Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 20:39:41


Post by: Xenomancers


https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-analysis-the-lvo-40k-championship/
Is there any many question that Ironhands are the real issue here?
Also - Maybe Raptors should have an assigned chapter tactic...Special characters with custom traits should not be allowed. Every other chapter has to choose to have special characters or custom traits.

Look at these absurdly broken White scars Ultras and Salamanders with those OP doctrines and super doctrines not even giving them a 50% WR. Heck...Dark angels without Doctrines actually outperform Ultramarines which have them. With their new supplement I expect them to be pretty close to Iornhands level.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 20:55:57


Post by: Blood Hawk


I will give you one thing Xenomancers, you are persistent.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 21:29:30


Post by: Xenomancers


Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP when in fact they are really just complaining about a few specific supplements. Marines that aren't Ironhands or RG successors spamming assault cents...are just about average in competitive which should be the goal.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 21:39:32


Post by: Continuity


 Xenomancers wrote:
I take it personal when people say all marines are OP


But....why?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 21:52:58


Post by: An Actual Englishman


 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.


You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 21:56:53


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-analysis-the-lvo-40k-championship/
Is there any many question that Ironhands are the real issue here?
Also - Maybe Raptors should have an assigned chapter tactic...Special characters with custom traits should not be allowed. Every other chapter has to choose to have special characters or custom traits.

Look at these absurdly broken White scars Ultras and Salamanders with those OP doctrines and super doctrines not even giving them a 50% WR. Heck...Dark angels without Doctrines actually outperform Ultramarines which have them. With their new supplement I expect them to be pretty close to Iornhands level.


Space Marines in general are the new meta bogeyman, it was Castellan & Caladius before them, it will be something else soon. Some chapters are stronger than others but as a whole they are "overtuned" to say the least, and a handful need total rewrites (Iron Hands, Raven Guard ect).

The good news however is GW is slowly waking up to this realization, and i expect nerfs.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 21:58:23


Post by: deviantduck


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.


You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.
Exactly. If LVO said no IH then it would have been smurfs filling the vacuum to the same result.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 22:16:33


Post by: Daedalus81


 deviantduck wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.


You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.
Exactly. If LVO said no IH then it would have been smurfs filling the vacuum to the same result.


How can you make this claim without data?

People shoved 40kstats in people's faces about marines in general, but when faced with this data you'll ignore it? This shows some marines don't perform as well. IH holding them down is a theory and not substantiated until IH no longer dominate.

Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:34:43


Post by: Tyel


The fact is that (disregarding possible exceptions, and without meaning any offence) most people know the money chapters are Iron Hands, Ravenguard and Imperial Fists.

If you wanted to do well in a tournament, and you could go IH or UM, and not unreasonably you thought IH were better, why would you go UM?

This will tend to mean (unkindly) you are getting less serious players doing UM, which is going to contribute to worse results.

I mean its sort of the inverse issue with the bottom performing factions. Grey Knights were generally considered the worst army in the game. Again without meaning offence, people bringing them are either doing the snowflake bit ("I want to be known as the world's best Grey Knight player") or have turned up for fun with the army they own. They have not (imo at least) gone "I want to win this tournament, and you know what? Grey Knights is the answer."

Now this skew is irrelevant if you think there is no skill in ITC - but thats just madness. If those players who finished top 8 were forced to play Grey Knights I don't think they would have ended up as the top 8 - but I also think they would have sharply upped the Grey Knight win percentage.

Basically this data doesn't tell you anything much about whether UM are overpowered or underpowered. If IH/RG were not there, the whole game would be different. The 18 players who were UM did worse than the 5 players who were Dark Angels. Is that a faction imbalance, or just the skill level of those specific players?

I know historically "oh, its just that the bad players pick faction X", was always weak, especially in 7th's tier system which was visible from space - but thats not really what I'm saying here. Its akin to separating out Alaitoc CWE and Saim Hann CWE and going "Saim Hann obviously suck". Which in this case may well be the case - but its exacerbated by the fact there is just about no reason to pick Saim Hann over Alaitoc. Being unkind (or at the danger of missing something) anyone doing so is probably not that good at the game, or is playing for fun. If a relatively tiny number of such players go to a tournament and don't do very well it doesn't really tell us anything except that yes, they are not as good as the other option.

Which we already knew.

IH/RG/probably IF need a hard nerf to their special rules, then see what happens. I suspect UM would be considered a very potent faction but probably not quite as egregiously overpowered.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:42:05


Post by: Ishagu


Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:44:01


Post by: An Actual Englishman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.


You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.
Exactly. If LVO said no IH then it would have been smurfs filling the vacuum to the same result.


How can you make this claim without data?

People shoved 40kstats in people's faces about marines in general, but when faced with this data you'll ignore it? This shows some marines don't perform as well. IH holding them down is a theory and not substantiated until IH no longer dominate.

Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?


Presumably the assumption is that the majority of best players choose IH (and because they're the best players they tend to win more) and the majority of UM losses are against IH. Of course it is as assumption, so not fact, but this data shows us nothing we don't already know. IH dominate. We know this. IF dominate. We know this. Successors dominate. We also know this. We don't know if UM would dominate if these were brought down a peg but it certainly doesn't prove that they wouldn't as Xeno is so quick to claim.

Also - you know as well as I do that just because UM can't beat IH, it doesn't mean they can't beat Eldar (who in turn can beat IH). You know full well the meta is far more complex and nuanced than that.

My initial response in this thread is somewhat tongue in cheek, because Xeno is so.... patriotic(?) in his defence of UM he virtually encourages such a response.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:44:10


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?



A > B

A > C

Nothing about the relationship between B and C is implied by either of those two statements.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:45:08


Post by: Ishagu


None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:46:22


Post by: An Actual Englishman


 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.

Complaints should probably be made to GW if a single sub faction is dominating ANY ruleset, regardless of how credible you believe it to be. What if a person only plays ITC? They should just suck it up and not make any statements to GW? Sounds daft, doesn't it?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:46:53


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.


Are we trying to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules or the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set?

Believe it or not some people care about the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set. Possibly even enough of them that they represent a market block GW could pay attention to.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:46:55


Post by: An Actual Englishman


 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.

Why?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:50:15


Post by: Ishagu


The LVO doesn't use the official GW mission or terrain rules. It's not the same game, to put it bluntly. It's homebrew 40k.

This data means nothing because it cannot be used to determine the power of factions under the official GW designed missions.

Run the next LVO using the latest official missions and then we can discuss the game balance.

If you want more balance under ITC, simply homebrew the game some more to change faction or unit rules. It's not up to GW to balance a homebrew variant of the game.
The recent tournaments running the official missions from CA19 have generated far more balanced results across factions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:51:11


Post by: Argive


Ahh yeas the calssic "my marines are not OP" marine player logic.... Also knows as "the let me have some more cake so I can have it and eat it too nomomom".

Even at a casual level taking SM over any other faction means you don't have any bad units unless you choose to build with doctrines and traits that do not benefit you on purpose.

I mean is this so fegin hard to just say "yeah my faction probably needs some nerfing lets be honest"



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:52:57


Post by: Ishagu


Marines are strong, yes. But their performance under unofficial, 3rd party rules is meaningless for judging the real meta or power.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:55:10


Post by: An Actual Englishman


 Ishagu wrote:
Marines are strong, yes. But their performance under unofficial, 3rd party rules is meaningless for judging the real meta or power.

They’re not meaningless at all. Particularly when so many people prefer to play that way.

IH also do very well in ‘standard’ missions too.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/05 23:57:30


Post by: Ishagu


Not as well. They failed to hit the top 4 at the most recent 100 player event held by GW.

Clearly the 3rd party mission and terrain rules are having a significant impact.

People are free to play using ITC missions, but they cannot complain about balance under a game system not designed by the creators of 40k.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 00:21:04


Post by: Argive


 Ishagu wrote:
Not as well. They failed to hit the top 4 at the most recent 100 player event held by GW.

Clearly the 3rd party mission and terrain rules are having a significant impact.

People are free to play using ITC missions, but they cannot complain about balance under a game system not designed by the creators of 40k.


Out of curiosity how many top 10 finshers lists were SM lists?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 00:23:34


Post by: Ishagu


There were 4 Astartes lists in the top 10 I believe.

Considering the faction popularity, it's not particularly unusual.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 00:42:39


Post by: Smirrors


IH are strong, its why the best players in the world have gravitated to them.

With the rules with painting as it is now, marine players will just shift to the next best rules set. Doesnt mean GW shouldn't tone down IH and RG.

Richard Siegler stated he will go back to Tau. I am sure other top players will move to other armies too if IH and RG are not blatantly strong.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 00:46:56


Post by: The Newman


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?



A > B

A > C

Nothing about the relationship between B and C is implied by either of those two statements.


This reading is incorrect:
A > B
A > C

The correct reading of Daedalus' post is:
A > B
A < C

That absolutely does say something about the relationship between B and C. Not claiming that the UM / IH / Eldar comparison is actually that simple (or anything about that comparison for that matter), just that you read the story problem incorrectly.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 00:56:06


Post by: Sterling191


Well this will end predictably.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 01:08:04


Post by: ccs


 An Actual Englishman wrote:

My initial response in this thread is somewhat tongue in cheek, because Xeno is so.... patriotic(?) in his defense of UM he virtually encourages such a response.


I think the word you're looking for is dedicated. Or perhaps zealous. Maybe even deranged depending upon the post....



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 02:42:59


Post by: Argive


 Ishagu wrote:
There were 4 Astartes lists in the top 10 I believe.

Considering the faction popularity, it's not particularly unusual.


So when its SM being over represented in top 10, its popularity of the army... but when its ynari double activating stupidity or castellan knight soup its the rules OPness?
Right gotcha.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 02:53:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Ishagu's right.

Who cares what the results were on a heavily house-ruled sub-set of 40K. They're indicative of one thing: How IH functioned under that set of house rules.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 03:18:48


Post by: Crimson


 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Complaints should probably be made to GW if a single sub faction is dominating ANY ruleset, regardless of how credible you believe it to be.

Well, no, because GW is not responsible for someone's houserules.

What if a person only plays ITC?

Again, not GW's fault. They did not make the ITC rules. If a person chooses to use houserules, then they cannot complain to GW if those houserules cause problems.

They should just suck it up and not make any statements to GW?

Well, yes. They of course could complain to ITC. Or they could play using the official rules. If problem persists while using the official rules, then they could complain to GW.

Sounds daft, doesn't it?

No. What sounds utterly bonkers is that it would be GW's fault if my houserules break the game.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 03:20:18


Post by: The Salt Mine


We can argue about the legitimacy of ITC in one of the other 4 topics in this forum discussing this topic. The facts as they stand now though are that GW does use ITC as a measure of balance and makes changes accordingly. So until such time as GW stops doing this ITC data is just as relevant as any other data.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 03:39:31


Post by: H.B.M.C.


The Salt Mine wrote:
We can argue about the legitimacy of ITC in one of the other 4 topics in this forum discussing this topic. The facts as they stand now though are that GW does use ITC as a measure of balance and makes changes accordingly. So until such time as GW stops doing this ITC data is just as relevant as any other data.
Yeah, which means that all the people who don't play IH and who have a Levi that they think is cool that they play with their friends are about to suffer because a tiny group of people using a set of house-rules found it to be broken.

Wonderful.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 03:46:34


Post by: The Salt Mine


I don't disagree. I don't like that GW makes balance decisions based of multiple differnt data sets. I would much rather GW take a stance and say thou shalt use these missions for your events or we wont support them. However thats not the case and railing against it and chanting this data set does not matter isnt doing anyone any good.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 04:05:27


Post by: Daedalus81


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?



A > B

A > C

Nothing about the relationship between B and C is implied by either of those two statements.


You've oversimplified it into a logic statement that doesn't convey the issue appropriately, but your premise highlights the other end of my argument as one can't directly know that UM would benefit from the absence of IH.

If I had access to the matchup data I could tell you how UM did versus other factions and where they faltered and then we might have a better picture.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 04:49:02


Post by: Crackedgear


 Ishagu wrote:
There were 4 Astartes lists in the top 10 I believe.

Considering the faction popularity, it's not particularly unusual.


For what it’s worth, 3 of those 4 were Iron Hands.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 05:01:12


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
The recent tournaments running the official missions from CA19 have generated far more balanced results across factions.

It's amazing what balance can be achieved just by simply not inviting more than two Space Marine players.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 05:26:47


Post by: Xenomancers


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.


You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Uhh yes...I am using data to support my claim. That makes my claim strong. How long do the under 50% marines have to perform average for you to believe they are average.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 05:54:02


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.


If you've only been playing since 8th i could understand that, but it's certainly not always been the case.

Space Marines were a joke for years until GW flipped the table on the meta, Iron Hands will be nerfed and then you can find something else to complain about.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 06:34:44


Post by: Racerguy180


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ishagu's right.

Who cares what the results were on a heavily house-ruled sub-set of 40K. They're indicative of one thing: How IH functioned under that set of house rules.


Kinda hard to compare apples to apples if one of them is a turd.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 06:49:07


Post by: MiguelFelstone


Racerguy180 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ishagu's right.

Who cares what the results were on a heavily house-ruled sub-set of 40K. They're indicative of one thing: How IH functioned under that set of house rules.


Kinda hard to compare apples to apples if one of them is a turd.


ITC/ETC only exists because of Games Workshops incompetence/ ignorance in the competitive scene.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 07:20:36


Post by: Racerguy180


still doesn't make it ok!


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 07:29:11


Post by: MiguelFelstone


Racerguy180 wrote:
still doesn't make it ok!


ITC data is a hell of a lot more accurate in terms of game balance than GWs invitational only "tournaments". Saying there is no point in discussing it because it's not "official" is ignorance pure and simple.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 07:35:11


Post by: An Actual Englishman


MiguelFelstone wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.


If you've only been playing since 8th i could understand that, but it's certainly not always been the case.

Space Marines were a joke for years until GW flipped the table on the meta, Iron Hands will be nerfed and then you can find something else to complain about.

What? I believe the discussion is centred around the current meta (y’know, where marines are so dominant it’s called the ‘Marine Meta’) but feel free to discuss other editions in another thread.

Marines now are broken. The stats reflect this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.


You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Uhh yes...I am using data to support my claim. That makes my claim strong. How long do the under 50% marines have to perform average for you to believe they are average.

Except the data doesn’t support your claim at all because we all know that IH are too strong. What we don’t know is how broken good UM are without them. This data proves nothing insofar as the strength of UM except to say they do not compete particularly well in the IH meta (something we already knew).

I’ll wait until the meta settles after IH, IF and successors are nerfed until I take any stats regarding the other marine factions with credibility.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 07:42:43


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Marines now are broken. The stats reflect this.


You must be new to 40k.
Edit: Here's a clue - something is always broken, they don't test their products in a competitive enlivenment.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 07:44:59


Post by: tneva82


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.


Are we trying to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules or the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set?

Believe it or not some people care about the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set. Possibly even enough of them that they represent a market block GW could pay attention to.


ITC is mostly US though. Is there more 40k players in US or europe though? Whom GW should cater? Should they try to balance over unofficial house rules mostly for US crowd and screw balance in the official format used in europe?

Since ITC is bunch of house rules fixing balance errors there is the work of those house rule creators. Not GW. ITC made the problem, ITC fix it rather than expect GW to fix it screwing balance for non-ITC players.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 07:49:14


Post by: AngryAngel80


Bro, I get that Iron hands are the most broke of the broke. All marines are crazy strong compared to some armies, I'd say most armies. Now great players can make lemons out of lemonade but it is beside the point that Marines as they now stand are the benchmark for power. Saying how certain special marines are head and shoulders above them doesn't detract them all being pretty great.

All marines are capable of being titans, some are just the littlest titans.

If Iron hands are that bonkers, best answer is everyone start playing iron hands and sooner or later someone will do something as the game will kill itself off.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 07:53:46


Post by: Spoletta


MiguelFelstone wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
still doesn't make it ok!


ITC data is a hell of a lot more accurate in terms of game balance than GWs invitational only "tournaments". Saying there is no point in discussing it because it's not "official" is ignorance pure and simple.


GW can't balance ITC. It has no control over it. I really doubt that the writers of the various CA coordinate with the ITC mission designers and make sure that the two are aligned.

GW can only balance GW missions, because they publish points and missions in the same book. Those points reflect (or should reflect) the value of the units when using THOSE missions.

That said, IH are above the curve even in CA tournaments, just not as much as ITC tournaments. They need some nerf (nothing big).

UM and other marine chapters have yet to be proven a problem. Until they do, we cannot make any OP claims on them.

We cannot even claim that CWE are somehow too good, they can be just good at countering the IH meta. Problems must be fixed one by one.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 07:57:54


Post by: An Actual Englishman


MiguelFelstone wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Marines now are broken. The stats reflect this.


You must be new to 40k.
Edit: Here's a clue - something is always broken, they don't test their products in a competitive enlivenment.

No gak. I've played since 2nd Ed. Again the TOPIC specifically concerns results from a particular tournament.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 08:04:20


Post by: Racerguy180


MiguelFelstone wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
still doesn't make it ok!


ITC data is a hell of a lot more accurate in terms of game balance than GWs invitational only "tournaments". Saying there is no point in discussing it because it's not "official" is ignorance pure and simple.

where did I say there is no point in discussing it?



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 08:07:51


Post by: Ishagu


People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 08:19:24


Post by: AngryAngel80


I think the issue ends up being that this real loose idea of what 40k is has some bad aspects to it. Namely being that some areas only 40k with ITC, so these issues really strike home with them.

If you don't have to be held down to house rules, that's one thing or if GW took a more active hand in saying " This is 40k " and that ITC isn't ever anything they will balance for that would help as well. Then it's a buyer beware type situation if you play with ITC rules.

It's typical GW lack of clarity and fear of taking firm stances. As if they did, all you'd need to say to these issues is " Not GWs fault, ITC needs to get its crap together. " However they endorse these events using house rules and give them a nod and that leads to people looking to them as enabling these problems that they just over look.

It's not GWs fault how house rules shake out with their game, but it is their fault they don't distance themselves from those house rules and say clearly we balance for our rules, buyer beware those other tournaments and focus then on making their experience the best they can.

They have some blame in this conversation, it's just in not speaking up and taking a stance. How their rules work for house rules is an ITC problem though.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 08:42:09


Post by: Ishagu


GW don't force you to play a certain way, so don't force them to adjust the game based on your homebrew ruleset lol

It's pretty simple, really.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 08:42:18


Post by: ingtaer


 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


This thread is about an ITC tournament so you don't need to keep mentioning this.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 08:44:40


Post by: tneva82


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I think the issue ends up being that this real loose idea of what 40k is has some bad aspects to it. Namely being that some areas only 40k with ITC, so these issues really strike home with them.

If you don't have to be held down to house rules, that's one thing or if GW took a more active hand in saying " This is 40k " and that ITC isn't ever anything they will balance for that would help as well. Then it's a buyer beware type situation if you play with ITC rules.
.


Eh that's clear to even kindergarden aged kids without even saying...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ingtaer wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


This thread is about an ITC tournament so you don't need to keep mentioning this.


Problem is people are claiming gw should take responsibility and fix balance based on itc tournaments. So yes it needs to be mentione again.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 09:08:14


Post by: Cornishman


ITC and it's data is an interesting place.

Going for it there is there is lots of ITC data, and it's detailed. There is also the matter of some balance changes GW have implemented.

On the other hand, there is the issue of it being a (pretty widely played) set of house rules, and that the data that is available strongly suggests that the emergent property of these house rules is that the balance of ITC is different to 'vanilla 40k'

Anyone thought that whilst GW has access to the ITC data, that any balance changes that are implemented on the basis of it aren't simply done based on the face value of the data, but that GW look at performance anomalies to figure out if these anomalies are due to the ‘vanilla’ rules set, or due to the ITC rules pack?

Given that some balance changes seem to take a while to come in, and that some balance issues that seem to be ITC centric/specific don’t materialise does seem to be consistent with GW not simply mining the ITC data and balancing around that.

Given that there seem to be balance issues with ITC that GW aren't fixing there would seem to be 2 choices: 1) Align (closer) with Vanilla 40k such that any balance issues with ITC will be the same as vanilla 40k, and thus addressed or 2) push further into house rules by issuing ITC specific FAQ & Errata and even points changes.

Now just imagine how much really useful data could be gathered if ITC used CA ’19 missions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 09:20:42


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-analysis-the-lvo-40k-championship/
Is there any many question that Ironhands are the real issue here?
Also - Maybe Raptors should have an assigned chapter tactic...Special characters with custom traits should not be allowed. Every other chapter has to choose to have special characters or custom traits.

Look at these absurdly broken White scars Ultras and Salamanders with those OP doctrines and super doctrines not even giving them a 50% WR. Heck...Dark angels without Doctrines actually outperform Ultramarines which have them. With their new supplement I expect them to be pretty close to Iornhands level.


At any point in time something will be around which is both at the top level of faction strength and which is very good at denying ITC secondaries in the list building phase. That will then dominate the ITC events.

We have seen it plenty of times before and we will see it again.

There is a fascinating graphic going around twitter right now about what has happened in AoS with Slaanesh faction. The faction results fell off a cliff after a nerf but if you look at the players who carried right on playing the faction their results are steady - with a slight improvement. What has happened is that some top players who faction-hop all the time have faction-hopped away. I suspect this is what has happened to less obviously competitive chapters like Ultramarines, Salamanders etc - it is so easy to faction-hop away to Raptors or Iron Hands that a bunch of the more uber-competitive players do exactly that.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 10:12:26


Post by: H.B.M.C.


MiguelFelstone wrote:
ITC data is a hell of a lot more accurate in terms of game balance than GWs invitational only "tournaments".
I'd argue against that, given that GW tournaments follow GW's rules and ITCs are a homebrew house-rule set that makes up its own rules.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 10:20:56


Post by: Ishagu


MiguelFelstone wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ishagu's right.

Who cares what the results were on a heavily house-ruled sub-set of 40K. They're indicative of one thing: How IH functioned under that set of house rules.


Kinda hard to compare apples to apples if one of them is a turd.


ITC/ETC only exists because of Games Workshops incompetence/ ignorance in the competitive scene.



I would completely agree that during 7th edition and early 8th this was the case. It isn't anymore.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 14:36:01


Post by: The Salt Mine


 Xenomancers wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.


You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Uhh yes...I am using data to support my claim. That makes my claim strong. How long do the under 50% marines have to perform average for you to believe they are average.


You have data from one event. I don't think one events worth of data is nearly enough to make these kinds of claims. You can go to the ITC web page and click players and it shows in what event they got those points for their ranking and the how people did in those events. The first 3 that I clicked on, Heretic Wargaming RTT I, Legion Redacted 40k RTT, and Pandemonium Games Warhammer 40k ITC Tournament all have their top 8 as at least 50% or more of Space Marines of various chapters not just Iron Hands(Yes your Ultramarines make an appearance even). And that was just a quick 10 minute look Id imagine you could spend a lot of time going through all of the events they have recorded right now to get a more accurate picture but I don't have that kind of time unfortunately.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:00:22


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Removed - Rule #1 please

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:03:49


Post by: AnomanderRake


tneva82 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.


Are we trying to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules or the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set?

Believe it or not some people care about the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set. Possibly even enough of them that they represent a market block GW could pay attention to.


ITC is mostly US though. Is there more 40k players in US or europe though? Whom GW should cater? Should they try to balance over unofficial house rules mostly for US crowd and screw balance in the official format used in europe?

Since ITC is bunch of house rules fixing balance errors there is the work of those house rule creators. Not GW. ITC made the problem, ITC fix it rather than expect GW to fix it screwing balance for non-ITC players.


If army build A is tabling army build B in a turn and a half every game is that the fault of the mission? Could there be balance changes that might be required for both Chapter Approved missions and ITC missions?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:08:57


Post by: Gadzilla666


 AnomanderRake wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.


Are we trying to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules or the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set?

Believe it or not some people care about the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set. Possibly even enough of them that they represent a market block GW could pay attention to.


ITC is mostly US though. Is there more 40k players in US or europe though? Whom GW should cater? Should they try to balance over unofficial house rules mostly for US crowd and screw balance in the official format used in europe?

Since ITC is bunch of house rules fixing balance errors there is the work of those house rule creators. Not GW. ITC made the problem, ITC fix it rather than expect GW to fix it screwing balance for non-ITC players.


If army build A is tabling army build B in a turn and a half every game is that the fault of the mission? Could there be balance changes that might be required for both Chapter Approved missions and ITC missions?

Like maybe the army doing the tabling?

Hello sm? (Especially you iron hands).


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:27:26


Post by: bullyboy


GW should balance 40K for it to stand up in a variety of mission sets. The fact that GW reps usually attend the LVO and take note of how armies perform let's you know about their thoughts regarding balance and ITC.

The problem is bloat tbh. You have lot of different factions with hundreds of datasheets. You then add on FW datasheets/rules, campaign supplements with additional rules, etc, and the whole thing just goes off the rails. They are always chasing balance but will never keep up. There will always be something broken. It was Ynnari, then Castellan/soup, Chaos soup interaction, now marines.

You then have to address what is broken. I have a Ravenguard force, is my army broken if I don't take a single Centurion in my army and rely mostly on vanguard marines? So should Ravenguard get a full nerf, or just elements that make it OP? Same with IH, same with Imp Fists.

GW right now are just spinning plates, but overall, the game is in a pretty decent state. It looks bad right now because the most popular faction is also now the most pwerful....that's going to make results really skewed. If harlequins were the best army, you wouldn't see it dominate too much because they are not highly collected.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:29:27


Post by: Ishagu


MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.


GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:37:53


Post by: Martel732


I would not consider 40k balanced. Not even close. The question is whether itc is helping with that or not.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:37:53


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Ishagu wrote:
...GW have balanced the game now...


How many entire Codexes are functionally unplayable right now? Would you take mono-Grey Knights to a tournament? Mono-Deathwatch? Mono-Harlequins? Mono-Daemons?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:39:28


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.


GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

I agree that the ca2019 missions are far superior to ITC. But if you actually think the game is balanced with stuff like iron hands running around you may need drug counseling.

Crack kills.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:44:56


Post by: bullyboy


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
...GW have balanced the game now...


How many entire Codexes are functionally unplayable right now? Would you take mono-Grey Knights to a tournament? Mono-Deathwatch? Mono-Harlequins? Mono-Daemons?


to be fair, I think GKs are going to do well with their new update. Some people are playing harlequins well in the marine meta. Deathwatch, not sure about and I have zero clue on Dameons but I feel most chaos armies need to soup to survive. .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.


GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

I agree that the ca2019 missions are far superior to ITC. But if you actually think the game is balanced with stuff like iron hands running around you may need drug counseling.

Crack kills.

I think his point is that we are not using good data to support IH dominance. what's needed is a strong set of data using GW's missions and no magic boxes to see how armies fare. Personally, I think the LVO winning list would dominate in GW missions too, but that is my assumption and has no data to back it up. We need data, not assumptions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:55:27


Post by: Bharring


After years of "Nerf ALL CWE because Alaitoc", all this "Don't nerf Marines because IH" is delicious.

Not that I disagree; if only IH is OP and UM is bad, then IH should be nerfed, not Marines.

As for UM and their current standing; it's heavily supported that the meta lost a lot of UM lists and gained a lot of IH lists when the FOTM Chapter went from UM to IH.

We know that there's a fairly large base among popular factions who want to play their subfaction regardless of competitiveness. We know they perform worse, on average, unless their subfaction happens to be FOTM (and often perform l worse then, too, because they skew heavily towards what-I-want-to-field lists over what-will-do-well lists). We know the swing from UM to IH included most of the UM players who are *not* in that group.

What happens to the performance of a group if membership of the group is gutted, but the lower-performing members are less impacted than others? The performance goes down.

As such, while the data doesn't prove that the former-FOTM subfactions performance isn't negatively effected by there being a different subfaction that is the FOTM, there's certainly good reason to believe it is.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 16:59:09


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.


I think i just found my new sig.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:06:28


Post by: The Salt Mine


 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.


GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!


Could you provide a link to the data you are using to make these claims. My google fu is failing me and I can't find any events that are not using ITC.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:06:41


Post by: the_scotsman


MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.


I think i just found my new sig.


you heard it from the marine player: The game is officially 100% fine, balanced, and we all need to not, definitely DONT send any complaints or suggestions to GW unless this internet person personally approves of it.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:10:01


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!


You are seriously the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Have you considering being a subject in a study on the subject?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:20:00


Post by: MiguelFelstone


The Salt Mine wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.


GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!


Could you provide a link to the data you are using to make these claims. My google fu is failing me and I can't find any events that are not using ITC.


The only "official" event recently was the invitational at the end of the year. "Iron Hands didn't win they aren't broken". they only invited two Space Marine players.

LVO - the event so unofficial GW showcases new products here, every year!


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:20:32


Post by: Ishagu


MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.


I think i just found my new sig.


Sorry, let me re-phrase.

GW are actively balancing the game, not entirely successfully of course. Between FAQs, updates and Chapter Approved releases they are balancing units up and down.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:47:16


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.


I think i just found my new sig.


Sorry, let me re-phrase.

GW are actively balancing the game, not entirely successfully of course. Between FAQs, updates and Chapter Approved releases they are balancing units up and down.
Tell that to GSC and their 55 point troops.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:49:11


Post by: Martel732


No TO should be enforcing that value.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:50:43


Post by: JNAProductions


Martel732 wrote:
No TO should be enforcing that value.
So should TOs enforce the Ogryn increase? What about the Thunder Hammer one? Why can't we trust GW's printed rules they charge money for?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:53:35


Post by: Martel732


I think the reasonableness standard should apply.

We can't trust GW because they are incompetent in the rules department. They really should outsource the rules and stick to plastic.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 17:54:20


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.


I think i just found my new sig.


Sorry, let me re-phrase.

GW are actively balancing the game, not entirely successfully of course. Between FAQs, updates and Chapter Approved releases they are balancing units up and down.


Yea, listen - I agree with your optimism about them getting things right. I remain unconvinced CA solves the larger issues and that they have made the necessary corrections to stop process failures. The CA FAQ and March Update should be hopefully be stabilizing.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:16:16


Post by: Crimson


MiguelFelstone wrote:

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

What are you talking about? GW has been running Grand Tournaments and the attendees for the final were selected based on performance in previous events.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:35:49


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Crimson wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

What are you talking about? GW has been running Grand Tournaments and the attendees for the final were selected based on performance in previous events.


I didn't say that Xenomancer.

Also, it's not a "Grand Tournament" if it's invite only, that's an Invitational by its very definition.

When at least a third of all attendees are SMs, and the top game is Iron Hands vs Raven Guard - only inviting two SM players isn't representative of jack


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:38:14


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.


I think i just found my new sig.


Sorry, let me re-phrase.

GW are actively balancing the game, not entirely successfully of course. Between FAQs, updates and Chapter Approved releases they are balancing units up and down.


Yea, listen - I agree with your optimism about them getting things right. I remain unconvinced CA solves the larger issues and that they have made the necessary corrections to stop process failures. The CA FAQ and March Update should be hopefully be stabilizing.

So will gw wait for the March update to release the ca faq? That's a long time to leave a flawed product uncorrected. Surely they'll release the faq sooner.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:41:20


Post by: Ishagu


To be honest the errors in the CA point adjustments should have been resolved by now, I'm not sure why the CA Errata/FAQ has taken so long


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:44:02


Post by: Crimson


MiguelFelstone wrote:

Also, it's not a "Grand Tournament" if it's invite only, that's an Invitational by its very definition.

When at least a third of all attendees are SMs, and the top game is Iron Hands vs Raven Guard - only inviting two SM players isn't representative of jack

The invitations are based on performance in the GTs. So there weren't more marines because they didn't do well enough in GTs.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:45:54


Post by: Daedalus81


Gadzilla666 wrote:

So will gw wait for the March update to release the ca faq? That's a long time to leave a flawed product uncorrected. Surely they'll release the faq sooner.


impossible to know at this point. It could be tomorrow or even post Adepticon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crimson wrote:

The invitations are based on performance in the GTs. So there weren't more marines because they didn't do well enough in GTs.


Since I am ignorant of this process - can people not change armies? When were the prior GTs held?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:50:06


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Crimson wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:

Also, it's not a "Grand Tournament" if it's invite only, that's an Invitational by its very definition.

When at least a third of all attendees are SMs, and the top game is Iron Hands vs Raven Guard - only inviting two SM players isn't representative of jack

The invitations are based on performance in the GTs. So there weren't more marines because they didn't do well enough in GTs.


Your missing my point, it's not representative of the meta (or the "balance" of the game) if they broke the game a month before hand and just tossed out invites to the "best players of the year".


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:53:39


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 AnomanderRake wrote:


If army build A is tabling army build B in a turn and a half every game is that the fault of the mission? Could there be balance changes that might be required for both Chapter Approved missions and ITC missions?


Then when build A takes 6 turns to table build C and loses badly on VP the player of build A has to rethink their list choice or just be playing for 2nd place all the time. Which is exactly how my last tournament using CA19 missions went with the ultra-brutal Iron Hands list.

We will see this weekend if he is back and if so if he has put some more scoring presence in his list at the cost of losing some of that firepower. If he brings build A again he will be trying for 2nd place again because I don't bring lists he can table fast enough to stop me winning.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 18:59:15


Post by: Crimson


MiguelFelstone wrote:

Your missing my point, it's not representative of the meta (or the "balance" of the game) if they broke the game a month before hand and just tossed out invites to the "best players of the year".

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't know how long the tournament' season' was and how exactly this worked. I have to say that it would help things if GW did better job with reporting their tournament data. I tried to research this and it is pretty confusing.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 19:20:40


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Crimson wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:

Your missing my point, it's not representative of the meta (or the "balance" of the game) if they broke the game a month before hand and just tossed out invites to the "best players of the year".

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't know how long the tournament' season' was and how exactly this worked. I have to say that it would help things if GW did better job with reporting their tournament data. I tried to research this and it is pretty confusing.

It would help with a LOT of things if gw was better at sharing information. (See ca2019 faq).


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 19:27:27


Post by: blaktoof


The number of IH players, with no other faction, was close to that for all the other marine factions combined.

Yes IH are a problem, no that doesn't mean the other marine lists aren't problems.

The best players in a large competitive event are taking the best army, so the handful of UM players likely were not the best players. Player skill is a factor in outcome. If you feel this is a personal statement on you, maybe it is- I don't care. A lot of people who play this game pick non competitve options for emotional reasons (fluff, personal interest, dislike of competitive options, etc.)

Until you have a tournament where most or all of the marine players take UM you can't make a comment on the statistics of how 8 of likely not the best players did in a 800+ person tournament. Without equal skill we can only make statements on the win rates of the highest population factions within a data set. The only valid outcome there is they are less popular than IH(likely because their rules while good, aren't as good)


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 19:34:39


Post by: happy_inquisitor


MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:

Also, it's not a "Grand Tournament" if it's invite only, that's an Invitational by its very definition.

When at least a third of all attendees are SMs, and the top game is Iron Hands vs Raven Guard - only inviting two SM players isn't representative of jack

The invitations are based on performance in the GTs. So there weren't more marines because they didn't do well enough in GTs.


Your missing my point, it's not representative of the meta (or the "balance" of the game) if they broke the game a month before hand and just tossed out invites to the "best players of the year".


You are missing the point of the whole format. It is not "by invitation" it is by qualification by getting a good result in a previous major GT event.

It is a bit like the cut in a golf tournament - making the cut is not "getting invited" to play for the top places. It is earned by making the cut.

Are you next going to tell me that the LVO results are meaningless because the playoffs for the top 8 are by invitation only?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 20:45:55


Post by: MiguelFelstone


happy_inquisitor wrote:
You are missing the point of the whole format. It is not "by invitation" it is by qualification by getting a good result in a previous major GT event.


Again, it's not representative of the meta or game balance if they broke everything a few weeks beforehand and tossed out invites to the players who did well in previous versions of the game.

Using GWs "Grand Tournament" as a base line for game balance doesn't mean a damn thing, you might as well pull up stats for narrative games.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:09:20


Post by: Ishagu


Erm that's not really true.

It's just a tournament comprising players who performed well at previous events. The lists aren't fixed.

That's all.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:13:02


Post by: Xenomancers


blaktoof wrote:
The number of IH players, with no other faction, was close to that for all the other marine factions combined.

Yes IH are a problem, no that doesn't mean the other marine lists aren't problems.

The best players in a large competitive event are taking the best army, so the handful of UM players likely were not the best players. Player skill is a factor in outcome. If you feel this is a personal statement on you, maybe it is- I don't care. A lot of people who play this game pick non competitve options for emotional reasons (fluff, personal interest, dislike of competitive options, etc.)

Until you have a tournament where most or all of the marine players take UM you can't make a comment on the statistics of how 8 of likely not the best players did in a 800+ person tournament. Without equal skill we can only make statements on the win rates of the highest population factions within a data set. The only valid outcome there is they are less popular than IH(likely because their rules while good, aren't as good)

This is nonsense. By the same token I could suggest that every army not playing Ironhands is not trying to win. People play with the armies they have and they do the best they can. This argument belongs in a bucket of chum. People who fly to the biggest tournament in the country and spend probably close to 1000 dollars overall are trying to win. Some people just aren't willing to play their blue marines as Ironhands. The only part you are right about is the biggest element of skill in a tournament like this is bringing the right list. No amount of generalship is going to let your Ultramarines outperform Ironhands. Ironhands are just better by a large margain straight up. When you look at the results. It is very clear. Jezz are you literally saying that because they are playing Ultramarines they aren't good players LOL.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:34:28


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
It's just a tournament comprising players who performed well at previous events.


Previous events, so previous versions of the game?

MiguelFelstone wrote:
Again, it's not representative of the meta or game balance if they broke everything a few weeks beforehand and tossed out invites to the players who did well in previous versions of the game.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:42:48


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Xenomancers wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
The number of IH players, with no other faction, was close to that for all the other marine factions combined.

Yes IH are a problem, no that doesn't mean the other marine lists aren't problems.

The best players in a large competitive event are taking the best army, so the handful of UM players likely were not the best players. Player skill is a factor in outcome. If you feel this is a personal statement on you, maybe it is- I don't care. A lot of people who play this game pick non competitve options for emotional reasons (fluff, personal interest, dislike of competitive options, etc.)

Until you have a tournament where most or all of the marine players take UM you can't make a comment on the statistics of how 8 of likely not the best players did in a 800+ person tournament. Without equal skill we can only make statements on the win rates of the highest population factions within a data set. The only valid outcome there is they are less popular than IH(likely because their rules while good, aren't as good)

This is nonsense. By the same token I could suggest that every army not playing Ironhands is not trying to win. People play with the armies they have and they do the best they can. This argument belongs in a bucket of chum. People who fly to the biggest tournament in the country and spend probably close to 1000 dollars overall are trying to win. Some people just aren't willing to play their blue marines as Ironhands. The only part you are right about is the biggest element of skill in a tournament like this is bringing the right list. No amount of generalship is going to let your Ultramarines outperform Ironhands. Ironhands are just better by a large margain straight up. When you look at the results. It is very clear. Jezz are you literally saying that because they are playing Ultramarines they aren't good players LOL.

Yes ih are stronger than um. But that doesn't mean um and other sm chapters are "weak " or "balanced ". It just means that ih are currently the most broken thing in the game. A .50 cal is more powerful than a 7.62×51 but both are more effective than a slingshot. Do you honestly believe that sm, excluding ih, aren't still the strongest faction in the game? With all those free buffs, the largest selection of strategems, and the most internally balanced codex? The biggest selection of units?

C'mon Xeno. Yes ih are stronger than um. But um are still stronger than pretty much everyone else. This is a direct result of gw changing codex design philosophy mid-edition and taking their sweet time catching everyone else up.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:49:03


Post by: Ishagu


MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
It's just a tournament comprising players who performed well at previous events.


Previous events, so previous versions of the game?

MiguelFelstone wrote:
Again, it's not representative of the meta or game balance if they broke everything a few weeks beforehand and tossed out invites to the players who did well in previous versions of the game.


No lol, previous events this season. They were using CA18 missions prior to CA19, and they are actually very similar.

The CA19 ironed out a few chinks.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:49:26


Post by: Martel732


Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results. Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:51:06


Post by: Not Online!!!


Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results. Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Endemic fault of 8th edidition is melee, especially massed melee factions suffer from that. That has nothing to do with BT or BA which are still heaps above similiar factions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:52:00


Post by: Martel732


Not Online!!! wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results. Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Endemic fault of 8th edidition is melee, especially massed melee factions suffer from that. Tja t has nothing to do with BT or BA which are still heaps above similiar factions.


Are they though? Marines are still glass cannons and having to wait till turn 3 lets the enemy exploit that hard. I don't see any data that indicates BA or BT are any better than Eldar, Tau, IKs, etc. I haven't beaten IHs yet after the BA book dropped. It hasn't even been close, really.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:54:36


Post by: blaktoof


 Xenomancers wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
The number of IH players, with no other faction, was close to that for all the other marine factions combined.

Yes IH are a problem, no that doesn't mean the other marine lists aren't problems.

The best players in a large competitive event are taking the best army, so the handful of UM players likely were not the best players. Player skill is a factor in outcome. If you feel this is a personal statement on you, maybe it is- I don't care. A lot of people who play this game pick non competitve options for emotional reasons (fluff, personal interest, dislike of competitive options, etc.)

Until you have a tournament where most or all of the marine players take UM you can't make a comment on the statistics of how 8 of likely not the best players did in a 800+ person tournament. Without equal skill we can only make statements on the win rates of the highest population factions within a data set. The only valid outcome there is they are less popular than IH(likely because their rules while good, aren't as good)

This is nonsense. By the same token I could suggest that every army not playing Ironhands is not trying to win. People play with the armies they have and they do the best they can. This argument belongs in a bucket of chum. People who fly to the biggest tournament in the country and spend probably close to 1000 dollars overall are trying to win. Some people just aren't willing to play their blue marines as Ironhands. The only part you are right about is the biggest element of skill in a tournament like this is bringing the right list. No amount of generalship is going to let your Ultramarines outperform Ironhands. Ironhands are just better by a large margain straight up. When you look at the results. It is very clear. Jezz are you literally saying that because they are playing Ultramarines they aren't good players LOL.




Not everyone going to LVO is trying to win. A lot of people go to play for fun, even in the championships. And yes if people were not taking one of the top performing factions they weren't really trying to win the event, so yes most of the not good players are playing the less competitive factions. You know it's okay to go to a big event for fun, or to try and go 5 and 1 or 4 and 2 with an army you know is not competitive. Those people's stats are mixed in with everyone else's, but surprise!- not every faction is going to have the same ratio of those players to people who are great players ad taking a specific faction due to how competitive it was. This is why we say players drop non SM armies in favor of taking SM armies at LVO, players who had played that non SM faction for most or all of this year's ITC scoring.

So yes I stand by saying if the 18 UM players at LVO most of them were not great players, or not really going to the event thinking " this is what I need to take to win the event". The people that were good players and wanting to win were playing the most competitive factions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:56:09


Post by: Not Online!!!


Martel732 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results. Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Endemic fault of 8th edidition is melee, especially massed melee factions suffer from that. Tja t has nothing to do with BT or BA which are still heaps above similiar factions.


Are they though? Marines are still glass cannons and having to wait till turn 3 lets the enemy exploit that hard.


Yes they are and the game beeing over t3 is more due to the general killyness of 40k in 8th aswell as sizecreep .

Further alot of defensive mechanics got nerfed into the ground, f.e. PM used to be nigh immortal torwards lasgun and bolter fire, etc.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:57:43


Post by: Gadzilla666


Martel732 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results. Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Endemic fault of 8th edidition is melee, especially massed melee factions suffer from that. Tja t has nothing to do with BT or BA which are still heaps above similiar factions.


Are they though? Marines are still glass cannons and having to wait till turn 3 lets the enemy exploit that hard. I don't see any data that indicates BA or BT are any better than Eldar, Tau, IKs, etc.

Why are you waiting for turn three? For the assault doctrine to kick in? Nobody else has that. I assault with my Night Lords in turn two all the time and it often works. Chance is a factor in 40k. Sometimes you need to take a chance. You seem adverse to that. You can't always wait for the sure thing.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 21:58:44


Post by: Martel732


Not Online!!! wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results. Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Endemic fault of 8th edidition is melee, especially massed melee factions suffer from that. Tja t has nothing to do with BT or BA which are still heaps above similiar factions.


Are they though? Marines are still glass cannons and having to wait till turn 3 lets the enemy exploit that hard.


Yes they are and the game beeing over t3 is more due to the general killyness of 40k in 8th aswell as sizecreep .

Further alot of defensive mechanics got nerfed into the ground, f.e. PM used to be nigh immortal torwards lasgun and bolter fire, etc.



They're not. The data shows this. In fact, your OWN POST explains why. Elite punching just doesn't work in 8th. I've accepted that. It actually hasn't in a long time, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results. Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Endemic fault of 8th edidition is melee, especially massed melee factions suffer from that. Tja t has nothing to do with BT or BA which are still heaps above similiar factions.


Are they though? Marines are still glass cannons and having to wait till turn 3 lets the enemy exploit that hard. I don't see any data that indicates BA or BT are any better than Eldar, Tau, IKs, etc.

Why are you waiting for turn three? For the assault doctrine to kick in? Nobody else has that. I assault with my Night Lords in turn two all the time and it often works. Chance is a factor in 40k. Sometimes you need to take a chance. You seem adverse to that. You can't always wait for the sure thing.


It takes time to close the gap and/or get past the endless chaff. I don't fear your NIght Lords assaulting me. I fear being blasted apart with no real answer.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/06 23:31:49


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
It's just a tournament comprising players who performed well at previous events.


Previous events, so previous versions of the game?

MiguelFelstone wrote:
Again, it's not representative of the meta or game balance if they broke everything a few weeks beforehand and tossed out invites to the players who did well in previous versions of the game.


No lol, previous events this season. They were using CA18 missions prior to CA19, and they are actually very similar.

The CA19 ironed out a few chinks.


The meta, the GAME massively changed a month before this GW tournament, how could it possibly represent the current state of the game or "game balance" if it doesn't include the SM suppliants?

Ya game balance is just fine as long as you don't allow Iron Hands or Raven Guard, it's mind boggling that you guys can't grasp this.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 00:35:09


Post by: Ishagu


What are you talking about? There have been multiple large events using CA missions following the release of the SM book.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 00:36:54


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
What are you talking about? There have been multiple large events using CA missions following the release of the SM book.


Lets see the stats.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 00:40:48


Post by: Ishagu


Look up the Caledonian and the recent GW tournament, and the one prior.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:04:49


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
Look up the Caledonian and the recent GW tournament, and the one prior.


It's not a "Grand Tournament" if only 30 people attend. The LVO had hundreds of players. Are you seriously comparing the two?

A quote from someone who actually went:
Yeah it was a dumpster fire event in terms of game balance. 100% GW’s fault. I thought it was telling that for Sunday, they had to follow Sean around for the first two rounds because otherwise they would have just been showing marines versus marines the entire day, which they eventually had to do in the finals.

Which is a shame, because as usual the player skill on display was fantastic. Too bad 1/3 of the players at the event, including most of the top players and 8 out of the eventual top 10, felt compelled to switch to marines because it’s so head and shoulders more powerful than everything else. And that’s after the summer and december updates to the game already boosted a lot of armies.


You can put you head in the sand all you want, you know there's a problem with at least a few sub factions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:26:24


Post by: Argive


Shut up NPC player #3435.
Nothing wrong with current balance and marines. Now can I interest you in buying some intercessors ?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:31:55


Post by: The Salt Mine


 Ishagu wrote:
Look up the Caledonian and the recent GW tournament, and the one prior.


Are you talking about https://tabletop.to/caledonian-uprising-2020? Not sure if this is the one but I don't think it proves what you think it proves since 4 out of the top 8 were some form of space marine. 9 out of the top 16 were space marines. I mean one of the top 16 was an imperial list with a solid space marine detachment as well so you could probably say 10 out of the top 16 had space marines in them. Props to the tzeentch guy who won though Id have like to seen some of his games to see how he uses it.

The most recent GW tournment I could find was the North American GT but that was back in May? I'm not trying to sound antagonistic or anything I would genuinely love to see the data you have on non-itc tournaments as I would love to see what the different metas look like. But feth its almost impossible to find a non-itc event when I google search this stuff.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:36:19


Post by: Gadzilla666


The Salt Mine wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Look up the Caledonian and the recent GW tournament, and the one prior.


Are you talking about https://tabletop.to/caledonian-uprising-2020? Not sure if this is the one but I don't think it proves what you think it proves since 4 out of the top 8 were some form of space marine. 9 out of the top 16 were space marines. I mean one of the top 16 was an imperial list with a solid space marine detachment as well so you could probably say 10 out of the top 16 had space marines in them. Props to the tzeentch guy who won though Id have like to seen some of his games to see how he uses it.

Anyone who plays the game knows that sm are currently the strongest faction. Of course some chapters are less op than others but that doesn't change the fact. Doesn't matter what format you play either. I'm sure everyone will get 2.0 codexes sooner or later because $$$ but until then the fact stands.

And looks like out of the top ten none of the sm armies had a leviathan. Yup better nerf those. One did have an astreus though. Guess that points drop helped huh gw? To bad you couldn't give one to the other sm super heavys. Oh yeah, they aren't primaris are they?

And of course the chaos list is soup and, surprise surprise, Alpha Legion! As usual chaos has to rely on soup and the one good legion trait we have. Thanks again gw!


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:50:25


Post by: H.B.M.C.


MiguelFelstone wrote:
The LVO had hundreds of players.
And doesn't use the actual rules of 40k, but rather their own version. That disqualifies them.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:51:28


Post by: Ishagu


@MiguelFelstone

Lol you can't omit what I said after that.

The point is the LVO cannot be used to judge the state of the game. No ITC event can.

No one has once said that using the CA missions creates perfect faction equalibrium, but they do show a better level of balance. Yes, Astartes still perform well.

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol

In the meantime, 3rd party homebrew rules cannot be used to gauge game balance because they fundamentally alter the game beyond what was designed officially.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:52:42


Post by: ccs


Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results.


BA can be a shooty army you know. You aren't required to go melee heavy with them. Encouraged? Sure. But not required. So maybe BA players need to adapt to the edition they're playing a bit.


Martel732 wrote:
Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Having never been a big fan of the prominence of assault/melee, I agree. Thanks 8e, keep it up!


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:56:11


Post by: flandarz


I think "years of being rock bottom" might be an exaggeration. Have Marines always been a top army? Of course not. But have they been the worst army for years? Only if you take GK's performance for the state of the entire Marine Faction. In which case, saying all Marines are OP because IH is stupid strong is equally valid.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:58:31


Post by: Ishagu


We can be pedantic about it, but generally yes, they have been utter trash for years.

Fine, Grey Knights were worse lol


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:59:43


Post by: Gadzilla666


ccs wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results.


BA can be a shooty army you know. You aren't required to go melee heavy with them. Encouraged? Sure. But not required. So maybe BA players need to adapt to the edition they're playing a bit.


Martel732 wrote:
Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Having never been a big fan of the prominence of assault/melee, I agree. Thanks 8e, keep it up!

Sounds more like he just needs some shooting, if he has as much trouble getting rid of screens as he says.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 01:59:51


Post by: flandarz


Marines have been fairly middle of the pack for years. Neither the best nor the worst. There have been plenty of Factions which have had worse records in the meta than Marines did.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:01:03


Post by: JNAProductions


Yeah, I can’t recall a time Marines were ever BAD.

Mediocre, yes. But bad? No.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:05:56


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Ishagu wrote:
We can be pedantic about it, but generally yes, they have been utter trash for years.

Fine, Grey Knights were worse lol

Yes but the swinging pendulum approach gw likes to take is quite aggravating. They could at least make an effort to release new codexes closer together so that so many factions aren't left behind for so long. It would also go a long way to help with the whole "first codex is crap after everyone else gets their's " syndrome.

Personally I'm still just hacked off that a fething astreus can make the top ten of a big tournament and my hellforged fellblade is over 300 points more than one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, I can’t recall a time Marines were ever BAD.

Mediocre, yes. But bad? No.

Remember for some people "bad" means not point and click. Or not ih.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:11:18


Post by: Ishagu


Prior to the new codex all Standard Codex Marines that weren't Ultramarines or Raven Guard pre-nerf were pretty bad. Not mediocre. Bad. Unless you're counting the first month of 8th edition before other factions got a codex?

Now Marines that aren't Iron Hands are pretty good, but people need to calm down about labelling the whole faction as an auto win when this is definitely, 100% not the case.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:19:14


Post by: JNAProductions


So what about wraith-heavy Ulthwe? They were and are pretty bad-does that make Eldar bad?

(Ulthwe is the wraith subfaction, right? I don’t know my eldar super well.)


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:23:12


Post by: Ishagu


This applies to all of us in relations to all factions.

We need to be more accurate in targeting points of complaint. Is the Marine codex broken? Absolutely not!

Is the Iron Hands supplement too strong? Perhaps, but now we're onto something.
Even the custom chapters are perfectly fine until they are combined with a few supplement only strats.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:23:39


Post by: flandarz


It ain't like I don't understand where you're coming from. Every Faction in every edition has had options which are better and options that are worse. But while Marines (across all their lines) could have a half dozen (give or take) unique and competitive builds at any given time, most Factions would have to make do with one or less. I wouldn't say that makes a Faction bad.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:24:41


Post by: blaktoof


 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

Lol you can't omit what I said after that.

The point is the LVO cannot be used to judge the state of the game. No ITC event can.

No one has once said that using the CA missions creates perfect faction equalibrium, but they do show a better level of balance. Yes, Astartes still perform well.

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol

In the meantime, 3rd party homebrew rules cannot be used to gauge game balance because they fundamentally alter the game beyond what was designed officially.


People should not relax.

The reasons Marines are OP now goes beyond just having a good codex, they got a version of supplement rules that for free, no extra points, no Cp, stack ontop of their already good rules for units from the codex.

No faction outside of Marines has gotten that treatment, getting side grades and strange alternative choices with restrictions that give up your normal bonuses is not the same. The reason people shouldn't relax is because at this point in order for GW to make non marine codexes balanced they will have to have layered rules like Marines for free, which is completely different than the normal codex model we have seen. Otherwise it will be like 7th where either your army has a decurion option or it doesn't and that alone decided if you have any chance to be competitive.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:26:11


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol


The sky isn't falling, the game isn't ruined, but there is a problem, and saying otherwise is

Space Marine players have definitely earned this, i never said otherwise. For years, and years and years they were the joke of the competitive scene. If any faction deserves it - they do, but other factions do need to be brought in line or some of the SM factions need adjustments.

If every SM chapter was as powerful as Ultramarines i doubt we'd even be talking about this.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:26:34


Post by: Ishagu


@blaktoof

Not true at all.

The layers of rules don't elevate Ultramarines or Black Templars above a mediocre level of power, as an example.

The supplements can be rebalanced individually. They aren't a blanket problem.

I find it funny how literally a minute after I point out how we need to target specific things in our complaints, you use a blanket attack on an entire faction which does not apply to multiple chapters.

Relax and think.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:26:58


Post by: Xenomancers


blaktoof wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

Lol you can't omit what I said after that.

The point is the LVO cannot be used to judge the state of the game. No ITC event can.

No one has once said that using the CA missions creates perfect faction equalibrium, but they do show a better level of balance. Yes, Astartes still perform well.

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol

In the meantime, 3rd party homebrew rules cannot be used to gauge game balance because they fundamentally alter the game beyond what was designed officially.


People should not relax.

The reasons Marines are OP now goes beyond ain't having a good codex, they got a version of supplement rules that for free, no extra points, no Cp, stack ontop of their already good rules for units from the codex. No faction outside of Marines has gotten that treatment, getting side grades and strange alternative choices with restrictions that give up your normal bonuses is not the same. The reason people shouldn't relax is because at this point in order for GW to make non marine codexes balanced they will have to have layered rules like Marines for free, which is completely different than the normal codex model we have seen. Otherwise it will be like 7th where either your army has a decurion option or it doesn't and that alone decided if you have any chance to be competitive.
That is clearly not the case based on the data. Only some supplements are issues. Perhaps being able to assault turn 1 automatically with assualt cents is an oversite. Perhaps Ironhands super doctrine is absurd...Every army is getting a free supplement atm like eldar and TS...you are literally complaining about the direction of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol


The sky isn't falling, the game isn't ruined, but there is a problem, and saying otherwise is

Space Marine players have definitely earned this, i never said otherwise. For years, and years and years they were the joke of the competitive scene. If any faction deserves it - they do, but other factions do need to be brought in line or some of the SM factions need adjustments.

If every SM chapter was as powerful as Ultramarines i doubt we'd even be talking about this.
No we wouldn't. I agree with that. Dakka has an anti SM bias..It is obvious.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:32:13


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 Ishagu wrote:
They aren't a blanket problem.


I never said they were, i said the opposite of that. I said "If every SM chapter was as powerful as Ultramarines i doubt we'd be talking about this" - meaning i don't think ALL SM chapters are broken or even a problem.

Why do you keep finding fault in i haven't said?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:32:25


Post by: flandarz


Dakka has an anti- "top army" bias and always has. It's just your turn on the podium.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:43:42


Post by: Martel732


Gadzilla666 wrote:
ccs wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results.


BA can be a shooty army you know. You aren't required to go melee heavy with them. Encouraged? Sure. But not required. So maybe BA players need to adapt to the edition they're playing a bit.


Martel732 wrote:
Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Having never been a big fan of the prominence of assault/melee, I agree. Thanks 8e, keep it up!

Sounds more like he just needs some shooting, if he has as much trouble getting rid of screens as he says.


I have quite a bit, but BA don't really shoot worth a damn compared to the real marine armies. Bottom line is the BA chapter trait sucks in 8th. And it shows. So no, not all marines are broken, despite the dumptruck of rules.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:46:18


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Xenomancers wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

Lol you can't omit what I said after that.

The point is the LVO cannot be used to judge the state of the game. No ITC event can.

No one has once said that using the CA missions creates perfect faction equalibrium, but they do show a better level of balance. Yes, Astartes still perform well.

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol

In the meantime, 3rd party homebrew rules cannot be used to gauge game balance because they fundamentally alter the game beyond what was designed officially.


People should not relax.

The reasons Marines are OP now goes beyond ain't having a good codex, they got a version of supplement rules that for free, no extra points, no Cp, stack ontop of their already good rules for units from the codex. No faction outside of Marines has gotten that treatment, getting side grades and strange alternative choices with restrictions that give up your normal bonuses is not the same. The reason people shouldn't relax is because at this point in order for GW to make non marine codexes balanced they will have to have layered rules like Marines for free, which is completely different than the normal codex model we have seen. Otherwise it will be like 7th where either your army has a decurion option or it doesn't and that alone decided if you have any chance to be competitive.
That is clearly not the case based on the data. Only some supplements are issues. Perhaps being able to assault turn 1 automatically with assualt cents is an oversite. Perhaps Ironhands super doctrine is absurd...Every army is getting a free supplement atm like eldar and TS...you are literally complaining about the direction of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol


The sky isn't falling, the game isn't ruined, but there is a problem, and saying otherwise is

Space Marine players have definitely earned this, i never said otherwise. For years, and years and years they were the joke of the competitive scene. If any faction deserves it - they do, but other factions do need to be brought in line or some of the SM factions need adjustments.

If every SM chapter was as powerful as Ultramarines i doubt we'd even be talking about this.
No we wouldn't. I agree with that. Dakka has an anti SM bias..It is obvious.

Do you actually believe that what non sm factions are getting in pa is equal to what sm got? The internally balanced codex? Nope. Free buffs just for buying a supplement, no cp or points required? Nope.

C:sm is a change in codex design philosophy and until everyone has a codex that follows that philosophy it's not an even playing field.

And someone should tell Martel to copy that ba list in that tournament. Three squads of Sanguinary Guards and in the top ten. Sounds like ba ain't so bad after all.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:47:22


Post by: Ishagu


@Martel

Lol that's utter rubbish. They have access to the exact same re roll auras and the same ranged units, with a few exceptions.

Do you even play BA?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:48:03


Post by: Gadzilla666


Martel732 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
ccs wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Shooty marines are busted as feth. Melee marines are still... well, go look at the results. It's amazing they can give BT and BA so many new rules and still get crap results.


BA can be a shooty army you know. You aren't required to go melee heavy with them. Encouraged? Sure. But not required. So maybe BA players need to adapt to the edition they're playing a bit.


Martel732 wrote:
Thanks 8th ed for trashing assault hard.


Having never been a big fan of the prominence of assault/melee, I agree. Thanks 8e, keep it up!

Sounds more like he just needs some shooting, if he has as much trouble getting rid of screens as he says.


I have quite a bit, but BA don't really shoot worth a damn compared to the real marine armies.

Go to the link to that tournament. Study that list. Do what he did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Lol that's utter rubbish. They have access to the exact same re roll auras and the same ranged units, with a few exceptions that aren't staples of shooting lists.

Do you even play BA?

I thought the English had good manners.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:56:57


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Lol that's utter rubbish. They have access to the exact same re roll auras and the same ranged units, with a few exceptions.

Do you even play BA?


Shows what you know. BA chapter trait does nothing to help shooting and CC continues to be a joke.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 02:57:14


Post by: MiguelFelstone


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do you actually believe that what non sm factions are getting in pa is equal to what sm got? The internally balanced codex? Nope. Free buffs just for buying a supplement, no cp or points required? Nope.


No, in fact i think Chaos got the most, the new "2.0" CSM codex was a joke compared to what SMs got, and while PA was good they need fundamental changes to bring them to the same level.

I think a lot of the "anti SM bias" here is rooted in the fact GW has given so much attention to this faction recently and the sweeping changed they got actually had an impact on there viability, to the point some of the chapters are overtuned.

It's not just Chaos.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:00:06


Post by: Daedalus81


 JNAProductions wrote:
So what about wraith-heavy Ulthwe? They were and are pretty bad-does that make Eldar bad?

(Ulthwe is the wraith subfaction, right? I don’t know my eldar super well.)


The problem is in how we analyze and approach the balance of these armies.

Are "Eldar" good? Yes.
Are Custom CW strong? Yes.
Is Ulthwe strong? No.

Just as you would not apply nerfs to how Ulthwe operates to nerf other Craftworlds you would not necessarily nerf UM to balance "Marines" when IH present a larger issue.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:04:17


Post by: Xenomancers


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

Lol you can't omit what I said after that.

The point is the LVO cannot be used to judge the state of the game. No ITC event can.

No one has once said that using the CA missions creates perfect faction equalibrium, but they do show a better level of balance. Yes, Astartes still perform well.

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol

In the meantime, 3rd party homebrew rules cannot be used to gauge game balance because they fundamentally alter the game beyond what was designed officially.


People should not relax.

The reasons Marines are OP now goes beyond ain't having a good codex, they got a version of supplement rules that for free, no extra points, no Cp, stack ontop of their already good rules for units from the codex. No faction outside of Marines has gotten that treatment, getting side grades and strange alternative choices with restrictions that give up your normal bonuses is not the same. The reason people shouldn't relax is because at this point in order for GW to make non marine codexes balanced they will have to have layered rules like Marines for free, which is completely different than the normal codex model we have seen. Otherwise it will be like 7th where either your army has a decurion option or it doesn't and that alone decided if you have any chance to be competitive.
That is clearly not the case based on the data. Only some supplements are issues. Perhaps being able to assault turn 1 automatically with assualt cents is an oversite. Perhaps Ironhands super doctrine is absurd...Every army is getting a free supplement atm like eldar and TS...you are literally complaining about the direction of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol


The sky isn't falling, the game isn't ruined, but there is a problem, and saying otherwise is

Space Marine players have definitely earned this, i never said otherwise. For years, and years and years they were the joke of the competitive scene. If any faction deserves it - they do, but other factions do need to be brought in line or some of the SM factions need adjustments.

If every SM chapter was as powerful as Ultramarines i doubt we'd even be talking about this.
No we wouldn't. I agree with that. Dakka has an anti SM bias..It is obvious.

Do you actually believe that what non sm factions are getting in pa is equal to what sm got? The internally balanced codex? Nope. Free buffs just for buying a supplement, no cp or points required? Nope.

C:sm is a change in codex design philosophy and until everyone has a codex that follows that philosophy it's not an even playing field.

And someone should tell Martel to copy that ba list in that tournament. Three squads of Sanguinary Guards and in the top ten. Sounds like ba ain't so bad after all.
Do you actually believe marines were at an even starting point? OFC not. The rules they got were a direct fix to the fact that they were terrible. Turns out the doctrines and new strats and such were s perfect fix as it puts an army like ultras/Salamnders/whitescars square in the middle. Just granted by what I have seen from DA - they will also be above the curve. If you can't acknowledge that you are blind. SM were hands down the worst army in the game. BY A LONG SHOT - with the exception of GK (who are basically just marines). You need to get used to marine armies not being a free win for once. Plus - you should really stop referring to the new supplement marines as a whole entity - each supplement is basically a different army just like TS/DG/and CSM are different armies.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:08:52


Post by: Martel732


 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, I can’t recall a time Marines were ever BAD.

Mediocre, yes. But bad? No.


They've been bad a lot. 7th before gladius, 5th ed, most of 8th.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:11:13


Post by: MiguelFelstone


Martel732 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, I can’t recall a time Marines were ever BAD.

Mediocre, yes. But bad? No.


They've been bad a lot. 7th before gladius, 5th ed, most of 8th.


Anyone who thinks SMs haven't been terrible for years upon years either has that Momento thing or they just started playing last week.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:11:15


Post by: Xenomancers


MiguelFelstone wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do you actually believe that what non sm factions are getting in pa is equal to what sm got? The internally balanced codex? Nope. Free buffs just for buying a supplement, no cp or points required? Nope.


No, in fact i think Chaos got the most, the new "2.0" CSM codex was a joke compared to what SMs got, and while PA was good they need fundamental changes to bring them to the same level.

I think a lot of the "anti SM bias" here is rooted in the fact GW has given so much attention to this faction recently and the sweeping changed they got actually had an impact on there viability, to the point some of the chapters are overtuned.

It's not just Chaos.

As a choas player I can confirm they are just complaining about having to soup to be powerful.
You can take a supreme command of TS with scarb occults and shoot twice with them every turn at +1 to wound. 2 CP (can give them a 3++ save with the right powers and bring back up to 3 a turn) (this will kill roughly 60 chaff infantry)
You can take a batallion of emperors children and shoot twice with a 20 man noise marine every turn with +1 str and +1 damage. 3CP (can give them a 5+ FNP with a stratagem) (this averages about 30 primaris marines killed)(or kill nearly 2 IK)
Both a 2+ to hit reroll 1's with the correct buffs (only 2 required).

This will practically destroy every infantry on the table if you can get LOS. It can also destroy vehicals too NP. The issue with CSM is they put all their eggs in 1 basket where a marine player gets a lot of utility out of auras.

Choas was already at a much stronger starting point than loyalist. They didn't get as much in their supplements but unless we are talking about Ironhands or RG (IF is also out of control not sure why they don't preform as well but they are too broken). They are in roughly the same position.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:14:35


Post by: Martel732


CSM are not as good as SM. They just aren't. CSM might be on par with BA or BT, but not the real marines.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:17:36


Post by: flandarz


What is the metric we're using for "bad" here? Cuz it seems like folks ain't on the same page for what's considered bad, and I'd like to get an idea of where folks draw the line between "mediocre" and "bad".


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:19:35


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, I can’t recall a time Marines were ever BAD.

Mediocre, yes. But bad? No.


They've been bad a lot. 7th before gladius, 5th ed, most of 8th.
Gladius is a rare case...yet again. SM players needed about 400 free points to compete. Imagine having to pay points for a razorback? Plus the stuff that came after gladius was just silly. Ynnari...Decruian formation...deamonic incursion...it's best to forget about the end of 7th because it was just a cash grab. Plus I can confirm the power level of gladius wasn't really that high - it did okay in tournament because it could but hordes of crappy units on objectives - it wasn't blowing anyone off the table like ynnari. (funny anecdote - with ynnari in 7th I basically won a 2000 vs 4000 point battle again 2 DW armies because I held my entire army in reserve and my GSC ally got evaporated on turn 1 from 8 drop pods units. I came out of reserve and nearly destroyed their whole army in one turn and their preceding turn (2x soul burst per kill formation))


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:19:43


Post by: Argive


The Salt Mine wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Look up the Caledonian and the recent GW tournament, and the one prior.


Are you talking about https://tabletop.to/caledonian-uprising-2020? Not sure if this is the one but I don't think it proves what you think it proves since 4 out of the top 8 were some form of space marine. 9 out of the top 16 were space marines. I mean one of the top 16 was an imperial list with a solid space marine detachment as well so you could probably say 10 out of the top 16 had space marines in them. Props to the tzeentch guy who won though Id have like to seen some of his games to see how he uses it.

The most recent GW tournment I could find was the North American GT but that was back in May? I'm not trying to sound antagonistic or anything I would genuinely love to see the data you have on non-itc tournaments as I would love to see what the different metas look like. But feth its almost impossible to find a non-itc event when I google search this stuff.


Ishagu wrote:Prior to the new codex all Standard Codex Marines that weren't Ultramarines or Raven Guard pre-nerf were pretty bad. Not mediocre. Bad. Unless you're counting the first month of 8th edition before other factions got a codex?

Now Marines that aren't Iron Hands are pretty good, but people need to calm down about labelling the whole faction as an auto win when this is definitely, 100% not the case.



Interesting definition of pretty good... Bad.. and mediocare..

Alas yes yes… No problems with SM. Sm are perfectly balanced faction apart from one sub faction.. yes yes.. OF course.

I really don't get why you are so hellbent on trying to spin this narrative... How badly do you need to validate your snowflake army...??
Nobody sane that plays this game agrees that SM are fine as they are apart from IH.

Why not be honest and just own the OPness lol.
That way we can have a honest discussion so that we can try to figure out fixes and maybe that will trickle into GW.
At least the "ohh you don't know if its broken... wait and see" crowd that apparently cant read an obviously busted rules have gone quiet. Now its just the absurd that are left lol.

So what fixes?
Blanket nerfing one unit is not an answer because there another unit right behind it that will take its place that's just currently tiny bit less efficient so it doesn't come to the fore.
And that's the problem, I really don't see a fix because there is not a single one ting thats broken. Thers too many interactions happening with no downsides. Coupled with points drops and increased efficiency there's not fixing that without writging a new book which is not happening either.

So what's left is new codexes for other armies which will be even more ridiculous.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:20:07


Post by: Martel732


MMM White scars gladius was pretty good.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:21:33


Post by: MiguelFelstone


 flandarz wrote:
What is the metric we're using for "bad" here? Cuz it seems like folks ain't on the same page for what's considered bad, and I'd like to get an idea of where folks draw the line between "mediocre" and "bad".


Less than mid-teir. That's bad. If you haven't seen a SM list top a GT all year, it's bad. This is bad.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:21:52


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
CSM are not as good as SM. They just aren't. CSM might be on par with BA or BT, but not the real marines.
Not Ironhands level clearly. Ironhands is just stupid.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:24:57


Post by: Martel732


Is IH stupid or the new normal? My money is on the new normal.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:25:53


Post by: flandarz


MiguelFelstone wrote:

Less than mid-teir. That's bad. If you haven't seen a SM list top a GT all year, it's bad. This is bad.


How many other Factions were topping GTs last year? There's like, what? A couple dozen or so Factions in the same. Maybe more? And for the most part, you only see the same 3 or 4 Factions "topping" GTs. That would imply that almost everyone is "bad".


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:33:04


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
Is IH stupid or the new normal? My money is on the new normal.
Ive seen the leaks for new IG. Looks pretty dang good.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:36:14


Post by: Martel732


So basically we are gonna have the "have" chapters and the "have not" chapters. And the xenos and such will be tuned to the haves. Wonderful.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:39:29


Post by: Xenomancers


 flandarz wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:

Less than mid-teir. That's bad. If you haven't seen a SM list top a GT all year, it's bad. This is bad.


How many other Factions were topping GTs last year? There's like, what? A couple dozen or so Factions in the same. Maybe more? And for the most part, you only see the same 3 or 4 Factions "topping" GTs. That would imply that almost everyone is "bad".
If you look at the history of 8th. It's had several different metas.
We had the first meta which was dominated by
Storm raven and character spam armies at index level
choas and imperial soup once armies started getting codex (also pre nerf tyranids)
Then the ynnari spears meta
Then the Castellan meta. (This overlapped with ynnari meta)
Now the Ironhands meta.

Eldar have done really well in every meta - SM have been good in only the last.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:41:28


Post by: JNAProductions


 Xenomancers wrote:
 flandarz wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:

Less than mid-teir. That's bad. If you haven't seen a SM list top a GT all year, it's bad. This is bad.


How many other Factions were topping GTs last year? There's like, what? A couple dozen or so Factions in the same. Maybe more? And for the most part, you only see the same 3 or 4 Factions "topping" GTs. That would imply that almost everyone is "bad".
If you look at the history of 8th. It's had several different metas.
We had the first meta which was dominated by
Storm raven and character spam armies at index level
choas and imperial soup once armies started getting codex (also pre nerf tyranids)
Then the ynnari spears meta
Then the Castellan meta. (This overlapped with ynnari meta)
Now the Ironhands meta.

Eldar have done really well in every meta - SM have been good in only the last.
Xeno, remind me, which army besides Marines was spamming Stormravens? Because Marines were, according to you, only good in the last of that.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:41:52


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
So basically we are gonna have the "have" chapters and the "have not" chapters. And the xenos and such will be tuned to the haves. Wonderful.
From what I have seen - It's not Ironhands level. Russ commanders got a big buff. Also some of these new custom traits seem to make Infantry in to absolute gods rapid firing at 18"???? Some decent buffs to scions as well. Imagine a whole army of (8points?) scions shooting at ap -3?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 flandarz wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:

Less than mid-teir. That's bad. If you haven't seen a SM list top a GT all year, it's bad. This is bad.


How many other Factions were topping GTs last year? There's like, what? A couple dozen or so Factions in the same. Maybe more? And for the most part, you only see the same 3 or 4 Factions "topping" GTs. That would imply that almost everyone is "bad".
If you look at the history of 8th. It's had several different metas.
We had the first meta which was dominated by
Storm raven and character spam armies at index level
choas and imperial soup once armies started getting codex (also pre nerf tyranids)
Then the ynnari spears meta
Then the Castellan meta. (This overlapped with ynnari meta)
Now the Ironhands meta.

Eldar have done really well in every meta - SM have been good in only the last.
Xeno, remind me, which army besides Marines was spamming Stormravens? Because Marines were, according to you, only good in the last of that.

Forgive me - That was index 40k though and I think a brief period were marines had the only codex with DG and GK. I always look at that with an asterisk.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:46:43


Post by: flandarz


 Xenomancers wrote:
If you look at the history of 8th. It's had several different metas.
We had the first meta which was dominated by
Storm raven and character spam armies at index level
choas and imperial soup once armies started getting codex (also pre nerf tyranids)
Then the ynnari spears meta
Then the Castellan meta. (This overlapped with ynnari meta)
Now the Ironhands meta.

Eldar have done really well in every meta - SM have been good in only the last.


I agree with all that. What I'm saying is that if the metric for a "bad" Faction is "any Faction that has not topped (or is not topping) the meta", then not only have most of the Factions in the game been "bad" for most if not all of the edition, but Marines are far from the worst Faction in the game as they're currently having their second time in the sun (while some Factions never got a first time).


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:48:14


Post by: JNAProductions


The 18" Rapid Fire is not for Scions. It's for regular Guard. 18" is their maximum range with their S3 Hellguns. They can extend their range to 24" with a trait, but that only gives them 12" Rapid Fire at AP-2.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 03:53:52


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Martel732 wrote:
Is IH stupid or the new normal? My money is on the new normal.
Among who?

Not everyone is a bandwagon-jumping meta-chasing list jumper.

I have an Ultramarine army. I don't care if Iron Hands are better. My army is an Ultramarine army.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 04:01:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Xenomancers wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

Lol you can't omit what I said after that.

The point is the LVO cannot be used to judge the state of the game. No ITC event can.

No one has once said that using the CA missions creates perfect faction equalibrium, but they do show a better level of balance. Yes, Astartes still perform well.

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol

In the meantime, 3rd party homebrew rules cannot be used to gauge game balance because they fundamentally alter the game beyond what was designed officially.


People should not relax.

The reasons Marines are OP now goes beyond ain't having a good codex, they got a version of supplement rules that for free, no extra points, no Cp, stack ontop of their already good rules for units from the codex. No faction outside of Marines has gotten that treatment, getting side grades and strange alternative choices with restrictions that give up your normal bonuses is not the same. The reason people shouldn't relax is because at this point in order for GW to make non marine codexes balanced they will have to have layered rules like Marines for free, which is completely different than the normal codex model we have seen. Otherwise it will be like 7th where either your army has a decurion option or it doesn't and that alone decided if you have any chance to be competitive.
That is clearly not the case based on the data. Only some supplements are issues. Perhaps being able to assault turn 1 automatically with assualt cents is an oversite. Perhaps Ironhands super doctrine is absurd...Every army is getting a free supplement atm like eldar and TS...you are literally complaining about the direction of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol


The sky isn't falling, the game isn't ruined, but there is a problem, and saying otherwise is

Space Marine players have definitely earned this, i never said otherwise. For years, and years and years they were the joke of the competitive scene. If any faction deserves it - they do, but other factions do need to be brought in line or some of the SM factions need adjustments.

If every SM chapter was as powerful as Ultramarines i doubt we'd even be talking about this.
No we wouldn't. I agree with that. Dakka has an anti SM bias..It is obvious.

Do you actually believe that what non sm factions are getting in pa is equal to what sm got? The internally balanced codex? Nope. Free buffs just for buying a supplement, no cp or points required? Nope.

C:sm is a change in codex design philosophy and until everyone has a codex that follows that philosophy it's not an even playing field.

And someone should tell Martel to copy that ba list in that tournament. Three squads of Sanguinary Guards and in the top ten. Sounds like ba ain't so bad after all.
Do you actually believe marines were at an even starting point? OFC not. The rules they got were a direct fix to the fact that they were terrible. Turns out the doctrines and new strats and such were s perfect fix as it puts an army like ultras/Salamnders/whitescars square in the middle. Just granted by what I have seen from DA - they will also be above the curve. If you can't acknowledge that you are blind. SM were hands down the worst army in the game. BY A LONG SHOT - with the exception of GK (who are basically just marines). You need to get used to marine armies not being a free win for once. Plus - you should really stop referring to the new supplement marines as a whole entity - each supplement is basically a different army just like TS/DG/and CSM are different armies.

Whoa! Back up the hyperbole train. Did sm need some help? Yup sure did. Were they the worst army in the game? Nope. Chaos daemons, gk (who were a separate army, as you point out about other factions), and r&h were fighting over that "honor ". The problem is that gw over corrected. And now everyone else has to play catch up. And yes, ih, rg, and if are stronger than the other chapters. That doesn't make those other chapters "mid tier " compared to other factions. Just other chapters.

As to your post below (I'm not quoting it. This chain is already long enough) yes csm players don't like souping. Or relying on gimmicks like the possessed bomb. Or always playing Alpha Legion because that's our only useful legion trait. But that's the thing. Sm have options other factions don't. Csm rely on gimmicks. Eldar have flyers. Tau triptide.

I've already said this is all due to gw changing design philosophy mid edition and it'll be corrected when we get more new codexes. Till then just accept that sm are top dogs. Stop denying and start enjoying.

And as far as you playing "choas" dude you literally just proved you can't spell it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Is IH stupid or the new normal? My money is on the new normal.
Among who?

Not everyone is a bandwagon-jumping meta-chasing list jumper.

I have an Ultramarine army. I don't care if Iron Hands are better. My army is an Ultramarine army.

Same. Night Lords or bust. Feth bandwagons.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 04:27:02


Post by: Spoletta


We should learn to stop talking about "SM". The only SM faction out there is the generic chapter.

UM and IH are 2 different factions, they play with hugely different rules, with hugely different lists, just like DA and BA. While they have some in common, they have different psy powers, different relics, different warlord traits, different stratagems and even some different units.

Saying "IH being OP does not make SM OP" is a correct statement. No one ever said that SW were good because BA had smash captains.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 04:37:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


Spoletta wrote:
We should learn to stop talking about "SM". The only SM faction out there is the generic chapter.

UM and IH are 2 different factions, they play with hugely different rules, with hugely different lists, just like DA and BA. While they have some in common, they have different psy powers, different relics, different warlord traits, different stratagems and even some different units.

Saying "IH being OP does not make SM OP" is a correct statement. No one ever said that SW were good because BA had smash captains.


And that's the thing that bothers me the most as a csm player who actually likes to play to the fluff. The different chapters are different. The legions not so much, especially when the cp runs out. I'd love for my Night Lords to be as different from other legions as the loyalist chapters are from each other. But gw apparently has decided csm need to soup.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 04:41:57


Post by: blaktoof


The problem with how SM were done is that in order to make any other faction balanced versus them the faction has to have layered rules options for free just like SM received.

Putting out another 2.0 codex for any faction that doesn't include that at this point is spraying a squirt gun at the dumpster fire that supplements are for SMs. Yes, a dumpster fire, because actually brining other factions up to that level will increase lethality in 8th to the point that the main deciding factors in a competitive game will be who won the roll to go first. Which is a dumpster fire for a game system.

The best thing GW could do for 40k is make the supplements narrative only rules in an erratta.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 04:50:13


Post by: Amishprn86


Martel732 wrote:
Is IH stupid or the new normal? My money is on the new normal.


Most likely the new norm, which makes me hate 8th even moreso, for over a year i felt 8th had WAY to much power and it should have went the other way, increase point costs and make the MEQ stat viable in general. Sadly GW is a company first and it shows.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 04:54:57


Post by: bullyboy


it's kind of funny how short people's memories are. Before Codex 2.0 there was thread after thread about how to improve marines, how to make marines feel like they should in the lore. Well, you got what you wished for and then some. Marines are good, as they should be, but I think all of us (well, at least most) want to see them toned down a tad for the overall balance of the game. Not a blanket nerf, that would be bad, just some tweaking.

Iron Hands for starters needs to lose 2 of it's bonuses....one of the original 3 (how about 5+ overwatch) and then remove reroll 1s to hit on heavies. They would still have 6+++, double wounds for vehicle profile and ignore move and fire for heavies in dev doctrine, damn that's better tham most armies get as it is. Why they get 5 I have no idea...just way too much. That would be a good start. Put Chaplain dreads into legends (people aren't buying the FW one anyway), and change the keyword on the Levi dread so it doesn't benefit from the marine strats (someone else's idea).

Ravenguard....change centurions to Monster keyword or vehicle....should not be infantry. What about Aggressors (what I use, can't stand Centurions), also too powerful with Master of Ambush? maybe reword it to be a unit with infantry models of 2 wounds or less?

etc...

Small changes to the overall issue.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 05:00:40


Post by: ccs


 JNAProductions wrote:
So what about wraith-heavy Ulthwe? They were and are pretty bad-does that make Eldar bad?

(Ulthwe is the wraith subfaction, right? I don’t know my eldar super well.)


You're thinking of Iyanden (the Yellow & Blue guys)

Ulthwe is the Black & Yellow & is more known for their Warlocks + Eldrad & Guardian heavy infantry.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 07:27:53


Post by: Marin


 Ishagu wrote:
The LVO doesn't use the official GW mission or terrain rules. It's not the same game, to put it bluntly. It's homebrew 40k.

This data means nothing because it cannot be used to determine the power of factions under the official GW designed missions.

Run the next LVO using the latest official missions and then we can discuss the game balance.

If you want more balance under ITC, simply homebrew the game some more to change faction or unit rules. It's not up to GW to balance a homebrew variant of the game.
The recent tournaments running the official missions from CA19 have generated far more balanced results across factions.


But they do,the Heat results are showing the some issues. There was GW tournament where IH were forced to play vs each other.
And even GW are now using the first floor rule, so your claim is wrong. The assumption that SM can`t build good list in different format is wrong.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 07:45:31


Post by: An Actual Englishman


The mods should probably lock this thread. It was obvious it wasn’t going to be an actual discussion in the initial post and even on the first page we had multiple, off topic rambling about how ITC is ‘homebrew 40k’ therefore completely irrelevant to any balance discussion.

The usual, staunch Marine defenders are out in force - adding random off topic quips, posturing with each other and using bizarre metrics to justify the current state of the game.

Marines are broken, ladies and gents. And I’m going to use ‘Marines’ here instead of IH, UM or whatever because it’s exactly how we measure every other faction and there are enough varied Marine builds to show a variety of sub factions and builds can compete at the top level. I’ve listened to a number of podcasts that break the numbers down in far more detail than we have in the Goonhammer article. When you remove the mirror match Marine numbers go beyond pre-nerf Ynarri and the Castellan builds. Some marine builds (not IH, by the way) had an average first loss of 3.25 (if they had a 50/50 win rate this would be around 1.25) which is the highest ever recorded. Marines of all flavours score more points than other factions AND deny more, on average. Their first loss is high across the board. Their TWIP is disproportionately huge. If you think a few nerfs to the most common marine sub factions will do anything to change their dominance, I suggest you are wrong. Without drastic changes to all codexes in the game or a rewrite of SM codex 2.0, I don’t see how GW will fix this.

E - sp.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 08:02:41


Post by: tneva82


MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Removed - Rule #1 please

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.


Well that was true in 7th ed but as the stats show balance is even worse now in ITC so by continuing to use those house rules ITC is making problem worse. Should you continue to be problem even after you have become the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 bullyboy wrote:
GW should balance 40K for it to stand up in a variety of mission sets. The fact that GW reps usually attend the LVO and take note of how armies perform let's you know about their thoughts regarding balance and ITC.

The problem is bloat tbh. You have lot of different factions with hundreds of datasheets. You then add on FW datasheets/rules, campaign supplements with additional rules, etc, and the whole thing just goes off the rails. They are always chasing balance but will never keep up. There will always be something broken. It was Ynnari, then Castellan/soup, Chaos soup interaction, now marines.

You then have to address what is broken. I have a Ravenguard force, is my army broken if I don't take a single Centurion in my army and rely mostly on vanguard marines? So should Ravenguard get a full nerf, or just elements that make it OP? Same with IH, same with Imp Fists.

GW right now are just spinning plates, but overall, the game is in a pretty decent state. It looks bad right now because the most popular faction is also now the most pwerful....that's going to make results really skewed. If harlequins were the best army, you wouldn't see it dominate too much because they are not highly collected.


Except when you radically change mission you can't have lists that are balanced for every. You cannot make codexes that are balanced for both CA and ITC. You can pick up one and do it for that. For other it's pure random luck.

Should GW balance game for their missions or house rule ones?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.


Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.


GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

I agree that the ca2019 missions are far superior to ITC. But if you actually think the game is balanced with stuff like iron hands running around you may need drug counseling.

Crack kills.


It's more balanced than ITC "if you aren't marines don't bother trying to win" compared to CA "marines still do good but at least there's more non-marines at the top and even top-4 non marine is possibility".

Nobody claims CA is perfect. But it's more balanced than ITC.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 08:19:28


Post by: Not Online!!!


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The mods should probably lock this thread. It was obvious it wasn’t going to be an actual discussion in the initial post and even on the first page we had multiple, off topic rambling about how ITC is ‘homebrew 40k’ therefore completely irrelevant to any balance discussion.

The usual, staunch Marine defenders are out in force - adding random off topic quips, posturing with each other and using bizarre metrics to justify the current state of the game.

Marines are broken, ladies and gents. And I’m going to use ‘Marines’ here instead of IH, UM or whatever because it’s exactly how we measure every other faction and there are enough varied Marine builds to show a variety of sings Fiona and builds can compete at the top level. I’ve listened to a number of podcasts that break the numbers down in far more detail than we have in the Goonhammer article. When you remove the mirror match Marine numbers go beyond pre-nerf Ynarri and the Castellan builds. Some marine builds (not IH, by the way) had an average first loss of 3.25 (if they had a 50/50 win rate this would be around 1.25) which is the highest ever recorded. Marines of all flavours score more points than other factions AND deny more, on average. Their first loss is high across the board. Their TWIP is disproportionately huge. If you think a few nerfs to the most common marine sub factions will do anything to change their dominance, I suggest you are wrong. Without drastic changes to all codexes in the game or a rewrite of SM codex 2.0, I don’t see how GW will fix this.


Some factions are officially at 2.0 allready so tough luck and secondly why fix what ain't broken, remember, they sell books just as much then models.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 08:55:46


Post by: An Actual Englishman


Not Online!!! wrote:
Some factions are officially at 2.0 allready so tough luck and secondly why fix what ain't broken, remember, they. Dell books just as much then models.

Who, apart from SM, have had an entire Codex rewrite recently? Sisters I guess as I write this. But apart from them??


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 09:01:42


Post by: tneva82


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The mods should probably lock this thread. It was obvious it wasn’t going to be an actual discussion in the initial post and even on the first page we had multiple, off topic rambling about how ITC is ‘homebrew 40k’ therefore completely irrelevant to any balance discussion.

The usual, staunch Marine defenders are out in force - adding random off topic quips, posturing with each other and using bizarre metrics to justify the current state of the game.

Marines are broken, ladies and gents. And I’m going to use ‘Marines’ here instead of IH, UM or whatever because it’s exactly how we measure every other faction and there are enough varied Marine builds to show a variety of sings Fiona and builds can compete at the top level. I’ve listened to a number of podcasts that break the numbers down in far more detail than we have in the Goonhammer article. When you remove the mirror match Marine numbers go beyond pre-nerf Ynarri and the Castellan builds. Some marine builds (not IH, by the way) had an average first loss of 3.25 (if they had a 50/50 win rate this would be around 1.25) which is the highest ever recorded. Marines of all flavours score more points than other factions AND deny more, on average. Their first loss is high across the board. Their TWIP is disproportionately huge. If you think a few nerfs to the most common marine sub factions will do anything to change their dominance, I suggest you are wrong. Without drastic changes to all codexes in the game or a rewrite of SM codex 2.0, I don’t see how GW will fix this.


Marines are overly good yes but nowhere near as bad as ITC makes it out to be.

Win rate of about 60% in relevant data(non-ITC) isn't world ending.

ITC data is irrelevant and if you balance game around ITC then in the relevant meta(non ITC) game is suddenly totally broken. That's just simple fact

If you use ITC data as arqument you have already lost the arqument. Back it up with some REAL data


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 09:05:23


Post by: Eldarsif


Only SM and SoB are 2.0 compliant. Then you have CSM at 1.5 technically.

2.0 is usually indicated by an army ability that rewards a pure faction army. So far only SM and SoB have that.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 09:21:33


Post by: An Actual Englishman


tneva82 wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The mods should probably lock this thread. It was obvious it wasn’t going to be an actual discussion in the initial post and even on the first page we had multiple, off topic rambling about how ITC is ‘homebrew 40k’ therefore completely irrelevant to any balance discussion.

The usual, staunch Marine defenders are out in force - adding random off topic quips, posturing with each other and using bizarre metrics to justify the current state of the game.

Marines are broken, ladies and gents. And I’m going to use ‘Marines’ here instead of IH, UM or whatever because it’s exactly how we measure every other faction and there are enough varied Marine builds to show a variety of sings Fiona and builds can compete at the top level. I’ve listened to a number of podcasts that break the numbers down in far more detail than we have in the Goonhammer article. When you remove the mirror match Marine numbers go beyond pre-nerf Ynarri and the Castellan builds. Some marine builds (not IH, by the way) had an average first loss of 3.25 (if they had a 50/50 win rate this would be around 1.25) which is the highest ever recorded. Marines of all flavours score more points than other factions AND deny more, on average. Their first loss is high across the board. Their TWIP is disproportionately huge. If you think a few nerfs to the most common marine sub factions will do anything to change their dominance, I suggest you are wrong. Without drastic changes to all codexes in the game or a rewrite of SM codex 2.0, I don’t see how GW will fix this.


Marines are overly good yes but nowhere near as bad as ITC makes it out to be.

Win rate of about 60% in relevant data(non-ITC) isn't world ending.

ITC data is irrelevant and if you balance game around ITC then in the relevant meta(non ITC) game is suddenly totally broken. That's just simple fact

If you use ITC data as arqument you have already lost the arqument. Back it up with some REAL data

Stop derailing the thread with this off topic rubbish of the legitimacy of ITC events.

"ITC is irrelevant" is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever heard considering it's the fastest growing competitive format that seems to have (as far as all data shows) the largest competitive playerbase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Eldarsif wrote:
Only SM and SoB are 2.0 compliant. Then you have CSM at 1.5 technically.

2.0 is usually indicated by an army ability that rewards a pure faction army. So far only SM and SoB have that.

To be fair, I don't think Sisters had a codex 1.0, only a beta codex right?

The pure faction army ability indication is something that we as a community have created, it's not something GW have ever stated AFAIK.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 09:29:59


Post by: ingtaer


Time for a friendly, fiery red reminder. Being polite is not an optional extra, it is a rule. Abide by it.
Thanks,
ingtær.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 09:42:08


Post by: happy_inquisitor


The Salt Mine wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Look up the Caledonian and the recent GW tournament, and the one prior.


Are you talking about https://tabletop.to/caledonian-uprising-2020? Not sure if this is the one but I don't think it proves what you think it proves since 4 out of the top 8 were some form of space marine. 9 out of the top 16 were space marines. I mean one of the top 16 was an imperial list with a solid space marine detachment as well so you could probably say 10 out of the top 16 had space marines in them. Props to the tzeentch guy who won though Id have like to seen some of his games to see how he uses it.



About half of the top lists have marines although they did not win, from about 1/3 of the entries which had marines. This is a fairly normal level of imbalance in the game after a really big codex drop that is actually good - we see this level of imbalance all the time and it usually levels out with further releases.

That is different to the LVO which had 75% marines at the top and marines winning. That is beginning to be a rather exceptional level of imbalance and we have seen that in ITC format tournaments for at least a month running into the LVO. The thing is that if you try to balance to fix the LVO/ITC then you would probably overcompensate for games played with missions that GW publishes. We all agree that marines are very strong right now but the level of imbalance we see in ITC is not seen elsewhere and that is consistent enough that really the ITC need to balance their missions first before any data coming out of ITC should be taken very seriously when talking about balance of the game itself.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 09:44:39


Post by: Nibbler


I fear, your discussion completely misses the point here (and to be honest, that happens in most of the similar topics).

The LVO uses ITC Rules?
Wether those rules are house rules or not, isn't the point that should be discussed here, but what we can read out of the data, the LVO gave us. Maybe some of the users here play ITC regularly / occasionally, so let them talk about it.

Could you please stop the almost omnipresent ranting about the usage of that ruleset?
We had loads of threads, that revolved around the influence ITC is taking on GWs balancing, but that's not the question OP is trying to talk about...

edit: sorry, if my reaction came a bit late or almost out of context....


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 09:49:14


Post by: ingtaer


Nibbler wrote:

Could you please stop the almost omnipresent ranting about the usage of that ruleset?
We had loads of threads, that revolved around the influence ITC is taking on GWs balancing, but that's not the question OP is trying to talk about...

edit: sorry, if my reaction came a bit late or almost out of context....


I do agree, this thread is about the LVO which uses ITC There is currently a thread that is arguing is against the ITC ruleset/format so that discussion can take place there rather than here.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 10:13:18


Post by: Klickor


 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Lol that's utter rubbish. They have access to the exact same re roll auras and the same ranged units, with a few exceptions.

Do you even play BA?


We actually dont. We do not have access to the Faith and Fury upgrades, CM stratagem or any good relics/WL traits/psychic powers to help shooting units. So our character support for ranged units are much worse than the other marine chapters. We can get reroll 1s to hit and wound but thats about it unless we start spending lots of points on named melee characters that are mainly for buffing melee units to help out our ranged units.

We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

But what is the largest downside is that none of our chapter tactics, doctrine and stratagems buff ranged unit and we have lack luster character support for ranged combined with the lack of the 3 best ranged units make our shooting half or less than half as effective as IH/IF/Successors.

An IF whirlwind will have +1 ap and ignore cover always and do twice the damage to vehicles and since artillery is good with IF you will probably have many of them and thus have support characters nearby to buff them even further. Those IF whirlwinds will against most enemy units be twice or more as effective as the same BA whirlwind.. If comparing a IH/IF TFC to a BA whirlwind then its just a bad joke especially if you take in to account the double shooting and tremor shells that normal marines have that BA lack. If I could get a IF or IH TFC in my BA list I wouldnt mind paying at least a 120pts for it, maybe even up to a 150pts.

We might have mostly the same units but as with most SM units it not the base units themselves that are broken or people complain about. The SM 2.0 book without supplements are fine. Its just when you add all the extra rules that make them so damn good. BA also adds a lot of rules to the base units but its 99% melee rules and those do nothing for shooting.

When you add +1 ap to everything(BA cant build well around a single doctrine unlike IH/IF), get good and cheap rerolls to everything, have more effective base units, chapter tactics/doctrines that buff even more, some stratagems and additional character support you arent really comparing the same units. It isnt apples to apples any longer. Its like comparing wild tiny ponies before human started to breed them and the largest most powerful horses we have now. They started the same once but they arent really any longer.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 13:14:43


Post by: bullyboy


But the thing is, BA are probably at the power level marines should be, same with the new DA too. Just getting doctrines and a super doctrine took the army to a better place, plus some of the marine strats that carried over. It just isn't on the same level as what some of the Codex Marines can get with their combos, which happens to be the biggest problem. I am a little disappointed that DA/BA didn't get access to Master of Sanctity, Chief Apothecary etc, but that's not the end of the world. I don't care about the lack of full rerolls as I feel that should not be a thing anyway. Chapter Master should be bumped to 3CP right off the bat.

My current focus is my DA and I love the flavour that they received with the PA book, especially the emphasis on improving RW and DW, which was almost the entire ruleset improvement and has zero Primaris marines.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 13:55:56


Post by: Crimson


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
top derailing the thread with this off topic rubbish of the legitimacy of ITC events.

"ITC is irrelevant" is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever heard considering it's the fastest growing competitive format that seems to have (as far as all data shows) the largest competitive playerbase.

And if those players insist breaking the game with houserules, that is not GW's fault, and it is utterly bizarre to to think that it would. I really cannot understand how this sort of thinking can make sense to anyone. GW is only responsible for the quality of the rules they publish (which admittedly could use some work) not someone's houserules.




Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 14:09:16


Post by: Martel732


Klickor has more patience than I. But yes, thats all correct.

Since my group hates the old chapter master language, we have playing dante as an updated chapter master. Its far from game breaking.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 14:29:28


Post by: The Salt Mine


 Crimson wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
top derailing the thread with this off topic rubbish of the legitimacy of ITC events.

"ITC is irrelevant" is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever heard considering it's the fastest growing competitive format that seems to have (as far as all data shows) the largest competitive playerbase.

And if those players insist breaking the game with houserules, that is not GW's fault, and it is utterly bizarre to to think that it would. I really cannot understand how this sort of thinking can make sense to anyone. GW is only responsible for the quality of the rules they publish (which admittedly could use some work) not someone's houserules.



I mean GW themselves feels differently considering they do make balance changes based off of ITC results. Also many of their play testers are top performing ITC players. So people can all rail on about how ITC is irrelevant all they want its just not even remotely factually true right now. Now I personally agree that GW should not have multiple different missions sets used to balance the game. But I also don't think the differences in missions are that big of a difference either. I can also see why they use ITC. ITC has almost all of their results published I did a google search for 40k tournament results and ITC is all I can find. I spent 2+ hours last night trying to google search non-ITC events and couldn't find results for any of them but the Caledonia uprising. I saw lots of advertisements for non-ITC events everywhere but now how they turned out. It was incredibly frustrating really as I want to see what the different metas look like. So if any knows something that I don't in how to find these non-ITC results help a brother out!


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 15:43:12


Post by: Daedalus81


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
We should learn to stop talking about "SM". The only SM faction out there is the generic chapter.

UM and IH are 2 different factions, they play with hugely different rules, with hugely different lists, just like DA and BA. While they have some in common, they have different psy powers, different relics, different warlord traits, different stratagems and even some different units.

Saying "IH being OP does not make SM OP" is a correct statement. No one ever said that SW were good because BA had smash captains.


And that's the thing that bothers me the most as a csm player who actually likes to play to the fluff. The different chapters are different. The legions not so much, especially when the cp runs out. I'd love for my Night Lords to be as different from other legions as the loyalist chapters are from each other. But gw apparently has decided csm need to soup.


I don't agree with this assessment too much. IH and UM affect list building choices. Similarly Night Lords, Iron Warriors, and so on promote different list building choices. Through those choices they play differently - CP or otherwise.

If you wrote a straight list irrespective of a legion and ran out of CP then, yea, I'd agree.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 16:32:48


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
We should learn to stop talking about "SM". The only SM faction out there is the generic chapter.

UM and IH are 2 different factions, they play with hugely different rules, with hugely different lists, just like DA and BA. While they have some in common, they have different psy powers, different relics, different warlord traits, different stratagems and even some different units.

Saying "IH being OP does not make SM OP" is a correct statement. No one ever said that SW were good because BA had smash captains.


And that's the thing that bothers me the most as a csm player who actually likes to play to the fluff. The different chapters are different. The legions not so much, especially when the cp runs out. I'd love for my Night Lords to be as different from other legions as the loyalist chapters are from each other. But gw apparently has decided csm need to soup.


I don't agree with this assessment too much. IH and UM affect list building choices. Similarly Night Lords, Iron Warriors, and so on promote different list building choices. Through those choices they play differently - CP or otherwise.

If you wrote a straight list irrespective of a legion and ran out of CP then, yea, I'd agree.

Well of course different lists play differently. But without strategems a jump troop oriented Night Lords list or a heavy support oriented iw list will behave just like the same list being played as black legion or renegades. All of the respective flavor of the legions is only represented by strategems, whereas the loyalists have good chapter tactics which represent their styles of warfare better and affect the way they're played even without strategems. The week legion traits are fairly useless and don't affect play style.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 17:03:37


Post by: Spoletta


Loyalists have a book for each chapter, they are obviously going to have a greater characterization than CSM legions.

That is why i consider all SM chapters as different factions, but don't do the same for fleets/legions/septs whatever. They don't have dedicated books.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 17:05:01


Post by: JNAProductions


Spoletta wrote:
Loyalists have a book for each chapter, they are obviously going to have a greater characterization than CSM legions.

That is why i consider all SM chapters as different factions, but don't do the same for fleets/legions/septs whatever. They don't have dedicated books.
Which is pretty gakky. The Chaos Legions differ more than Marine Chapters do, and the Legions are hardly the most divergent from one another.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 17:18:01


Post by: bananathug


Yeah, at this point GW has decided that the marine chapters are different armies (painting standards at GW tournaments, books, pushing faction identities, potential primarch returns).

Space wolves, death watch, blood angels, grey knights and dark angels are no longer the only "snowflake" chapters. GW has seen that they can make even more money from marines by separating them all out this way.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the same philosophy pushed onto CSM in 9th. With primarchs returning GW knows there's a lot of milk left in the marine cash cows and it's not like them to not try to go after it all.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 17:40:21


Post by: Xenomancers


Spoiler:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

Lol you can't omit what I said after that.

The point is the LVO cannot be used to judge the state of the game. No ITC event can.

No one has once said that using the CA missions creates perfect faction equalibrium, but they do show a better level of balance. Yes, Astartes still perform well.

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol

In the meantime, 3rd party homebrew rules cannot be used to gauge game balance because they fundamentally alter the game beyond what was designed officially.


People should not relax.

The reasons Marines are OP now goes beyond ain't having a good codex, they got a version of supplement rules that for free, no extra points, no Cp, stack ontop of their already good rules for units from the codex. No faction outside of Marines has gotten that treatment, getting side grades and strange alternative choices with restrictions that give up your normal bonuses is not the same. The reason people shouldn't relax is because at this point in order for GW to make non marine codexes balanced they will have to have layered rules like Marines for free, which is completely different than the normal codex model we have seen. Otherwise it will be like 7th where either your army has a decurion option or it doesn't and that alone decided if you have any chance to be competitive.
That is clearly not the case based on the data. Only some supplements are issues. Perhaps being able to assault turn 1 automatically with assualt cents is an oversite. Perhaps Ironhands super doctrine is absurd...Every army is getting a free supplement atm like eldar and TS...you are literally complaining about the direction of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@MiguelFelstone

People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol


The sky isn't falling, the game isn't ruined, but there is a problem, and saying otherwise is

Space Marine players have definitely earned this, i never said otherwise. For years, and years and years they were the joke of the competitive scene. If any faction deserves it - they do, but other factions do need to be brought in line or some of the SM factions need adjustments.

If every SM chapter was as powerful as Ultramarines i doubt we'd even be talking about this.
No we wouldn't. I agree with that. Dakka has an anti SM bias..It is obvious.

Do you actually believe that what non sm factions are getting in pa is equal to what sm got? The internally balanced codex? Nope. Free buffs just for buying a supplement, no cp or points required? Nope.

C:sm is a change in codex design philosophy and until everyone has a codex that follows that philosophy it's not an even playing field.

And someone should tell Martel to copy that ba list in that tournament. Three squads of Sanguinary Guards and in the top ten. Sounds like ba ain't so bad after all.
Do you actually believe marines were at an even starting point? OFC not. The rules they got were a direct fix to the fact that they were terrible. Turns out the doctrines and new strats and such were s perfect fix as it puts an army like ultras/Salamnders/whitescars square in the middle. Just granted by what I have seen from DA - they will also be above the curve. If you can't acknowledge that you are blind. SM were hands down the worst army in the game. BY A LONG SHOT - with the exception of GK (who are basically just marines). You need to get used to marine armies not being a free win for once. Plus - you should really stop referring to the new supplement marines as a whole entity - each supplement is basically a different army just like TS/DG/and CSM are different armies.

Whoa! Back up the hyperbole train. Did sm need some help? Yup sure did. Were they the worst army in the game? Nope. Chaos daemons, gk (who were a separate army, as you point out about other factions), and r&h were fighting over that "honor ". The problem is that gw over corrected. And now everyone else has to play catch up. And yes, ih, rg, and if are stronger than the other chapters. That doesn't make those other chapters "mid tier " compared to other factions. Just other chapters.

As to your post below (I'm not quoting it. This chain is already long enough) yes csm players don't like souping. Or relying on gimmicks like the possessed bomb. Or always playing Alpha Legion because that's our only useful legion trait. But that's the thing. Sm have options other factions don't. Csm rely on gimmicks. Eldar have flyers. Tau triptide.

I've already said this is all due to gw changing design philosophy mid edition and it'll be corrected when we get more new codexes. Till then just accept that sm are top dogs. Stop denying and start enjoying.

And as far as you playing "choas" dude you literally just proved you can't spell it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Is IH stupid or the new normal? My money is on the new normal.
Among who?

Not everyone is a bandwagon-jumping meta-chasing list jumper.

I have an Ultramarine army. I don't care if Iron Hands are better. My army is an Ultramarine army.

Same. Night Lords or bust. Feth bandwagons.

Good for you that you have some decency about you and play the army you like. You have my respect. Some people in here claim that means you are probably a bad player though (not me) do you agree with that?

However. If you actually read my post youd see I mentioned GK as contenders for worst army all space marine factions were in the 40% WR area. Daemons are no where near that though. In fact they are one of the winningest armies in the game as a primary detachment on 40k stats. 52% for the entire eddition also 52% in the most recent data pull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Loyalists have a book for each chapter, they are obviously going to have a greater characterization than CSM legions.

That is why i consider all SM chapters as different factions, but don't do the same for fleets/legions/septs whatever. They don't have dedicated books.
Which is pretty gakky. The Chaos Legions differ more than Marine Chapters do, and the Legions are hardly the most divergent from one another.

I totally agree. I am a strong supporter of the idea of 1 marine book with maybe a few special stratagems and units that different chapters have access to. You can do that in 1 book. GW makes 10 times the money doing it this way. They will likely do the same with choas - CSM is also hugely popular and they can make 10x the money there too by making special books for each legion.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 17:47:11


Post by: Ishagu


Marines are becoming more focused on Primaris, which is a less varied model line.

GW probably focused on bigger chapter rule diversity because in the long run there will be less model diversity. I imagine a Primaris only book in the future.

Alternatively none of this will matter in a few months once 9th edition comes out. There's a bit too much hysteria on this forum, especially considering that the greatest problems relating to the meta occur under a third party ruleset that doesn't use the official missions of the game. If you're not happy with the ITC, take it up with them. I'm sure they can homebrew the game some more.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 17:53:14


Post by: Xenomancers


 Ishagu wrote:
Marines are becoming more focused on Primaris, which is a less varied model line.

GW probably focused on bigger chapter rule diversity because in the long run there will be less model diversity. I imagine a Primaris only book in the future.

Alternatively none of this will matter in a few months once 9th edition comes out. There's a bit too much hysteria on this forum, especially considering that the greatest problems relating to the meta occur under a third party ruleset that doesn't use the official missions of the game. If you're not happy with the ITC, take it up with them. I'm sure they can homebrew the game some more.

That is a very good point. 9th is coming and this is likely just cash grab at the end of 7th. Also a great point about ITC. It is house-ruled 40k no matter how you slice it. Kind of like taking kick boxers and having them fight using rules for traditional boxing. Wed find out who the best boxer was - but not even close to finding the best kickboxer.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 17:54:41


Post by: Gadzilla666


@Xenomancers
Does committing to a faction despite whether or not it currently does or doesn't have the strongest rules make you a bad player? Not in my opinion. It obviously takes more skill to win with r&h than ih for example. Obviously top players will seek out the factions with the strongest rules and most efficient units because they know their opponents will do the same but they would still be the best players without that. It's simply that at that level they can't afford to handicap themselves due to personal preference as they know their opponents are of an equal skill level.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 17:55:16


Post by: Daedalus81


You guys should probably stop talking like you definitively know "9th" is coming.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:09:07


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
You guys should probably stop talking like you definitively know "9th" is coming.


Anything that distracts, daed. Anything that can possibly distract.

It's weird, though, I don't remember ITC data being invalid when Guard stuff needed nerfs...or Eldar stuff...or GSC stuff...or Tau stuff..


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:22:42


Post by: Ishagu


9th is definitely coming this year, after the conclusion of Psychic Awakening.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:25:17


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ishagu wrote:
9th is definitely coming this year, after the conclusion of Psychic Awakening.


And what evidence do you base this upon? How do you define 9th? How do you know those definitions are correct?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:32:26


Post by: Asmodai


 Ishagu wrote:
9th is definitely coming this year, after the conclusion of Psychic Awakening.


[Citation needed]


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:33:00


Post by: Ishagu


9th will be an updated ruleset from 8th. Likely to be released alongside an updated starter set with a new rulebook.

GW won't refer to it as 9th, just as they they didn't refer to 8th as 8th.

Whisperings in the right places have hinted that it's coming. I'm very confident it will be released after psychic awakening ends, in the same vain as 8th following gathering storm.





Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:46:11


Post by: Tyel


I think its unlikely we will get a new edition this summer.

A new edition means a new starter box.
Almost certainly with new models in it.
Which in turn almost certainly means a new Primaris line.
And we just had a big Primaris release last year. Its all new and hardly needs replacing.

Although I guess they could just roll out a new Intercessor kit with all the custom options (and maybe some new ones) that have become available over the years.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:46:30


Post by: Karol


so I will get new rules in 3 weeks, then in 3-4 month 9th will come out and my GK are going to be bad again? I don't know, if I should laugh or cry.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:52:24


Post by: Racerguy180


An Actual Englishman wrote:

"ITC is irrelevant" is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever heard considering it's the fastest growing competitive format that seems to have (as far as all data shows) the largest competitive playerbase.


Sounds like cancer.

ITC is entirely irrelevant when it comes to "balancing" the game. Now, if ITC came up w points adj, rules tweaks(for units/char, etc...), limits on types of units, then you can use it to balance. Unfortunately (for ITC) they dont. Since GW makes the rules/game(which functions fine i.e. their own tournaments) they shouldn't factor it in. CA19 is their product improved "tourney" mission pack. GW should further make overt suggestions that the game is balanced for their missions, not anyone elses


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:54:31


Post by: Gadzilla666


Karol wrote:
so I will get new rules in 3 weeks, then in 3-4 month 9th will come out and my GK are going to be bad again? I don't know, if I should laugh or cry.

IF we get a "new" edition it will most likely be a rules cleanup and update. Current codexes and supplements would still apply. Gw have done this before.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 18:57:46


Post by: An Actual Englishman


the_scotsman wrote:
It's weird, though, I don't remember ITC data being invalid when Guard stuff needed nerfs...or Eldar stuff...or GSC stuff...or Tau stuff..

Never a truer word spoken.

I also don't remember people calling for a nerf of "Twisted Helix" instead of "GSC" or "Farsight Enclaves" instead of "Tau". Weird.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 19:04:15


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
so I will get new rules in 3 weeks, then in 3-4 month 9th will come out and my GK are going to be bad again? I don't know, if I should laugh or cry.


Don't believe everything you read on the internet and don't get carried away with conclusions based on no info. You'll life will be much better for it.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 19:11:36


Post by: flandarz


If the definition of a new edition is GW putting out new rules and fixing up their old stuff, then we've been in 9th edition for awhile. SM got a new Codex, GW announced a revision of FW, PA has put new options out on the table, etc.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 19:24:07


Post by: Dysartes


Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 20:12:15


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
9th is definitely coming this year, after the conclusion of Psychic Awakening.


And what evidence do you base this upon? How do you define 9th? How do you know those definitions are correct?

It's a house joke that Ishagu is a GW insider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dysartes wrote:
Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?

For no reason. GK just can't have cool things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Klickor has more patience than I. But yes, thats all correct.

Since my group hates the old chapter master language, we have playing dante as an updated chapter master. Its far from game breaking.

Honestly its the way it should have been forever. A -1 to hit puts you right back where you started with the old aura.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 20:26:33


Post by: Klickor


 Dysartes wrote:
Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?


Dont use FW so dont have the actual book but couldnt find it on battlescribe. I might have just missed it though. Its not that good as BA anyway since we dont have that many buffs for it and there will probably be better priority targets that need to be killed first so the not targetable thing doesnt matter as much. And if you take 500pts of chaplain dreads you should probably just play a codex marine chapter instead of BA to get better use out of points spent.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 20:45:20


Post by: ERJAK


 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.


Spoiler, they absolutely fething do, and you beating this horse to death is asinine.

CA MISSIONS BENEFIT IH, RG, AND IF EVEN MORE THAN ITC DOES. Sorry your army is OP, STFU about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
9th will be an updated ruleset from 8th. Likely to be released alongside an updated starter set with a new rulebook.

GW won't refer to it as 9th, just as they they didn't refer to 8th as 8th.

Whisperings in the right places have hinted that it's coming. I'm very confident it will be released after psychic awakening ends, in the same vain as 8th following gathering storm.





Considering you still haven't figured out that missions revolving around blowing your enemy off the board to sit on objectives heavily favor armys that are good at blowing the enemy off the board to sit on objectives yet, I take anything you say to be massively suspect.

BTW, they Called AoS 2, aos 2. How do you know this won't be the same? This might be "new 40k revision B sigma" for all you know.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 20:55:12


Post by: Xenomancers


ERJAK wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.


Spoiler, they absolutely fething do, and you beating this horse to death is asinine.

CA MISSIONS BENEFIT IH, RG, AND IF EVEN MORE THAN ITC DOES. Sorry your army is OP, STFU about it.

Uhhh...I havn't seen any data to suggest this. Plus on a table in which not every building blocks LOS - the army that goes first has a major advantage no matter what armies are on the table. The most recent GT at GW which uses GW missions also has a lot more list variety in the finalists. So there is data going against your point. Ishagu is right here.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 20:57:00


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.


Spoiler, they absolutely fething do, and you beating this horse to death is asinine.

CA MISSIONS BENEFIT IH, RG, AND IF EVEN MORE THAN ITC DOES. Sorry your army is OP, STFU about it.

Uhhh...I havn't seen any data to suggest this. Plus on a table in which not every building blocks LOS - the army that goes first has a major advantage no matter what armies are on the table. The most recent GT at GW which uses GW missions also has a lot more list variety in the finalists. So there is data going against your point. Ishagu is right here.


If there is no data to suggest this then how can we know Ishagu is correct? Didn't that GW GT also block LOS on first floor? Doesn't getting more LOS benefit the much more shooty IH?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 21:02:30


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.


Spoiler, they absolutely fething do, and you beating this horse to death is asinine.

CA MISSIONS BENEFIT IH, RG, AND IF EVEN MORE THAN ITC DOES. Sorry your army is OP, STFU about it.

Uhhh...I havn't seen any data to suggest this. Plus on a table in which not every building blocks LOS - the army that goes first has a major advantage no matter what armies are on the table. The most recent GT at GW which uses GW missions also has a lot more list variety in the finalists. So there is data going against your point. Ishagu is right here.


If there is no data to suggest this then how can we know Ishagu is correct? Didn't that GW GT also block LOS on first floor? Doesn't getting more LOS benefit the much more shooty IH?
I havn't seen data that GW missions help marines more than ITC - have seen evidence to the contrary. Wasn't aware first floor blocked for GW. So GW is not house ruling their own events? That sounds like horse pucky but I have no idea. In ether case the missions are still different and did not seem to favor marines more. CA missions force you to move around more for sure - that doesn't benefit marines at all.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/07 22:04:20


Post by: Dysartes


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?

For no reason. GK just can't have cool things.

Xeno, Klickor was talking about BA, not GK - and apparently without looking at the source material.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/08 07:31:10


Post by: Marin


Spoletta wrote:
We should learn to stop talking about "SM". The only SM faction out there is the generic chapter.

UM and IH are 2 different factions, they play with hugely different rules, with hugely different lists, just like DA and BA. While they have some in common, they have different psy powers, different relics, different warlord traits, different stratagems and even some different units.

Saying "IH being OP does not make SM OP" is a correct statement. No one ever said that SW were good because BA had smash captains.



It maybe different to SM players, but for the rest they are the some.
Like CHE got nerfed because of allaitoc.
Dark Reapers and Spears cuz of Ynnari.
Casstelan cuz of Raiven.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/08 07:52:03


Post by: Xenomancers


 Dysartes wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?

For no reason. GK just can't have cool things.

Xeno, Klickor was talking about BA, not GK - and apparently without looking at the source material.
I looked back it sure seemed like he was talking about GK.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/08 09:09:24


Post by: Spoletta


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
It's weird, though, I don't remember ITC data being invalid when Guard stuff needed nerfs...or Eldar stuff...or GSC stuff...or Tau stuff..

Never a truer word spoken.

I also don't remember people calling for a nerf of "Twisted Helix" instead of "GSC" or "Farsight Enclaves" instead of "Tau". Weird.


Those claims were actually there.

When IG and Dark Reapers were perceived as being OP, there were people saying "That is only in ITC, you can't artificially make it easier to block LoS and then complain that no LoS arty is OP. Same for move shoot move reapers". I was among them.

They were dismissed the same way they are being dismissed now though...


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/08 10:54:18


Post by: Tyel


Can someone explain how IH/RG/IF benefit "more" from CA19 missions than ITC?

I don't see it.
Which doesn't mean "Marines are fine", they are still the best faction in the game, but its less obvious because CA19 missions are less precise and clinical than ITC. Your list building decisions are not constrained by potentially giving up easy secondaries and kill more. (Yes, 4 pillars, but that's basically it).

There is probably a meta impact for the Maelstrom missions, but people continue to generally disregard them, and arguably they are very swingy, so raw power matters less then flexibility and getting the right cards at the right time (and in the right order).


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/08 11:19:39


Post by: T1nk4bell


It's just blah. Last 4 gts with ca rules not one ih rg in the top three


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/08 13:34:37


Post by: Klickor


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?

For no reason. GK just can't have cool things.

Xeno, Klickor was talking about BA, not GK - and apparently without looking at the source material.
I looked back it sure seemed like he was talking about GK.


I am not Karol. I have never talked about GK on this forum. Mostly about Blood Angels and especially in this thread. Would probably have been easier to see I'm not him if my flag went back to the blue and yellow swedish flag instead of showing Austrias flag that are the same colors as poland which I think Karol is from.

Ishagu said we had everything normal marines have and made it sound like our shooting is about the same as codex marines so we should just shut it. Ibexplained why our base units are all the same yet they perform very different from the better marine chapters.

I apparently missed that BA can have chaplain dreads even though it doesnt really change anything.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/08 19:08:34


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Spoletta wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
It's weird, though, I don't remember ITC data being invalid when Guard stuff needed nerfs...or Eldar stuff...or GSC stuff...or Tau stuff..

Never a truer word spoken.

I also don't remember people calling for a nerf of "Twisted Helix" instead of "GSC" or "Farsight Enclaves" instead of "Tau". Weird.


Those claims were actually there.

When IG and Dark Reapers were perceived as being OP, there were people saying "That is only in ITC, you can't artificially make it easier to block LoS and then complain that no LoS arty is OP. Same for move shoot move reapers". I was among them.

They were dismissed the same way they are being dismissed now though...


Similarly, plenty of people were arguing that any nerfs should target the Ynnari rules rather than the Reapers themselves, since the Reapers weren't as oppressive in other Craftworld lists.

Even then, even if we accept that no one was saying this for Ynnari, why does that matter? Does it change that the argument is the right one to make in the present? If Xenos players have been slighted like this in the past, does that make it fair to do the same thing to another set of factions? The same people that are complaining that others aren't arguing in good faith and that there is a double standard are the ones arguing that Space Marines should suffer because their faction has.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 10:19:11


Post by: Tyel


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Similarly, plenty of people were arguing that any nerfs should target the Ynnari rules rather than the Reapers themselves, since the Reapers weren't as oppressive in other Craftworld lists.

Even then, even if we accept that no one was saying this for Ynnari, why does that matter? Does it change that the argument is the right one to make in the present? If Xenos players have been slighted like this in the past, does that make it fair to do the same thing to another set of factions? The same people that are complaining that others aren't arguing in good faith and that there is a double standard are the ones arguing that Space Marines should suffer because their faction has.


How would you nerf them then?

The complaint is partly that we had an admittedly brief period where you only had New UM and WS and they were winning tournaments. They have since been further buffed in Psychic Awakening (although so are other factions). It does however undermine this idea that you just throw the IH and RG and IF supplements in the bin and suddenly Marines will be fine.

Then you take a scalpel to those supplements - or indeed all supplements - and what do you do? The full Ynnari? I.E completely gut them and start again? IH especially seems like a Gordian knot of rule on rule on rule. Where do you cut? Send Chaplain Dreads to Legends or nerf them? Ditto for Leviathans? Re-write the super doctrine?

You could go with say "no successor chapter tactics for supplement chapters" - which would be a cause of much upset amongst players, but its a simple enough rule that applies to the non-supplement tier codexes because screw those guys. The thing is I'm not sure its going to be that much of a hard nerf, although it would hurt RG Cent spam. Really though I think Master of Ambush should just be removed. Why can Marines get an effective turn 1 deep strike when others do not? This is what I mean by the Ynnari treatment - when you dig into it, how on earth do you balance this?

Do you make Thunderfire Cannons 200 points because screw them, thats why?

The problem with Marines is that they got rule on rule on rule. When they were crap, bolter discipline was fine. Then they got shock assault - also fine. Then they got the new codex which brought points drops and buffs and combat doctrines. At this point they would have been fine. But then they got super doctrines and more buffs in the supplement books which were just bonkers. And then they got even more buffs in Faith and Fury.

Barring taking a hatchet all of this its very hard to see where you go. The only thing GW can do, barring a whole re-release of last year's material, is significant point hikes in CA2020. Which is what I'd expect to see. Its just going to be a bit boring for the next 9 months.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 11:53:52


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Stop Cents and Aggressors from infiltrating, make Tremor Shells and shoot twice mutually exclusive, remove the rerolls and move-and-shoot from IH, move Chap Dread to Legends, change the Leviathan Dreadnought's keyword from <DREADNOUGHT> to <LEVIATHAN DREADNOUGHT>. Nerf the strongest bits, let meta settle down a bit, apply further nerfs where/if necessary.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 11:57:00


Post by: Dysartes


If Chaplain Dreads are only an issue with IH, I don't think they need sending to Legends - again, look at the specific interactions and see what the smallest change can be to achieve the objective.

Just to check - the only place we're seeing Chaplain Dreadnoughts getting run seriously is in conjunction with the IH rules, isn't it?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 12:20:35


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Dysartes wrote:
If Chaplain Dreads are only an issue with IH, I don't think they need sending to Legends - again, look at the specific interactions and see what the smallest change can be to achieve the objective.

Just to check - the only place we're seeing Chaplain Dreadnoughts getting run seriously is in conjunction with the IH rules, isn't it?


And itc.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 12:36:55


Post by: Ishagu


Not convinced such a list of nerfs is required, especially as the Iron Hands haven't been winning the recent large events that use the official GW rules. Some adjustments would be beneficial, especially in regards to the Leviathan Dread. I certainly wouldn't mess with the other strats that could negatively impact other chapters too.

Maybe the ITC mission, deployment and terrain rules need to change.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 15:08:26


Post by: Blood Hawk


Chaplain dreads are only an issue because of the character rules which need to be rewritten anyway IMO. Or all the monster/ vehicle characters need to be given more wounds.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 15:14:11


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 Dysartes wrote:
If Chaplain Dreads are only an issue with IH, I don't think they need sending to Legends - again, look at the specific interactions and see what the smallest change can be to achieve the objective.

Just to check - the only place we're seeing Chaplain Dreadnoughts getting run seriously is in conjunction with the IH rules, isn't it?


I think they are also a problem with Imperial Fists and Successors. Pop on the warlord trait for +1 to wound Vehicles and lean into their +1 damage on vehicles and watch them delete stuff with extraordinary reliability. I play Crimson Fists, I have one of these things; kitted out properly it is bonkers. Fix them for IH and you will just see them in IF lists.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 15:50:38


Post by: Ordana


 Blood Hawk wrote:
Chaplain dreads are only an issue because of the character rules which need to be rewritten anyway IMO. Or all the monster/ vehicle characters need to be given more wounds.
165 pts for 2 2+ BS lascannon shots with T7 and 9 wounds 5++ 6+++ and litanies is absolutely bonkers. No, its not just the Character rule, its probably 100+ points undercosted.

a Chaplain is 72 points base, a venerable chaplain dread is 105. Your telling me that +1 BS, +2 S, +3 T, +5W +1A +1ld -1invul and 6+++ is only worth 33 points?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 15:56:30


Post by: the_scotsman


Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 16:02:12


Post by: The Newman


 bullyboy wrote:
it's kind of funny how short people's memories are. Before Codex 2.0 there was thread after thread about how to improve marines, how to make marines feel like they should in the lore. Well, you got what you wished for and then some.


That's not how I remember things. The lion's share of suggestions on how to fix Marines were aimed at making them feel as tough as the fluff makes them out to be. Their damage output was a bit of a problem but the big issue was always that they paid a premium for their defensive stats but still died like flies. Codex 2.0 and the suppliments mostly fixed their firepower without actually making them hold up any better outside of IH, and IH didn't actually get much tougher overall. What they got was a set of broken rules interactions that let them make one model absurdly hard to kill and then use that model as a shield for a lot of the rest of the list.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 16:12:09


Post by: Ishagu


That's not true lol.

There was topic after topic about how bad they were, with multiple people claiming GW could never write powerful rules for Astartes.
It's comical really.

And yes, people do have short memories. It's a joke at this point. The forum is so hysterical.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 16:25:27


Post by: The Newman


the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

I've been throwing out the base codex warlord traits, psychic powers, strats, and relics instead of the doctrine rules, (and disallowing the custom chapter traits) but the intention is basically the same. I also disallowed using the PA character upgrades outside of the base codex.

For UM and WS it tones things down nicely, and it pulls the teeth out of the most broken IH combo since Duty Eternal isn't allowed. Codex 2.0 by itself doesn't seem nearly as abusive. I can't really speak to RG, IF, IH, or Sallies on table experience just yet because I'm having a very hard time building lists I like for any of them. I'm on the fence about whether I should try to hold Templars to the same standard, they don't have nearly the pile of tools that the suppliment factions got access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
That's not true lol.

There was topic after topic about how bad they were, with multiple people claiming GW could never write powerful rules for Astartes.
It's comical really.

And yes, people do have short memories. It's a joke at this point. The forum is so hysterical.


You present that bold part like it's your reason for disagreeing, but that part doesn't disagree with anything I said at all. BullyBoy said that we complained because Marines didn't represent their fluff on the table (true) because they weren't strong enough (which is where I disagreed). Most of the complaints I remember were about Marines not having any staying power, when in the fluff they regularly walk into and back out of war zones that would obliterate anything else. If we were complaining that Marines weren't tough enough then we didn't get "what we wished for and then some", because Marines were glass-cannon without the 'cannon' part and we wanted to lose the 'glass' instead of gaining the 'cannon'.

The assertion that GW couldn't write strong rules for Marines makes more sense in that context. GW seems married to the T4 3+ profile, and in a game where a T5 W3 2+ 4++ feels fragile there's no way to make a T4 3+ not feel like it's made of glass.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 18:16:46


Post by: Racerguy180


Ishagu wrote:

And yes, people do have short memories. It's a joke at this point. The forum is so hysterical.

The sky's falling, the sky's falling. Oh wait, no it's not.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 19:05:58


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 19:21:15


Post by: Ishagu


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?


What a ridiculous question that only someone who isn't a fan of the hobby would ask.

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 19:28:31


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Ishagu wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?


What a ridiculous question that only someone who isn't a fan of the hobby would ask.

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

You don't NEED that many things to express distinct and unique rules. More rules =/= depth, and GW has proven that multiple times in a pretty short time frame. The best GW does is mediocrity and then it's mostly just bloat.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 19:33:50


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?


What a ridiculous question that only someone who isn't a fan of the hobby would ask.

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?
So, are chapter tactics and unique characters not enough to differentiate them?

And if they're not, where's the supplements for Catachans? Mephrit? Deffskullz? Argent Shroud?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 19:34:54


Post by: Darsath


 Ishagu wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?


What a ridiculous question that only someone who isn't a fan of the hobby would ask.

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

You are aware that there are players who preferred the Index era of 8th edition to the current era, correct? More isn't always better.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 20:04:34


Post by: Blood Hawk


 Ordana wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
Chaplain dreads are only an issue because of the character rules which need to be rewritten anyway IMO. Or all the monster/ vehicle characters need to be given more wounds.
165 pts for 2 2+ BS lascannon shots with T7 and 9 wounds 5++ 6+++ and litanies is absolutely bonkers. No, its not just the Character rule, its probably 100+ points undercosted.

a Chaplain is 72 points base, a venerable chaplain dread is 105. Your telling me that +1 BS, +2 S, +3 T, +5W +1A +1ld -1invul and 6+++ is only worth 33 points?

The chaplain dread comes in similar pt wise to other forge world dreads like the contemptor mortis. Its fire power is similar as well or worse. The contemptor mortis with dual twin Las is 168pts I believe. The big difference between the two is character status which is why the chaplain dread is better.

Also the normal chaplains are still worse than the other SM hqs even after the buffs. They are still playing second fiddle to captains/ CMs for instance. If chaplain dreads were 10 wounds they would much better balanced. Much better than normal chaplains but they kinda suck IMO. Also no one would take chaplain dreads at 265pts if they didn't have character protection.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 20:16:26


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Wait until he discovers you can make a Ven Dread with better shooting a Character too for 1CP. Sooooooo broken! Also you're not incorporating the cost of the weapons. Under your logic Warp Talons are super undercosted.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 20:33:34


Post by: Blood Hawk


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait until he discovers you can make a Ven Dread with better shooting a Character too for 1CP. Sooooooo broken! Also you're not incorporating the cost of the weapons. Under your logic Warp Talons are super undercosted.

The ven dread is cheaper too.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 20:38:47


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Blood Hawk wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait until he discovers you can make a Ven Dread with better shooting a Character too for 1CP. Sooooooo broken! Also you're not incorporating the cost of the weapons. Under your logic Warp Talons are super undercosted.

The ven dread is cheaper too.

What's amazing is people complained about that Stratagem on Leviathans out of anything , all because of an interaction from a different Stratagem too! MAYBE Martyrdom is a bit silly when it comes to a Marine taking shots going at a vehicle of any kind. Maybe...


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 21:13:11


Post by: Gadzilla666


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait until he discovers you can make a Ven Dread with better shooting a Character too for 1CP. Sooooooo broken! Also you're not incorporating the cost of the weapons. Under your logic Warp Talons are super undercosted.

The ven dread is cheaper too.

What's amazing is people complained about that Stratagem on Leviathans out of anything , all because of an interaction from a different Stratagem too! MAYBE Martyrdom is a bit silly when it comes to a Marine taking shots going at a vehicle of any kind. Maybe...

It should only allow wounds to be taken for models with the infantry keyword?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 21:37:15


Post by: Klickor


What makes the chaplain a steal is also its HQ slot. I see quite a few lists with an extra HQ unit or 2 without real purpose just to fill out detachments. You almost(they arent worthless and still worth something so it isnt a 1:1 points save) save a LT or tech marine in points due to the chaplain dread taking a HQ slot. Its still an expensive twin lascannon so for just pure fire power vs cost its not good at all but its those extra things that make it broken.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 21:51:54


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait until he discovers you can make a Ven Dread with better shooting a Character too for 1CP. Sooooooo broken! Also you're not incorporating the cost of the weapons. Under your logic Warp Talons are super undercosted.

The ven dread is cheaper too.

What's amazing is people complained about that Stratagem on Leviathans out of anything , all because of an interaction from a different Stratagem too! MAYBE Martyrdom is a bit silly when it comes to a Marine taking shots going at a vehicle of any kind. Maybe...

It should only allow wounds to be taken for models with the infantry keyword?

Makes more sense. I mean, even for a small box Dread, it doesn't scale well when Intercessors are tanking a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon from a Knight up close to it. That said, character targeting is a bit janky in general. A size stat to help determine what Characters can be protected (like a 4 could be protected by a 3 or even maybe a 2, but certainly not a 1) would go a long way. Someone proposed something similar before.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 21:59:48


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Darsath wrote:

You are aware that there are players who preferred the Index era of 8th edition to the current era, correct? More isn't always better.


You are aware that nobody is forcing you to buy anything?

Play however you want. Allow others to play how they want.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/09 22:30:21


Post by: JNAProductions


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait until he discovers you can make a Ven Dread with better shooting a Character too for 1CP. Sooooooo broken! Also you're not incorporating the cost of the weapons. Under your logic Warp Talons are super undercosted.

The ven dread is cheaper too.

What's amazing is people complained about that Stratagem on Leviathans out of anything , all because of an interaction from a different Stratagem too! MAYBE Martyrdom is a bit silly when it comes to a Marine taking shots going at a vehicle of any kind. Maybe...

It should only allow wounds to be taken for models with the infantry keyword?

Makes more sense. I mean, even for a small box Dread, it doesn't scale well when Intercessors are tanking a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon from a Knight up close to it. That said, character targeting is a bit janky in general. A size stat to help determine what Characters can be protected (like a 4 could be protected by a 3 or even maybe a 2, but certainly not a 1) would go a long way. Someone proposed something similar before.
That was me. And possibly others, but I know for a fact I've done it.

Link to thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777343.page


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 03:03:58


Post by: Crimson


 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 04:07:08


Post by: blaktoof


 Crimson wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.


Agree.

If factions needed their subfactions fleshed out to the point of having their own codex and or supplement then the only playable faction would be space Marines, imperial flavor.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 04:09:04


Post by: Argive


Well yea... Duhh… Everyone else is NPC.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 04:19:25


Post by: flandarz


I dunno if everyone else is an NPC, but my personal gripe is how the new Marines have been picking up improved versions of rules like Dakka×3 or FTGG. Kinda moving to a point where the Xenos Factions will just be worse version of various SM Chapters .


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 04:28:07


Post by: bullyboy


The Newman wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


You present that bold part like it's your reason for disagreeing, but that part doesn't disagree with anything I said at all. BullyBoy said that we complained because Marines didn't represent their fluff on the table (true) because they weren't strong enough (which is where I disagreed). Most of the complaints I remember were about Marines not having any staying power, when in the fluff they regularly walk into and back out of war zones that would obliterate anything else. If we were complaining that Marines weren't tough enough then we didn't get "what we wished for and then some", because Marines were glass-cannon without the 'cannon' part and we wanted to lose the 'glass' instead of gaining the 'cannon'.

The assertion that GW couldn't write strong rules for Marines makes more sense in that context. GW seems married to the T4 3+ profile, and in a game where a T5 W3 2+ 4++ feels fragile there's no way to make a T4 3+ not feel like it's made of glass.


Weren't strong enough encompasses durability, not just offensive firepower. They lacked many things. Bolter discipline, doctrines and shock assault helped out a ton. Not sure GW had to go overboard with some of the other aspects, but there you are.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 05:01:22


Post by: Gadzilla666


 flandarz wrote:
I dunno if everyone else is an NPC, but my personal gripe is how the new Marines have been picking up improved versions of rules like Dakka×3 or FTGG. Kinda moving to a point where the Xenos Factions will just be worse version of various SM Chapters .

It's not just marines anymore. The new pa has given us a scions regiment that are better terror troops than the Night Lords. They even have their own version of "in midnight clad ".


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 05:43:29


Post by: bullyboy


It's great to see marines be really good again, but the problem is they have become super elite with rule upon rule, but at the same time, their points have dropped significantly too. So you are left with 2 options....nerf the heck out of the special rules, or bump points back up. The latter won't occur until December, and we know that these changes are made really early in the year before the book goes to print. This means that if GW introduces some nerfs to the rules in the Spring FAQ, they won't have time to analyze the effects before they have to make decisions about the points. That does not bode well.
I'd love to see elite marines, but at a points cost that reflects those abilities.
I think we need to see point increases for at least the following..

Intercessors
Aggressors
Eliminators
Centurions
Thunderfire cannons
Impulsors
Invictor warsuit

and a change in Chapter Master strat to 3CP.
This is not anti-marine hate btw, I use Aggressors, Eliminators and Warsuits in my Ravenguard army.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 06:36:03


Post by: Argive


And slap on the restrictions on prebattle deployment/scout move. Having 3+ units starting 9" away from you AND THEN moving/acting if you get first turn is absurd...

Apparently my CWE and their web way portal technology & rangers isn't as sneaky as a bunch of dreadnaughts XD


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 07:21:29


Post by: Gadzilla666


Yeah sounds good. But it won't slow down Iron Hands. They need to lose a couple of those free rules just to bring them in line with the other chapters.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 08:40:11


Post by: Racerguy180


bullyboy wrote:It's great to see marines be really good again, but the problem is they have become super elite with rule upon rule, but at the same time, their points have dropped significantly too. So you are left with 2 options....nerf the heck out of the special rules, or bump points back up. The latter won't occur until December, and we know that these changes are made really early in the year before the book goes to print. This means that if GW introduces some nerfs to the rules in the Spring FAQ, they won't have time to analyze the effects before they have to make decisions about the points. That does not bode well.
I'd love to see elite marines, but at a points cost that reflects those abilities.
I think we need to see point increases for at least the following..

Intercessors
Aggressors
Eliminators
Centurions
Thunderfire cannons
Impulsors
Invictor warsuit

and a change in Chapter Master strat to 3CP.
This is not anti-marine hate btw, I use Aggressors, Eliminators and Warsuits in my Ravenguard army.

I'm down for points increases on my Salamanders and the Chapter Master strat needs to be 3cp and the hero of the chapter should be 2cp.

An Intecessor squad should be required to be taken in 10 marine squads only and they need an increase to approx 20ish pts each to account for all the stuff Astartes got. Firstborn can stay at their current levels & their min squad size of 5 to really show how they wage war in contrast to Primaris. If all the other the units that are "problems" get proportionally more expensive, they(fotm) can move on to the next hotstuff. Then I can just continue playing them like before they were broken.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 08:46:57


Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


 Argive wrote:
And slap on the restrictions on prebattle deployment/scout move. Having 3+ units starting 9" away from you AND THEN moving/acting if you get first turn is absurd...

Apparently my CWE and their web way portal technology & rangers isn't as sneaky as a bunch of dreadnaughts XD


Dear god this please.

I just had no words when my opponent did this to me first time playing against his RG and plonked those damn dreadnoughts 9 " away and move, fired and charged. Felt really... Interactive...

One a bright side at least one of the dreadnoughts had an epic fist fight with a Wraithlord.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 09:59:02


Post by: happy_inquisitor


blaktoof wrote:


Agree.

If factions needed their subfactions fleshed out to the point of having their own codex and or supplement then the only playable faction would be space Marines, imperial flavor.


*Waves from Farsight Enclaves*

FSE have had a supplement in 6th and 7th editions and now PA5 is basically their 8th edition supplement.

Scions essentially have their supplement in PA5 too.

Of course this is all optional and players were perfectly well playing these factions with only the odd slight different rule for the past years/months. The additional supplements are for the very keen - they are very much optional for most players.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:08:22


Post by: Slipspace


 Crimson wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.


Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:25:21


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
 Argive wrote:
And slap on the restrictions on prebattle deployment/scout move. Having 3+ units starting 9" away from you AND THEN moving/acting if you get first turn is absurd...

Apparently my CWE and their web way portal technology & rangers isn't as sneaky as a bunch of dreadnaughts XD


Dear god this please.

I just had no words when my opponent did this to me first time playing against his RG and plonked those damn dreadnoughts 9 " away and move, fired and charged. Felt really... Interactive...

One a bright side at least one of the dreadnoughts had an epic fist fight with a Wraithlord.


You need something in your list which can deploy outside your deployment zone to block this. I realise that Aeldari are short of choices in this regard but 80pts for a huge great Webway Gate of Nope for all those RG tricks could be points well spent. If their tricks are currently costing you more than 80pts in casualties then I'd say that is a good trade. At least it looks real pretty


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:29:10


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Argive wrote:
And slap on the restrictions on prebattle deployment/scout move. Having 3+ units starting 9" away from you AND THEN moving/acting if you get first turn is absurd...

Apparently my CWE and their web way portal technology & rangers isn't as sneaky as a bunch of dreadnaughts XD


My dreads all wear sneakers, for sneaking. The Eldar never hear them coming and they hold up little signs saying, shh I'm a large bush, moving in the wind. They learned that from Creed, the tactical genius.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:32:39


Post by: Not Online!!!


AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
And slap on the restrictions on prebattle deployment/scout move. Having 3+ units starting 9" away from you AND THEN moving/acting if you get first turn is absurd...

Apparently my CWE and their web way portal technology & rangers isn't as sneaky as a bunch of dreadnaughts XD


My dreads all wear sneakers, for sneaking. The Eldar never hear them coming and they hold up little signs saying, shh I'm a large bush, moving in the wind. They learned that from Creed, the tactical genius.


But creed is just Alhparius in disguise.

And alpharius is dead.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:32:44


Post by: Ishagu


Slipspace wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.


Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.


Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.

If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:34:16


Post by: Not Online!!!


Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.


"Press X to doubt"


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:35:10


Post by: Ishagu


Boo hoo. Is GW writing too many thematic rules for your liking?

Lol you are in the wrong hobby if you don't like it.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:37:39


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Ishagu wrote:
Boo hoo. Is GW writing too many thematic rules for your liking?

Lol you are in the wrong hobby if you don't like it.


Where have i stated what i like or dislike in regards to the rules?

Your reading comprehension aswell as your general attitude need improvement, may i suggest a Knigge Course aswell as reading some more books?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:50:20


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Ishagu wrote:
Boo hoo. Is GW writing too many thematic rules for your liking?

Lol you are in the wrong hobby if you don't like it.

The problem is how the "thematic" rules are handled. Just giving an army blanket +1 to ap isn't very "thematic".

The rules also aren't being handed out in a very equitable manner. Compare loyalist marines to gsc for example.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 10:53:52


Post by: Not Online!!!


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Boo hoo. Is GW writing too many thematic rules for your liking?

Lol you are in the wrong hobby if you don't like it.

The problem is how the "thematic" rules are handled. Just giving an army blanket +1 to ap isn't very "thematic".

The rules also aren't being handed out in a very equitable manner. Compare loyalist marines to gsc for example.



Thematic rules wouldn't be an issue, IF they would be on an equal level spread indeed.

And not just name generators and stratagems for some, whilest others get stratagems, warlord traits, build an army trait and and and.
(not even mentioning the vast imbalance in quality of some stratagems and build a trait options)


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 11:04:01


Post by: AngryAngel80


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Boo hoo. Is GW writing too many thematic rules for your liking?

Lol you are in the wrong hobby if you don't like it.


Where have i stated what i like or dislike in regards to the rules?

Your reading comprehension aswell as your general attitude need improvement, may i suggest a Knigge Course aswell as reading some more books?


I'd just ignore that comment, I read it and laughed pretty hard. As honestly, few of these rules do I find heavy in theme and more just similar traits rolled out over and over or current rules spliced and put out to build your own in a slighty different way. If you took each actual unique rule I doubt you'd be able to print one of the books on it.

Like Iron hands, pretty theme filled, being cyborgs means they can move and fire heavy fine, oh wait other more heavily augmented guys can't, hmm, it's ok, they get a plus one to hit with heavy weapons because you know, they love technology. As well as all the other things that somehow are for theme. I get the FNP or an invuln save, I'd even see them having some morale safety as they aren't emotional, maybe they hit harder in CC with their robot legs.

The problem is most of these theme filled rules aren't really themes as much as stacking killy buffs in the easiest way and mostly the rules that are heavy in the theme tend not to be the ones anyone uses or cares about save for the random player that just loves their faction.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 11:14:52


Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


Spoiler:
happy_inquisitor wrote:
Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
 Argive wrote:
And slap on the restrictions on prebattle deployment/scout move. Having 3+ units starting 9" away from you AND THEN moving/acting if you get first turn is absurd...

Apparently my CWE and their web way portal technology & rangers isn't as sneaky as a bunch of dreadnaughts XD


Dear god this please.

I just had no words when my opponent did this to me first time playing against his RG and plonked those damn dreadnoughts 9 " away and move, fired and charged. Felt really... Interactive...

One a bright side at least one of the dreadnoughts had an epic fist fight with a Wraithlord.


You need something in your list which can deploy outside your deployment zone to block this. I realise that Aeldari are short of choices in this regard but 80pts for a huge great Webway Gate of Nope for all those RG tricks could be points well spent. If their tricks are currently costing you more than 80pts in casualties then I'd say that is a good trade. At least it looks real pretty


True, I have ways to counter theirs, but I do think its a bit telling how many hoops I need to go through whilst they get that option, and like 5 times as many for being RG and bringing some CP which we all were doing anyway. I don't mind new marines, I hate how deep their toolbox is and how they've now taken identifying features off Xenos and do it better.

Also for the record same game Axe+ Shield wraithblades wrecked all in their path until the Warlock got sniped and I lost all sources of Protect. But it was glorious to actually kill assault cents


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 11:31:36


Post by: Slipspace


 Ishagu wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.


Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.


Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.

If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.


Or how about you knock off the constant gatekeeping and deciding for everyone else what "proper" 40k is? There are nuances between complete agreement and complete disagreement with an opinion but I don't think I've ever seen you display any understanding of that ever.

To reiterate, the game worked fine (well, it was OK I guess) before every chapter had a Codex worth of rules/stratagems/warlord traits/psychic powers added to it and also benefitted from more focus on creativity and individuality while simultaneously being easier to balance. I get the desire for more rules for more factions but I disagree that it's required or a good thing, especially with GW's track record with balance. We see that now with how utterly miserable it can be to play against SM nowadays. It's not even purely about power level, just the layers of rules upon rules which make it feel like you're playing a different game to them.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 11:36:19


Post by: AngryAngel80


There is something to be said for the fact marines had a general feel before, now they feel more like they have their hands in everyones pie. That the generalist faction, which marines have always been are not the jack of all trade but the Masters of which ever ones their " Theme " says they should be and that was never Marines.

I mean being stronger is fun but they feel less like jack of all trades with maybe some flavor in their various avenues of interest but tough and with no weakness aside from not being specialist to being the best at say, sneaky stalking, Gun line, mobile warfare, , etc, etc. Now some of these are arguable but I actually feel they lost a good deal of flavor by becoming so good all around and specialized.

Though to be fair they currently lack some in CC as the primaris line really is all about the shooting when you break it down.

Like marines were never know for being the best snipers, now, I'd say they are easily the best if not one of the best. They kinda lacked good LOS ignoring barrage, Thunder fire really takes that away, CC they are kind of middle of the road but with all their buffs I'd say they make a mess of more than messes them up anymore, they could always gun line but now they can castle up and lower the pain train, they have high access to anti grav which was always a short coming. They are kind of morphing into the Mary Sues some always thought them to be and what theme most had is replaced with consistent ability stacking.

Marine characters before sure didn't have enough utility but now that utility is pretty much why you take them. Captains sitting back with the long guns just to give hit re rolls feels odd for a might hero of the universe, feels more like a techmarine should do that. Kind of a long rant but I just had to put out there that doesn't feel like theme and more it feels like just arbitrary power ramping.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 11:39:14


Post by: the_scotsman


Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.


Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.


Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.

If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.


Or how about you knock off the constant gatekeeping and deciding for everyone else what "proper" 40k is? There are nuances between complete agreement and complete disagreement with an opinion but I don't think I've ever seen you display any understanding of that ever.

To reiterate, the game worked fine (well, it was OK I guess) before every chapter had a Codex worth of rules/stratagems/warlord traits/psychic powers added to it and also benefitted from more focus on creativity and individuality while simultaneously being easier to balance. I get the desire for more rules for more factions but I disagree that it's required or a good thing, especially with GW's track record with balance. We see that now with how utterly miserable it can be to play against SM nowadays. It's not even purely about power level, just the layers of rules upon rules which make it feel like you're playing a different game to them.


Yeah, except...scions kinda dont have the same rule stacking. You want one of those new scion doctrines? You give up the base scion doctrine. Like a big boy faction.

They for a few traits and relics, sure, but they also could not take the lion's share of the ones in the base guard book.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 11:50:54


Post by: Gadzilla666


the_scotsman wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.


Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.


Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.

If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.


Or how about you knock off the constant gatekeeping and deciding for everyone else what "proper" 40k is? There are nuances between complete agreement and complete disagreement with an opinion but I don't think I've ever seen you display any understanding of that ever.

To reiterate, the game worked fine (well, it was OK I guess) before every chapter had a Codex worth of rules/stratagems/warlord traits/psychic powers added to it and also benefitted from more focus on creativity and individuality while simultaneously being easier to balance. I get the desire for more rules for more factions but I disagree that it's required or a good thing, especially with GW's track record with balance. We see that now with how utterly miserable it can be to play against SM nowadays. It's not even purely about power level, just the layers of rules upon rules which make it feel like you're playing a different game to them.


Yeah, except...scions kinda dont have the same rule stacking. You want one of those new scion doctrines? You give up the base scion doctrine. Like a big boy faction.

They for a few traits and relics, sure, but they also could not take the lion's share of the ones in the base guard book.

Which is how it should be. You should sacrifice something to gain something. That's how it works in hh, rites of war and the like have downsides to go with the upsides. Why is it gw understood that concept for that game, and for most factions in 40k, but can't quite grasp it when they make rules for loyalist marines?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 11:52:38


Post by: AngryAngel80


Yeah and thats an issue as well, as it feels like, marines are the shootiest, fightiest, most specialized when they want to be, easy access to lots of re rolls and plus 1s, extra attack phases in CC. While say Scions and most other factions have to give things up for other things and their rules only stack so far while marines can seemingly always have their cake and eat it too as the saying goes.

Though again apologies for off topic if any of this is, it's more speaking against all this varied nuance just giving flavor when it feels and looks more like power growing masked as flavor.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 12:33:26


Post by: Ishagu


For most of 8th edition Astartes had the most bland rules, and the most boring and mundane playstyle.

Their new codex is a massive improvement, mostly so in regards to theme and playstyle for the various chapters.

In the meantime, if you guys are unhappy with them winning so much then play CA missions more and drop the ITC. At the GW events the codex is performing well but not winning events.
If you continue to complain about faction variety you should move to a different game that is more bland. With Psychic Awakening GW is actively giving all factions more variation in play.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 12:40:45


Post by: tneva82


 Ishagu wrote:
Boo hoo. Is GW writing too many thematic rules for your liking?

Lol you are in the wrong hobby if you don't like it.


Thematic=free power creep rules that actually discourage fluffy armies. The chapter traits are antithesis of thematic armies.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 12:44:18


Post by: the_scotsman


 Ishagu wrote:
For most of 8th edition Astartes had the most bland rules, and the most boring and mundane playstyle.

Their new codex is a massive improvement, mostly so in regards to theme and playstyle for the various chapters.

In the meantime, if you guys are unhappy with them winning so much then play CA missions more and drop the ITC. At the GW events the codex is performing well but not winning events.
If you continue to complain about faction variety you should move to a different game that is more bland. With Psychic Awakening GW is actively giving all factions more variation in play.



Honestly, this is kind of a solved problem at this point where I play. We've had our non-marine players slowly trickling back as more and more of the guys playing marines realize that the ability to table their opponents in two turns doesn't add flavor, it just makes them done with the game in 2 hours and forces them to stand around watching others. if you want to play with supplement stuff, it's pretty much understood that you'll end up playing someone else using a supplement or playing someone who is an avid tournament gamer looking for practice against them and bringing a competitive list.

PA is giving (most) factions variations in play (some are so bad you can't really call it variation tbh, drukhari and GSC say hi). That's a good thing. The other good thing is, for the most part they aren't really adding much to a faction's overall power budget unless they were performing really poorly before, like Grey Knights or super close-range Farsight Tau were. Variation is great, but marine supplements didn't add variation, they removed it by shoving out half the factions in the game.

Ask anyone if they'd rather be in a group with a marine player, an eldar player, an ork player, a necron player, a tyranid player and a sisters player or an ultramarines player, an iron hands player, a raven guard player, a salamanders player, an imperial fists player and a black templars player.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 12:48:19


Post by: Ishagu


Who's getting tabled in two turns? Lol

Are all Marine players in your area playing Iron Hands tournament lists? I don't table people in two turns when I play Marines, and I don't get tabled when I play against them using other factions.

Maybe improve your terrain and play the CA missions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 12:57:11


Post by: Slipspace


 Ishagu wrote:
Who's getting tabled in two turns? Lol

Are all Marine players in your area playing Iron Hands tournament lists? I don't table people in two turns when I play Marines, and I don't get tabled when I play against them using other factions.

Maybe improve your terrain and play the CA missions.


Maybe 2 turns was hyperbole (maybe not though) but the fact remains I'm also seeing a general shift in attitude towards SM lists locally with people preferring not to play against them. It's not even due to the outright power of the lists as they're by no means tournament-level lists. It's more to do with the feeling you're playing a totally different game if you're using anything other than SM or a well-tuned list from a select few other codices. SM now have so many extra special rules, stratagems and various gotchas it's turning the game into an unfun exercise for enough people that it's causing problems. "Tabling" is alos quite often not a literal tabling, but can be that moment where th game spirals hopelessly out of control. I don't think I've ever literally been tabled in 2 turns in 8th edition but I've had a few games from both sides of the table where the game has effectively been over at that point.

This is on good, varied, terrain using CA19 missions.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 13:01:10


Post by: tneva82


Yeah when 90% of your army gets wiped in 2 turns then that's pretty much tabling right there and game is already decided. Marines can do that without suffering damage that really hurts. Particularly if they go first.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 13:04:49


Post by: Crimson


Problem with the faction rules is that they pigeonhole armies and effectively make balancing point costs impossible. Iron Hand vehicles are a perfect example. They're insanely much better than vehicles of other chapters, yet cost same amount of points. Same issue affects many different faction/unit combinations to lesser degree. So either the units are undercosted and thus OP for faction that buffs them or they are overcosted for everyone else. It also means that certain units simply are not worth using for certain factions. All units should be always be worth taking (and preferably not OP) for all factions. Then you can theme your army by your unit choices. If you play Raven Guard, you can tale more Phobos and more scouts, if you play IH you can take more vehicles and techmarines. Or not, it's your choice really.

Also, these supposedly thematic rules are often not so thematic. I don't think infiltrating Centurions are thematic for Raven Guard, it is just stupid. They should be using naturally stealthy units like Phobos. But they don't need to, as their rules allow making anything stealthy! Imperial Fist rules encourage taking multishot heavy weapons such as heavy bolters and assault cannons over actual bunker busters such as lascannons and missile launchers. Abd Iron Hands are now much more better at mobile warfare than the White Scars...


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 13:16:33


Post by: tneva82


Somehow devastators have died out from blood angels and they bring instead allies. Or no bad moon boy carries slugga and pistol. And somehow lootas have turned from thematically death skull unit into exclusively bad moon unit...


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 13:34:07


Post by: the_scotsman


 Ishagu wrote:
Who's getting tabled in two turns? Lol

Are all Marine players in your area playing Iron Hands tournament lists? I don't table people in two turns when I play Marines, and I don't get tabled when I play against them using other factions.

Maybe improve your terrain and play the CA missions.


We do play the CA missions predominantly. It's pretty much a split between those and the new build-a deck maelstrom.

And we have a ton of terrain - I know, I painted almost all of it. Part of the problem we're having is people playing the terrain rules out of the book with our official GW terrain, which means we've got these massive sector mechanicus assemblages that have basically zero ingame impact when you use them as the board centerpieces they're supposed to be, because gunlines just shoot right through 'em.

it's a mix of competitiveness. We've got a white scars, iron hands and ultramarines player in the tournament crowd, then 7 or 8 more casual players playing ultras, imp fists, salamanders and dark angels. Everything from optimized primaris gunlines to 40+ footslogging tacticals and classic one-gun one-arm dreads out of a 20 year old collection.

The trouble has mostly been with the casual guys, since they suddenly started running up against other casual lists that they would ordinarily have good games against and end up done in 1.5-2 hours. Just last week the tacticals 'n dreadnoughts guy faced off against some ork speed freeks and pulled out an honest to god turn 2 tabling by seizing the initiative. He had the extra 6" range on all his dudes with the DA doctrine and blew away 20 warbikes, 3 buggies and 2 trukks top of turn 1. He never even moved from where he deployed his models initially, just had to switch to Tactical turn 2 when all the ork stuff had moved up into 24" range.

You can look at that and say "Well why would someone play a list with tons of warbikes and buggies, those are terrible?" or "Why would he line all his stuff up on the deployment line instead of an extra 6" away?" but that's just how these kinds of silly games go. And it wasn't a problem until marines started pumping out firepower by the bucketload, before the DA got their supplement treatment those guys would have solid, back and forth games that would usually go to turn 4-5, which is realistically as long as pretty much any game of 8th tends to go given how deadly it is.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 14:19:14


Post by: Ishagu


Yes but I can make a list of Ultramarines Tactical Terminators on foot that would be rubbish.
Thematic lists can have big weaknesses, and players should discuss in advance what kind of game they want.

I recently played against Orks using a Primaris army and the game was decided on turn 5.

Sounds like your local groups needs to discuss the kind of games they want to play. Don't just complain, you've got the power to improve things.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 15:20:29


Post by: the_scotsman


 Ishagu wrote:
Yes but I can make a list of Ultramarines Tactical Terminators on foot that would be rubbish.
Thematic lists can have big weaknesses, and players should discuss in advance what kind of game they want.

I recently played against Orks using a Primaris army and the game was decided on turn 5.

Sounds like your local groups needs to discuss the kind of games they want to play. Don't just complain, you've got the power to improve things.


We do. Like I said, this is a solved issue. it just never would have been an issue if GW hadn't decided to take a baseball bat to inter-factional balance, which is why I've been complaining about marines.

Now the only problem is you've got a solid 5 or 6 marine players stuck in a situation where they either play each other, play versus competitive opponents who are into a much different style of play than they are, or they don't use their fancy doctrines and such because enough of the casual non-marine players have gotten blown away by them and steer clear.

The list I'm talking about here is basically on "footslogging tactical terminators" tier. He's got tactical terminators, he just deep strikes them because he uses the rules for the stuff he's got. Saying footslogging tactical terminators would be bad is kind of like saying your dark eldar army is too immobile because you choose to not move them during the movement phase.



Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 15:26:16


Post by: Crimson


 Ishagu wrote:
Yes but I can make a list of Ultramarines Tactical Terminators on foot that would be rubbish.
Thematic lists can have big weaknesses,

But how that can be? With all these new thematic rules you have been gushing about, shouldn't the thematic lists be stronger than ever?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 15:27:12


Post by: Ishagu


Faction theme and list theme are two different things.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 15:56:23


Post by: Marin


 Crimson wrote:
Problem with the faction rules is that they pigeonhole armies and effectively make balancing point costs impossible. Iron Hand vehicles are a perfect example. They're insanely much better than vehicles of other chapters, yet cost same amount of points. Same issue affects many different faction/unit combinations to lesser degree. So either the units are undercosted and thus OP for faction that buffs them or they are overcosted for everyone else. It also means that certain units simply are not worth using for certain factions. All units should be always be worth taking (and preferably not OP) for all factions. Then you can theme your army by your unit choices. If you play Raven Guard, you can tale more Phobos and more scouts, if you play IH you can take more vehicles and techmarines. Or not, it's your choice really.

Also, these supposedly thematic rules are often not so thematic. I don't think infiltrating Centurions are thematic for Raven Guard, it is just stupid. They should be using naturally stealthy units like Phobos. But they don't need to, as their rules allow making anything stealthy! Imperial Fist rules encourage taking multishot heavy weapons such as heavy bolters and assault cannons over actual bunker busters such as lascannons and missile launchers. Abd Iron Hands are now much more better at mobile warfare than the White Scars...


There are alot of SM units that are undercoated with only the codex rules, because they have stat line, liabilities and stratagems that are over the top and when you add the extra factions rules they go to much over the top.
For instance thunderfire hit on 2++, have 72" range, have access to double fire and slow the opponent stratagem, heal itself and can easily get rerolls to 1 to hit and wound, but than you add IH and IF trait on over it.
Eliminators, able to deploy for free everywhere on the map, without any conditions, can shoot LOS, +2 to save when in cover, can target characters, can get +1 to hit and wound, have access to rerolls to 1 to hit and wound, but than you put RG, IH, IF, UM traits and tricks on them.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 16:05:32


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Eliminators can't set up wherever they want.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 16:23:07


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


Removed - Rule #1 please


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 17:17:17


Post by: BrookM


Hey guys, kindly stay on topic and stick to rule #1, that is, to be polite to one another. Thanks!


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 17:21:35


Post by: Argive


happy_inquisitor wrote:
Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
 Argive wrote:
And slap on the restrictions on prebattle deployment/scout move. Having 3+ units starting 9" away from you AND THEN moving/acting if you get first turn is absurd...

Apparently my CWE and their web way portal technology & rangers isn't as sneaky as a bunch of dreadnaughts XD


Dear god this please.

I just had no words when my opponent did this to me first time playing against his RG and plonked those damn dreadnoughts 9 " away and move, fired and charged. Felt really... Interactive...

One a bright side at least one of the dreadnoughts had an epic fist fight with a Wraithlord.


You need something in your list which can deploy outside your deployment zone to block this. I realise that Aeldari are short of choices in this regard but 80pts for a huge great Webway Gate of Nope for all those RG tricks could be points well spent. If their tricks are currently costing you more than 80pts in casualties then I'd say that is a good trade. At least it looks real pretty


Looks real pretty is all it's worth... 80pts for one? One wouldn't be enough half the time. In an already expensive army, 80-160 pts is huge... In a competitive setting would you really waste the pts if you take them in case you match up against RG? I understand taking things like night spinners as there is a lot primaris but they can kill other things. But the gate is just very acute tailoring.

Ishagu wrote:Yes but I can make a list of Ultramarines Tactical Terminators on foot that would be rubbish.
Thematic lists can have big weaknesses, and players should discuss in advance what kind of game they want.

I recently played against Orks using a Primaris army and the game was decided on turn 5.

Sounds like your local groups needs to discuss the kind of games they want to play. Don't just complain, you've got the power to improve things.


But doesn't this precisely highlight the problem? You had to come up with a very specific scenario & unit composition and play style to make the faction be bad..

This proves the guys point that in a casual setting if you just slap some units on the table, you will have the advantage over other casual non-marines armies and more often than not be better in some aspects than specialist armies.. You actually have to try to make a bad list which shows the problem no?

I mean I don't actually expect you to agree at this point... When faced with obvious logic you just call people names and tell them to go play something else. If this is the staple of marine players I don't think that attitude will do the game any good. Because you know, people will just go play something else as you want..

The fact is, that as stated by you around 50% of the top 10 GT lists are SM of some variety.. That trickles down massively to the casual setting whether you choose to believe it or not.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 17:42:56


Post by: flandarz


He might be listening. His stance has shifted from "Marines are fine if you don't use ITC" to "You should talk to your opponent about the type of game you want to play".

Marines are just an all-around strong Faction right now. Even their weakest Chapters still have an easy time of fielding a competitive army, and their strongest ones can go toe to toe with lists designed specifically to take out Marines.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 18:08:33


Post by: Ishagu


Unless I make an efficient and considered Astartes list I will struggle most generic army lists.

This idea that I can throw together any combination of units and perform well against any army is rubbish.

There isn't some insane gap in power on a unit by unit basis across all the chapters compared to every other faction. People need to stop this hysterical exaggeration.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 18:23:34


Post by: Argive


And yet...... reroll everything aura, doctrines/super doctrines benefits every unit in your books.

So you dont see SM placing in half of top 10 lists outside of ITC as an indicator of anything?


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 18:26:36


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Ishagu wrote:
Faction theme and list theme are two different things.

Part of the problem is that loyalists get so many free buffs that it greatly negates that. Those buffs along with the strong internal balance in their codex and the massive number of units available to them means they have lots of options on how to create lists.

Meanwhile gw wants to give many factions both flavor and power based almost entirely on strategems. So marines can run a variety of detachments without worrying about cp while others are forced into things like double battalions to keep up.


Goonhammer LVO data discussion. @ 2020/02/10 18:38:44


Post by: flandarz


Do I think you could field literally anything and do well against everything you come up against? Of course not. But Marines have an incredibly strong "base" to build on, so they're very forgiving at the low levels and top-notch at the high levels.

And I don't think it's a bad thing for Factions to be this way. So, I'm not really complaining about it. I'm just hoping this is the sort of treatment everyone can expect to receive. And I think that's where most of the complaints come from: the fact that, for now, Marines have this really strong base and forgiving power structure, but no one else does.