to the tabletop, and if the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so miniscule that it's not even worth a single point, then it's probably not worth bothering with in tabletop rules.
How you get 'we should all just use the SM rules and counts-as' from that, I'm at a loss.
Also, where does this leave a base unit of Marines? Are they a shooty unit or a choppy unit? Do we balance around them or around the impact a weapon has in a more dedicated role?
depends on how you build them up, do you want them standing back with a lascannon and taking pot shots at tanks or do you want them moving up the board with a flamer to kill small infantry.
4 naked marines + lascannon are clearly a shooty unit
Sergeant with power sword + 3 bolter dudes + flamethrower becomes a hybrid unit on which a melee weapon makes more sense.
can the lascannon wielding squad still end up in CC , yes but you as a player need to gauge if you really want to pay those xpts to maybe get them out of combat or not.
Then the cost they pay for those capabilities will be too costly (if you've balanced around say devastators) or two cheap (if you've balanced around BT neophytes). You cannot make a formula work if it doesn't also account for the role of a unit.
Also, where does this leave a base unit of Marines? Are they a shooty unit or a choppy unit? Do we balance around them or around the impact a weapon has in a more dedicated role?
depends on how you build them up, do you want them standing back with a lascannon and taking pot shots at tanks or do you want them moving up the board with a flamer to kill small infantry.
4 naked marines + lascannon are clearly a shooty unit
Sergeant with power sword + 3 bolter dudes + flamethrower becomes a hybrid unit on which a melee weapon makes more sense.
can the lascannon wielding squad still end up in CC , yes but you as a player need to gauge if you really want to pay those xpts to maybe get them out of combat or not.
Then the cost they pay for those capabilities will be too costly (if you've balanced around say devastators) or two cheap (if you've balanced around BT neophytes). You cannot make a formula work if it doesn't also account for the role of a unit.
The role doesn't matter... the raw numbers do...
If you think paying 5pts for a powersword on a devastator unit is not worth it, don't pick the weapon, it doesn't change the fact that the sword will kill 4 guardsmen (random number to make a point), regardless of if its on a devastator or an neophyte.
alextroy wrote: In other words, when shooting at Aeldari murder clowns within 12" of the shooter. 3.5 Hits versus 2 Hits (due to -1 to Hit), wounding on 3+ for both weapons, and both going into a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
A niche target, but there you go
That being said, it shows how bad flamers are that they aren't better even against a simple target like say Ork Boyz.
Flamers had a niche when unlimited overwatch was a thing. CSM make them slightly more palatable with their special rule, but that rule should have been for all flamers really.
If you think paying 5pts for a powersword on a devastator unit is not worth it, don't pick the weapon, it doesn't change the fact that the sword will kill 4 guardsmen (random number to make a point), regardless of if its on a devastator or an neophyte.
That's untrue.
A meltagun on a unit that moves 4" per turn is less valuable than one on a unit that can move 24". A lascannon is less valuable on a unit that wants to hide in cover to hold an objective than it is on a unit that wants to move and hunt tanks. Your system will lead to people taking nothing but naked tactical squads again because they can't use weapons that are priced to prevent another unit from abusing them.
You want a simple solution but what you want doesn't exist and would make the game worse.
alextroy wrote: In other words, when shooting at Aeldari murder clowns within 12" of the shooter. 3.5 Hits versus 2 Hits (due to -1 to Hit), wounding on 3+ for both weapons, and both going into a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
A niche target, but there you go
That being said, it shows how bad flamers are that they aren't better even against a simple target like say Ork Boyz.
Flamers had a niche when unlimited overwatch was a thing. CSM make them slightly more palatable with their special rule, but that rule should have been for all flamers really.
Flamers had a niche when they could cook 20+ models at once. Templates make flamers and blasts far more attractive than they are currently.
vict0988 wrote: Upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol is worth more than 0, if you're unwilling to set the smallest non-zero points value in 40k below 1 then 1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
So you might say... they're worthless.
No, their value is very clearly non zero, I said that many times, that's the opposite of worthless. Overcosted does not mean worthless. What's worthless is a strictly worse weapon that isn't cheaper.
catbarf wrote: If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
Either way, it seems contradictory to say that the exact type of sidearm an officer is carrying is important enough to warrant letting you pick which one he gets... but then also so unimportant that that choice shouldn't be worth anything, even when one option is clearly better.
My two cents is that the distinction between a laspistol and a bolt pistol mattered a lot more when the latter ignored Guard armor, an officer could credibly pop a Marine with either every once in a while, and the game scale was small enough that how you kitted out your lieutenant made a difference. 40K's way beyond that, but it still preserves these legacy options that don't really matter anymore. When you're running into the case where an upgrade is so miniscule that it's difficult to set a cost, then maybe it's time to take a long and hard look at which options are actually relevant and which ought to be either streamlined out or re-worked to matter again.
If you don't care about fluff I don't know why you're mentioning laspistols since they're not in the SM codex and if we don't care about fluff we should all just move over to the most popular faction so GW can balance that to the best of their ability.
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I care about fluff; but I don't believe that every last little bit of fluff needs to be modeled in the rules. There's a point where these distinctions stop being relevant to the tabletop, and if the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so miniscule that it's not even worth a single point, then it's probably not worth bothering with in tabletop rules.
How you get 'we should all just use the SM rules and counts-as' from that, I'm at a loss.
I thought it was pretty clear I was just being hostile because we have a difference of opinion. Thank you for not immediately jumping to that conclusion, I hope you have a good day.
vict0988 wrote: Explain to me how a hurricane bolter is worth 0 compared not to a bolt pistol, but to nothing.
Because the only place you see a Hurricane Bolter or Nothing is on the Stormraven Gunship and making them free makes the Stormraven Gunship more viable.
Edit to Add: Because they already dropped the thing 50 points, and they didn't want to drop it another 30, then have people use the thing without the Hurricane Bolters thus having it fit in a smaller window of some lists?
Would you agree that there is a non-zero points cost for a hurricane bolter on a Stormraven Gunship that would make the hurricane bolter an auto-include on a Stormraven? If you agree then you'd have to agree that even if GW wanted to make Stormraven Gunships good and make hurricane bolters an auto-include that cost would not have to be zero. Somewhere between 30 and whatever the highest non-zero points value you'd agree to would make the hurricane bolter an auto-include you'd find a fair cost where most people would take the hurricane bolter because it'd be aggressively costed but at the same time it wouldn't be completely half-brained to include a Stormraven Gunship in your list without taking a hurricane bolter because you built yours without one 2 editions ago.
vict0988 wrote: Upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol is worth more than 0, if you're unwilling to set the smallest non-zero points value in 40k below 1 then 1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
So you might say... they're worthless.
No, their value is very clearly non zero, I said that many times, that's the opposite of worthless. Overcosted does not mean worthless. What's worthless is a strictly worse weapon that isn't cheaper.
Let me pluck that bit out for you again:
1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
I'll leave it there, but if you only take something with the explicit purpose of having nothing else to spend points on and it's only value to you is to make your list add up to 2k exactly, it has no real worth and might as well be free.
Daedalus81 wrote: Well that was pretty rare and involved a lot of 4+ rolls.
Another problem comes up when you have squads than can take all flamers so making them too good pushes it past sensibility.
No one would complain about a D6+4 flamer until you have 10 of them in a unit.
It made tank shock and flamer combinations somewhat viable and gave units like Burna Boyz actual utility. It also makes Hellhounds and Flamer Rhinos interesting choices against hordes.
Your system will lead to people taking nothing but naked tactical squads again because they can't use weapons that are priced to prevent another unit from abusing them.
how would weapons be priced for another unit when i specifically said to price them on a unit per unit basis???
A meltagun on a unit that moves 4" per turn is less valuable than one on a unit that can move 24".
Thats why i said that all the stats of a unit should be taken into account when pricing them
Not really. It's why things like Devastators and Purgation squads were awful in 3rd to 4th. They made you pay more for the weapon itself just because you're able to take more in that squad, while the rules writers forgot about the opportunity cost that came with the old school FOC to begin with.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Thats why i said that all the stats of a unit should be taken into account when pricing them
Do longer range guns cost more or less on faster units? Or are guns just supposed to be [gun points] x [BS Ratio] and not priced on a by unit basis?
in most games i play, lascannon dudes stay still in a building all game..
That's a pretty static and terrible game that likely doesn't use enough LoS-blocking terrain.
how would weapons be priced for another unit when i specifically said to price them on a unit per unit basis???
"The role doesn't matter... the raw numbers do...
If you think paying 5pts for a powersword on a devastator unit is not worth it, don't pick the weapon, it doesn't change the fact that the sword will kill 4 guardsmen (random number to make a point), regardless of if its on a devastator or an neophyte."
You just said you won't price weapons based on the unit that carries them, only by their raw numbers.
catbarf wrote: If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
I broadly agree (with the caveat that I'm not sure bolt pistols on say guard sergeants ever made a meaningful difference.)
Ultimately you have the problem that some people want a fluff-based rule system, and others want one that works and makes vague sense as a game.
I think this is why we saw so much crying from certain quarters on say Fleshborers going to S5 AP-1. "Oh its going to be OP" - "oh no wait, at 7 points a model this is about half as good into Marines as say a Guardian". "But but but but its not fair that Fleshborers have such stats. My fluff. My immersion. They should be S3 AP- and sure, if this means Termagants should be about 2-3 points each as a result compared with modern 40k, then so be it. The game will just have to somehow cope Tyranid players bringing 300 Termagants plus most of the rest of their regular army because its meant to be a simulation...."
how would weapons be priced for another unit when i specifically said to price them on a unit per unit basis???
"The role doesn't matter... the raw numbers do...
Look man, i'm done arguing for this when you're intentionally being dense.
The role truly doesnt matter, you use only the stats of the unit. If the unit is shooty yet the sargeant somehow gets 10 attacks with a thunderhammer, well he should still pay full price even if its not a melee unit and realistically won't get to use it.
Do units that take heavy weapons get a discount because they get negatives to hit if they move?
Look man, i'm done arguing for this when you're intentionally being dense.
The role truly doesnt matter, you use only the stats of the unit. If the unit is shooty yet the sargeant somehow gets 10 attacks with a thunderhammer, well he should still pay full price even if its not a melee unit and realistically won't get to use it.
Do units that hold objectives get a higher cost for weapons? Do deep striking units pay more for assault weapons and less for heavy weapons?
yeah, the raw stat of the unit carrying them ffs -.-
Are special rules raw stats? How do you factor in buffing auras and stratagems? How about litanies and psychic powers that aren't a sure thing to go off each turn?
johnpjones1775 wrote: Why would a bolter cost more a BS2+ than on a BS4+? The weapon should cost the same across the board because you’re already paying a premium on the 2+ model compared to the 4+ model.
It costs more because the boltgun hits more often. That's why in practice it needs to be the other way around. You don't pay for the BS of a model when looking at the model cost.
How much is BS2+ worth on any model? You can't tell because it depends on the weapons available. 2+ on a model that can only take a laspistol is relatively worth nothing compared to a model that can take a lascannon. I elaborated on it a few posts prior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: How does this work with, for example, giving a power sword to the Sergeant leading a Devastator squad? It's technically a power boost and he does have the same WS as a Sergeant leading another unit but the impact of the weapon is much reduced due to the unit's role.
Currently, I make no exception for it. I understand that you could make an argument for it because a ranged unit - in theory - should engage less often in melee combat. That is were finetuning would come in afterwards, after establishing a baseline.
and yet the effectiveness of a weapon largely relies on how often it hits. A S22 AP-7 D10 weapon is a good weapon no doubt but in the hands of a BS6+ unit it’s not going to make much of a difference, so yes the BS is arguably more important than the weapon. Especially if you’re talk lascannon vs plasma cannon.
johnpjones1775 wrote: and yet the effectiveness of a weapon largely relies on how often it hits. A S22 AP-7 D10 weapon is a good weapon no doubt but in the hands of a BS6+ unit it’s not going to make much of a difference, so yes the BS is arguably more important than the weapon. Especially if you’re talk lascannon vs plasma cannon.
Obviously weapons need to hit, but most armies can already mitigate that and such a unique weapon would probably only be found on a few units anyway (likely Orks given the crazy stats and low odds to hit) and could be baked into the unit's cost.
vict0988 wrote: Upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol is worth more than 0, if you're unwilling to set the smallest non-zero points value in 40k below 1 then 1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
So you might say... they're worthless.
No, their value is very clearly non zero, I said that many times, that's the opposite of worthless. Overcosted does not mean worthless. What's worthless is a strictly worse weapon that isn't cheaper.
Let me pluck that bit out for you again:
1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
I'll leave it there, but if you only take something with the explicit purpose of having nothing else to spend points on and it's only value to you is to make your list add up to 2k exactly, it has no real worth and might as well be free.
You take it because you want the extra 1 strength on your pistol, not to add up your pts to 2000. Now give me a reason to take a 0 pt bolt pistol when you can take a 0 pt plasma pistol.
vict0988 wrote: Upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol is worth more than 0, if you're unwilling to set the smallest non-zero points value in 40k below 1 then 1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
So you might say... they're worthless.
No, their value is very clearly non zero, I said that many times, that's the opposite of worthless. Overcosted does not mean worthless. What's worthless is a strictly worse weapon that isn't cheaper.
Let me pluck that bit out for you again:
1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
I'll leave it there, but if you only take something with the explicit purpose of having nothing else to spend points on and it's only value to you is to make your list add up to 2k exactly, it has no real worth and might as well be free.
You take it because you want the extra 1 strength on your pistol, not to add up your pts to 2000. Now give me a reason to take a 0 pt bolt pistol when you can take a 0 pt plasma pistol.
The other side of that being the "lesser" options need some utility or other virtues to make them something other than "the worst one", I'm not against things being pointed as long as it's worthwhile doing so. If you can balance a laspistol vs a bolt pistol to parity at the same cost/free then a plasma pistol being more points but outright better is ok. Otherwise the simple answer is to consolidate the profiles into "sidearm" and "better sidearm" as needed.
Again, if they are to be the same points the other weapons utility adding and/or consolidation of profile.
Its amazing to watch all the people complaining about "bloat" in the Marine Dex calling for 3 page length calculus equations to determine the point cost of each unit in your army.
It's a back-end vs front-end thing.
Good point costs for a basic but diverse set of weapons should result in a better playing expwrience opposed to stacks upon stacks of special rules that are similar but not the same
If you think paying 5pts for a powersword on a devastator unit is not worth it, don't pick the weapon, it doesn't change the fact that the sword will kill 4 guardsmen (random number to make a point), regardless of if its on a devastator or an neophyte.
That's untrue.
A meltagun on a unit that moves 4" per turn is less valuable than one on a unit that can move 24". A lascannon is less valuable on a unit that wants to hide in cover to hold an objective than it is on a unit that wants to move and hunt tanks. Your system will lead to people taking nothing but naked tactical squads again because they can't use weapons that are priced to prevent another unit from abusing them.
While your concern is valid, I can tell you from practice - not just theory - that this is not whats happening. Your mandatory troop selections as a Space Marine are too expensive to just sit around naked doing nothing. If you want them to sit back, you give them a heavy weapon and maybe the Tank Hunter ability. If you want to engage, you will give them assault or melee weapons and maybe the Vanguard ability. If you just want them to grab objectives, you can put them in a transport (which gets their sticky objectives rule while being inside).
I like my Intercessor squad with a Pyreblaster and a pair of power claws on the veteran sergeant to contest side and midfield objectives, as even as a basic Marine squad, they are capable of fighting much larger squads to a standstill for a round or two until a proper melee unit arrives for the killing blow.
You would be surprised by how much balance improves even if you just start by using the same calculation for everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: Its amazing to watch all the people complaining about "bloat" in the Marine Dex calling for 3 page length calculus equations to determine the point cost of each unit in your army.
Nobody is doing that, but I understand that you hyperbole for attention, otherwise this post of yours would be much less punchy.
For argument's sake, a sample point calculation formula can be just this:
It only looks a bit complicated because of the VLOOKUPs that are in place so the user can have a more readable selection in a dropdown instead of the raw value. Apart from that, it is basically just adding profile values together, multiplied by wounds and then factoring in armor and invul saves.
vict0988 wrote: You take it because you want the extra 1 strength on your pistol, not to add up your pts to 2000. Now give me a reason to take a 0 pt bolt pistol when you can take a 0 pt plasma pistol.
A plasma pistol has a 17% chance to kill you, 35% to kill a marine, and 48% to do absolutely nothing.
I made a roller for a bolt pistol and a plasma pistol assuming they each fire every round in a game ( almost impossible ). The values for plasma stop counting if the bearer rolls a 1.
The mathematical average for each firing 5 shots against a marine is 0.42 and 3.47.
The pistol in rolling averages 0.47 across 1000 games.
When you have the bearer die the average for plasma becomes 2.82 instead of 3.47.
If you then presume you're firing only once or twice a game these figures reduce fairly pathetic levels.
So unless you decide to bring reroll 1s you're either risking putting the squad at LD7 or losing a model that can order. Each time you shoot that pistol you take a risk. If you want to shoot that model without calculating risk you take a bolt pistol.
a_typical_hero wrote: You don't have to shoot the plasma pistol with the overcharged profile if you don't want to risk your model.
And there are situations where you don't mind, like firing a last time before getting charged by a melee unit for example.
Sure, good point. In the scenario where you don't OC it your damage is 1.4 against a bolt pistol of 0.42 it's strictly better and there would be no good incentive to choose otherwise. Overall regardless of the weapon you choose the outcome will likely be the same as you'll probably shoot it once or twice a game and it will most likely never do anything at all ( 72% chance ). So, I guess if you like the look of a bolt pistol more?
You take it because you want the extra 1 strength on your pistol, not to add up your pts to 2000. Now give me a reason to take a 0 pt bolt pistol when you can take a 0 pt plasma pistol.
Because that's what my long finished mini is modeled with.
Either the company made it that way (old metal models), or by me in some previous edition for some reason (likely a pts thing whenever I built/modded it). And I don't feel the need to go modding long finished minis just because on this random day in 2023 weapon x now cost 0pts or whatever. I'll just make do with what I've got modeled.
Now a new model I build today? Yes, I might very well build it with that best 0pt option. And years from now? When it's no longer the best option, when the pendulum swings & it now costs pts again? Then I'll pay those pts and play it as its built....
a_typical_hero wrote: While your concern is valid, I can tell you from practice - not just theory - that this is not whats happening. Your mandatory troop selections as a Space Marine are too expensive to just sit around naked doing nothing. If you want them to sit back, you give them a heavy weapon and maybe the Tank Hunter ability. If you want to engage, you will give them assault or melee weapons and maybe the Vanguard ability. If you just want them to grab objectives, you can put them in a transport (which gets their sticky objectives rule while being inside).
Even in that case, a heavy weapon can easily lose LoS to worthwhile targets on a board that has an unfortunately placed bit of LoS-blocking terrain.
I will also note that your take on things doesn't appear to align with what top Marine players were doing in tournaments:
Going back to December to avoid the free gear issue we can look at the lists that did well and very few of them wanted anything to do with basic Troops.
Lemartes [6 PL, 120pts]: 4. Mantra of Strength, 6. Canticle of Hate (Aura), Litany of Hate
+ Elites +
Death Company Marines [8 PL, 130pts]: Jump Pack
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Power sword
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Power sword
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Power sword
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Power sword
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Power sword
Death Company Marines [8 PL, 180pts]: Jump Pack
. 5x Death Company Marine w/ thunder hammer: 5x Frag & Krak grenades, 5x Thunder hammer
Sanguinary Ancient [7 PL, 110pts, -2CP]: 3. Soulwarden, Angelus boltgun, Encarmine sword, Stratagem: Hero of the Chapter, Stratagem: Relic, Wrath of Baal
There was a 14th-place BT list that didn't mention troops in the short blurb written about it.
Spoiler:
4th – Thomas Pelletier – Black Templars: Primaris Crusaders holding the flanks of a big unit of buffed-up Assault Centurions, with Eradicators to provide long-ranged firepower in support.
More blurbs:
Spoiler:
4th – Matt Charles – Blood Angels: Blood Angels with an extra-large Death Company unit and some nasty Characters with big heroic ranges sewn among the various melee units, including a return of the Selfless Valour Judiciar.
Spoiler:
7th – Dan Fearis – Space Wolves: Lots of fancy Space Wolf specials on show, with Njal leading the charge, a big brick of Wolf Guard, and a scattering of various kinds of Dreadnought.
Winning BA lists that faced off against one another:
Death Company Marines [8 PL, 150pts]: Jump Pack
. 2x Death Company Marine w/ chainsword and bolt pistol: 2x Astartes Chainsword, 2x Bolt pistol, 2x Frag & Krak grenades
. 3x Death Company Marine w/ thunder hammer: 3x Frag & Krak grenades, 3x Thunder hammer
Death Company Marines [8 PL, 135pts]: Jump Pack
. 3x Death Company Marine w/ chainsword and bolt pistol: 3x Astartes Chainsword, 3x Bolt pistol, 3x Frag & Krak grenades
. 2x Death Company Marine w/ thunder hammer: 2x Frag & Krak grenades, 2x Thunder hammer
Death Company Marines [8 PL, 145pts]: Jump Pack
. Death Company Marine: Frag & Krak grenades, Inferno pistol, Power sword
. Death Company Marine: Frag & Krak grenades, Inferno pistol, Power sword
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Frag & Krak grenades, Power sword
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Frag & Krak grenades, Power sword
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Frag & Krak grenades, Power fist
Primaris Chaplain on Bike [8 PL, -3CP, 150pts]: 1. Litany of Faith (Aura), 2. Artisan of War, 4. Mantra of Strength, 5. Gift of Foresight, Adamantine Mantle, Chapter Command: Master of Sanctity, Litany of Hate, Stratagem: Angel Exemplar, Stratagem: Relic, Stratagem: Warlord Trait, The Armour Indomitus, Warlord
Death Company Marines [8 PL, 145pts]: Jump Pack
. Death Company Marine: Thunder hammer
. Death Company Marine: Thunder hammer
. Death Company Marine: Bolt pistol, Power fist
. Death Company Marine
. . Bolt pistol and chainsword
. Death Company Marine
. . Bolt pistol and chainsword
It does not seem like your idea that you must pay points for more gear to make troops effective holds much weight among players who actually win with their lists.
johnpjones1775 wrote: ok, we've been arguing over free upgrades for days and pages on pages now. can we find some other predictions and argue about that instead?
It takes a lot of time and data to discover an appropriate result and we're probably riding the edge of enough info to make judgements. It's also an interesting experiment.
There could be other factors where people just don't want to bother buying old models so free upgrades are not prevalent as a consequence. Will someone break on to the scene with tac marines in the near future? I don't think so, but worth watching.
johnpjones1775 wrote: ok, we've been arguing over free upgrades for days and pages on pages now. can we find some other predictions and argue about that instead?
The entire premises of the thread were that marines will take over the world with free upgrades, so it's hardly surprising it's the main discussion.
johnpjones1775 wrote: ok, we've been arguing over free upgrades for days and pages on pages now. can we find some other predictions and argue about that instead?
The entire premises of the thread were that marines will take over the world with free upgrades, so it's hardly surprising it's the main discussion.
and that premise has been soundly put to bed.
did sticky objective rule come out at the same time as the free upgrades? if not i imagine that will contribute to a rise in marine win rates more than free upgrades have.
johnpjones1775 wrote: ok, we've been arguing over free upgrades for days and pages on pages now. can we find some other predictions and argue about that instead?
Very few posters predicted anything due to their lack of moral fibre. As I'm not a Dakkanaut but instead a Chaddanaut, I did actually predict that Custodes, Daemons and Guard would do very well. It is going pretty well for me...
If you think paying 5pts for a powersword on a devastator unit is not worth it, don't pick the weapon, it doesn't change the fact that the sword will kill 4 guardsmen (random number to make a point), regardless of if its on a devastator or an neophyte.
Not quite. The Sgt has more attacks, and the base Chainsword (which also has a value people are ignoring because you don't "pay" for it) will kill 5+ guardsmen because the powersword overkills them vs extra attacks on the Chainsword.
That's untrue.
A meltagun on a unit that moves 4" per turn is less valuable than one on a unit that can move 24". A lascannon is less valuable on a unit that wants to hide in cover to hold an objective than it is on a unit that wants to move and hunt tanks. Your system will lead to people taking nothing but naked tactical squads again because they can't use weapons that are priced to prevent another unit from abusing them.
While your concern is valid, I can tell you from practice - not just theory - that this is not whats happening. Your mandatory troop selections as a Space Marine are too expensive to just sit around naked doing nothing. If you want them to sit back, you give them a heavy weapon and maybe the Tank Hunter ability. If you want to engage, you will give them assault or melee weapons and maybe the Vanguard ability. If you just want them to grab objectives, you can put them in a transport (which gets their sticky objectives rule while being inside).
I can tell you from theory and practice you can't generally give SM units in 9E 40K the "Vanguard ability" or the "Tank Hunter" ability. I can also tell you SM Troops choices are neither "naked" nor "sit around ... doing nothing"
I like my Intercessor squad with a Pyreblaster and a pair of power claws on the veteran sergeant to contest side and midfield objectives, as even as a basic Marine squad, they are capable of fighting much larger squads to a standstill for a round or two until a proper melee unit arrives for the killing blow.
I'm not exactly sure you can take a Pyreblaster or a pair of power claws, or even a veteran sergeant on Intercessors.
You would be surprised by how much balance improves even if you just start by using the same calculation for everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: Its amazing to watch all the people complaining about "bloat" in the Marine Dex calling for 3 page length calculus equations to determine the point cost of each unit in your army.
Nobody is doing that, but I understand that you hyperbole for attention, otherwise this post of yours would be much less punchy.
For argument's sake, a sample point calculation formula can be just this:
It only looks a bit complicated because of the VLOOKUPs that are in place so the user can have a more readable selection in a dropdown instead of the raw value. Apart from that, it is basically just adding profile values together, multiplied by wounds and then factoring in armor and invul saves.
So you're saying you replaced two pages with VLOOKUPs that refer back to the other two pages? And does that include the price increase for a bolter on a model with BS3 instead of BS4 or a refund on a unit with movement 12 instead of movement 6? And then what percent of that refund you still get if you replace it with a Plasma Cannon that then becomes BS4 if you move and fire on the 12" move unit?
Canadian 5th wrote: There was a 14th-place BT list that didn't mention troops in the short blurb written about it.
4th – Thomas Pelletier – Black Templars: Primaris Crusaders holding the flanks of a big unit of buffed-up Assault Centurions, with Eradicators to provide long-ranged firepower in support.
*looks at the MFM to check slots*
I'm curious - just what slot do you think the "Primaris Crusader Squad" sits in?
vict0988 wrote: You take it because you want the extra 1 strength on your pistol, not to add up your pts to 2000. Now give me a reason to take a 0 pt bolt pistol when you can take a 0 pt plasma pistol.
A plasma pistol has a 17% chance to kill you, 35% to kill a marine, and 48% to do absolutely nothing.
I'm guessing that 48% is with everything in the Plasma Pistol's favor? And reality is more than 48% chance do doing nothing? With a 12 inch range you're probably only shooting it even one time, let alone more than once if you have highly mobile melee oriented units (Assault/Vanguard/etc) where you can jump 2" away, and then charge 2" after the shooting phase then rinse and repeat a turn or two later. If you can.
You take it because you want the extra 1 strength on your pistol, not to add up your pts to 2000. Now give me a reason to take a 0 pt bolt pistol when you can take a 0 pt plasma pistol.
Because that's what my long finished mini is modeled with.
Either the company made it that way (old metal models), or by me in some previous edition for some reason (likely a pts thing whenever I built/modded it). And I don't feel the need to go modding long finished minis just because on this random day in 2023 weapon x now cost 0pts or whatever. I'll just make do with what I've got modeled.
Now a new model I build today? Yes, I might very well build it with that best 0pt option. And years from now? When it's no longer the best option, when the pendulum swings & it now costs pts again? Then I'll pay those pts and play it as its built....
Even when it's not a modeling decision doesn't mean it's "free unbalanced stuff" - Take the BGV where you could have modeled the pistol in a holster and thus model all three choices at once. They were already pretty good. A lot of other stuff got cheaper. Sometimes double dipping on both the body and wargear price drops. The BGV did not get cheaper on the bodies, and only has one upgrade on the Sgt for 1 of three different pistols making not a points drop, but an efficiency boost. "Everything else got cheaper" - they didn't want the BGV to get cheaper so they got "better" which still gives the Marine army a minor boost - the Stormraven Gunship had something similar - rather than making the airframe 2X points cheaper, they made the two Hurricane Bolters free.
Canadian 5th wrote: There was a 14th-place BT list that didn't mention troops in the short blurb written about it.
4th – Thomas Pelletier – Black Templars: Primaris Crusaders holding the flanks of a big unit of buffed-up Assault Centurions, with Eradicators to provide long-ranged firepower in support.
*looks at the MFM to check slots*
I'm curious - just what slot do you think the "Primaris Crusader Squad" sits in?
My bad, but they still aren't mentioned as having any upgrades nor does it change the general trend as shown by the other examples shown.
My bad, I should have made it more clear that I was not writing with 9th edition in mind. We were talking about different point costs and such and I mentioned upgrades and rules interactions that are only available in a different ruleset.
Breton wrote: So you're saying you replaced two pages with VLOOKUPs that refer back to the other two pages? And does that include the price increase for a bolter on a model with BS3 instead of BS4 or a refund on a unit with movement 12 instead of movement 6? And then what percent of that refund you still get if you replace it with a Plasma Cannon that then becomes BS4 if you move and fire on the 12" move unit?
What I'm saying is yeah, they are.
Nah, the VLOOKUPs are there so for example you can select "flying monstrous creature" instead of the point value that is assigned to this specific combination. I linked my points calculator a few posts above. Let me attach a picture that shows everything that is needed for the calculator to work:
Spoiler:
1/3 of the length is really just weapon range having specific values attached to each stepping.
To answer your question:
- Yes, it does include a difference in point cost based on the likelyhood of the bearer to hit their target.
- It does take the movement value of a creature into account into the base cost of the creature, not the weapon.
- Heavy weapons can only be shot by infantry if they don't move in the ruleset where this calculator is being used for, so there is no need for that specific case.
- Some units like Terminators that are capable of moving and shooting pay for it through the "relentless" special rule.
And also yes, this is not just theory, but works very well in practice. Got a local community of about 14 players where roughly half of them meet up once a week to play a custom 40k ruleset which uses this calculator for unit costs. Games are fun, quick and balanced, with much more options available to every army in how they want to play and what they are able to bring to the table.
Kind of think the predictions are panning out as expected.
I guess the unexpected caveat is that, very broadly, like the last season, I'd say the game is reasonably balanced. This doesn't mean every faction has the same chance of winning a GT - but at least for now there's considerable variety in the factions and lists, which means the sort of skews seen in past ages aren't happening. I mean you've got 22%~ or so Marines, 8%~ Guard 8%~ CSM, 7%~ Custodes. Then most others around the 3-5% range.
I wouldn't have predicted that given the scale of changes in AoO. But I think it points to the fact GW has been getting tighter on points. Even with the big reductions (either explicitly, or with free stuff) Marines are not putting 70% win rates out there.
I think this mainly relates to how 40k has evolved into more of a game of objectives than "I just table you with dramatic mathematical advantage." "I've got 2 more multi-meltas than I should" isn't usually the dividing line now. But again, that's because points are not miles out of whack.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'll never understand why the Plasma Pistol isn't S5/6? It makes zero sense to me why a Plasma Pistol was ever 7/8.
For the same reason Las, Bolt, Shurikin, etc pistols aren't weaker than their larger versions.
•Damage is determined by type of ammo (ie, plasin,
•Range is determined by the guns size.
Beyond that? Don't overthink it because there isn't really science/physics etc involved. Just make-believe.
Yeah, I get setting = all rules are BS, but from a gameplay mechanic, S8 pistols for 5pts on a cannoness make her stupidly powerful. Same with cheap spammed plasma pistols in guard officers. Plasma breaks the game. Keep Melta because there is a tradeoff with distance and # of shots, but plasma is a anti-tank weapon with zero downsides. In pistol form. Make it heavy 1 so it can't be used in CC or make it kill the user on a 1 or 2. Just balance it for the cost.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I get setting = all rules are BS, but from a gameplay mechanic, S8 pistols for 5pts on a cannoness make her stupidly powerful. Same with cheap spammed plasma pistols in guard officers. Plasma breaks the game. Keep Melta because there is a tradeoff with distance and # of shots, but plasma is a anti-tank weapon with zero downsides. In pistol form. Make it heavy 1 so it can't be used in CC or make it kill the user on a 1 or 2. Just balance it for the cost.
One S8 AP-3 D2 shot at 12" isn't stupidly powerful. Especially given a 1/6 chance of outright killing your 60+ point character.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I get setting = all rules are BS, but from a gameplay mechanic, S8 pistols for 5pts on a cannoness make her stupidly powerful. Same with cheap spammed plasma pistols in guard officers. Plasma breaks the game. Keep Melta because there is a tradeoff with distance and # of shots, but plasma is a anti-tank weapon with zero downsides. In pistol form. Make it heavy 1 so it can't be used in CC or make it kill the user on a 1 or 2. Just balance it for the cost.
I can't tell if this is satire or not because this is the first time I've seen anyone complain about Inferno Pistols LOL
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'll never understand why the Plasma Pistol isn't S5/6? It makes zero sense to me why a Plasma Pistol was ever 7/8.
Because almost all Plasma is 7/8 - the difference between "types" beyond the type is usually number of shots and range. I understand the pistol more than I understand the Heavy Plasma Incinerator or the Assault Incinerator.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I get setting = all rules are BS, but from a gameplay mechanic, S8 pistols for 5pts on a cannoness make her stupidly powerful. Same with cheap spammed plasma pistols in guard officers. Plasma breaks the game. Keep Melta because there is a tradeoff with distance and # of shots, but plasma is a anti-tank weapon with zero downsides. In pistol form. Make it heavy 1 so it can't be used in CC or make it kill the user on a 1 or 2. Just balance it for the cost.
One S8 AP-3 D2 shot at 12" isn't stupidly powerful. Especially given a 1/6 chance of outright killing your 60+ point character.
Pretty much - especially when the "main" weapon for these characters is usually their melee weapon with 3+ attacks, potentially in each turn of the battle round.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I get setting = all rules are BS, but from a gameplay mechanic, S8 pistols for 5pts on a cannoness make her stupidly powerful. Same with cheap spammed plasma pistols in guard officers. Plasma breaks the game. Keep Melta because there is a tradeoff with distance and # of shots, but plasma is a anti-tank weapon with zero downsides. In pistol form. Make it heavy 1 so it can't be used in CC or make it kill the user on a 1 or 2. Just balance it for the cost.
You're a few weeks early to be posting April Fools jokes.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I get setting = all rules are BS, but from a gameplay mechanic, S8 pistols for 5pts on a cannoness make her stupidly powerful. Same with cheap spammed plasma pistols in guard officers. Plasma breaks the game. Keep Melta because there is a tradeoff with distance and # of shots, but plasma is a anti-tank weapon with zero downsides. In pistol form. Make it heavy 1 so it can't be used in CC or make it kill the user on a 1 or 2. Just balance it for the cost.
You're a few weeks early to be posting April Fools jokes.
No need for that.
But, I agree I don't get the problem with Plasma Pistols. On a character? They're secondary weapons. Characters are usually about the power weapons. Even on the SM Sergeants a power weapon is usually preferred to a plasma pistol but as long as you're doing one, do both - plus like the now with the Guard Sergeant "hidden powerfists" are nothing new to the game. One could even argue Guard need it more than most. From a fluff standpoint I question if a Guard sergeant is "important" enough to rate a plasma pistol, but meh. Maybe he's a Colonel's pet. But by and large, the plasma pistol is either a fairly insignificant part of the unit (vs 4-5 WS2+ S5 -3 D2 attacks) or a significant part of the Take All Comers role the unit is supposed to have. An assault Intercessor Sgt with a Thunderhammer and plasma pistol is the "heavy weapon" of the Assault Intercessors squad. We're not talking about Company Veterans where you can give everyone in the squad a Meltagun and Storm Shield (Because then it's not "free"). Plasma Pistols are free for Vanguard Vets, but that means giving up the Thunderhammer, the Stormshield, or the 2LC - and if you do that enough to be significant, you don't have the SS effect you took the vanguard vets for in the first place. If you do all Plasma Pistol and Power Sword (which I think is an underappreciated and viable build as an intermediate step between Evis Assaults and TH/SSVV) - you're back to the Characters where the 1 plasma shot is secondary to the multiple power sword ginsu attacks.
To put it another way - lets say there are two different kinds of units: Specialist and Generalist. The Tac Squad is a Generalist. It should be able to (in theory) take on everything from a Grot to a Knight (with Points differentials primarily dictating the success of that attempt). The sniper scouts? They're closer to specialists. I think Specialists should be less common, and I think making grenades better is probably a better solution to the generalist unit being able to Take All Comers, but I don't design the game. Having seen some people decide Assault Marines can get squatted because Vanguard Vets do the same thing but better - I could be the one that's wrong and too many players are just too rigid.
thats the whole schtick of the flamers, theyre good overwatch weapons. thing is, its so trivial to deny an overwatch that they become useless anyway (unless youre some tzeentch flamers that are clearly TOO good)
I still don't understand how people weren't denying that overwatch on the flamers...
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I get setting = all rules are BS, but from a gameplay mechanic, S8 pistols for 5pts on a cannoness make her stupidly powerful. Same with cheap spammed plasma pistols in guard officers. Plasma breaks the game. Keep Melta because there is a tradeoff with distance and # of shots, but plasma is a anti-tank weapon with zero downsides. In pistol form. Make it heavy 1 so it can't be used in CC or make it kill the user on a 1 or 2. Just balance it for the cost.
You're a few weeks early to be posting April Fools jokes.
No need for that.
But, I agree I don't get the problem with Plasma Pistols. On a character? They're secondary weapons. Characters are usually about the power weapons. Even on the SM Sergeants a power weapon is usually preferred to a plasma pistol but as long as you're doing one, do both - plus like the now with the Guard Sergeant "hidden powerfists" are nothing new to the game. One could even argue Guard need it more than most. From a fluff standpoint I question if a Guard sergeant is "important" enough to rate a plasma pistol, but meh. Maybe he's a Colonel's pet. But by and large, the plasma pistol is either a fairly insignificant part of the unit (vs 4-5 WS2+ S5 -3 D2 attacks) or a significant part of the Take All Comers role the unit is supposed to have. An assault Intercessor Sgt with a Thunderhammer and plasma pistol is the "heavy weapon" of the Assault Intercessors squad. We're not talking about Company Veterans where you can give everyone in the squad a Meltagun and Storm Shield (Because then it's not "free"). Plasma Pistols are free for Vanguard Vets, but that means giving up the Thunderhammer, the Stormshield, or the 2LC - and if you do that enough to be significant, you don't have the SS effect you took the vanguard vets for in the first place. If you do all Plasma Pistol and Power Sword (which I think is an underappreciated and viable build as an intermediate step between Evis Assaults and TH/SSVV) - you're back to the Characters where the 1 plasma shot is secondary to the multiple power sword ginsu attacks.
To put it another way - lets say there are two different kinds of units: Specialist and Generalist. The Tac Squad is a Generalist. It should be able to (in theory) take on everything from a Grot to a Knight (with Points differentials primarily dictating the success of that attempt). The sniper scouts? They're closer to specialists. I think Specialists should be less common, and I think making grenades better is probably a better solution to the generalist unit being able to Take All Comers, but I don't design the game. Having seen some people decide Assault Marines can get squatted because Vanguard Vets do the same thing but better - I could be the one that's wrong and too many players are just too rigid.
It's almost like Snipers should be in their own bracket, where only the "elites" hang out....
I think you're right by the way. There should be a massive distance between Tacs who can take bolters or swords and pistols, or Vets who can take any damn thing.
It's almost like Snipers should be in their own bracket, where only the "elites" hang out....
Actually I'd put scouts back in Troops. Elites should be better than troops generalists. Terminators, Assorted Veterans, Aggressors and such.
I think you're right by the way. There should be a massive distance between Tacs who can take bolters or swords and pistols, or Vets who can take any damn thing.
I wouldn't say massive either. Distance sure, but not massive. Melee is - no pun intended - a double edged sword. Part of the tradeoff for those Thunder Hammers and power fists is the melee range. You get strike backs, and you get wasted turns trying to get into charge range. Other things to keep in mind - one of the reasons I'm entertained by people who want to squat Assault Squads because Vanguard vets "Do the same thing but better" is that TH/SS isn't always better. Someone running Eradicators probably doesn't want TH/SS - it doubles up threat bands, and its probably overkill for a threat band you need some coverage on that Assault Squads can do. Sure if you don't have Multi or Melta Rifles you may want some Thunder Hammers, but if you do, you may want a bunch of Astartes Chainswords. To put it another way Eradicators aren't "better" vs a 20 mob of Boys even though they have S8 super guns.
It's almost like Snipers should be in their own bracket, where only the "elites" hang out....
Actually I'd put scouts back in Troops. Elites should be better than troops generalists. Terminators, Assorted Veterans, Aggressors and such.
I think you're right by the way. There should be a massive distance between Tacs who can take bolters or swords and pistols, or Vets who can take any damn thing.
I wouldn't say massive either. Distance sure, but not massive. Melee is - no pun intended - a double edged sword. Part of the tradeoff for those Thunder Hammers and power fists is the melee range. You get strike backs, and you get wasted turns trying to get into charge range. Other things to keep in mind - one of the reasons I'm entertained by people who want to squat Assault Squads because Vanguard vets "Do the same thing but better" is that TH/SS isn't always better. Someone running Eradicators probably doesn't want TH/SS - it doubles up threat bands, and its probably overkill for a threat band you need some coverage on that Assault Squads can do. Sure if you don't have Multi or Melta Rifles you may want some Thunder Hammers, but if you do, you may want a bunch of Astartes Chainswords. To put it another way Eradicators aren't "better" vs a 20 mob of Boys even though they have S8 super guns.
This is where you lose me. Nothing about what slot a unit falls in matters. Which is more "elite"? 200pts of Custodian Guard, or 200 points of Kasarkin?
I counted 54 events.
Of those 54, I counted only 8 SM #1 finishes. That’s a 14.8148 #1 finish rate.
And of those 54 how many are using the AoO...you know...the whole purpose of this thread? Oh, you didn't even think to look and included all the tournaments from before AoO was used to come up with that number...cool.
Also, as to everyone saying "Grey Knights aren't Codex Space Marine!" Ok cool story. What is the point of this thread? Talking about how FREE UPGRADES tied with POINTS COSTS are going to make space marines the top tier armies. So what is different between Space Marines and Grey Knights? they get different names and different weapons, how about the points changes that was the main point? Its exactly the same so lets not try to play semantic games here and stick to the key points. And no, I don't give a damn what you think. Grey Knights are just Space Marines...except silvery grey.
More GTs from Last week
Wheat City Open: Marines finished 3rd and 4th
Heroic Scale Gamers Houston Open: Highest Marine was 5th, yep another Grey Knights player.
Melee At Shiloh: Marines were 2nd and 4th (They also took 5th, 6th, and 8th)
Renegades Open: Echoes Of War 5: Marines took 3rd
Team Battle Brothers 40k Major GT: Marines took 3rd (Also took 5th, 6th, 7th and 10th)
The Pecking Order: Peeps of War GT: Marines took 2nd (Also 5th)
Brighton 40K Tournament III: Marines took 4th (And 6th and 8th)
A side note from this, I have to say I really hate the new "Strength of Schedule" Scoring mechanic. As an example, TEAM BATTLE BROTHERS, 2nd place through 9th place all had 1 loss so were tied by wins, under the old (in my opinion BETTER) system they would have been ranked by points, in the new way, they judge who had the tougher opponents and award tournament placing based on that.
2nd Place: Imperial Guard 447pts
3rd Place: Iron Hands 453pts
4th Place: Genestealers: 452
5th Place: Iron Hands 446pts
6th Place: Dark Angels 435pts
7th Place: Iron Hands: 431pts
8th Place: Space elves: 409pts
9th Place: Custards/SoB: 394pts
Under the old system most of these would have remained the same, but 2nd-4th would have been switched around so that the IG player finished 4th not 2nd. Not a fan of this because the players don't have anyway to dictate who they play against and therefore they lose solely based upon a random number generator matching them with a weaker opponent compared to someone who beat them who may have played the same people except had a harder opponent once.
This is where you lose me. Nothing about what slot a unit falls in matters. Which is more "elite"? 200pts of Custodian Guard, or 200 points of Kasarkin?
Elite (Slot) not elite quality.
Edit to Add: And (at least right now) Slot does matter, because its the limiter. 12 Troops, 6 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS. Generalists in Troops and Elites, Specialists in FA and HS.
I counted 54 events.
Of those 54, I counted only 8 SM #1 finishes. That’s a 14.8148 #1 finish rate.
And of those 54 how many are using the AoO...you know...the whole purpose of this thread? Oh, you didn't even think to look and included all the tournaments from before AoO was used to come up with that number...cool.
Also, as to everyone saying "Grey Knights aren't Codex Space Marine!" Ok cool story. What is the point of this thread? Talking about how FREE UPGRADES tied with POINTS COSTS are going to make space marines the top tier armies. So what is different between Space Marines and Grey Knights? they get different names and different weapons, how about the points changes that was the main point? Its exactly the same so lets not try to play semantic games here and stick to the key points. And no, I don't give a damn what you think. Grey Knights are just Space Marines...except silvery grey.
So what are your thoughts on guard squads breaking the game with free upgrades, or chaos legionnaires, or plague marines or the multitude of other units who've had free upgrades longer and/or are "Marines in a different colour"?
The results seem overall OK tbh, the lists placing high aren't spamming loads of free stuff and I think we can likely conclude you're largely off the mark now.
SemperMortis wrote: Also, as to everyone saying "Grey Knights aren't Codex Space Marine!" Ok cool story. What is the point of this thread? Talking about how FREE UPGRADES tied with POINTS COSTS are going to make space marines the top tier armies. So what is different between Space Marines and Grey Knights? they get different names and different weapons, how about the points changes that was the main point? Its exactly the same so lets not try to play semantic games here and stick to the key points. And no, I don't give a damn what you think. Grey Knights are just Space Marines...except silvery grey.
So now we know you don't know what you're talking about? Good to know.
Your OP opened with three examples of units you were worried about - none of which can be taken by Grey Knights. Neither can the "monster point saving via free upgrades" list on page 1. They were never brought up as a point of concern by you until you started to look at results and decided they needed to be rolled in with Space Marine results, despite being a different Codex, with a far more limited roster.
Take the L, accept that you were wrong, and move on.
SemperMortis wrote: More GTs from Last week
Wheat City Open: Marines finished 3rd and 4th
Heroic Scale Gamers Houston Open: Highest Marine was 5th, yep another Grey Knights player.
Melee At Shiloh: Marines were 2nd and 4th (They also took 5th, 6th, and 8th)
Renegades Open: Echoes Of War 5: Marines took 3rd
Team Battle Brothers 40k Major GT: Marines took 3rd (Also took 5th, 6th, 7th and 10th)
The Pecking Order: Peeps of War GT: Marines took 2nd (Also 5th)
Brighton 40K Tournament III: Marines took 4th (And 6th and 8th)
I'll take a look at these later, to see if/how you've selectively reported things. These are all completed events from 18/19 Feb - ITC does show some events for this weekend, but they're still underway, as far as I can see.
SemperMortis wrote: A side note from this, I have to say I really hate the new "Strength of Schedule" Scoring mechanic. As an example, TEAM BATTLE BROTHERS, 2nd place through 9th place all had 1 loss so were tied by wins, under the old (in my opinion BETTER) system they would have been ranked by points, in the new way, they judge who had the tougher opponents and award tournament placing based on that.
Strength of Schedule is hardly a new measure when it comes to tournaments, and is generally viewed as the best representation of how good the opponents were for a given player as they navigated the event. Someone who, deliberately or otherwise, took the Swiss Gambit of losing their first game and then winning the remainder is likely to have played people towards the bottom of each bracket as the event goes on, compared to someone who won all their games except the last one.
Just because you don't like it, does not mean it doesn't work.
So what are your thoughts on guard squads breaking the game with free upgrades, or chaos legionnaires, or plague marines or the multitude of other units who've had free upgrades longer and/or are "Marines in a different colour"?
The results seem overall OK tbh, the lists placing high aren't spamming loads of free stuff and I think we can likely conclude you're largely off the mark now.
My opinion was that based upon the sheer number of points cuts and free weapon upgrades that Marines got (Including Grey Knights), that they would jump to top tier. The problem isn't solely based upon free gear but rather how it can be utilized by certain factions, my best guess was Dark Angels and Iron Hands being dominant and so far that seems to be about right.
As far as Guard and Chaos units? they are a different animal entirely. For starters, none of those other armies you mentioned make up a large % of the tournament scene so the effect they have would be felt to a much smaller extent, next, all of those factions haven't exactly been running away with the tournament scene either. IG are doing REALLY well right now thanks to their new codex, how much of that is due to free upgrades on infantry units is debatable and if you want to open up a separate thread to talk about it I'd love to learn more and put my two cents in.
And as far as not taking free upgrades? They are. DA for example, they are almost universally spamming Deathwing Terminators with Free TH/SS, taking the FREE watcher and the FREE cyclone missile launcher. As an example, the guy who placed 3rd at Nurglemania took a Deathwing Command Squad, 3 Deathwing Squads and 2 Terminator Assault squads totaling 50 Terminator models, 10 of whom were running around with Lightning Claws and the other 40 had TH/SS, watchers, Homers, Cyclone missile launchers. So that list had over 600pts of free upgrades on the terminators. I'll gladly admit I was wrong in that I thought a lot more players would be spamming cheap infantry squads with lots of free upgrades, but even without Tac squads running around with 2x the points in free gear; players are still taking free upgrades to the tune of 200-500pts.
So now we know you don't know what you're talking about? Good to know.
Your OP opened with three examples of units you were worried about - none of which can be taken by Grey Knights. Neither can the "monster point saving via free upgrades" list on page 1. They were never brought up as a point of concern by you until you started to look at results and decided they needed to be rolled in with Space Marine results, despite being a different Codex, with a far more limited roster.
Ah yes, my mistake, painting your minis grey makes them a completely different army than regular Space Marines. I mean...its no longer a Captain leading the army its a...*Checks notes* Ah yes, Brother-Captain. And its not a Librarian its a Brother Librarian. But the troops are 100% different right? I mean, they don't even have similar names and their statlines are totally different. I mean, a Tac Marine is M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 2W A1 LD7 3+ save and is equipped with Frag/krak grenades and a Bolter. While the Grey Knights "Strike Squad" is M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 2W A3 LD7 3+ save and is equipped with Frag/krak grenades, Nemesis Force Sword and a Stormbolter. Huh...weird, those are fairly similar....They don't have the same vehicles though right? Like Land Raiders and their variants? or Stormraven/Talon/Hawks? and there is no way they all use Razorbacks and Rhinos right? I mean, I can keep being sarcastic as hell but the point is that they are just Space Marines with Grey armor and a few different rules/units/Names...kind of like how Blood Angels are just Space Marines painted red(and black) with a few different rules/units/names. They also got very similar treatment as far as free wargear. So we can continue to argue but the fact remains that they are functionally just another chapter of Space Marines. I had been lumping in Custards as well since they look the same and play along the same lines but I stopped including them since they didn't get all the same benefits as SM did in this update so i'll gladly reclassify them as SPEESE MEHREENS! +1.
Strength of Schedule is hardly a new measure when it comes to tournaments, and is generally viewed as the best representation of how good the opponents were for a given player as they navigated the event. Someone who, deliberately or otherwise, took the Swiss Gambit of losing their first game and then winning the remainder is likely to have played people towards the bottom of each bracket as the event goes on, compared to someone who won all their games except the last one.
Just because you don't like it, does not mean it doesn't work.
Neither system is perfect, but I'd rather have points as a decider since I can directly impact that result while I don't get a say in strength of schedule. A GT I went to about 6 months ago or so, I lost my first game to one of the best players in the entire region who routinely wins GTs and almost never fails to place. I went on to win 4 straight, including 1 matchup which i'll happily admit was an easy win while the other 3 were tough. But because of the scenario you mentioned I went from finishing 2nd overall to 4th or 5th (cant remember). I mean, i get your point, some clowns might lose intentionally round 1 so they can play easier opponents in the next 4 rounds but at the same time truly competitive players aren't going to settle for 2nd when they want 1st.
SemperMortis wrote: Ah yes, my mistake, painting your minis grey makes them a completely different army than regular Space Marines. I mean...its no longer a Captain leading the army its a...*Checks notes* Ah yes, Brother-Captain. And its not a Librarian its a Brother Librarian. But the troops are 100% different right? I mean, they don't even have similar names and their statlines are totally different. I mean, a Tac Marine is M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 2W A1 LD7 3+ save and is equipped with Frag/krak grenades and a Bolter. While the Grey Knights "Strike Squad" is M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 2W A3 LD7 3+ save and is equipped with Frag/krak grenades, Nemesis Force Sword and a Stormbolter. Huh...weird, those are fairly similar....
Last time I checked, a Storm Bolter is like twice as effective as a Bolter and no standard marine carries a bolter and a souped-up power sword. Nor doe any Space Marine Captains or Troops units have Psychic Powers. The differences between a Tactical Marine and a Grey Knight Strike Marine are more important than the similarities.
thats the whole schtick of the flamers, theyre good overwatch weapons. thing is, its so trivial to deny an overwatch that they become useless anyway (unless youre some tzeentch flamers that are clearly TOO good)
I still don't understand how people weren't denying that overwatch on the flamers...
Maybe they can give all flamers free overwatch to make them a bit better.
Denying overwatch isn't trivial in most cases. It requires taking specific units for most armies and then usually requiring line of sight from that supporting unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: No amount of sarcasm changes the fact that Space Marines and Grey Knights are two very different armies that do not play the game in the same way.
Hell, even two marines facing each other can be wildly different lists and would play just as differently.
I think its totally reasonable to rope GK into "MEQ Meta" (along with all the CSM factions, and probably Custodes) - but they are a thing in themselves vs Marines as Marines.
In the same sort of view that if Thousand Sons are doing well, it doesn't automatically translate into CSM/DG/WE doing well. Or indeed reguar Space Marines.
Tyel wrote: I think its totally reasonable to rope GK into "MEQ Meta" (along with all the CSM factions, and probably Custodes) - but they are a thing in themselves vs Marines as Marines.
In the same sort of view that if Thousand Sons are doing well, it doesn't automatically translate into CSM/DG/WE doing well. Or indeed reguar Space Marines.
The original post is:
SemperMortis wrote: Based on the new updates I honestly predict SM to start running away with tournaments when these changes are implemented. I just don't see how a factio can't dominate the meta when they are allowed to take almost every upgrade for free.
emphasis mine.
We've shown now by this point the main reason that Marines are winning and placing proportionately is more due to the doctrine changes than free stuff. Grey Knights aren't related to SM as a faction and do not benefit from doctrine changes, they operate fuctionally differently as noted.
The premise of the thread being followed shows Space Marines are now a contender but contrary to the initial theory are not curb stomping everyone with free stuff. Indeed some flavours of Marine struggle to break even at events it seems.
Tyel wrote: I think its totally reasonable to rope GK into "MEQ Meta" (along with all the CSM factions, and probably Custodes) - but they are a thing in themselves vs Marines as Marines.
In the same sort of view that if Thousand Sons are doing well, it doesn't automatically translate into CSM/DG/WE doing well. Or indeed reguar Space Marines.
The original post is:
SemperMortis wrote: Based on the new updates I honestly predict SM to start running away with tournaments when these changes are implemented. I just don't see how a factio can't dominate the meta when they are allowed to take almost every upgrade for free.
emphasis mine.
We've shown now by this point the main reason that Marines are winning and placing proportionately is more due to the doctrine changes than free stuff. Grey Knights aren't related to SM as a faction and do not benefit from doctrine changes, they operate fuctionally differently as noted.
The premise of the thread being followed shows Space Marines are now a contender but contrary to the initial theory are not curb stomping everyone with free stuff. Indeed some flavours of Marine struggle to break even at events it seems.
To the bolded bit... I still consider it some malarkey that Imperial Fists are counted different from Iron Hands.
Rusted Claw and Four Armed Emperor are just GSC.
Alpha Legion and Black Legion are just CSM.
Iyanden and Ulthwe are just Eldar.
None of the events seem large enough to warrant looking at top 16.
Key:
Dropped after 1 round - Dropped after 2 rounds - Dropped after 3 rounds - Dropped after 4 rounds - Dropped after 5 rounds - Dropped after 6 rounds
Wheat City Open 2023
Spoiler:
52 entrants, 0 show no results, 3 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - | (22)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (49)
Chaos - || (39, 45)
Chaos Daemons - || (1, 25)
Chaos Space Marines - | (52)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (6)
Chaos Space Marines (Iron Warriors) - | (43)
Dark Eldar - | (27)
Death Guard - || (5, 36)
Eldar - ||| (9, 30, 44)
Genestealer Cult - | (47)
Grey Knights - || (14, 15)
Imperial Guard - ||||| | (2, 11, 33, 34, 37, 50)
Imperial Knights - || (24, 42*)
Knights Renegades - |||| (7, 18, 26, 29)
Leagues of Votann - | (19)
Necrons - || (13, 41)
Orks (Goffs) - || (17, 32)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - ||| (3, 4, 38)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - ||| (16, 23, 28)
Space Marines (Imperial Fists) - | (51*)
Space Marines (Minotaurs) - | (31)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (21)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (35)
Space Marines (Star Phantoms) - | (8)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (10)
Thousand Sons - || (20, 40)
Tyranids - | (48*)
Tyranids (HF Gorgon) - || (12, 46)
Participation % (by Codex) Adeptus Custodes - 1.92%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 1.92%
Chaos - 3.85%
Chaos Daemons - 3.85%
Chaos Space Marines - 5.77%
Dark Eldar - 1.92%
Death Guard - 3.85%
Eldar - 5.77%
Genestealer Cult - 1.92%
Grey Knights - 3.85%
Imperial Guard - 11.54%
Imperial Knights - 3.85%
Knights Renegades - 7.69%
Leagues of Votann - 1.92%
Necrons - 3.85%
Orks (Goffs) - 3.85%
Space Marines - 23.08%
Thousand Sons - 3.85%
Tyranids - 5.77%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Chaos Daemons x1
Chaos Space Marines x1
Death Guard x1
Imperial Guard x1
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x3
The Star Phantoms list taking 8th does mean the SM outperformed their participation % by one top 8 slot. Imperial Guard got as close as I've seen to landing spot on their participation %, while it is arguable that everyone else in the top 8 overperformed by getting a spot at all.
Heroic Scale Gamers Houston Open
Spoiler:
50 entrants, 2 show no results, 6 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - || (23, 42*)
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| ||| (11, 24, 25, 32, 35, 40, 41*, 48*)
Adeptus Mechanicus - || (15, 17)
Chaos Daemons - | (7)
Chaos Space Marines - | (6)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (4)
Chaos Space Marines (Red Corsairs) - | (45*)
Eldar - | (19)
Genestealer Cult - | (8)
Grey Knights - || (5, 33)
Harlequins - | (38)
Imperial Guard - ||||| (1, 2, 3, 9, 16)
Imperial Knights - || (31, 44*)
Knights Renegades - |||| (13, 26, 28, 29)
Leagues of Votann - | (30)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (46*)
Orks (Goffs) - | (10)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (36)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||| (18, 27, 43)
Space Marines (Imperial Fists) - | (47)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - ||| (22, 34, 39*)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (12)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - || (14, 21)
Tau Empire - | (20)
Thousand Sons - | (37)
Big underperformers - Adeptus Custodes & Space Marines - nearly 40% of the field between them, and no representatives in the top 8?
Big overperformers - Imperial Guard & Chaos Space Marines
Your reporting of the above event really showed your bias, btw - not only claiming GK counted, but ignoring who had the clean sweep of the top 3.
Melee At Shiloh
Spoiler:
59 entrants, 2 show no results, 0 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - || (21, 27)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (44)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (1, 37, 50)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - || (29, 45)
Dark Eldar - | (26)
Death Guard - | (45)
Eldar - | (42)
Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (56)
Genestealer Cult - | (3)
Grey Knights - || (40, 51)
Harlequins - | (31)
Imperial Guard - |||| (13, 48, 49, 53)
Imperial Knights - ||| (12, 14, 17)
Knights Renegades - | (19)
Leagues of Votann - | (52)
Leagues of Votann (Greater Thurian League) - | (32)
Leagues of Votann (Urani-Surtr Regulates) - | (41)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (9)
Necrons - | (38)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - || (11, 25)
Nurgle - | (23)
Orks - | (10)
Orks (Blood Axes) - | (30)
Orks (Goffs) - | (16)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - || (8, 34)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (18, 57)
Space Marines (Deathwatch) - | (20^)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (5, 15)
Space Marines (Minotaurs) - | (6)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - || (2, 22)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - ||| (28, 36, 43)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (4)
Tau Empire - | (55)
Thousand Sons - ||| (7, 24, 47)
Tyranids (Leviathan) - | (54)
World Eaters - | (33) - Still not sure if WE would be a part of CSM for this event or not Ynnari - || (35, 39)
^ - List not submitted before the event
Participation % (by Codex) Adeptus Custodes - 3.51%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 1.75%
Chaos Daemons - 5.26%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.51%
Dark Eldar - 1.75%
Death Guard - 1.75%
Eldar - 3.51%
Genestealer Cult - 1.75%
Grey Knights - 3.51%
Harlequins - 1.75%
Imperial Guard - 7.02%
Imperial Knights - 5.26%
Knights Renegades - 1.75%
Leagues of Votann - 7.02%
Necrons - 5.26%
Nurgle - 1.75%
Orks - 5.26%
Space Marines - 24.56%
Tau Empire - 1.75%
Thousand Sons - 5.26%
Tyranids - 1.75%
World Eaters - 1.75%
Ynnari - 3.51%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Chaos Daemons x1
Space Marines x5
Genestealer Cult x1
Thousand Sons x1
Not going to argue that Space Marines didn't outperform here - given their participation %, I'd've expected two top 8 places here, not 5. Could argue that the Imperial Guard and Leagues of Votann might've underperformed here.
Can't say I'm keen on the person who didn't submit their list in time getting to play, but that's not my call.
Renegades Open: Echoes Of War 5
Spoiler:
54 entrants, 1 shows no results, 1 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - | (8)
Adeptus Astra Telepathica - | (41)
Adeptus Custodes - ||| (21, 17, 49)
Adeptus Mechanicus - || (19, 27)
Chaos Daemons - |||| (1, 6, 32, 36)
Chaos Space Marines - || (15, 26)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (52)
Dark Eldar - | (20)
Death Guard - | (29)
Eldar - | (5)
Eldar (Ulthwe) - || (4, 51)
Genestealer Cult - || (33, 45)
Grey Knights - || (16, 44)
Imperial Guard - || (10, 25)
Imperial Knights - | (7)
Knights Renegades - || (11, 18)
Leagues of Votann - | (24)
Necrons - || (12, 34)
Orks - | (38*)
Space Marines - | (53)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (13)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (23)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - |||| (14, 28, 30, 39)
Space Marines (Deathwatch) - | (50)
Space Marines (Imperial Fists) - | (43)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - |||| (9, 31, 37, 46)
Space Marines (Raven Guard) - || (3, 22)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - || (35, 40)
Thousand Sons - ||| (42, 47, 48)
Tyranids - | (2)
Participation % (by Codex) Adepta Sororitas - 1.89%
Adeptus Astra Telepathica - 1.89%
Adeptus Custodes - 5.66%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 3.77%
Chaos Daemons - 7.55%
Chaos Space Marines - 5.66%
Dark Eldar - 1.89%
Death Guard - 1.89%
Eldar - 5.66%
Genestealer Cult - 3.77%
Grey Knights - 3.77%
Imperial Guard - 3.77%
Imperial Knights - 1.89%
Knights Renegades - 3.77%
Leagues of Votann - 1.89%
Necrons - 3.77%
Orks - 1.89%
Space Marines - 32.08%
Thousand Sons - 5.66%
Tyranids - 1.89%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adepta Sororitas x1
Chaos Daemons x2
Eldar x2
Imperial Knights x1
Space Marines x1
Tyranids x1
Chaos Daemons and Eldar are big over-performers here, getting 25% of the top 8 spots each, despite only making up 7.55% and 5.66% of the field, respectively. Space Marines heavily underperformed here, taking only 1 top 8 spot despite being 32% of the field.
OK, I give - what would make up an "Adeptus Astra Telepathica" list these days?
Team Battle Brothers 40k "Major" GT
Spoiler:
56 entrants, 4 show no results, 4 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - || (26*^, 37)
Adeptus Custodes - | (9)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (52)
Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh) - | (27)
Chaos Space Marines - | (11)
Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) - | (44)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - || (28, 49)
Chaos Space Marines (Iron Warriors) - | (24)
Dark Eldar - | (48)
Death Guard - | (31)
Eldar - |||| (8, 22*, 41, 42*)
Eldar (Ulthwe) - || (1, 30)
Genestealer Cult - || (4, 20^)
Grey Knights - || (15, 32)
Imperial Guard - ||||| (2, 16, 18, 19, 25)
Imperial Knights - || (34, 36)
Knights Renegades - || (33, 38)
Leagues of Votann - | (40*)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (50)
Orks - | (12)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (10^)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (17, 46)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (6, 35)
Space Marines (Deathwatch) - | (51)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - |||| (3, 5, 7, 13)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (47)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (45)
Tau Empire - || (21, 39)
Tyranids - | (14)
World Eaters - || (23, 43)
Ynnari - | (29)
^ - List not submitted before event
Participation % (by Codex) Adepta Sororitas - 3.85%
Adeptus Custodes - 1.92%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 1.92%
Chaos Daemons - 1.92%
Chaos Space Marines - 9.62%
Dark Eldar - 1.92%
Death Guard - 1.92%
Eldar - 11.54%
Genestealer Cult - 3.85%
Grey Knights - 3.85%
Imperial Guard - 9.62%
Imperial Knights - 3.85%
Knights Renegades - 3.85%
Leagues of Votann - 3.85%
Orks - 1.92%
Space Marines - 23.08%
Tau Empire - 3.85%
Tyranids - 1.92%
World Eaters - 3.85%
Ynnari - 1.92%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Eldar x2
Genestealer Cult x1
Imperial Guard x1
Space Marines x4
No argument that Space Marines overperformed here, given they got twice as many top 8 spots as their performance % would indicate. Elder also over-performed by a similar degree. Chaos Space Marines arguably underperformed.
Can't say I'd be happy with people who didn't submit a list in time placing so highly.
The Pecking Order: Peeps of War GT
Spoiler:
51 entrants, 1 show no results, 6 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - | (12)
Adeptus Custodes - |||| (9, 17, 27, 35)
Chaos Daemons (Khorne) - | (38)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (18)
Chaos Space Marines - || (22, 50)
Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) - | (25)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (4)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - || (32, 33)
Death Guard - | (23)
Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (30)
Genestealer Cult - | (7)
Grey Knights - | (14)
Imperial Guard - |||| (1, 31, 41, 46*)
Imperial Knights - | (39)
Imperium - | (28)
Knights Renegades - |||| (10, 11, 26, 29)
Leagues of Votann - || (6, 48*)
Leagues of Votann (Greater Thurian League) - | (21)
Necrons - || (45*, 49)
Orks (Goffs) - || (3, 34)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (2, 42)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (15)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - || (5, 44*)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - || (13, 16)
Tau Empire - || (8, 40)
Thousand Sons - | (47*)
Tyranids (Behemoth) - || (20, 36)
Tyranids (Jormungandr) - | (43*)
Tyranids (Kraken) - | (37)
Tyranids (Kronos) - | (19)
Ynnari - | (24)
Participation % (by Codex) Adepta Sororitas - 2%
Adeptus Custodes - 8%
Chaos Daemons - 4%
Chaos Space Marines - 12%
Death Guard - 2%
Eldar - 2%
Genestealer Cult - 2%
Grey Knights - 2%
Imperial Guard - 8%
Imperial Knights - 2%
Imperium - 2%
Knights Renegades - 8%
Leagues of Votann - 6%
Necrons - 4%
Orks - 4%
Space Marines - 14%
Tau Empire - 4%
Thousand Sons - 2%
Tyranids - 10%
Ynnari - 2%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Chaos Space Marines x1
Genestealer Cult x1
Imperial Guard x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x2
Orks x1
Tau Empire x1
Space Marines overperformed a little here, as given their participation % you'd expect 1 top 8 rather than 2, but I wouldn't call it egregious. Tyranids underperformed, while Chaos Space Marines were almost exactly on the money.
Brighton 40k Tournament |||
Spoiler:
28 entrants, 0 show no results, 4 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - ||| (2, 5, 26*)
Adeptus Mechanicus - || (15, 27*)
Chaos Daemons - | (25*)
Eldar - | (19)
Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (12)
Genestealer Cult - | (16)
Grey Knights - || (13, 14)
Harlequins - | (10)
Imperial Guard - ||| (21, 22, 23)
Imperial Knights - || (7, 18)
Orks - | (9)
Orks (Goffs) - | (1)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (4, 6)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (11)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (17)
Space Marines (White Scars) - | (8)
Tau Empire - || (24, 28*)
World Eaters - | (3)
Ynnari - | (20)
Participation % (by Codex) Adeptus Custodes - 10.71%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 7.14%
Chaos Daemons - 3.57%
Eldar - 7.14%
Genestealer Cult - 3.57%
Grey Knights - 7.14%
Harlequins - 3.57%
Imperial Guard - 10.71%
Imperial Knights - 7.14%
Orks - 7.14%
Space Marines - 17.86%
Tau Empire - 7.14%
World Eaters - 3.57%
Ynnari - 3.57%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x2
Imperial Knights x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
Space Marines overperforming by one spot, adeptus Custodes performing twice as well as expected based on participation %. Imperial Guard underperformed here, given they were over 10% of the field.
Smallest event of this sample.
For an overall view, let's look at the participation vs. top 8 slots across the seven events...
Spoiler:
Player count (who played at least one game)
52 + 48 + 57 + 53 + 52 + 50 + 28 = 340
Top 8 slots (56 slots, each worth 1.79%) If we're working from participation %, you'd expect roughly every 6 entries to correspond to one top 8 position.
Overperforming - On Target (within 1% of participation) - Underperforming (but still made top 8)
Adepta Sororitas x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Adeptus Custodes x || - 2/56 = 3.57%
Chaos Daemons x ||||| - 5/56 = 8.92%
Chaos Space Marines x |||| - 4/56 = 7.14%
Death Guard x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Eldar x |||| - 4/56 = 7.14%
Genestealer Cult x |||| - 4/56 = 7.14%
Grey Knights x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Imperial Guard x ||||| | - 6/56 = 10.71%
Imperial Knights x || - 2/56 = 3.57%
Knights Renegades x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Leagues of Votann x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Orks x || - 2/56 = 3.57%
Space Marines x ||||| ||||| ||||| ||| - 18/56 = 32.14%
Tau Empire x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Thousand Sons x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Tyranids x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
World Eaters x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Space Marines seem to be overperforming by ~50% (in terms of top 8 spots compared to participation %) in these seven events. However, Chaos Daemons and Genestealer Cults are both overperforming by 100% or more.
Of the factions who achieved a top 8 spot, Knights Renegades seem to be the major underperformers, securing around a third of the top 8 spots you'd expect from their participation in the selected events.
And because it amuses me, and because someone made an assertion about it, here's a look at the Space Marines sub-factions that were used at these events:
Spoiler:
Space Marine Subfactions (top 8 spots) Space Marines x 1
Black Templars X 7 - 3 top 8 slots
Blood Angels x 9 - 2 top 8 slots
Dark Angels x 13 - 2 top 8 slots
Deathwatch x 3
Imperial Fists x 3
Iron Hands x 13 - 4 top 8 slots
Minotaurs x 2 - 1 top 8 slot
Raven Guard x 2 - 1 top 8 slot
Salamanders x 7 - 1 top 8 slot
Space Wolves x 10 - 1 top 8 slot
Star Phantoms x 1 - 1 top 8 slot
Ultramarines x 5 - 1 top 8 slot
White Scars x 1 - 1 top 8 slot
Not quite sure why Minotaurs and Star Phantoms are options on BCP, but there you go. Do they even have rules through Forge World these days? While Iron Hands do have the most top 8 slots, I wouldn't say they're far enough ahead of the field to be "dominant" - especially when you consider it took 13 players to get those 4 top 8 slots, while Templars managed 3 top 8 slots from 7 players. As Dark Angels are joint 3rd, they definitely aren't "dominant".
Side note - BCP apparently does have a "Not Checked In" flag to differentiate no-shows from those who dropped during the event, but given the number of people I noticed showing as dropped without a reported game, more TOs need to use it. I only saw it used for 1 entrant across these seven events, otherwise I'd be complaining it didn't exist at all!
Second side note - I have no idea why Blood of Kittens reports top 3 instead of top 4/8 (or all n/1 or n/2 and better), but it is a silly metric in a Swiss system.
Minotaurs have a names character that's still supported. He let's you reroll charges and has a D3 melee weapon.
The problem with that though is that GW kinda stopped trying and said Minotaurs could be used with whatever Marine rules you wanted, but simply recommended Imperial Fists successors with the mini Transhuman and the exploding 6s in melee.
So while Minotaurs show up, we actually don't have any info on what's being done. I ran them as Dark Angels successors for example because Asterion + Terminator spam is fun.
Star Phantoms just have no rules in general. Only thing there is a Legends Captain with a D3 Power Fist and Combi-Melta, not even a random fun rule. So he probably wasn't ran.
thats the whole schtick of the flamers, theyre good overwatch weapons. thing is, its so trivial to deny an overwatch that they become useless anyway (unless youre some tzeentch flamers that are clearly TOO good)
I still don't understand how people weren't denying that overwatch on the flamers...
i stick my Flamers in a ruin, good luck charging me from behind another ruin
Dudeface wrote: We've shown now by this point the main reason that Marines are winning and placing proportionately is more due to the doctrine changes than free stuff. Grey Knights aren't related to SM as a faction and do not benefit from doctrine changes, they operate fuctionally differently as noted.
The premise of the thread being followed shows Space Marines are now a contender but contrary to the initial theory are not curb stomping everyone with free stuff. Indeed some flavours of Marine struggle to break even at events it seems.
Sorry, how have you shown that?
Maybe I'm adopted less of a black and white interpretation - but the premise was that Marines would run away with tournaments. Clearly "run away with" is debatable - but they do seem to be the best performing faction. Now you can argue that in a balanced system, as the most played faction, they should perform the best. Which is reasonable enough. But the question is whether the alignment is there. Marines have usually been the most played faction - even when most recognised they weren't great.
The argument that say "per list" Guard are performing better is reasonable. And I think most would say Guard are also S-tier right now.
But I'm sort of struggling with this "Marines will be good" - "the data shows Marines very clearly are good" - "we have proven this is wrong, nothing to see here, move along."
It think it pretty much breaks down to this. The data below shows Space Marines are doing well. You can even say very well. They are not dominating the meta. Their Top 8 placement only third place when compared to their participation rate. This is only remarkable because their participation rate is high.
Dysartes wrote: For an overall view, let's look at the participation vs. top 8 slots across the seven events...
Spoiler:
Player count (who played at least one game)
52 + 48 + 57 + 53 + 52 + 50 + 28 = 340
Top 8 slots (56 slots, each worth 1.79%) If we're working from participation %, you'd expect roughly every 6 entries to correspond to one top 8 position.
Overperforming - On Target (within 1% of participation) - Underperforming (but still made top 8)
Adepta Sororitas x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Adeptus Custodes x || - 2/56 = 3.57%
Chaos Daemons x ||||| - 5/56 = 8.92%
Chaos Space Marines x |||| - 4/56 = 7.14%
Death Guard x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Eldar x |||| - 4/56 = 7.14%
Genestealer Cult x |||| - 4/56 = 7.14%
Grey Knights x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Imperial Guard x ||||| | - 6/56 = 10.71%
Imperial Knights x || - 2/56 = 3.57%
Knights Renegades x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Leagues of Votann x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Orks x || - 2/56 = 3.57%
Space Marines x ||||| ||||| ||||| ||| - 18/56 = 32.14%
Tau Empire x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Thousand Sons x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Tyranids x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
World Eaters x | - 1/56 = 1.79%
Space Marines seem to be overperforming by ~50% (in terms of top 8 spots compared to participation %) in these seven events. However, Chaos Daemons and Genestealer Cults are both overperforming by 100% or more.
Of the factions who achieved a top 8 spot, Knights Renegades seem to be the major underperformers, securing around a third of the top 8 spots you'd expect from their participation in the selected events.
All those podium placings aside, one must wonder how their Overall Win rate compares to other factions? We all remember when Ynarri or Drukhari had an high win rate and high podium rate.
JNAProductions wrote: To the bolded bit... I still consider it some malarkey that Imperial Fists are counted different from Iron Hands.
Rusted Claw and Four Armed Emperor are just GSC.
Alpha Legion and Black Legion are just CSM.
Iyanden and Ulthwe are just Eldar.
Almost as if being more popular and having separate books, makes both the players of those factions and more important the GW studio treat them as a separate thing. Well up until they have to show marine win rants being okey, then it is better to combine them, then try to explain with "it is just noob player" how after changes IF still get under 30% win rates.
And what is better can you imagine that it is true for non loyalist marines too. GW litteraly wrote a DG, 1ksons and WE book too. Mindblowing.
Dudeface wrote: We've shown now by this point the main reason that Marines are winning and placing proportionately is more due to the doctrine changes than free stuff. Grey Knights aren't related to SM as a faction and do not benefit from doctrine changes, they operate fuctionally differently as noted.
The premise of the thread being followed shows Space Marines are now a contender but contrary to the initial theory are not curb stomping everyone with free stuff. Indeed some flavours of Marine struggle to break even at events it seems.
Sorry, how have you shown that?
Maybe I'm adopted less of a black and white interpretation - but the premise was that Marines would run away with tournaments. Clearly "run away with" is debatable - but they do seem to be the best performing faction. Now you can argue that in a balanced system, as the most played faction, they should perform the best. Which is reasonable enough. But the question is whether the alignment is there. Marines have usually been the most played faction - even when most recognised they weren't great.
The argument that say "per list" Guard are performing better is reasonable. And I think most would say Guard are also S-tier right now.
But I'm sort of struggling with this "Marines will be good" - "the data shows Marines very clearly are good" - "we have proven this is wrong, nothing to see here, move along."
I haven't Dysartes and Daed did the heavy lifting over the last few pages repeatedly. But the point was raised they would be dominating the meta, they're not, they're good but not meta defining. As you say by many metrics they're fairly balanced or at least proportional.
So the statement of them being meta dominating or defining has been proven wrong I think at this point. The fact Semper is throwing in GK as SM to try and emphasise their point and picking on some events more than others to show data bias isn't helping.
I think the thing Tyel is questioning - and I don't disagree with their position - is your statement that the changes to doctrines had more of an impact than the changes to upgrade costs.
Nothing I've done has looked at that at all, I've merely looked to see if statements about SM dominating the meta are true, as well as trying to provide a wider view than focusing on one specific faction (and its sub-factions).
We've seen other factions are (proportionally to entry at events) outperforming both Marines and the average, but Marines end up with more players across events.
It makes for an interesting dataset, even if it isn't the most fun to pull data out of.
Ah yes, my mistake, painting your minis grey makes them a completely different army than regular Space Marines. I mean...its no longer a Captain leading the army its a...*Checks notes* Ah yes, Brother-Captain. And its not a Librarian its a Brother Librarian. But the troops are 100% different right? I mean, they don't even have similar names and their statlines are totally different. I mean, a Tac Marine is M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 2W A1 LD7 3+ save and is equipped with Frag/krak grenades and a Bolter. While the Grey Knights "Strike Squad" is M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 2W A3 LD7 3+ save and is equipped with Frag/krak grenades, Nemesis Force Sword and a Stormbolter. Huh...weird, those are fairly similar....They don't have the same vehicles though right? Like Land Raiders and their variants? or Stormraven/Talon/Hawks? and there is no way they all use Razorbacks and Rhinos right? I mean, I can keep being sarcastic as hell but the point is that they are just Space Marines with Grey armor and a few different rules/units/Names...kind of like how Blood Angels are just Space Marines painted red(and black) with a few different rules/units/names. They also got very similar treatment as far as free wargear. So we can continue to argue but the fact remains that they are functionally just another chapter of Space Marines. I had been lumping in Custards as well since they look the same and play along the same lines but I stopped including them since they didn't get all the same benefits as SM did in this update so i'll gladly reclassify them as SPEESE MEHREENS! +1.
Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that every single Grey Knight is a Psyker? That literally every unit in a Greyknight army can both cast and deny psychic powers?
I let it go the first time I saw it because I assumed that the reason you were ignoring it was because it didn't have anything to do with the free stuff premise that is your primary point. But this particular quoted passage is just so condescending, and mentions so many other things that aren't related to the free stuff premise (similarities between stat lines or vehicles in the list for example), while COMPLETELY ignoring psychic issues that I had to say something.
The difference between a Captain and a brother captain isn't the word Brother; it that one is a psychic and the other is not, and it is beyond ridiculous that you are not mentioning this.
The difference between Tacs and a strike squad isn't stats: Strikes are psychic. Like, you get that, right?
Non-GK termies don't get BOTH a Storm Bolter and a close combat option, right? Like you take assault termies OR ranged termies and not both?
Maybe it's because I don't have the 9th ed GK dex yet, but every unit in the army has been psychic in every edition of the game in which GK have existed, so I don't think that's changed. I might be wrong on the termies too, because I'm not enough of a marine player that the 9th ed equipment options for terminator squads are committed to memory, but they're certainly marketed as either CC or Ranged whereas GK are clearly both.
Seriously, I'm just confused by the entire premise of the quoted passage.
Dysartes wrote: I think the thing Tyel is questioning - and I don't disagree with their position - is your statement that the changes to doctrines had more of an impact than the changes to upgrade costs.
Nothing I've done has looked at that at all, I've merely looked to see if statements about SM dominating the meta are true, as well as trying to provide a wider view than focusing on one specific faction (and its sub-factions).
We've seen other factions are (proportionally to entry at events) outperforming both Marines and the average, but Marines end up with more players across events.
It makes for an interesting dataset, even if it isn't the most fun to pull data out of.
That's a fair statement in and of itself, but the ability to sit in dev doctrine all game is a huge boon to ironhands in particular and conveniently the chosen chase for DA as well, which as noted are the largest represented and also generally seem to be placing at least as well. There was a breakdown on the free points for some winning lists a few pages back and the IH list in question didn't have that much free stuff and the DA even less. They're leveraging rules changes more than the points seemingly.
And what is better can you imagine that it is true for non loyalist marines too. GW litteraly wrote a DG, 1ksons and WE book too. Mindblowing.
Yeah, because these legions all operate in completely different ways, unlike loyalists which are mostly the same deal
They really don't, and the 7th edition Legion supplement was proof that you can have them all in the same codex instead of these pretend differences where you lose half your options and gain like 3.
And what is better can you imagine that it is true for non loyalist marines too. GW litteraly wrote a DG, 1ksons and WE book too. Mindblowing.
Yeah, because these legions all operate in completely different ways, unlike loyalists which are mostly the same deal
They really don't, and the 7th edition Legion supplement was proof that you can have them all in the same codex instead of these pretend differences where you lose half your options and gain like 3.
And what is better can you imagine that it is true for non loyalist marines too. GW litteraly wrote a DG, 1ksons and WE book too. Mindblowing.
Yeah, because these legions all operate in completely different ways, unlike loyalists which are mostly the same deal
The army I like has totally different subfactions as opposed to their mirror army which doesn't.
Chaos and Loyalist can and should easily be handled the same way. If they want to run a Codex for each subfaction, go for it. If they want to do one Codex and a bunch of supplements it works for both. Not that hard to put a blurb at the beginning of the datasheets saying Black Templars/Death Guard armies cannot take Librarians/Havocs.
PenitentJake wrote: Non-GK termies don't get BOTH a Storm Bolter and a close combat option, right? Like you take assault termies OR ranged termies and not both?
They get chain fists, cyclone missile launchers and storm bolters, pretty synonymous with nemesis Daemon hammers, storm bolters and psycannons. Grey Knights having psychic powers isn't really different from fielding an Iron Hands list with Tacs spamming free gear and taking an infiltrating Blood Angels list with the infiltrating Troops. I'd still say BA+IH one thing and GK is another in terms of looking at stats because the points and secondaries are divorced, you wouldn't want undercosted Nemesis Dreadknights infiltrating the SM data or overcosted SMHQs infiltrating the GK data or anything of the sort. While we might see similar things in terms of removal of pts costs for options, we're seeing that across non-MEQ armies as well so it's not fair to use that as a point of comparison to lump the two factions in together. Grey Knights transports aren't psykers sadly, I think they should be again, their Rhinos and Flyers are pretty boring, you're playing GK because you want to play the psychic Daemon hunter faction. The moment you include units that don't play into a faction's theme you risk them getting too good and being spammed, thereby ruining the theme you're trying to create for the faction.
PenitentJake wrote: Non-GK termies don't get BOTH a Storm Bolter and a close combat option, right? Like you take assault termies OR ranged termies and not both?
They get chain fists, cyclone missile launchers and storm bolters, pretty synonymous with nemesis Daemon hammers, storm bolters and psycannons. Grey Knights having psychic powers isn't really different from fielding an Iron Hands list with Tacs spamming free gear and taking an infiltrating Blood Angels list with the infiltrating Troops. I'd still say BA+IH one thing and GK is another in terms of looking at stats because the points and secondaries are divorced, you wouldn't want undercosted Nemesis Dreadknights infiltrating the SM data or overcosted SMHQs infiltrating the GK data or anything of the sort. While we might see similar things in terms of removal of pts costs for options, we're seeing that across non-MEQ armies as well so it's not fair to use that as a point of comparison to lump the two factions in together. Grey Knights transports aren't psykers sadly, I think they should be again, their Rhinos and Flyers are pretty boring, you're playing GK because you want to play the psychic Daemon hunter faction. The moment you include units that don't play
into a faction's theme you risk them getting too good and being spammed, thereby ruining the theme you're trying to create for the faction.
I have to wonder how long Grey Knights will be a stand-alone faction. I think they're trying to go away from the Preferred-Enemy type stuff. They've reshuffled the Legion vs Legion/Chapter stuff in recent fluff (Bobby G was the only Loyalist around, but instead of Word Bearers we saw TSons, and DG. When Nids struck it was at Baal not Ultramar. We didn't see UM get a Necron Hunters Elite unit. Crimson Fists no longer hate Orks quite as much. DTTFE may be the last hold out there. It may also be one of the few Codex last written before that stuff started moving to Strats where they fit better. Deathwatch may get a little more slack with a half dozen or so XENOS compared to two CHAOS - and with their special sauce not being specifically XENOS but Pick a Datasheet Category stuff. Maybe GK get a more generic ruleset to go with their more specific fluff, or maybe they become Agents of the Imperium where all the red headed stepchildren go when there isn't a narrative preset going on.
PenitentJake wrote: Non-GK termies don't get BOTH a Storm Bolter and a close combat option, right? Like you take assault termies OR ranged termies and not both?
They get chain fists, cyclone missile launchers and storm bolters, pretty synonymous with nemesis Daemon hammers, storm bolters and psycannons. Grey Knights having psychic powers isn't really different from fielding an Iron Hands list with Tacs spamming free gear and taking an infiltrating Blood Angels list with the infiltrating Troops. I'd still say BA+IH one thing and GK is another in terms of looking at stats because the points and secondaries are divorced, you wouldn't want undercosted Nemesis Dreadknights infiltrating the SM data or overcosted SMHQs infiltrating the GK data or anything of the sort. While we might see similar things in terms of removal of pts costs for options, we're seeing that across non-MEQ armies as well so it's not fair to use that as a point of comparison to lump the two factions in together. Grey Knights transports aren't psykers sadly, I think they should be again, their Rhinos and Flyers are pretty boring, you're playing GK because you want to play the psychic Daemon hunter faction. The moment you include units that don't play into a faction's theme you risk them getting too good and being spammed, thereby ruining the theme you're trying to create for the faction.
I have to wonder how long Grey Knights will be a stand-alone faction. I think they're trying to go away from the Preferred-Enemy type stuff. They've reshuffled the Legion vs Legion/Chapter stuff in recent fluff (Bobby G was the only Loyalist around, but instead of Word Bearers we saw TSons, and DG. When Nids struck it was at Baal not Ultramar. We didn't see UM get a Necron Hunters Elite unit. Crimson Fists no longer hate Orks quite as much. DTTFE may be the last hold out there. It may also be one of the few Codex last written before that stuff started moving to Strats where they fit better. Deathwatch may get a little more slack with a half dozen or so XENOS compared to two CHAOS - and with their special sauce not being specifically XENOS but Pick a Datasheet Category stuff. Maybe GK get a more generic ruleset to go with their more specific fluff, or maybe they become Agents of the Imperium where all the red headed stepchildren go when there isn't a narrative preset going on.
Until the game stops being made, there is too little overlap between the units available. SM cannot take Strike Squads, GK don't get Primaris. I think there needs to be a balance between "my faction re-rolls 1s to hit and to wound against my preferred enemy" and "it's not fun to have rules or options that aren't great against everything and everyone". Strats are a very uncomplicated and safe way to add thematic rules and have a tiny impact on matchup balance.
Until the game stops being made, there is too little overlap between the units available. SM cannot take Strike Squads, GK don't get Primaris. I think there needs to be a balance between "my faction re-rolls 1s to hit and to wound against my preferred enemy" and "it's not fun to have rules or options that aren't great against everything and everyone". Strats are a very uncomplicated and safe way to add thematic rules and have a tiny impact on matchup balance.
Yeah I don't think GK get moved into the SM Codex. When I said I'm not sure they stick around as a Stand Alone, I meant they move to an Imperial Agents Codex with NAVIS, INQUISITORS and such designed more for Narrative than Pickup/Competitive. We didn't even see them on Baal or Vigilus.
Until the game stops being made, there is too little overlap between the units available. SM cannot take Strike Squads, GK don't get Primaris. I think there needs to be a balance between "my faction re-rolls 1s to hit and to wound against my preferred enemy" and "it's not fun to have rules or options that aren't great against everything and everyone". Strats are a very uncomplicated and safe way to add thematic rules and have a tiny impact on matchup balance.
Yeah I don't think GK get moved into the SM Codex. When I said I'm not sure they stick around as a Stand Alone, I meant they move to an Imperial Agents Codex with NAVIS, INQUISITORS and such designed more for Narrative than Pickup/Competitive. We didn't even see them on Baal or Vigilus.
Hmmm.....this presupposes a level of understanding of what a specific faction is supposed to do that I don't think the current 40k rules team considers. Maybe, start considering how the faction performs in "tournament play", instead? That does seem to be what they worry about, nowadays.
The thing about Chambers Militant is that if you have even one of them, it doesn't make sense not to have all three. This is why even though I loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books, I feel the potential to get it right is far stronger and the picture is more complete with what we've got now.
A good Agents dex with a Chamber Militant rule that allows Ordos to ally with their respective Chambers is the best solution.
PenitentJake wrote: The thing about Chambers Militant is that if you have even one of them, it doesn't make sense not to have all three. This is why even though I loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books, I feel the potential to get it right is far stronger and the picture is more complete with what we've got now.
A good Agents dex with a Chamber Militant rule that allows Ordos to ally with their respective Chambers is the best solution.
Having Deathwatch with SM makes sense, having SoB and Grey Knights together does not. I think the way we have it currently is imperfect but as good as we can get it.
PenitentJake wrote: The thing about Chambers Militant is that if you have even one of them, it doesn't make sense not to have all three. This is why even though I loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books, I feel the potential to get it right is far stronger and the picture is more complete with what we've got now.
A good Agents dex with a Chamber Militant rule that allows Ordos to ally with their respective Chambers is the best solution.
Having Deathwatch with SM makes sense, having SoB and Grey Knights together does not. I think the way we have it currently is imperfect but as good as we can get it.
Yeah, I certainly don't mind Deathwatch being a Supplement rather than a stand-alone dex. I like the addition of Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Kill Teams, and I think they did a good job of making DW feel different than regular marines. It would be cool to have a few other unique Deathwatch units though, rather than relying so heavily on the Kill Team structure to provide the unique character of the faction. Not saying it's strictly necessary, just that it could be cool.
Another factor:
Sometime during the run of 10th, we're due for another 40k themed Warhammer Quest game, and if they gave it an Inquisition focus, the models could really round out the Retinue options for each of the <Ordos>. I foresee a common pool of 10 types of hench which any <Ordo> can take, and then one or two unique ones for each <Ordo>. This could also be done via Kill Team.
PenitentJake wrote: The thing about Chambers Militant is that if you have even one of them, it doesn't make sense not to have all three. This is why even though I loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books, I feel the potential to get it right is far stronger and the picture is more complete with what we've got now.
A good Agents dex with a Chamber Militant rule that allows Ordos to ally with their respective Chambers is the best solution.
Having Deathwatch with SM makes sense, having SoB and Grey Knights together does not. I think the way we have it currently is imperfect but as good as we can get it.
Having Deathwatch with SM makes sense. Having Deathwatch with Ordo Xenos (pointing to Codex Space Marines) makes sense. Either would work. Having DW, GK, SOB, and all three Ordos in one Agents of the Imperium Codex capable of adding an Agent Unit, or running an all Agent Stand Alone with their Chamber also makes sense.
Dudeface wrote: That's a fair statement in and of itself, but the ability to sit in dev doctrine all game is a huge boon to ironhands in particular and conveniently the chosen chase for DA as well, which as noted are the largest represented and also generally seem to be placing at least as well. There was a breakdown on the free points for some winning lists a few pages back and the IH list in question didn't have that much free stuff and the DA even less. They're leveraging rules changes more than the points seemingly.
I'm not really sure how you separate them out.
I mean even say the DA lists can be down by quite a significant number of points.
The nearest I think to Semper's concept would be Brad Chester's Salamanders - who were second at Melee At Shiloh the weekend before last.
Eradicator Squad [14 PL, 270pts]: Melta rifle
. 3x Eradicator: 3x Bolt pistol
. Eradicator Sgt
. Eradicator with MM . Eradicator with MM
++ Total: [110 PL, 4CP, 2,000pts] ++
I don't want to be accused like Daed of misleading by making a mistake on the points - but as far as I can tell (and its not all that easy these days to check), that's quite a dramatic saving over the old points. 60 point saving Infiltrators. 60 points on Aggressors. 90 points on attack bikes. 45 on Land Speeders. 130 on the Devs. 20 on the Eradicators. 10 points on Vanguard Vets. 10 points on Vulkan. 15 on the Apothecary. 30 on Captain.
So in total: 470 point saving versus the previous seasons points. Not really surprising its a lot more effective.
I feel safe in saying 50 point MM attack bikes are ludicrous, and a lot of lists seem to be throwing in 6-9 of them.
Tyel wrote: The nearest I think to Semper's concept would be Brad Chester's Salamanders - who were second at Melee At Shiloh the weekend before last.
In his games he scored 100 / 93 / 73 / 100 / 100.
He lost to Daemons who also went 5-0, but scored 100 / 100 / 97 / 100 / 92.
Brad's weakest scoring game was against GSC. That GSC list was all infantry and bikes, which makes it harder to score this:
Score 2VP for each enemy unit that was destroyed as the result of an attack made with a Heavy or Grenade weapon by an ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit from your army while the Devastator Doctrine was active for your army.
Those Devs are 115 and 4(5) LC shots.
In the original codex that unit was 155 and a QLas Pred was 170. Neither saw play.
Then in 2021 they went to 155 and 155 respectively. The predator still saw no use and devs are too squishy at that cost, right? Certainly no one would take Devs in this scenario.
Fast forward to now. The predator who saw no play is now 135 - a modest 20 point discount. You can't make devastators 135, because they will again be too squishy for a comparable cost. Instead they sit at 115, which is a more fair cost.
An attack bike is very close to two lascannon shots except when within 12", but with shorter range overall. The extra AP is mostly negligible under dev doctrine. So when we have devastators firing 5 shots with some at BS2 for 115 and two bikes firing four shots at BS3 for 15 points less and no ablative models the cost also seems relatively fair.
In my opinion the real problem is the secondary that incentivizes taking heavy weapons over all others. People are only spamming these units, because it gets them points.
Unfortunately all these discounts can trigger the race to the bottom that we saw at the end of 8th. GW should keep the current parity, but raise points proportionally and take units off the table giving more space for units and less damage in general.
1st Place: Dark Angels (DeathWing)
2nd Place: Space Furries
3rd Place: Iron Hands
7th Place: Dark Angels
10th Place: Iron Hands.
Cherokee GT, 250+ players, massive event for competitive players. Marines swept the Podium. I don't have a subscription to Best Coast Pairing so if anyone wants to grab the lists I would appreciate it
1st Place: Dark Angels (DeathWing)
2nd Place: Space Furries
3rd Place: Iron Hands
7th Place: Dark Angels
10th Place: Iron Hands.
Cherokee GT, 250+ players, massive event for competitive players. Marines swept the Podium. I don't have a subscription to Best Coast Pairing so if anyone wants to grab the lists I would appreciate it
Across 4 50-100 player events, 4 top 5 places to marines, including 1 first place. Worth noting that 3 of those including the 1 win were at a US event. Maybe the entire marine situation is a US problem?
Daedalus81 wrote: In the original codex that unit was 155 and a QLas Pred was 170. Neither saw play.
Then in 2021 they went to 155 and 155 respectively. The predator still saw no use and devs are too squishy at that cost, right? Certainly no one would take Devs in this scenario.
Fast forward to now. The predator who saw no play is now 135 - a modest 20 point discount. You can't make devastators 135, because they will again be too squishy for a comparable cost. Instead they sit at 115, which is a more fair cost.
An attack bike is very close to two lascannon shots except when within 12", but with shorter range overall. The extra AP is mostly negligible under dev doctrine. So when we have devastators firing 5 shots with some at BS2 for 115 and two bikes firing four shots at BS3 for 15 points less and no ablative models the cost also seems relatively fair.
In my opinion the real problem is the secondary that incentivizes taking heavy weapons over all others. People are only spamming these units, because it gets them points.
I agree there are a number of issues with scoring that definitely favour certain factions, and certain builds. I've not really kept up with the 10th edition rumours, but I'd be surprised if faction secondaries survive any large scale purge. Its just too many moving parts.
But to sort of go on the Devs - I think 115 is fairly cheap for that package generally compared with similar units across other factions. I realise though comparing them to units people just do not run is a bit pointless.
But vs the attack bikes - I think there are some issues. For example, okay, Iron Hands don't care about jogging around to take a shot (and I guess situationally things like Ultramarines etc) - but other subfactions do. There are some terrain negatives on being a bike vs infantry - but M14" is more likely to let you move up the board and get LOS on something you want to shoot than M6". After turn 1 I feel you really shouldn't struggle to be in 12" if you want to be.
The thing about points comparisons is always rests on there being a sort of "par value". There was a moment when Ad Mech Las-Chickens were some of the best units in the game. Now an MM attack bike is 60%~ of the points? Same for a double bright lance war walker. Those units are quite a bit tougher than the bike - but I don't think that justifies this level of gap.
Yea there's certainly considerations to be made across an extremely wide array of variables, which is probably why everything seems like such a crap shoot so often.
It also depends on the opponent. I love facing attack bikes, because I can put anti-tank into them. Devastators in cover become more difficult depending on what anti-MEQ I have, if it can be in range, and if it can get through the cover bonus easily enough.
e.g. Demolisher can kill 1-2 bikes depending on luck and removing 2 to 4 shots from the table, but putting that into Devs I might kill one and it would be the sarge thereby removing no shots.
Dysartes wrote: I'm just going to reiterate that top 10 is a silly metric for a tournament - depending on the size of the event, go with top 8 or top 16.
Go with top 8 then so instead of 5 of 10 including 1st-3rd its 4 of 8 including 1st-3rd
Point being that they did rather well for themselves at this event.
For an event of ~260, I'd probably go so far as to look at top 16.
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Iron Hands
Imperial Guard
Adeptus Custodes
Leagues of Votann
Dark Angels
Necrons
Orks
Iron Hands
Death Guard
Necrons
World Eaters
Leagues of Votann
Chaos Daemons
Ynnari
No extra Loyalist SM in there, but we do see both Leagues of Votann and Necrons getting two spots apiece as well.
And Orks in 9th, which I'm surprised you're not more chuffed about.
Dudeface wrote: That's a fair statement in and of itself, but the ability to sit in dev doctrine all game is a huge boon to ironhands in particular and conveniently the chosen chase for DA as well, which as noted are the largest represented and also generally seem to be placing at least as well. There was a breakdown on the free points for some winning lists a few pages back and the IH list in question didn't have that much free stuff and the DA even less. They're leveraging rules changes more than the points seemingly.
I'm not really sure how you separate them out.
I mean even say the DA lists can be down by quite a significant number of points.
The nearest I think to Semper's concept would be Brad Chester's Salamanders - who were second at Melee At Shiloh the weekend before last.
Eradicator Squad [14 PL, 270pts]: Melta rifle
. 3x Eradicator: 3x Bolt pistol
. Eradicator Sgt
. Eradicator with MM . Eradicator with MM
++ Total: [110 PL, 4CP, 2,000pts] ++
I don't want to be accused like Daed of misleading by making a mistake on the points - but as far as I can tell (and its not all that easy these days to check), that's quite a dramatic saving over the old points. 60 point saving Infiltrators. 60 points on Aggressors. 90 points on attack bikes. 45 on Land Speeders. 130 on the Devs. 20 on the Eradicators. 10 points on Vanguard Vets. 10 points on Vulkan. 15 on the Apothecary. 30 on Captain.
So in total: 470 point saving versus the previous seasons points. Not really surprising its a lot more effective.
I feel safe in saying 50 point MM attack bikes are ludicrous, and a lot of lists seem to be throwing in 6-9 of them.
The Infiltrators have no weapon swaps, and took no optional options. Edit to add: Whoops I missed it - they did take Helix Gauntlets. 20 Points. Most of the characters also aren't really getting "free wargear" and just got points drops. You're not including base points drops that everybody got in the "free wargear" are you? I mean we get it, its hard to be honest about the faction you hate. But its also hard not to see it when it happens.
Breton wrote: The nearest I think to Semper's concept would be Brad Chester's Salamanders - who were second at Melee At Shiloh the weekend before last.
Eradicator Squad [14 PL, 270pts]: Melta rifle
. 3x Eradicator: 3x Bolt pistol
. Eradicator Sgt
. Eradicator with MM . Eradicator with MM
++ Total: [110 PL, 4CP, 2,000pts] ++
I don't want to be accused like Daed of misleading by making a mistake on the points - but as far as I can tell (and its not all that easy these days to check), that's quite a dramatic saving over the old points. 60 point saving Infiltrators. 60 points on Aggressors. 90 points on attack bikes. 45 on Land Speeders. 130 on the Devs. 20 on the Eradicators. 10 points on Vanguard Vets. 10 points on Vulkan. 15 on the Apothecary. 30 on Captain.
So in total: 470 point saving versus the previous seasons points. Not really surprising its a lot more effective.
I feel safe in saying 50 point MM attack bikes are ludicrous, and a lot of lists seem to be throwing in 6-9 of them.
The Infiltrators have no weapon swaps, and took no optional options. Edit to add: Whoops I missed it - they did take Helix Gauntlets. 20 Points. Most of the characters also aren't really getting "free wargear" and just got points drops. You're not including base points drops that everybody got in the "free wargear" are you? I mean we get it, its hard to be honest about the faction you hate. But its also hard not to see it when it happens.
Fortunately, I've kept the copy of the 2022 MkII MFM that came with White Dwarf - I don't recall any changes being made to these units after it came out, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, here's how I price the list in 2022 MkII terms:
Spoiler:
HQ - Primaris Captain + Chapter Master + MC Power Sword + Relic Shield - 145pts (Body down 10, CM down 5, 15pts free gear)
Elites - Primaris Apothecary + Chief Apothecary - 115pts (Body down 10, CA down 5)
Elites - 5 Vanguard Veterans + 5 Jump Packs + 3 Power Swords + 2 Storm Shields + 2 Power Fists - 145pts (Body up 1ppm, gear down 15pts (free PS, PF 3pts each))
Fast Attack - 3 Attack Bikes + 3 MM - 180pts (30pts free gear)
Fast Attack - 3 Attack Bikes + 3 MM - 180pts (30pts free gear)
Fast Attack - 3 Attack Bikes + 3 MM - 180pts (30pts free gear)
Fast Attack - Land Speeder Tornado + AC + MM - 85pts (15pts free gear)
Fast Attack - Land Speeder Tornado + AC + MM - 85pts (15pts free gear)
Fast Attack - Land Speeder Tornado + AC + MM - 85pts (15pts free gear)
Heavy Support - 5 Devastators + 4 Lascannon + Combi=Melta + TH + Cherub - 180pts (Body up 5ppm, 90pts free gear)
Heavy Support - 5 Devastators + 4 Lascannon + Combi=Melta + TH + Cherub - 180pts (Body up 5ppm, 90pts free gear)
Heavy Support - 6 Eradicators + 2 MM - 290pts (20pts free gear)
2022 MkII Total - 2,470
Net change from body changes - -75pts
Net change from gear/upgrade changes - -395pts
Would be nice if the army list builder hadn't changed which Captain it was to just read Chapter Master on the first HQ - I'm assuming the default Primaris Captain datasheet, as that's the only one I see with the sword/shield, even if the Bladeguard Captain looks a bit more like Gravis to me.
Question for Tyel - are 50pt Attack Bikes with MM really that much more ludicrous than 60pt Attack Bikes with MM?
+ + +
Turns out I may well be bored enough to look at that FLG event in more detail tonight.
Quick question for those who know BCP better than me - I'm assuming a score in green is a win, and red is a loss. Does blue mean a draw?
Dysartes wrote: Question for Tyel - are 50pt Attack Bikes with MM really that much more ludicrous than 60pt Attack Bikes with MM?
If you were bringing 1 then it wouldn't make much difference. Maybe even if it was 3 squads of 1 each.
But once you are looking at 6-9 of them, that's a 60-90 points saving. Which I think starts to add up. Especially if you think there are other units that are also undercosted etc. The effective result is that 2k Marines as whole is just a lot more potent than it was. I'm sort of picking on the MM attack bikes just because I think you can compare them with similar units across 40k. (I thought about comparing say Devastators to Scourge - but I think many would say Scourge are not exactly hot, and are just a bit confused - especially with say dark lances when the blaster option is there.)
Its hard to say precisely - but I feel a lot of 40k's balance problems (and I don't think this season is that imbalanced) are when the exceptionally strong factions are running around with effectively 2200 points - and the exceptionally poor factions are running round with 1800.
If that Marine force had to take 200~ points off the table (so a squad or two) it would perform worse. (Possibly too much worse, we'd have to see.)
Admittedly, if GW just put the points increase on attack bikes, you might just drop them and put the points into another squad of devastators and some other stuff. Which is sort of why its hard to balance. You want each unit to be viable to take - hence reasonable internal balance - but the potential total package to be a bit less efficient than it currently is. Sometimes factions are clearly leaning on a key problem unit. I think Marines have quite a few winners now.
Equally if we looked at a faction which seems to be underperforming - Thousand Sons perhaps don't seem very hot - and GW said they could bring a free unit of 5 Scarab Occult Terminators (or whatever for 200 points), they'd do better in games. Sometimes the issue is functionality - a lot of the pros for instance say DG will never be "good" due to the lack of an advance and charge ability, so you always know exactly what they can do in the movement phase and can play around them accordingly. But I suspect they'd change their tune if GW went "DG seem to be struggling, have a free Mortarion".
Net change from body changes - -75pts
Net change from gear/upgrade changes - -395pts
So we're doing "net change" so that the 5 point increases make it look like the other PPM drops were smaller when those 5PPM price increases on the Devs were more likely offsets to zero out most of their Heavy choices? So 125 points of PPM drops turns into 75 points of PPM drops, and 50 points of Wargear zero-outs/offsets turn into 395 points of Gear changes instead of of 345 points of gear? Say, did you put the Chaper Command stuff as a PPM drop, or a Wargear drop? I bet I know.
Would be nice if the army list builder hadn't changed which Captain it was to just read Chapter Master on the first HQ - I'm assuming the default Primaris Captain datasheet, as that's the only one I see with the sword/shield, even if the Bladeguard Captain looks a bit more like Gravis to me.
Only one datasheet I know of has a Relic Shield.
Question for Tyel - are 50pt Attack Bikes with MM really that much more ludicrous than 60pt Attack Bikes with MM?
9 Attack bikes in almost anything but a WS/Raven+ Wing Bike themed list are pretty close to ridiculous no matter which gun is on the sidecar. But I probably mean that in a different way. Here's another question: If SM with ~25% "extra" stuff are now where they should be competitively why are so many people complaining they're now competitive instead of marvelling at how overcosted they were?
Net change from body changes - -75pts
Net change from gear/upgrade changes - -395pts
So we're doing "net change" so that the 5 point increases make it look like the other PPM drops were smaller when those 5PPM price increases on the Devs were more likely offsets to zero out most of their Heavy choices? So 125 points of PPM drops turns into 75 points of PPM drops, and 50 points of Wargear zero-outs/offsets turn into 395 points of Gear changes instead of of 345 points of gear? Say, did you put the Chaper Command stuff as a PPM drop, or a Wargear drop? I bet I know.
I listed out all the changes from 2023 MFM compared to 2022 MkII MFM in the spoiler.
In the case of the two Dev squads, under 2023 MFM they're paying 90 points per squad less for gear, but 25 points per squad more for the base bodies. A 5ppm increase on a body doesn't fully offset the saving of not paying 15 points for a lascannon, let alone the 25pts of kit the Sergeant is bring to the party (or the free cherub).
If you want to say there were 125 pts of body cost reductions, 50 points of body cost increases, and a saving of 395 points on gear, then you can do, but you're making things wordier for no major benefit.
And the Chapter Master & Chief Apothecary savings went under gear cost rather than body cost, given they're an upgrade.
Net change from body changes - -75pts
Net change from gear/upgrade changes - -395pts
So we're doing "net change" so that the 5 point increases make it look like the other PPM drops were smaller when those 5PPM price increases on the Devs were more likely offsets to zero out most of their Heavy choices? So 125 points of PPM drops turns into 75 points of PPM drops, and 50 points of Wargear zero-outs/offsets turn into 395 points of Gear changes instead of of 345 points of gear? Say, did you put the Chaper Command stuff as a PPM drop, or a Wargear drop? I bet I know.
I listed out all the changes from 2023 MFM compared to 2022 MkII MFM in the spoiler.
In the case of the two Dev squads, under 2023 MFM they're paying 90 points per squad less for gear, but 25 points per squad more for the base bodies. A 5ppm increase on a body doesn't fully offset the saving of not paying 15 points for a lascannon, let alone the 25pts of kit the Sergeant is bring to the party (or the free cherub).
It does when Everything not a MM gets reduced to 5 Points each.
If you want to say there were 125 pts of body cost reductions, 50 points of body cost increases, and a saving of 395 points on gear, then you can do, but you're making things wordier for no major benefit.
And the Chapter Master & Chief Apothecary savings went under gear cost rather than body cost, given they're an upgrade.
I was being facetious. I already knew exactly where you put the Chapter Command cost. And why.
Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.
I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
150 points for the first 5 models with 16 points per additional model would make so much more sense. It is really time GW start thinking about pricing units this way if they want to move to most upgrades are free.
On other subjects, I find it funny people comparing the change to upgrade and body cost between MFM2022 Mk II and MFM2023 Mk I while forgetting the loss of Armor of Contempt. Space Marines cost needed to come down for them to be competitive. Look at what has happened to Adepta Sororitas win and placement rates. They have fallen sharply because they also lost Armor of Contempt and go no discounts, body or upgrades, to compenstate.
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
Or . . . You just spend the exact same
amount points on a second squad of five and get the heavy weapons+Cherub+Combi+Powerfist.
Hmm. Do I want 5 bolter marines or do I want 5 Marines with much better gear for, let's see, zero more points? Oh the tough decisions GW provides with it's super deep game design!
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
Which isn't worth the points and you know it.
Isn't worth it to you.
A few extra wounds before I start losing the heavy weapons have generally served me well enough though. The extra bolter shots & possibility of more CC attacks are just a bonus. The question is how many extra bodies do I invest in?
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
Or . . . You just spend the exact same
amount points on a second squad of five and get the heavy weapons+Cherub+Combi+Powerfist.
Hmm. Do I want 5 bolter marines or do I want 5 Marines with much better gear for, let's see, zero more points? Oh the tough decisions GW provides with it's super deep game design!
Not really a tough choice. I already spend the pts on a 2nd squad. And occasionally a 3rd. I did so when the weapons cost pts, I do now that the weapons are free, and I'll do so in the future if/when the weapons cost pts again. It's just a matter of how many more ablative wounds do I want to invest in for each squad.
Dysartes wrote: Turns out I may well be bored enough to look at that FLG event in more detail tonight.
Quick question for those who know BCP better than me - I'm assuming a score in green is a win, and red is a loss. Does blue mean a draw?
I'd like to say I'm not going to do this again, but...
Key:
Dropped after 1 round - Dropped after 2 rounds - Dropped after 3 rounds - Dropped after 4 rounds - Dropped after 5 rounds - Dropped after 6 rounds
Frontline Gaming Cherokee Open 40K Champs
Spoiler:
266 entrants, 9 show no results, 26 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event
Top 16 slots (6.25% each) Adeptus Custodes x1 - 6.25%
Chaos Daemons x1 - 6.25%
Death Guard x1 - 6.25%
Imperial Guard x1 - 6.25%
Leagues of Votann x2 - 12.5%
Necrons x2 - 12.5%
Orks x1 - 6.25%
Space Marines x5 - 31.25%
World Eaters x1 - 6.25%
Ynnari x1 - 6.25%
Comparing the % of the top 16 slots to the participation %, everyone who got a top 16 slot overperformed, except Custodes (underperformed), Chaos Daemons, Imperial Guard & Orks (who were all within 1% of their participation % ).
Space Marines overperformed by about 50%, which would be around 1 top 8 slot. Necrons did ~4 times as well as expected, while LoV did around 2.5 times as well as expected and World Eaters about twice as well. Then there's Ynnari, at about 5.5 times as well as expected...
Space Marines had a 52.9% Win Rate in the event. An acceptably good rate with higher than participation expected top rankings.
Space Marines may just be a faction that has the tools to do well in good hands, prompting good players to play the faction? But average and bad players continue to to average and bad as always.
And could it be other factions not getting nearly as good a post-AOC boost resulted in some easy target on the battlefield for SMs to defeat?
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
Or . . . You just spend the exact same
amount points on a second squad of five and get the heavy weapons+Cherub+Combi+Powerfist.
Hmm. Do I want 5 bolter marines or do I want 5 Marines with much better gear for, let's see, zero more points? Oh the tough decisions GW provides with it's super deep game design!
Not really a tough choice.
Exactly.
I already spend the pts on a 2nd squad. And occasionally a 3rd. I did so when the weapons cost pts, I do now that the weapons are free, and I'll do so in the future if/when the weapons cost pts again. It's just a matter of how many more ablative wounds do I want to invest in for each squad.
Right, and historically I've always taken full squads (three of them). But if the bolters are priced at the same amount as the Heavies, theres much less of an incentive to fill out the squad, isn't there?
I'm not seeing anything worrying like the 62% win rates or 75% top 4 placements we've seen previously when an army was OP. The job for GW now is to look at internal balance it seems.
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
Which isn't worth the points and you know it.
Isn't worth it to you.
Are you going to try to sell me on not taking the free upgrade from S6 AP-3 D1 to S7 AP-4 D2 on my Overlords next? Why do you even take Devastators? If you like the basic bolters so much just take Tacs and get ObSec.
I think it's very hard to argue that in a competitive setting you don't take free upgrades.
Two squads with double the heavy weapons and two sargeants instead of one, both with free upgrades is just such a blatantly obvious choice. Before the change, sure, you could argue for more models. After it there's only one choice.
vict0988 wrote: I'm not seeing anything worrying like the 62% win rates or 75% top 4 placements we've seen previously when an army was OP. The job for GW now is to look at internal balance it seems.
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
Which isn't worth the points and you know it.
Isn't worth it to you.
Are you going to try to sell me on not taking the free upgrade from S6 AP-3 D1 to S7 AP-4 D2 on my Overlords next? Why do you even take Devastators? If you like the basic bolters so much just take Tacs and get ObSec.
There's not even a relic for the Hyperphase Sword either LMAO
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beast_of_Guanyin wrote: I think it's very hard to argue that in a competitive setting you don't take free upgrades.
Why wouldn't you take them for free casually either? You're not gonna run a Devastator squad with just two heavy weapons to begin with are you?
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
150 points for the first 5 models with 16 points per additional model would make so much more sense. It is really time GW start thinking about pricing units this way if they want to move to most upgrades are free.
On other subjects, I find it funny people comparing the change to upgrade and body cost between MFM2022 Mk II and MFM2023 Mk I while forgetting the loss of Armor of Contempt. Space Marines cost needed to come down for them to be competitive. Look at what has happened to Adepta Sororitas win and placement rates. They have fallen sharply because they also lost Armor of Contempt and go no discounts, body or upgrades, to compenstate.
Nah, everything in the game pushes you MSU. Blast, upgrade paths, and so on.
Right, and historically I've always taken full squads (three of them). But if the bolters are priced at the same amount as the Heavies, theres much less of an incentive to fill out the squad, isn't there?
There wasn't an incentive before. You could take another 5 Tactical Marines and they get ObSec and another Sergeant for the same price.
Dysartes wrote: In the case of the two Dev squads, under 2023 MFM they're paying 90 points per squad less for gear, but 25 points per squad more for the base bodies. A 5ppm increase on a body doesn't fully offset the saving of not paying 15 points for a lascannon, let alone the 25pts of kit the Sergeant is bring to the party (or the free cherub).
That assumes the old unit price was correct.
*looks at previous winrates. And factors in huge nerf from loss of AOC. Yep. Not expecting old price to be accurate*
There is a cost at which both 5 Devastators and 10 Devastators is viable. That cost isn't 23 pts per model + 10 for MM. That's kind of obvious since I don't think anyone other than Insectum was taking the extra 5 dudes for 18 PPM, so the extra 5 dudes needed to be far less points, not far more points. Maybe something like 15 PPM, that's even if you believe in free wargear.
Right, and historically I've always taken full squads (three of them). But if the bolters are priced at the same amount as the Heavies, theres much less of an incentive to fill out the squad, isn't there?
There wasn't an incentive before. You could take another 5 Tactical Marines and they get ObSec and another Sergeant for the same price.
If you want to leave your expensive Heavy Weapons as easy pickings, sure. . . I didn't.
vict0988 wrote: There is a cost at which both 5 Devastators and 10 Devastators is viable. That cost isn't 23 pts per model + 10 for MM. That's kind of obvious since I don't think anyone other than Insectum was taking the extra 5 dudes for 18 PPM, so the extra 5 dudes needed to be far less points, not far more points. Maybe something like 15 PPM, that's even if you believe in free wargear.
What does 'viable' mean here? What are the extra 5 bolter devs doing? If the extra 5 devs were 18 points thereby saving you 25 points how would they become more viable?
All I can see here is a complaint around a fluffy gamer edge case and not really an issue that needs attention.
vict0988 wrote: There is a cost at which both 5 Devastators and 10 Devastators is viable. That cost isn't 23 pts per model + 10 for MM. That's kind of obvious since I don't think anyone other than Insectum was taking the extra 5 dudes for 18 PPM, so the extra 5 dudes needed to be far less points, not far more points. Maybe something like 15 PPM, that's even if you believe in free wargear.
You shouldn't have Devastators be cheaper than Tactical Marines.
I agree that 23 PPM, mostly free upgrades on Devs is bad design.
But making it a no-brainer choice to take extra bodies is ALSO bad design.
vict0988 wrote: There is a cost at which both 5 Devastators and 10 Devastators is viable. That cost isn't 23 pts per model + 10 for MM. That's kind of obvious since I don't think anyone other than Insectum was taking the extra 5 dudes for 18 PPM, so the extra 5 dudes needed to be far less points, not far more points. Maybe something like 15 PPM, that's even if you believe in free wargear.
What does 'viable' mean here? What are the extra 5 bolter devs doing? If the extra 5 devs were 18 points thereby saving you 25 points how would they become more viable?
They're doing the things that basic Marines do. Shooting bad guys with bolters. Engaging in CC when it's a good proposition. Throwing Krak grenades at Custodes or whatever. And sometimes they're just acting defensively for their more damage-dealing squadmates. They're being Space Marines, bruh. Duh.
All I can see here is a complaint around a fluffy gamer edge case and not really an issue that needs attention.
It might be an edge case for certain competitive types, although a lot of people DO try to engage in the game for fluff reasons, I'm sure you're aware. Personally I found it quite competitive prior to this nonsensical "free upgrades" paradigm. The lists I settled on for most of 8th ran 28-30 Devastators, and it was the s***.
As for "not really an issue that needs attention" I also disagree. It's just one example highlighting the total idiocy of the current pointing system.
vict0988 wrote: There is a cost at which both 5 Devastators and 10 Devastators is viable. That cost isn't 23 pts per model + 10 for MM. That's kind of obvious since I don't think anyone other than Insectum was taking the extra 5 dudes for 18 PPM, so the extra 5 dudes needed to be far less points, not far more points. Maybe something like 15 PPM, that's even if you believe in free wargear.
You shouldn't have Devastators be cheaper than Tactical Marines.
I agree that 23 PPM, mostly free upgrades on Devs is bad design.
But making it a no-brainer choice to take extra bodies is ALSO bad design.
vict0988 wrote: I'm not seeing anything worrying like the 62% win rates or 75% top 4 placements we've seen previously when an army was OP. The job for GW now is to look at internal balance it seems.
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
Which isn't worth the points and you know it.
Isn't worth it to you.
Are you going to try to sell me on not taking the free upgrade from S6 AP-3 D1 to S7 AP-4 D2 on my Overlords next? Why do you even take Devastators? If you like the basic bolters so much just take Tacs and get ObSec.
There's not even a relic for the Hyperphase Sword either LMAO
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beast_of_Guanyin wrote: I think it's very hard to argue that in a competitive setting you don't take free upgrades.
Why wouldn't you take them for free casually either? You're not gonna run a Devastator squad with just two heavy weapons to begin with are you?
has seen them with both). 
