Figured I'd disrupt the front page. Goonhammer put this data together (not necessarily endorsing but crediting them since they did the work):
1. Harlequins with a 61% win average from events.
2. Imperium Soup (usually including Custodes) at 59%
3. Drukhari at 55%
4. Custodes at 54%
5. Tau at 53%
6. Space Marines at 52%
7. Grey Knights at 52%
8. Orks at 52%
9. Chaos at 51%
10. Chaos Knights at 50%
Now they did note that Space Marines aren't equal by Codex. That looks more like:
6a. Salamanders at 71%
6b. Iron hands at 69%
6c. Space Wolves at 63%
6d. All other Space Marines sub-50%.
It's actually a pretty Eldar dominated meta so far! That said, 3 Space Marine factions would be top 3 if numbered separately. So it just seems the problem is with them.
Edit: The data sample was:
Using data from Best Cost Pairings and Down Under Pairings, we pulled tournament results for 13 events, including some of the larger RTTs featuring notable players, in the US, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and the Netherlands. In total that gave us a sample of 329 lists across 1,523 games played since July 25, 2020.
It's OK I have numerous people telling me in the other threads that we don't separate out marines and as such we must declare marines are actually average.
Dudeface wrote: It's OK I have numerous people telling me in the other threads that we don't separate out marines and as such we must declare marines are actually average.
Well, if you fold all those together you end up with ~58% iirc, so not average and still really good. Not as good as Harlies, but certainly not merely average by this data.
EDIT Oh wait, I see SM are there at 52%, that's not too bad.
Harlequins looked REAL good in the few battle reports I've seen them in. I'm glad the murder clowns seem to have found a way to be relevant. SM flavors are probably suffering from a lot of in-fighting in the games counted, so they could possibly be a little better than they currently look.
Drukhari really surprises me, but they still have solid range to control the battlefield depending on the pilot. Guess Craftworlders can keep paying for the sins of the Ynnari and Wraith Knights for just a bit longer, though
I think Space Marines are being made out to be bigger bogeymen than they really are... they punch REALLY hard, but it seems like that is at the expense of the mission at times. They're still strong and scary, though, and have some great units.
I'm sure 'quins and Drukhari will start to fall off once the environment starts to normalize and people start figuring out their tricks and counter-play them better. They don't have very deep sets of tools to use, unfortunately. I think there's also a really high +/- confidence in the numbers used to get those percentages, and probably not representative of the environment, yet. A good start though.
Definitely nice to see some of the less-favored factions up there, for sure
Its becoming a bit of a meme, but I think we need more data really.
Harlequins (and I guess DE) seem good at claiming/denying objectives, but... idk really, to my mind quin's still die to a stiff breeze if they gets a vaguely below average run of luck. I think they might be benefiting from a bit of novelty which might wane over time.
As has been observed, variations in Marine subtypes are caused by the best marine players just playing the ones they believe to be the best.
I guess my breach with say Goonhammer and perhaps the competitive world in general is that I thought Tau would be largely fine - and so it seems to be proving. No offense to any Tau players out there, but negativity about the faction (echoed all through 8th - we need a new codex despite winning tournaments etc) has always been a bit weird. I think its because a lot of players got into the faction for say crisis suits, or fish of fury, and that doesn't really work, and so they are bitter about it.
I called harlequins as one of the top three predicted factions along with marines and custodes so I'm not surprised.
What I was very surprised by though is how chaos, particularly Death Guard, has just fallen flat on the tournament scene. I had them up there as being tourny terrors and they haven't broken a top 10 at a GT so far.
Weird how they come to the number 52%. They've got the same percentages from the breakdown I saw before, but those percentages actually added up to 57%, not 52%.
So, which Masques were these harlequin lists running? Was it just one Masque showing up in every list, or a variety indicating that the problem is with the rules specific to the Masque and not the rules specific to Harlequins in general?
How many Harlequin and Drukhari lists are we talking about here, vs how many Marine and Imp Soup lists?
EDIT: Figured it out. I added up the data from the image Daed linked in a previous thread, which actually cut off the bottom two performers for Space Marines: 8 armies with Dark Angels with a 39% win percentage, and 1 army with Deathwatch at a 33% win percentage. That's where 52% total for "Marines" comes from.
Also missing from this discussion is this:
Faction counts. This data looks at the performance of NINETY-THREE marine armies and SEVEN Drukhari, Harlequin, and Imperial Soup armies...and doesn't remove mirror matchups from the equation.
Are Drukhari an extremely strong army? Or are they primarily doing well off the back of, say, one particular custom trait combo that allows every ranged weapon in the list to deal a minimum of 2 damage and have +1 to wound?
Are Harlequins an extremely strong army? Or are they doing extremely well into an almost-guaranteed matchup of comparatively low-ROF, high-AP weaponry when they rely on modifiers and invulnerable saves for everything?
the_scotsman wrote: Weird how they come to the number 52%. They've got the same percentages from the breakdown I saw before, but those percentages actually added up to 57%, not 52%.
So, which Masques were these harlequin lists running? Was it just one Masque showing up in every list, or a variety indicating that the problem is with the rules specific to the Masque and not the rules specific to Harlequins in general?
How many Harlequin and Drukhari lists are we talking about here, vs how many Marine and Imp Soup lists?
The full Space Marine list is:
Salamander 71%
Iron Hands 69%
Space Wolves 63%
Ultramarines 49%
Raven Guard 48%
White Scars 48%
Blood Angels 48%
Black Templars 44%
Imperial Fists 43%
Dark Angels 39%
Death Watch 33%
You also forgot to note that is fairly exhaustive of the lists though. While there are a lot more marines in the picture, there's only so many events to comb and lists to pull. See below:
Using data from Best Cost Pairings and Down Under Pairings, we pulled tournament results for 13 events, including some of the larger RTTs featuring notable players, in the US, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and the Netherlands. In total that gave us a sample of 329 lists across 1,523 games played since July 25, 2020.
the_scotsman wrote: Weird how they come to the number 52%. They've got the same percentages from the breakdown I saw before, but those percentages actually added up to 57%, not 52%.
So, which Masques were these harlequin lists running? Was it just one Masque showing up in every list, or a variety indicating that the problem is with the rules specific to the Masque and not the rules specific to Harlequins in general?
How many Harlequin and Drukhari lists are we talking about here, vs how many Marine and Imp Soup lists?
The full Space Marine list is:
Salamander 71%
Iron Hands 69%
Space Wolves 63%
Ultramarines 49%
Raven Guard 48%
White Scars 48%
Blood Angels 48%
Black Templars 44%
Imperial Fists 43%
Dark Angels 39%
Death Watch 33%
You also forgot to note that is fairly exhaustive of the lists though. While there are a lot more marines in the picture, there's only so many events to come and lists to pull. See below:
Using data from Best Cost Pairings and Down Under Pairings, we pulled tournament results for 13 events, including some of the larger RTTs featuring notable players, in the US, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and the Netherlands. In total that gave us a sample of 329 lists across 1,523 games played since July 25, 2020.
Yup, I figured that out. The image posted in a different thread actually cut off the bottom 2, which is how I'd previously added them up and come to 57%.
the_scotsman wrote: Weird how they come to the number 52%. They've got the same percentages from the breakdown I saw before, but those percentages actually added up to 57%, not 52%.
So, which Masques were these harlequin lists running? Was it just one Masque showing up in every list, or a variety indicating that the problem is with the rules specific to the Masque and not the rules specific to Harlequins in general?
How many Harlequin and Drukhari lists are we talking about here, vs how many Marine and Imp Soup lists?
The full Space Marine list is:
Salamander 71%
Iron Hands 69%
Space Wolves 63%
Ultramarines 49%
Raven Guard 48%
White Scars 48%
Blood Angels 48%
Black Templars 44%
Imperial Fists 43%
Dark Angels 39%
Death Watch 33%
You also forgot to note that is fairly exhaustive of the lists though. While there are a lot more marines in the picture, there's only so many events to come and lists to pull. See below:
Using data from Best Cost Pairings and Down Under Pairings, we pulled tournament results for 13 events, including some of the larger RTTs featuring notable players, in the US, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and the Netherlands. In total that gave us a sample of 329 lists across 1,523 games played since July 25, 2020.
Yup, I figured that out. The image posted in a different thread actually cut off the bottom 2, which is how I'd previously added them up and come to 57%.
A lot of the outliers (both positive and negative) could also be:
How many harlequin and drukhari armies frequently show up? If 1 or 2 do well, and they are good for sure, then that weighs VERY heavily on the faction overall since those 5-1 or 6-0 results obscure a lot more of the 3-3s (look at the numbers for the Salamanders to see how they get 70%, you'll laugh).
Same for other factions, like Death Guard... imagine how many middling players are turning in 3-3 results with DG. I don't think DG are particularly busted in any regard, I think they're a solid "middle of the pack" contender. Their upside isn't as high as many other factions, either, but I think it may still be there. But DG do struggle with 1W vs the sea of 2D weaponry... really nerfs Disgustingly Resilient. I think DG is going to see a healthy bump when their forces get that promised +1W to their stat line. 2D weapons go down to like a 55% chance to take down a Plague Marine instead of something like 88%? Head math is fuzzy
More results are probably going to be required, especially for some of those armies with only a handful of showings that could be distorted by outlying performances. But, like I said, not a bad start!
The raw numbers in the first post need some heavy caveats. The main things I noticed:
- The sample size was 329 lists over 1523 games - that's not actually a bad start considering how young the edition is, but isn't a big enough dataset when you take the rest of these caveats into account.
- All of the games were tournament games, so you're looking at a higher level of play than normal, and a greater incentive for players to bring their absolute best armies and lists.
- >90 of those lists were Space Marines. That's over a quarter, and almost three times as many as the next most popular army. So there's going to have been a lot of games where Marines both won and lost, skewing the results to bring Marines nearer the average.
- On the other end of the scale, there are a full 8 armies with less than 10 lists - and these include Harlequins, Imperium Soup and Drukhari. Given such low numbers, it can easily be imagined that the players taking these factions were particularly skilled and really knew how to use them, else they wouldn't bring them to a tournament in the first place.
With all of this taken into consideration, I don't think we can say just yet that Harlequins are really on top, nor that Space Marines are that close to average.
The full article makes for good reading, though, they go a long way to explain the limitations of the data and there's a lot more in there than just a percentage list. Frankly, there's a reason they put those results near the end of the analysis - in the hopes that you'd read the rest first and realise that it's not to be taken as gospel.
How many harlequin and drukhari armies frequently show up? If 1 or 2 do well, and they are good for sure, then that weighs VERY heavily on the faction overall since those 5-1 or 6-0 results obscure a lot more of the 3-3s (look at the numbers for the Salamanders to see how they get 70%, you'll laugh).
Same for other factions, like Death Guard... imagine how many middling players are turning in 3-3 results with DG. I don't think DG are particularly busted in any regard, I think they're a solid "middle of the pack" contender. Their upside isn't as high as many other factions, either, but I think it may still be there. But DG do struggle with 1W vs the sea of 2D weaponry... really nerfs Disgustingly Resilient. I think DG is going to see a healthy bump when their forces get that promised +1W to their stat line. 2D weapons go down to like a 55% chance to take down a Plague Marine instead of something like 88%? Head math is fuzzy
More results are probably going to be required, especially for some of those armies with only a handful of showings that could be distorted by outlying performances. But, like I said, not a bad start!
I mean, if you said to me
"hey, Scotsman, you're going to be going to a tournament. 128/329 of the people there, 39%, are going to be bringing either Space Marines (I'd wager HEAVY on the Primaris) or Custodes.
You can take either a Drukhari list, where you can take a subfaction trait that allows literally all of your ranged weapons to have minimum damage 2, or you can take a Harlequin list, where you totally ignore AP on everything just, by default.
How d'you figure you're going to do?"
I'd probably be pretty dang confident in my performance.
Oh, definitely... there's basically 2 lists in 9th edition RIGHT NOW:
Space Marines
and
Lists that beat Space Marines (with a heavy skew towards killing primaris).
I'm just pointing out that some of these numbers could be artificially held up by a couple of players performing VERY well accounting for more representation in the compiled number than other players performing well in a faction mired with mirror-matches and tons of middling players.
Going 6-0 with 'quins in a field of 10 players has a HUGE impact on their overall standings in these percentages... much more than say... going 6-0 with Space Marines.
That's the only reason we need more numbers, I'd say. To see where some of the under-represented outliers REALLY fall, because they have pretty small sample sizes that can be skewed easily.
But, as I have said, it is a start. We'll see more as time goes on. But I do think Harlequins are in a REALLY nice space right now, and it is good to see them stepping up and reminding people that they are a faction
It is also nice to see that the Space Marines are strong, but not so OP that they are truly playing "a different game" than the rest of us. Kind of matches my experience with playing vs Primaris so far in 9th. Good, hard, but not unbeatable by a long shot.
Lists that beat Space Marines (with a heavy skew towards killing primaris).
I'm just pointing out that some of these numbers could be artificially held up by a couple of players performing VERY well accounting for more representation in the compiled number than other players performing well in a faction mired with mirror-matches and tons of middling players.
Going 6-0 with 'quins in a field of 10 players has a HUGE impact on their overall standings in these percentages... much more than say... going 6-0 with Space Marines.
That's the only reason we need more numbers, I'd say. To see where some of the under-represented outliers REALLY fall, because they have pretty small sample sizes that can be skewed easily.
But, as I have said, it is a start. We'll see more as time goes on. But I do think Harlequins are in a REALLY nice space right now, and it is good to see them stepping up and reminding people that they are a faction
It is also nice to see that the Space Marines are strong, but not so OP that they are truly playing "a different game" than the rest of us. Kind of matches my experience with playing vs Primaris so far in 9th. Good, hard, but not unbeatable by a long shot.
I would add that it could skew Space Marines to high too. For instance, Salamanders may do sub-50% against Xenos but be REALLY good at killing other Marines. That would artificially throw their win rate too high since they're predominantly fighting other Marines.
Lists that beat Space Marines (with a heavy skew towards killing primaris).
I'm just pointing out that some of these numbers could be artificially held up by a couple of players performing VERY well accounting for more representation in the compiled number than other players performing well in a faction mired with mirror-matches and tons of middling players.
Going 6-0 with 'quins in a field of 10 players has a HUGE impact on their overall standings in these percentages... much more than say... going 6-0 with Space Marines.
That's the only reason we need more numbers, I'd say. To see where some of the under-represented outliers REALLY fall, because they have pretty small sample sizes that can be skewed easily.
But, as I have said, it is a start. We'll see more as time goes on. But I do think Harlequins are in a REALLY nice space right now, and it is good to see them stepping up and reminding people that they are a faction
It is also nice to see that the Space Marines are strong, but not so OP that they are truly playing "a different game" than the rest of us. Kind of matches my experience with playing vs Primaris so far in 9th. Good, hard, but not unbeatable by a long shot.
I would add that it could skew Space Marines to high too. For instance, Salamanders may do sub-50% against Xenos but be REALLY good at killing other Marines. That would artificially throw their win rate too high since they're predominantly fighting other Marines.
Curious that the title of the post is still "Xenos (Harlequins) Best Army in 9th So Far".
Seems a bit clickbaity, considering that you're looking at 36 games total.
If I entered a tournament with Harlequins and played a single game, I would swing the win percentage of the entire faction by 3%. If I lost my one game, I'd drop Harlequins to second place overall, hilariously.
They're looking at 6-game events too, it seems. Were I a real stinker or a real hotshot, I could swing that ol' win percentage between 52% and 66%.
Lists that beat Space Marines (with a heavy skew towards killing primaris).
I'm just pointing out that some of these numbers could be artificially held up by a couple of players performing VERY well accounting for more representation in the compiled number than other players performing well in a faction mired with mirror-matches and tons of middling players.
Going 6-0 with 'quins in a field of 10 players has a HUGE impact on their overall standings in these percentages... much more than say... going 6-0 with Space Marines.
That's the only reason we need more numbers, I'd say. To see where some of the under-represented outliers REALLY fall, because they have pretty small sample sizes that can be skewed easily.
But, as I have said, it is a start. We'll see more as time goes on. But I do think Harlequins are in a REALLY nice space right now, and it is good to see them stepping up and reminding people that they are a faction
It is also nice to see that the Space Marines are strong, but not so OP that they are truly playing "a different game" than the rest of us. Kind of matches my experience with playing vs Primaris so far in 9th. Good, hard, but not unbeatable by a long shot.
I would add that it could skew Space Marines to high too. For instance, Salamanders may do sub-50% against Xenos but be REALLY good at killing other Marines. That would artificially throw their win rate too high since they're predominantly fighting other Marines.
Curious that the title of the post is still "Xenos (Harlequins) Best Army in 9th So Far".
Seems a bit clickbaity, considering that you're looking at 36 games total.
If I entered a tournament with Harlequins and played a single game, I would swing the win percentage of the entire faction by 3%. If I lost my one game, I'd drop Harlequins to second place overall, hilariously.
They're looking at 6-game events too, it seems. Were I a real stinker or a real hotshot, I could swing that ol' win percentage between 52% and 66%.
Theyre in a fragile position but it's still technically accurate for now. It seems clickbaity because I think it's trying to use it as a podium to highlight the marines in 6th spot more than anything.
Lists that beat Space Marines (with a heavy skew towards killing primaris).
I'm just pointing out that some of these numbers could be artificially held up by a couple of players performing VERY well accounting for more representation in the compiled number than other players performing well in a faction mired with mirror-matches and tons of middling players.
Going 6-0 with 'quins in a field of 10 players has a HUGE impact on their overall standings in these percentages... much more than say... going 6-0 with Space Marines.
That's the only reason we need more numbers, I'd say. To see where some of the under-represented outliers REALLY fall, because they have pretty small sample sizes that can be skewed easily.
But, as I have said, it is a start. We'll see more as time goes on. But I do think Harlequins are in a REALLY nice space right now, and it is good to see them stepping up and reminding people that they are a faction
It is also nice to see that the Space Marines are strong, but not so OP that they are truly playing "a different game" than the rest of us. Kind of matches my experience with playing vs Primaris so far in 9th. Good, hard, but not unbeatable by a long shot.
I would add that it could skew Space Marines to high too. For instance, Salamanders may do sub-50% against Xenos but be REALLY good at killing other Marines. That would artificially throw their win rate too high since they're predominantly fighting other Marines.
Curious that the title of the post is still "Xenos (Harlequins) Best Army in 9th So Far".
Seems a bit clickbaity, considering that you're looking at 36 games total.
If I entered a tournament with Harlequins and played a single game, I would swing the win percentage of the entire faction by 3%. If I lost my one game, I'd drop Harlequins to second place overall, hilariously.
They're looking at 6-game events too, it seems. Were I a real stinker or a real hotshot, I could swing that ol' win percentage between 52% and 66%.
Theyre in a fragile position but it's still technically accurate for now. It seems clickbaity because I think it's trying to use it as a podium to highlight the marines in 6th spot more than anything.
I was gonna write a response but this is basically it. It's the most comprehensive study we can really do right now so they get the title and I wanted to highlight that the meta doesn't have Marines as invincible as Dakka tends to portray it.
buddha wrote: I called harlequins as one of the top three predicted factions along with marines and custodes so I'm not surprised.
What I was very surprised by though is how chaos, particularly Death Guard, has just fallen flat on the tournament scene. I had them up there as being tourny terrors and they haven't broken a top 10 at a GT so far.
Marines are probably not going to deviate too high largely due to their popularity. Representing like what? A third of the entire game space? It is going to be rife with mirror-matches that naturally have a 50% win rate, and will draw in a lot of the variation in their standings.
Audustum brings up a very useful point:
Marines normalize with matches vs each other, but what do they look like fighting outside of their own bubble? I'd be curious to see those numbers too... but as the number of marine armies go up... so do the number of mirror matches and thus, harder to get a real estimate of how they are truly performing.
They're probably closer to the Drukhari% or high 50s, which still means you have something like a 66% chance to lose against a marine army if you're playing against any of the < 50 armies.
Now... if only we could shake this covid nonsense :( I'm fairly curious of the numbers BEFORE the codices start dripping out. At least to have a solid base for progress through the edition.
Lists that beat Space Marines (with a heavy skew towards killing primaris).
I'm just pointing out that some of these numbers could be artificially held up by a couple of players performing VERY well accounting for more representation in the compiled number than other players performing well in a faction mired with mirror-matches and tons of middling players.
Going 6-0 with 'quins in a field of 10 players has a HUGE impact on their overall standings in these percentages... much more than say... going 6-0 with Space Marines.
That's the only reason we need more numbers, I'd say. To see where some of the under-represented outliers REALLY fall, because they have pretty small sample sizes that can be skewed easily.
But, as I have said, it is a start. We'll see more as time goes on. But I do think Harlequins are in a REALLY nice space right now, and it is good to see them stepping up and reminding people that they are a faction
It is also nice to see that the Space Marines are strong, but not so OP that they are truly playing "a different game" than the rest of us. Kind of matches my experience with playing vs Primaris so far in 9th. Good, hard, but not unbeatable by a long shot.
I would add that it could skew Space Marines to high too. For instance, Salamanders may do sub-50% against Xenos but be REALLY good at killing other Marines. That would artificially throw their win rate too high since they're predominantly fighting other Marines.
Curious that the title of the post is still "Xenos (Harlequins) Best Army in 9th So Far".
Seems a bit clickbaity, considering that you're looking at 36 games total.
If I entered a tournament with Harlequins and played a single game, I would swing the win percentage of the entire faction by 3%. If I lost my one game, I'd drop Harlequins to second place overall, hilariously.
They're looking at 6-game events too, it seems. Were I a real stinker or a real hotshot, I could swing that ol' win percentage between 52% and 66%.
Theyre in a fragile position but it's still technically accurate for now. It seems clickbaity because I think it's trying to use it as a podium to highlight the marines in 6th spot more than anything.
I was gonna write a response but this is basically it. It's the most comprehensive study we can really do right now so they get the title and I wanted to highlight that the meta doesn't have Marines as invincible as Dakka tends to portray it.
Kind of like using data that shows deaths as a percentage of cases to prove that a particular country I may or may not live in is handling the Coronavirus the best out of all the countries in the world, hmmm?
If 1/3 of the armies represented in a sample are marines
and therefore a large percentage of the matches representative of the winrates for marines are going to be marines vs marines
and another solid 20% of the factions present are using the same style of army construction as marines (similar defensive profiles, similar offensive profiles, similar approach to secondary objectives)
and the rest of the field, the other 50%, KNOWS this, and is obviously going to be bringing their best counter to marines (See: All the Ork, Drukhari and Harlequin top tourney lists that lean heavily into Flat 2/Flat 3 damage weaponry and not caring about AP)
.....then that is absolutely a meta dominated by marines, and warped by the rules that marines get.
This is like trying to analyze a League of Legends meta where a particular champion is a 100% ban rate and saying "See, this proves that Champion X is actually not overpowered at all - they haven't won a SINGLE game in competitive play since they became quote-unquote 'overpowered'!"
Lists that beat Space Marines (with a heavy skew towards killing primaris).
I'm just pointing out that some of these numbers could be artificially held up by a couple of players performing VERY well accounting for more representation in the compiled number than other players performing well in a faction mired with mirror-matches and tons of middling players.
Going 6-0 with 'quins in a field of 10 players has a HUGE impact on their overall standings in these percentages... much more than say... going 6-0 with Space Marines.
That's the only reason we need more numbers, I'd say. To see where some of the under-represented outliers REALLY fall, because they have pretty small sample sizes that can be skewed easily.
But, as I have said, it is a start. We'll see more as time goes on. But I do think Harlequins are in a REALLY nice space right now, and it is good to see them stepping up and reminding people that they are a faction
It is also nice to see that the Space Marines are strong, but not so OP that they are truly playing "a different game" than the rest of us. Kind of matches my experience with playing vs Primaris so far in 9th. Good, hard, but not unbeatable by a long shot.
I would add that it could skew Space Marines to high too. For instance, Salamanders may do sub-50% against Xenos but be REALLY good at killing other Marines. That would artificially throw their win rate too high since they're predominantly fighting other Marines.
Curious that the title of the post is still "Xenos (Harlequins) Best Army in 9th So Far".
Seems a bit clickbaity, considering that you're looking at 36 games total.
If I entered a tournament with Harlequins and played a single game, I would swing the win percentage of the entire faction by 3%. If I lost my one game, I'd drop Harlequins to second place overall, hilariously.
They're looking at 6-game events too, it seems. Were I a real stinker or a real hotshot, I could swing that ol' win percentage between 52% and 66%.
Theyre in a fragile position but it's still technically accurate for now. It seems clickbaity because I think it's trying to use it as a podium to highlight the marines in 6th spot more than anything.
I was gonna write a response but this is basically it. It's the most comprehensive study we can really do right now so they get the title and I wanted to highlight that the meta doesn't have Marines as invincible as Dakka tends to portray it.
Kind of like using data that shows deaths as a percentage of cases to prove that a particular country I may or may not live in is handling the Coronavirus the best out of all the countries in the world, hmmm?
If 1/3 of the armies represented in a sample are marines
and therefore a large percentage of the matches representative of the winrates for marines are going to be marines vs marines
and another solid 20% of the factions present are using the same style of army construction as marines (similar defensive profiles, similar offensive profiles, similar approach to secondary objectives)
and the rest of the field, the other 50%, KNOWS this, and is obviously going to be bringing their best counter to marines (See: All the Ork, Drukhari and Harlequin top tourney lists that lean heavily into Flat 2/Flat 3 damage weaponry and not caring about AP)
.....then that is absolutely a meta dominated by marines, and warped by the rules that marines get.
This is like trying to analyze a League of Legends meta where a particular champion is a 100% ban rate and saying "See, this proves that Champion X is actually not overpowered at all - they haven't won a SINGLE game in competitive play since they became quote-unquote 'overpowered'!"
But that makes the dark eldar and harlequins the best army in this meta It's no more marine dominated than previous years I don't think? Maybe by a small percentage, but the good players will want to bring that which excels best against the moat popular army, so as much as marine form the pivot for the meta, they're not dominating it clearly.
Marines having the luxury of normally being the most represented faction out there means they always "warp the meta" - only problem is now they are also good. They'll warp it a little more, define it as it were. But they're not really dominating it as so many are pulling out their tools to combat them.
Once marine players get tired of facing "primaris-killing" lists and move onto other armies (you know, jumping on the "primaris killers") you'll see their overall share drop and numbers will change... again.
At least now you know what is defining the environment. And it isn't really a bad thing... at least they're decent at being the bully on the block for once.
Harles aren't at the top. Being at the top of win rate doesn't mean you're the strongest faction, if you don't actually win events. And they aren't at the top of the win tables anyway; Salamanders are.
Harles have won precisely nothing so far in 9th in terms of major events. Zilch.
Space Marines are the faction to beat. The fact that lots of people play space marines and don't do great with them doesn't mean that it isn't Space Marines armies that are winning events.
Number aren't information, they must be put into some context. Always.
So don't take those numbers as truth, because they're not. SW for example aren't better than Ultramarines, Ravenguard, White Scars and maybe other chapters and yet their winning rate is pretty higher than those other chapters in that table.
And yes, Harlequins can be competitive, but top tier? I wouldn't be so sure. Actually I wouldn't even be sure that they're the top xeno army. They're also an army with just 8 datasheets so if they really become a thing they would probably be quite easy to counter.
Blackie wrote: Number aren't information, they must be put into some context. Always.
So don't take those numbers as truth, because they're not. SW for example aren't better than Ultramarines, Ravenguard, White Scars and maybe other chapters and yet their winning rate is pretty higher than those other chapters in that table.
And yes, Harlequins can be competitive, but top tier? I wouldn't be so sure. Actually I wouldn't even be sure that they're the top xeno army. They're also an army with just 8 datasheets so if they really become a thing they would probably be quite easy to counter.
Space Wolves at the time of these tournaments were fully obsec still.
yukishiro1 wrote: Harles aren't at the top. Being at the top of win rate doesn't mean you're the strongest faction, if you don't actually win events. And they aren't at the top of the win tables anyway; Salamanders are.
Harles have won precisely nothing so far in 9th in terms of major events. Zilch.
Space Marines are the faction to beat. The fact that lots of people play space marines and don't do great with them doesn't mean that it isn't Space Marines armies that are winning events.
But we've had discussions on here and it was considered unfair to monitor marine chapters independently, since they all use the same core models and have minor variations when compared to actual factions.
So marines are winning tournaments at a 52% win rate. Or if you like, a handful of good players are being dragged down by a lot of mediocre ones and mirror matches.
But that makes the dark eldar and harlequins the best army in this meta It's no more marine dominated than previous years I don't think? Maybe by a small percentage, but the good players will want to bring that which excels best against the moat popular army, so as much as marine form the pivot for the meta, they're not dominating it clearly.
Sure I will "concede" that, given a meta where nearly half the players are playing marines or armies constructed very similarly to marines, taking a list that is not marines and is completely tailored to beat marines is the best decision.
I'll take "how a metagame works" for 300, alex.
The same exact thing happened with Eldar in 7th. They were by very far the most popular faction to play, but frequently did not have particularly bonkers winrates compared to factions that made up a tiny fraction of the playerbase, were tailored to beat Eldar specifically, and did that well sweeping tournaments where 2/3 of their matchups were vs nearly identical eldar lists.
Strangely, dakka at the time did not seem to think that was due to some secret, underlying weakness of the scatbike+Wk list meaning it was in no way in need of any nerfs or corrections. And they certainly didn't think whatever countermeta list beat all those eldar was secretly "the strongest army in the game" because it was incredibly clear that it was DEPENDENT on facing not just eldar, but specifically scatbike+WK eldar lists to do as well as it was doing.
Take Dark Technomancers Drukhari spamming Wracks with Ossefactors and Hexrifles. Against marines, where you MUST take out a single buff aura character immediately and damage 2 ossefactors+damage 2 splinter venoms are extremely effective, those units are absolutely the tool for the job.
Against anyone else, the prospect of a 75 point unit that packs literally two shots that do basically nothing to vehicles and very little to light infantry is a liiiittle bit of a headscratcher.
Let's face it, we're not going to get perfect data from any set of games where the players are choosing lists to tailor to meta.
About the only way I can see of doing it fairly, is to have each faction represented an equal number of times, and either have the same players playing their chosen list against all other factions, or tell them that they'll get to play 'n' number of factions at random, but each faction has an equal chance of occurring.
That way you get players still familiar with the armies they're wielding, but forced to come up with a list that isn't set on one particular enemy.
Analyzing any sort of winrate off of a minuscule amount of games and also not breaking down the matchups is a pointless endeavor.
30 games is not enough to get a clear picture of Harlequin strength and while 420 gives you a good sample size for Marines, we also don't know what the winrates are vs non-Marine armies.
regarding lists designed to kill Marines that's been the norm as long as I've been playing, TAC lists where always designed to take on the most common army Marines. so... this isn't that abnormal.
Well if GT and majors win rate is equal to that of RTT, its expected that some armies will suddenly get higher than expected WR.
In 8 man RTT one army can potentially have better mashups and show amazing results.
For instance in Flying Monkyes there were 3 harlequin players:
1. With 5 wins from 6 games
2. With 3 wins from 6 games
3. With 2 wins from 6 games
That is 55.5% WR that is pretty good,but for instance custodes have 53.5% wr from 12 players.
Its easier 1 good player from 3 to get the faction good WR than 1 from 12 good player to do the some.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
buddha wrote: I called harlequins as one of the top three predicted factions along with marines and custodes so I'm not surprised.
What I was very surprised by though is how chaos, particularly Death Guard, has just fallen flat on the tournament scene. I had them up there as being tourny terrors and they haven't broken a top 10 at a GT so far.
Death Guard were 3 in the Flying Monkeys and i think that is the only Major till now.
Space Wolves at the time of these tournaments were fully obsec still.
Yeah, and I don't see it as an OP ability that grants a +15% winning rate compared to other chapters. I play Deathskullz all the time and while obj sec is certainly good it doesn't let you win the game alone. Other chapters have way more efficient rules.
I'm saying that these tournaments don't reflect current state of 40k as the edition is pretty new and due to the pandemic there aren't many players around. Meta is simply not settled yet, so it's easy to surprise people with combinations that they aren't familiar with.
It reminds me of the ork results on the 2017 ITC list that someone posted recently. Orks had a nice winning rate then but those lists were just pure anti tournament meta and based on 3 turns game with ITC house rules. The same very lists were pretty mediocre if not pure garbage in real full games, despite looking solid mid tiers according to those data. Index 8th orks were probably the worst orks ever, and yet according to that table they weren't. Numbers aren't information, they must be elaborated and put into a context to provide information.
SW aren't significantly better than other chapters, that's a fact. Regardless of the most recent tournament results.
Yeah, and I don't see it as an OP ability that grants a +15% winning rate compared to other chapters.
You seem to not understand how win ratios work then. Having 65% win avarge in any sport would be considered domination of the field. Specialy in a tournament setting, because there are some sly dudes who have a 90% win ratio by being a ski jumper in Dubai etc
If a team had a 70% win ratio in a game, you get something like Bayern M. in the Bundesliga. And there are rules set up in the Bundersliga just so first the win raito doesn't go up, and second to make it as hard as possible for Bayern M to win in the first place.
Yeah, and I don't see it as an OP ability that grants a +15% winning rate compared to other chapters.
You seem to not understand how win ratios work then. Having 65% win avarge in any sport would be considered domination of the field. Specialy in a tournament setting, because there are some sly dudes who have a 90% win ratio by being a ski jumper in Dubai etc
If a team had a 70% win ratio in a game, you get something like Bayern M. in the Bundesliga. And there are rules set up in the Bundersliga just so first the win raito doesn't go up, and second to make it as hard as possible for Bayern M to win in the first place.
Imagine a league wherein the 5 best German soccer teams competed against the 5 best Indian soccer teams, you would imagine that overall the German soccer teams would have a massively high win-rate. Because in real competitive sports the worst countries have already been locked out from playing and the worst teams in even the overall strongest countries are not allowed to participate either. So just like you in Warhammer see the best playing against the best with SM, in competitive sports you see the best competing against the best. Why are Necrons and Deathwatch allowed to compete in events if we already know they are going to lose? Because tournaments are not about finding the best faction in the game, or providing interesting games that get huge investment deals, to a degree it's not even about finding the best player.
Yeah, and I don't see it as an OP ability that grants a +15% winning rate compared to other chapters.
You seem to not understand how win ratios work then. Having 65% win avarge in any sport would be considered domination of the field. Specialy in a tournament setting, because there are some sly dudes who have a 90% win ratio by being a ski jumper in Dubai etc
If a team had a 70% win ratio in a game, you get something like Bayern M. in the Bundesliga. And there are rules set up in the Bundersliga just so first the win raito doesn't go up, and second to make it as hard as possible for Bayern M to win in the first place.
Yeah and it you think that SW currently dominate the meta because in that table they have 63% you have no clue about 40k really works. You simply read a number and make your conclusions without context.
As I said SW abilities don't worth a +15% winning rate compared to other SM faction. Of course it's a personal idea and only time will tell the real state of 40k, but you could agree that a winning ratio on ITCs events doesn't always reflects the truth, especially in a moment like this with a complete new edition that started a few weeks ago and people not being able to play without un-natural limitations or not being to play at all.
Also the comparison between Bayern M and 40k overpowered factions is totally unfair, as no one could nerf Bayern even if it dominates for 30 years the german League while GW actually nerfs the overpowered faction after a few months of domination. Or it just buffs something else, while the german league can't favor other teams in order to compete.
Because in real competitive sports the worst countries have already been locked out from playing and the worst teams in even the overall strongest countries are not allowed to participate either.
This is false, in real competitive sports everyone is allowed to partecipate. But they must qualify first, simple.
Every country in the world, except those ones that are at war or not recognized by many, are allowed to partecipate to the world cup or olympics, that is true for any sport. And any team can try to reach the A league in every country, it just needs to deserve it by winning lower leagues. RB Leipzig didn't exist until 10 years ago, and started from the amateurs: now it's the second or third german football club, it also reached the semi-finals in 2020 Uefa Champions League.
Yeah, and I don't see it as an OP ability that grants a +15% winning rate compared to other chapters.
You seem to not understand how win ratios work then. Having 65% win avarge in any sport would be considered domination of the field. Specialy in a tournament setting, because there are some sly dudes who have a 90% win ratio by being a ski jumper in Dubai etc
If a team had a 70% win ratio in a game, you get something like Bayern M. in the Bundesliga. And there are rules set up in the Bundersliga just so first the win raito doesn't go up, and second to make it as hard as possible for Bayern M to win in the first place.
Yeah and it you think that SW currently dominate the meta because in that table they have 63% you have no clue about 40k really works. You simply read a number and make your conclusions without context.
As I said SW abilities don't worth a +15% winning rate compared to other SM faction. Of course it's an idea and only time will tell the real state of 40k, but you could agree that a winning ratio on ITCs events doesn't always reflects the truth, especially in a moment like this with a complete new edition that started a few weeks ago and people not being able to play without un-natural limitations or not being to play at all.
Also the comparison between Bayern M and 40k overpowered factions is totally unfair, as no one could nerf Bayern even if it dominates for 30 years the german League while GW actually nerfs the overpowered faction after a few months of domination. Or it just buffs something else, while the german league can't favor other teams in order to compete.
Sports DO limit teams in multiple ways. Financial Fair Play in football and NBA salary caps are there to ensure that even the little guys have a chance before the gap becomes too wide to ever bridge. They do that because they know that by widening the gap you will only end up hurting the sport in the long run.
GW doesn't seem to care about it. The Marine fatigue is more real than any other moment in the last 15 years I have been following this game. How many more months until people start selling or shelfing their armies just because they can't play any more? How many Tyranid players are you going to see on the next tournament if their 9th codex is also lackluster, like all the previous 3 before it? When will the tournaments become 90% marine vs marine? What will the Marine players do then? Are they going to keep playing or also quit?
Even in the apogee of the castelan oppression, even in 7th - call me scatterbike- madness, there has not been nearly as much resentment against the dominating faction as it is now. It is not just the strong rules, it's the 100+ kit releases in a freaking row with no sign of slowing down, it's the codex + codex 2.0 + supplements + PA + new fresh codex early in 9th edition.
People think that WHFB died because 8th edition changed the game from tabletop strategy to MMO style. But WHFB died in 7th edition, where the grand tournaments had 250 players, 210 of which were Chaos Daemons. That was what made them push 8th edition faster, when people were not ready and not interested for yet more codexes. Well, we are now close to the point where in 250 player tournaments, 200 of them will be Space Marines. Wonder what will happen next.
My local 40k community is alive and well with lots of different factions without any player or list dominating. It is even growing and getting new players every month.
I could not care less how the tourney scene looks like, as that has 0 effect on my enjoyment.
If competitive gaming in a balanced environment is important for you, Warhammer is the wrong game to begin with.
a_typical_hero wrote: My local 40k community is alive and well with lots of different factions without any player or list dominating. It is even growing and getting new players every month.
I could not care less how the tourney scene looks like, as that has 0 effect on my enjoyment.
If competitive gaming in a balanced environment is important for you, Warhammer is the wrong game to begin with.
Well my local gaming community has shifted completely to AoS and historical games so...
Yeah, and I don't see it as an OP ability that grants a +15% winning rate compared to other chapters.
You seem to not understand how win ratios work then. Having 65% win avarge in any sport would be considered domination of the field. Specialy in a tournament setting, because there are some sly dudes who have a 90% win ratio by being a ski jumper in Dubai etc
If a team had a 70% win ratio in a game, you get something like Bayern M. in the Bundesliga. And there are rules set up in the Bundersliga just so first the win raito doesn't go up, and second to make it as hard as possible for Bayern M to win in the first place.
Yeah and it you think that SW currently dominate the meta because in that table they have 63% you have no clue about 40k really works. You simply read a number and make your conclusions without context.
As I said SW abilities don't worth a +15% winning rate compared to other SM faction. Of course it's an idea and only time will tell the real state of 40k, but you could agree that a winning ratio on ITCs events doesn't always reflects the truth, especially in a moment like this with a complete new edition that started a few weeks ago and people not being able to play without un-natural limitations or not being to play at all.
Also the comparison between Bayern M and 40k overpowered factions is totally unfair, as no one could nerf Bayern even if it dominates for 30 years the german League while GW actually nerfs the overpowered faction after a few months of domination. Or it just buffs something else, while the german league can't favor other teams in order to compete.
Sports DO limit teams in multiple ways. Financial Fair Play in football and NBA salary caps are there to ensure that even the little guys have a chance before the gap becomes too wide to ever bridge. They do that because they know that by widening the gap you will only end up hurting the sport in the long run.
GW doesn't seem to care about it. The Marine fatigue is more real than any other moment in the last 15 years I have been following this game. How many more months until people start selling or shelfing their armies just because they can't play any more? How many Tyranid players are you going to see on the next tournament if their 9th codex is also lackluster, like all the previous 3 before it? When will the tournaments become 90% marine vs marine? What will the Marine players do then? Are they going to keep playing or also quit?
Even in the apogee of the castelan oppression, even in 7th - call me scatterbike- madness, there has not been nearly as much resentment against the dominating faction as it is now. It is not just the strong rules, it's the 100+ kit releases in a freaking row with no sign of slowing down, it's the codex + codex 2.0 + supplements + PA + new fresh codex early in 9th edition.
People think that WHFB died because 8th edition changed the game from tabletop strategy to MMO style. But WHFB died in 7th edition, where the grand tournaments had 250 players, 210 of which were Chaos Daemons. That was what made them push 8th edition faster, when people were not ready and not interested for yet more codexes. Well, we are now close to the point where in 250 player tournaments, 200 of them will be Space Marines. Wonder what will happen next.
Given tournaments historically have always had 20-30% marine population iircid argue a lot of the 'marine fatigue' is a self feeding community issue. Yes they're releasing more marine stuff, but that's money marine players have to pass away at this point, it hurts them more than anyone else. If you don't play marines, congrats you've spent less for a consistent ruleset and your kits aren't doubling in price for fewer models.
My local community, which has a broad spectrum of players, saw a huge drop in activity because of the 2.0 Marine Codex.
People weren't wanting to play versus Marines and Marine players weren't able to get any games. They couldn't even play mirror match-ups because they were sick of playing Loyalists v Loyalists all the time. If you're a narrative-minded player there's only so many times you can justify a "training exercise" between Ultramarines and Imperial Fists.
Saying the issue is only applicable to the competitive scene is ridiculous. It arguably affects the casual/average game more, mainly because to even fight on an even footing with Astartes you NEED to bring a competitive list and even then when 80% of your normal games are against Marines it really kills your desire to play. Even now, with things opening up a little, people are searching for games with the caveat of wanting no Marines.
Bosskelot wrote: Saying the issue is only applicable to the competitive scene is ridiculous. It arguably affects the casual/average game more, mainly because to even fight on an even footing with Astartes you NEED to bring a competitive list and even then when 80% of your normal games are against Marines it really kills your desire to play. Even now, with things opening up a little, people are searching for games with the caveat of wanting no Marines.
And I argue it affects the casual games less as you are able to communicate with your opponent before the game what level of competitiveness you are looking for. In a casual environment people play what they like and own, not necessarily what is the latest net list.
In a tournament environment the level of competitiveness is clear from the get go. But if your army isn't the top dog or can counter the meta list, you are out of luck and in for some bad games.
In a casual environment, if you play Slaanesh and Nurgle gets a buff, you don't care because you are a Slaanesh player. The internet will be full with threads about how Nurgle is breaking the meta and makes every other army obsolete and every Nurgling will kill 5 times the point value of every Imperial unit. And it has 0 effect on you and your other players, because they play Khorne, Eldar and Knights. That two Nurgle players in your group? See the beginning of my post.
Dudeface wrote: So marines are winning tournaments at a 52% win rate. Or if you like, a handful of good players are being dragged down by a lot of mediocre ones and mirror matches.
Rather they are winning _games_ 52% rate. Which includes lots of mirror match that drags result toward 50%.
You play 10 marine vs marine games win rate is exactly 50%...If you play 10 games vs marines and 1 vs non-marine that you always win marine win rate would be 54%. Doesnt' mean that next non-marine player would be cheery about his chances of winning seeing he would be looking to be first non-marine to win vs marine...
Yeah, and I don't see it as an OP ability that grants a +15% winning rate compared to other chapters. I play Deathskullz all the time and while obj sec is certainly good it doesn't let you win the game alone. Other chapters have way more efficient rules.
.
You compare obsec INFANTRY vs obsec ANYTHING.
Every single dreadnought, rhino, repulsor, impulsor, outrider, TFC. It's a unit, it's an obsec.
Yeah, and I don't see it as an OP ability that grants a +15% winning rate compared to other chapters.
You seem to not understand how win ratios work then. Having 65% win avarge in any sport would be considered domination of the field. Specialy in a tournament setting, because there are some sly dudes who have a 90% win ratio by being a ski jumper in Dubai etc
If a team had a 70% win ratio in a game, you get something like Bayern M. in the Bundesliga. And there are rules set up in the Bundersliga just so first the win raito doesn't go up, and second to make it as hard as possible for Bayern M to win in the first place.
Think he meant he doesn't see the wolf obsec rule being OP enough to give that 15% win rate boost. As in reason for the win rate lies somewhere else.
Sports DO limit teams in multiple ways. Financial Fair Play in football and NBA salary caps are there to ensure that even the little guys have a chance before the gap becomes too wide to ever bridge. They do that because they know that by widening the gap you will only end up hurting the sport in the long run.
Yeah, it's like allowing both players to start with 12CPs or bring both 2000 points armies, instead of giving player A a 1500 points list and player B a 2000 points one. These are rules that are applied for anyone like those ones listed in the 40k rule book and if a team becomes impossible to defeat those rules won't limit it. A team that manages to win for a long period and followed the rules can't be crippled by the league association just for the sake of the game. Juventus and Bayern won their league consecutively for almost a decade since now, PSG only missed the title once in the same time, and we're talking about 3 of the most 5 competitive football leagues in Europe (AKA in the world).
GW instead is able to introduce straight nerfs or buffs to specific factions in order to have a more balanced game, or simply to promote a specific faction to increase sales, that's the difference. For how long did AM dominated the competitive scene in 8th? What about Aeldari in soups or standalone armies? Chaos? The very hated Iron Hands are top tiers since one year? One year and a half? I bet they won't dominate the scene at the end of 9th edition.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Well my local gaming community has shifted completely to AoS and historical games so...
Why did the Non-Marine players stop playing each other?
because 8th ruleset was overall a bit lackluster in regards to many things, like terrain, not to mention that there are factions out there, that are internally really wonkily balanced, which especially for narrative players can become an massive issue. Especially if people still want to play a match without a forgone conlusion with an army modeled after the lore of the faction / subfaction.
The bad balance does indeed reach quite heavily into casual or narrative sphere, especially if you want to run a campaign with custom scenarios which are supposed to be inherently unbalaced for story telling , only to exemplify the issues of certain units and combinations..
Bosskelot wrote: Saying the issue is only applicable to the competitive scene is ridiculous. It arguably affects the casual/average game more, mainly because to even fight on an even footing with Astartes you NEED to bring a competitive list and even then when 80% of your normal games are against Marines it really kills your desire to play. Even now, with things opening up a little, people are searching for games with the caveat of wanting no Marines.
And I argue it affects the casual games less as you are able to communicate with your opponent before the game what level of competitiveness you are looking for. In a casual environment people play what they like and own, not necessarily what is the latest net list.
In a tournament environment the level of competitiveness is clear from the get go. But if your army isn't the top dog or can counter the meta list, you are out of luck and in for some bad games.
In a casual environment, if you play Slaanesh and Nurgle gets a buff, you don't care because you are a Slaanesh player. The internet will be full with threads about how Nurgle is breaking the meta and makes every other army obsolete and every Nurgling will kill 5 times the point value of every Imperial unit. And it has 0 effect on you and your other players, because they play Khorne, Eldar and Knights. That two Nurgle players in your group? See the beginning of my post.
No, my point is that the inherent and easy power of Marines basically forces you into making a competitive list to face them. You cannot bring a casual fluffbunny list and expect to get an enjoyable or even fun game versus the army, even if your Marine opponent is trying to bring one themselves.
The aggressive undercosting, inherent stackable bonuses and straightforward nature of the Codex makes building a strong list incredibly simple. So simple in fact people will often do it without realizing. Unlike other armies you have to actively try hard to make a "friendly" list with Marines and this is exacerbated even further with the 9th rules and missions massively favouring how the army is structured. A Guard player can construct a "normal" list and basically be giving their opponent a guaranteed 30 VP's because of how Secondaries have been designed. A Marine player will rarely ever give any Secondaries up in their army construction so they're coming into most games with a massive VP advantage.
I've played plenty of games against the army, with friends who are honestly not trying to take hyper-optimized lists (neither of us are) and it's just been an absolute slaughter. If I take comp list and they take a comp list it's actually a lot fairer, but LSM are so incredibly busted at the average/casual level as to make them incredibly problematic. We've already run into this issue in the local Crusade Campaign with narrative Marine armies basically crushing all before them with no effort whatsoever and causing some people to accuse the players of tryharding or being WAAC.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Well my local gaming community has shifted completely to AoS and historical games so...
Why did the Non-Marine players stop playing each other?
You ever played in a club where half the people couldn't play against the other half? It brings the whole mood of the club down. Johnny declines a game from Tim but will play Tom, then Tim feels like wtf, especially since all the players are friends. So instead of getting into drama, they all shift to a game system where they can all play and have fun instead.
Not Online!!! wrote: because 8th ruleset was overall a bit lackluster in regards to many things, like terrain, not to mention that there are factions out there, that are internally really wonkily balanced, which especially for narrative players can become an massive issue. Especially if people still want to play a match without a forgone conlusion with an army modeled after the lore of the faction / subfaction.
The bad balance does indeed reach quite heavily into casual or narrative sphere, especially if you want to run a campaign with custom scenarios which are supposed to be inherently unbalaced for story telling , only to exemplify the issues of certain units and combinations..
I understand your points, but topaxygouroun talked about Marine fatigue and their text heavily implied that the power of Marines was the deciding factor for people to switch games.
Bosskelot wrote: No, my point is that the inherent and easy power of Marines basically forces you into making a competitive list to face them. You cannot bring a casual fluffbunny list and expect to get an enjoyable or even fun game versus the army, even if your Marine opponent is trying to bring one themselves.
The aggressive undercosting, inherent stackable bonuses and straightforward nature of the Codex makes building a strong list incredibly simple. So simple in fact people will often do it without realizing. Unlike other armies you have to actively try hard to make a "friendly" list with Marines and this is exacerbated even further with the 9th rules and missions massively favouring how the army is structured. A Guard player can construct a "normal" list and basically be giving their opponent a guaranteed 30 VP's because of how Secondaries have been designed. A Marine player will rarely ever give any Secondaries up in their army construction so they're coming into most games with a massive VP advantage.
I've played plenty of games against the army, with friends who are honestly not trying to take hyper-optimized lists (neither of us are) and it's just been an absolute slaughter. If I take comp list and they take a comp list it's actually a lot fairer, but LSM are so incredibly busted at the average/casual level as to make them incredibly problematic. We've already run into this issue in the local Crusade Campaign with narrative Marine armies basically crushing all before them with no effort whatsoever and causing some people to accuse the players of tryharding or being WAAC.
For comparison's sake I would like to showcase typical army lists in our gaming group, I leave it to you to judge their respective power level. I'm going from memory, so points / composition might be a bit off. We are playing 1000p games currently:
Blood Angels
Spoiler:
- Smashcaptain
- Mephiston
- 3x 5 Intercessor with Assault bolt guns
- 2x3 Outrider
- Sanguinary Ancient with FnP aura
With these lists we do have even games that usually come down to one or two objectives being secured (or not) for one side to determine victory overall.
Bosskelot wrote: Saying the issue is only applicable to the competitive scene is ridiculous. It arguably affects the casual/average game more, mainly because to even fight on an even footing with Astartes you NEED to bring a competitive list and even then when 80% of your normal games are against Marines it really kills your desire to play. Even now, with things opening up a little, people are searching for games with the caveat of wanting no Marines.
And I argue it affects the casual games less as you are able to communicate with your opponent before the game what level of competitiveness you are looking for. In a casual environment people play what they like and own, not necessarily what is the latest net list.
In a tournament environment the level of competitiveness is clear from the get go. But if your army isn't the top dog or can counter the meta list, you are out of luck and in for some bad games.
In a casual environment, if you play Slaanesh and Nurgle gets a buff, you don't care because you are a Slaanesh player. The internet will be full with threads about how Nurgle is breaking the meta and makes every other army obsolete and every Nurgling will kill 5 times the point value of every Imperial unit. And it has 0 effect on you and your other players, because they play Khorne, Eldar and Knights. That two Nurgle players in your group? See the beginning of my post.
Except it's super hard for marines to make army that doesn't simply run over anything but competive lists from NPC factions. Hell even using lots of troops isn't even protection. You need to really create weird specifically weak lists to make it even for the NPC faction. GW isn't being subtle about master faction being superior to NPC's.
Not Online!!! wrote: because 8th ruleset was overall a bit lackluster in regards to many things, like terrain, not to mention that there are factions out there, that are internally really wonkily balanced, which especially for narrative players can become an massive issue. Especially if people still want to play a match without a forgone conlusion with an army modeled after the lore of the faction / subfaction.
The bad balance does indeed reach quite heavily into casual or narrative sphere, especially if you want to run a campaign with custom scenarios which are supposed to be inherently unbalaced for story telling , only to exemplify the issues of certain units and combinations..
I understand your points, but topaxygouroun talked about Marine fatigue and their text heavily implied that the power of Marines was the deciding factor for people to switch games.
well theres the other side of the coin, regardless what get's released, there's allways marines as "side"-dish on top, meanwhile we have factions that still have units older then many players, or factions with rulesupport so margialized they didn't even need to bother to show up after the first batches of dexes.
Regardless where you look, it 's marines this marines that more often then not. Meanwhile factions like DE or Aeldari are stuck in an deinvestment cycle not unlike SoB were. It's the feeling of beeing fundamentally forgotten.
Factions of forgeworld which in theory should be a huge part of their respective factions, like R&H for chaos, just got squatted but people should be happy , especially narrative players, that their faction a supposedly technologically stagnant juggernautn hold together by the sheer collective willpower and brutality of a totalitarian feudal system , get's another floaty tank. Not to mention players of the former faction pretty much just deciding to leave 40k because they have no interest in collecting another army.
Best case scenario would be decent rules support at any point for any faction AND model support beeing spread out propperly, GW instead spreads rulessupport out and model support for most factions is just a bulk and then nothing for the forseable future. Excluding the token HQ char...
This is what is fundamentally creating "marine -Fatigue" imo.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Well my local gaming community has shifted completely to AoS and historical games so...
Why did the Non-Marine players stop playing each other?
You ever played in a club where half the people couldn't play against the other half? It brings the whole mood of the club down. Johnny declines a game from Tim but will play Tom, then Tim feels like wtf, especially since all the players are friends. So instead of getting into drama, they all shift to a game system where they can all play and have fun instead.
This is where the casual scene get's basically out.
Often there's a bit more leeway for unbalanced-ness in casual. a bit is bold for a reason..
But when the experience becomes that one faction as a whole has to actually try to skew lists into weaker forms, and still has a tendency to outperform a f.e. fluffy infantry regiment, or an Iron warrior gun line, or or or.
tneva82 wrote: Except it's super hard for marines to make army that doesn't simply run over anything but competive lists from NPC factions. Hell even using lots of troops isn't even protection. You need to really create weird specifically weak lists to make it even for the NPC faction. GW isn't being subtle about master faction being superior to NPC's.
Please see the lists I posted from above. I don't feel like I'm building a specifically weak list tailored to the NPCs around me. Apart from the Chaos Daemon list, the others don't look super optimised either.
tneva82 wrote: Except it's super hard for marines to make army that doesn't simply run over anything but competive lists from NPC factions. Hell even using lots of troops isn't even protection. You need to really create weird specifically weak lists to make it even for the NPC faction. GW isn't being subtle about master faction being superior to NPC's.
Please see the lists I posted from above. I don't feel like I'm building a specifically weak list tailored to the NPCs around me. Apart from the Chaos Daemon list, the others don't look super optimised either.
Pretty sure you can't fit the daemon list. LoC is 270, KoS are 210 each on the cheap version, so 690 right there. 30 PB without banner or instrument is 270, so we're already over by 60 and you're still missing two nurgling units at 54 each MSU, so it's basically a 1168 pt list.
Also, I find your thinking weird: "Look bro, I don't feel like building weak lists with my marines, so if you want to stand a chance against me better get on that triple greater daemon plan and soon".
Well, I view the results above with a grain of salt.
We already play with 9th ed rules and 8th ed codices.
This is nothing new - a new edition is released and the codices lack behind (bar the introduction of the 8th ed where we got the indices).
I'm really looking forward to the new SM codex with supplements of some (founding and nonfounding) chapters.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Pretty sure you can't fit the daemon list. LoC is 270, KoS are 210 each on the cheap version, so 690 right there. 30 PB without banner or instrument is 270, so we're already over by 60 and you're still missing two nurgling units at 54 each MSU, so it's basically a 1168 pt list.
Also, I find your thinking weird: "Look bro, I don't feel like building weak lists with my marines, so if you want to stand a chance against me better get on that triple greater daemon plan and soon".
As I wrote, I'm going from memory. Might have been one KoS less but some kind of support character for the PBs.
You misunderstand me due to language barrier.
I don't mean "I didn't feel like adapting to the others, so deal with what I bring".
I mean "I don't feel that the BA list I made is weaker on purpose to account for non-Marines around me".
topaxygouroun i wrote: Pretty sure you can't fit the daemon list. LoC is 270, KoS are 210 each on the cheap version, so 690 right there. 30 PB without banner or instrument is 270, so we're already over by 60 and you're still missing two nurgling units at 54 each MSU, so it's basically a 1168 pt list.
Also, I find your thinking weird: "Look bro, I don't feel like building weak lists with my marines, so if you want to stand a chance against me better get on that triple greater daemon plan and soon".
As I wrote, I'm going from memory. Might have been one KoS less but some kind of support character for the PBs.
You misunderstand me due to language barrier.
I don't mean "I didn't feel like adapting to the others, so deal with what I bring".
I mean "I don't feel that the BA list I made is weaker on purpose to account for non-Marines around me".
I see now. However, this is exactly the point of many people in here. With Space Marines you can almost just go blindfold and pick units out of the codex with a fork and you will still end up with a playable and potentially strong list. With most other armies you have to really struggle if you want to even bring something that is meant to compete, and then a 4-2 wound probably be the dream result anyways.
Bosskelot wrote: My local community, which has a broad spectrum of players, saw a huge drop in activity because of the 2.0 Marine Codex.
People weren't wanting to play versus Marines and Marine players weren't able to get any games. They couldn't even play mirror match-ups because they were sick of playing Loyalists v Loyalists all the time. If you're a narrative-minded player there's only so many times you can justify a "training exercise" between Ultramarines and Imperial Fists.
Saying the issue is only applicable to the competitive scene is ridiculous. It arguably affects the casual/average game more, mainly because to even fight on an even footing with Astartes you NEED to bring a competitive list and even then when 80% of your normal games are against Marines it really kills your desire to play. Even now, with things opening up a little, people are searching for games with the caveat of wanting no Marines.
This here too. There was almost a 40% drop in attendance about 2 months after the drop of marines 2.0, and that continued on. Interestingly the pandemic gave us a chance to take a breather and regrow our club a bit, as we had people who were previously just online/hobby warhammer fans join in to the pandemic chats and a bunch of them turned into regular players.
Of course, predictably, a few of them are already showing signs of frustration at the continued imbalance. There's already someone quite confused as to how his eldar wraiths could be like this in the game, while Aggressors are very similar statwise but seem to have the firepower to delete a whole guardian squad off the board each...
Bosskelot wrote: My local community, which has a broad spectrum of players, saw a huge drop in activity because of the 2.0 Marine Codex.
People weren't wanting to play versus Marines and Marine players weren't able to get any games. They couldn't even play mirror match-ups because they were sick of playing Loyalists v Loyalists all the time. If you're a narrative-minded player there's only so many times you can justify a "training exercise" between Ultramarines and Imperial Fists.
Saying the issue is only applicable to the competitive scene is ridiculous. It arguably affects the casual/average game more, mainly because to even fight on an even footing with Astartes you NEED to bring a competitive list and even then when 80% of your normal games are against Marines it really kills your desire to play. Even now, with things opening up a little, people are searching for games with the caveat of wanting no Marines.
This hits the nail.
Imagine you attend a two-day tourney with your IH and then you face IH twice, RG, Sallies and IF.
I guess you will attend once and wait for a shift of the meta which may or may not come.
Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
That was not demanded and you know it.
Reigning in the outleirs on SM2.0 behalf, strengthening rules support for other factions including much needed buffs for units that have in some cases not seen the board ernestly in decades and not just via pts. Because as much as SM2.0 is head and shoulder above in casual list building , that is probably just as much an issue with SM and with the lack of an ernest update to the other factions. (by the by gw could also release all dexes at once instead of this nonsense , considering we heard very promising things from playtesters which however all were playing allready with full dexes...and were in some cases really disapointed with the hold over rules we got...)
Switching up release cycles including space were marines are not with everything else.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
I think marines have had too much attention lately. Most factions got a single model, if even that, in the time that Marines got the entire primaris line. The weaker codices released in the beginning of 8th are starting to show so major age while Marines are on their 3rd incarnation AND additional supplements, AND support from multiple PA books.
Everything released has had the ... "and this Primaris unit/dataslate!" caveat to it.
Marine players have had to shell out a fortune to keep their collections up to date, both rules and model wise.
Non-marine players are looking at finecast and metal bullcrap wondering when the pub is going to open up so they can treat their models to a drink after turning 21.
Codex creep and everything aside, it is really hard to not see how much the Marine side of the house has exploded over the past 3 years. Someone did a list of winners and losers, release wise, for 8th. It wasn't pretty.
Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
That was not demanded and you know it.
Reigning in the outleirs on SM2.0 behalf, strengthening rules support for other factions including much needed buffs for units that have in some cases not seen the board ernestly in decades and not just via pts. Because as much as SM2.0 is head and shoulder above in casual list building , that is probably just as much an issue with SM and with the lack of an ernest update to the other factions. (by the by gw could also release all dexes at once instead of this nonsense , considering we heard very promising things from playtesters which however all were playing allready with full dexes...and were in some cases really disapointing with the hold over rules we got...)
Switching up release cycles including space were marines are not with everything else.
Definitely agree we should see all books out together, the release cycle should be less marine centric now there are 4 fewer codex in the pipeline, but box sets they trialed without marines in all tanked for various reasons, so I think it'll remain marines v w/e for any future boxsets.
Glad you identify that it's a mix of tripping the top off the marines and adding a little onto everyone else's bottom line that would be best though. Buffing other factions through the nose is no more or less helpful than nerfing marines back to the floor, so a mixed view is better.
It would be nice to see win rates at events narrow to within 10% and even better if it's different factions nabbing top 5's or 10's every time.
Equality of faction strength is important, but models do play a significant part in the popularity too. I'm sure Eldar, Orks and Guard would be a lot more popular if half their units weren't older than some of the members here.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
A large number of the people who stopped coming and who were experiencing the worst marine burnout are exclusively marine players. People who had marines+something else actually stuck around, they just started playing their alt army in order to stop having the marines vs marines mirror matches.
I understand this is just kind of a hyperbolic pearl-clutch, and I think we both get that, but I just figure it's relevant to point out that while the first wave of people leaving were people frustrated at getting stomped by marines, the second wave, a month or so later, was marine players who'd post up on the looking for game thread with
"have marines, want to face other marines"
We had one week where there were five people with some variation of that request, and none of them ended up showing that week. They all decided they'd rather sit it out than play marines against marines again.
Super Ready wrote: Equality of faction strength is important, but models do play a significant part in the popularity too. I'm sure Eldar, Orks and Guard would be a lot more popular if half their units weren't older than some of the members here.
It's not just model updates, it's in some cases also a question of the pricing, as it stands it is significantly cheaper to start marines (any flavour including the one that cuts itself) then say, orks guard, GSC etc.
The worst exemple were R&H, which did at multiple pts in their iteration cost 60£ with the cadian sprue for legs, for 30-40 pts overall for what ammounted at the time to a 3rd of a troop choice... In an army centered around infantry.
Not to mention the nutjob prices on banshees or mek guns.....
Further, and that is an general issues with most dexes, one specific build / combination of units and traits and stratagems, does not make for a healthy dex.
When 75% of your FA are never picked and 25% only with a specific build to backup , then you have an army that in essence has no tool in consideration for that slot.
When we still have factions that lack efficient AA / airsupport then we have a problem.
Blood of the Phoenix tanked because it had a few new models, and a whole lot of really old, uncompetitive stuff that nobody wanted.
If it had consisted of new scupts for Scorpions, Banshees, Karandras and Jain Zar vs new sculpts for Incubi, Trueborn, Drazhar, and an Archon on a jetbike, it wouldn't have any problems selling.
Would indomitus have done as well as it did if it just contained a couple of new models, and a whole load of old Space Marine bikes?
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
I don't know as I can't speak for others but I have been very happy with 8th edition SW codex, IMHO it's exactly how a SM codex should be in terms of performances. And I mean just the codex stuff, eventually with SotB new stuff but no doctrines.
I made a mistake in judgement until tneva82's post as I assumed that SW obj sec rule was referred only to infantry models. Well, it's definitely overpowered as it is, but it's also a clear mistake that will be fixed. Like bomb squigs that fire multiple times as they can't die while embarked since abilities don't work.
Definitely agree we should see all books out together, the release cycle should be less marine centric now there are 4 fewer codex in the pipeline, but box sets they trialed without marines in all tanked for various reasons, so I think it'll remain marines v w/e for any future boxsets.
Glad you identify that it's a mix of tripping the top off the marines and adding a little onto everyone else's bottom line that would be best though. Buffing other factions through the nose is no more or less helpful than nerfing marines back to the floor, so a mixed view is better.
It would be nice to see win rates at events narrow to within 10% and even better if it's different factions nabbing top 5's or 10's every time.
the first one wont happen because gw do gw things and thinks in quartals, by spreading out sales constantly (also a reason for the constant additional rules releases) they can guarantee to consistently monetise, equating to shareholder happiness.
The second one, let's be very clear, it is either A: Bring SM down to the level of the other factions again, massively deescalating. or B: escalating all the other dexes to a similar style of power and behaviour and access.
I don't know what is smarter, both versions have massive disadvantages for the players and the company. It's just that B is easier to monetise that ties in with my first point.
2.5 GW has also designed alot of factions into a corner, take CSM, without specific combinations alot of the killer units are actually really overpriced. The same holds true for other design choices for factions, like GSC, which just didn't work out due to the parameters of the basegame or the picture of the meta as a whole which denies entry to whole archetypes.
( i count the smaler tables to a degree into this aswell, as a parameter that negatively affected transports not to mention the no disembarkation unless you are a primaris transport, after movement...)
As for the 3rd, by virtue of the spread rules and constant add ons, the system could indeed be this balanced but due to the fact that all the rules are never in play at once, we would not even see it.,
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
Personally for me: Change most of the army wide buffs to either Stratagems or character buffs targetting single units. Remove Chapter master alltogether.
Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?
As a second step, don't give marines stuff that is hands down strictly better than the things other armies get for no reason at all.
If I create a Tyranid custom fleet, I get worse traits to choose from than Marines do, I also lose all access to the main Hive Fleet bonuses AND I lose the fleet specific psychic power and stratagems. So why can Marines choose custom traits, keep the main faction bonuses, the strats and the powers AND have said traits be strictly better than what the Tyranids get?
Don't give centurions super thunderhammers with flat 4 damage and no penalty to hit and then give them outlandish shooting output on top of that. Obliterators have equivalent body and kind of same role in the field. Do you know what their melee weapon does? str +1, ap-1, d3 damage. Not str x2 ap-3 4 damage with no penalty and no points cost attached to it.
When I need to cast a 7+ WC power to give one unit +1 to hit, power that can be failed to cast, denied, auto dispelled on a 4+ and even devoured and that can make my character explode, don't give it for free on a Marine character to just bless a unit with flat BS 2+ (much better than +1 to hit) for completely free.
When I need to purchase a 110 pt daemon character that is T3 and has 4 wounds total to give my SINGLE GOD army a 6+++ save, don't give Marines a 110 pt character with T5 and 7 wounds that gives around 5+++ instead.
When I need to cast a Tyranid psychic power to make one enemy unit fight last this turn, don't give it as a free ability to the new sword guy who doesn't even need to be in combat to apply it.
Don't make units that are good in every phase of the game. Why can centurions both shoot 72 shots AND attack with str 10 damage 4 weapons in melee AND have T5 and 2+ saves? Why can aggressors also do something similar? Why can intercessors shoot 36" ap-2 damage 2 weapons AND have their sergeant casually one shot daemon princes and Carnifexes in melee on top of that? Why can 6 RG centurions shoot and kill a fully buffed Magnus upon deep striking with 100% certainty AND also Magnus doesn't dare to charge them? Why does the repulsor have half an army's worth of weapons on it AND also have -2" to be charged? What is the weakness of the Space Marine units exactly?
I can keep this list going on forever. Pretty sure Marine players don't even know all of these abilities are hands down better for no extra cost than what other people get.
And I'm not even going to get into the 120+ marine model releases since the last time we got a new Tyranid model.
I don't want Marine Players to suffer. I want to play on an even field. I don't want to have to rely on above average dice every game just to have a chance to play past Turn 3. I also want the company to respect me as a customer. I pay the same money as you do, perhaps even more. So why do you get the whole pizza and I only get a half eaten crust?
Equality in model releases is not necessarily something that I expect. Marines will always be the big dog there and that's fine, whatever.
But equality in how new rules are developed and pushed is another issue entirely. It's not just that Marines are getting their 3rd Codex in as many years, it's that even before their second codex, they got beta rules to improve the army because GW acknowledged the game wasn't doing a very good job of representing them lorewise and that they were too "weak" on the table.
My question is, why is this only something Marines should get? Reanimation Protocols was a non-functioning ability for 3 years in 8th. Why should Necron players wait all that time for a brand new Codex to fix it with nothing else to compensate for that? Why couldn't there have been beta rules in WD or one of the FAQ's for new RP rules, or a version of the Command Protocols that the army is going to be getting just as a bandaid fix to tide people over for a while?
Personally I think I'd be pretty much fine with marines being the meta army to beat if they had their strength shifted more toward defense than offense. I've played a couple games with opponents where we blanket applied the +4pt price hike to just everything and tried out Firstborns in a traditional mechanized rhino list, and it was an extremely good, close game.
If we had essentially the current meta but the armies that were unstoppable were Eldar with like, Autarch builds that could fly across the board and one-shot knights, and howling banshees and shining spears that could sprint across the board top of turn 1 and engage your army, and striking scorpions with double the attacks that could pop up turn 1 with infiltrating wraithlords that would also charge your lines turn 1, and Tau, with a special rule that allowed Fire Warriors to rapid fire at 30" range if they sat still, and battlesuits that shot twice, and they changed the Ethereal to be a 6" reroll all hits aura, marine players would be absolutely apoplectic with rage. Pretty much exactly how they were in 7th with those two armies. The playstyles would be decried as absolutely antithetical to the spirit of 40k, unfair, unfun, either you decide the entire game on the first turn die roll or you have an army that participates in only one phase and just squats in their deployment zones while they gak all over your army.
I have seen durability metas where it felt like, super crazy overwhelming. Decurion where you'd play a game and remove like 1 model from your opponent's army. But I don't think that's where 2W firstborns are gonna be at personally. Stuff is still killable, but it actually moves in order to get things done. it holds objectives. it isn't just "either I sit wayyyyyyyyyyyy back here and shoot you exactly as effectively as if I were 2" away or I charge you immediately, turn 1, in your deployment zone"
The power boost that they gave marines with 2.0 was needed, it's just frustrating that the form they gave it to them in was cranking deadliness up through the roof, rather than making marines feel actually tough.
Bosskelot wrote: Equality in model releases is not necessarily something that I expect. Marines will always be the big dog there and that's fine, whatever.
But equality in how new rules are developed and pushed is another issue entirely. It's not just that Marines are getting their 3rd Codex in as many years, it's that even before their second codex, they got beta rules to improve the army because GW acknowledged the game wasn't doing a very good job of representing them lorewise and that they were too "weak" on the table.
My question is, why is this only something Marines should get? Reanimation Protocols was a non-functioning ability for 3 years in 8th. Why should Necron players wait all that time for a brand new Codex to fix it with nothing else to compensate for that? Why couldn't there have been beta rules in WD or one of the FAQ's for new RP rules, or a version of the Command Protocols that the army is going to be getting just as a bandaid fix to tide people over for a while?
honest opinion, most SM players are probably just as pissed at beeing used as cashcows for rules releases as other factions are at the apparent neglect.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
Well for one marines could easily survive not getting a new model release for a decade at this point. But ofcourse this is a hyperbole, how about Marines don't get more releases then everyone else or 3 Xeno releases for every marine release (to catch up on the backlog).
As for Marine power level, its not that marines have to be put down, but they can't be at the top and certainly not by a wide margin like we have seen since Marine 2.0
Simply because the army is so popular. If Nids are the best army in the game (by a small margin, a big margin is always bad) then there will be a couple of nids at a tournament but your not going to see 30% of the field being Nids.
With Marines this does happen because who doesn't have a marine army lying around somewhere.
But again, its a matter of degrees. Marines have been head and shoulders above (almost) everyone for nigh a year now. And then came 9th and more marine buffs. Yes in a hypothetical world the new codex might balance marines again. But we don't know that and won't know that for probably another 2 months. And meanwhile pretty much every marine unit from Indomitus is broken. be it Eradicators being probably the best AT infantry the game has that every other army wishes they could field, Outriders being tough bikes with half a dozen attacks each, because reasons. Bladeguards being bonkers tough and killy melee infantry for cheap that any actual melee faction would die for (seriously, compare something like a GSC Aberrant to a Bladeguard Vet), the Judiciar who tells Melee armies to not bother showing up.
Bosskelot wrote: Equality in model releases is not necessarily something that I expect. Marines will always be the big dog there and that's fine, whatever.
But equality in how new rules are developed and pushed is another issue entirely. It's not just that Marines are getting their 3rd Codex in as many years, it's that even before their second codex, they got beta rules to improve the army because GW acknowledged the game wasn't doing a very good job of representing them lorewise and that they were too "weak" on the table.
My question is, why is this only something Marines should get? Reanimation Protocols was a non-functioning ability for 3 years in 8th. Why should Necron players wait all that time for a brand new Codex to fix it with nothing else to compensate for that? Why couldn't there have been beta rules in WD or one of the FAQ's for new RP rules, or a version of the Command Protocols that the army is going to be getting just as a bandaid fix to tide people over for a while?
honest opinion, most SM players are probably just as pissed at beeing used as cashcows for rules releases as other factions are at the apparent neglect.
^this too. I've also had several marine players leave because GW's business model forces them into a planned obsolescence cycle that would make Steve Jobs blush.
Even now, many of the original models that GW put out with the primaris range are already obsoleted by Iphone 11 Marines. Remember Reivers, Repulsors, Redemptors and Hellblasters? Nooooo nonono, you need to buy Incursors/Infiltrators, Repulsor Executioners/New Predator Thingy, Invictors and Eradicators now! Must consume! can't stop after rebuying your army once just two years ago! MUST CONSUME!!! CODEX 3.0 1 YEAR AFTER YOU BOUGHT 2 CODEXES FOR THE RULES FOR YOUR ARMY!
Bosskelot wrote: Equality in model releases is not necessarily something that I expect. Marines will always be the big dog there and that's fine, whatever.
But equality in how new rules are developed and pushed is another issue entirely. It's not just that Marines are getting their 3rd Codex in as many years, it's that even before their second codex, they got beta rules to improve the army because GW acknowledged the game wasn't doing a very good job of representing them lorewise and that they were too "weak" on the table.
My question is, why is this only something Marines should get? Reanimation Protocols was a non-functioning ability for 3 years in 8th. Why should Necron players wait all that time for a brand new Codex to fix it with nothing else to compensate for that? Why couldn't there have been beta rules in WD or one of the FAQ's for new RP rules, or a version of the Command Protocols that the army is going to be getting just as a bandaid fix to tide people over for a while?
honest opinion, most SM players are probably just as pissed at beeing used as cashcows for rules releases as other factions are at the apparent neglect.
^this too. I've also had several marine players leave because GW's business model forces them into a planned obsolescence cycle that would make Steve Jobs blush.
Even now, many of the original models that GW put out with the primaris range are already obsoleted by Iphone 11 Marines. Remember Reivers, Repulsors, Redemptors and Hellblasters? Nooooo nonono, you need to buy Incursors/Infiltrators, Repulsor Executioners/New Predator Thingy, Invictors and Eradicators now! Must consume! can't stop after rebuying your army once just two years ago! MUST CONSUME!!! CODEX 3.0 1 YEAR AFTER YOU BOUGHT 2 CODEXES FOR THE RULES FOR YOUR ARMY!
it's like the bit i stated about narrative players, their supposedly playing the desperate elite of a tyranical feudal technical stagnating empire, with specific subculture. And then suddendly we get what,the thing reversed?
It's also really iffy, regardless if the unit is actually good or not, just suddendly statwise be better then the former specialists.
eradicators torwards firedragons makes a mockery of the lore.
Intercissors roll over Veterans of the long war.
Not to mention the internal balance issues created by this, because why the feth bother with a IH first born squad, when intercissors just do it better.
and on and on and on.
And yes, planed obsolesence is pretty much the name of the game
Blackie wrote: Number aren't information, they must be put into some context. Always.
So don't take those numbers as truth, because they're not. SW for example aren't better than Ultramarines, Ravenguard, White Scars and maybe other chapters and yet their winning rate is pretty higher than those other chapters in that table.
And yes, Harlequins can be competitive, but top tier? I wouldn't be so sure. Actually I wouldn't even be sure that they're the top xeno army. They're also an army with just 8 datasheets so if they really become a thing they would probably be quite easy to counter.
Uh...Space wolves are way better than Ultramarines.
They have broken stratagem combos.
Armor of russ makes you fight first.
Nothing can survive their 4+ for additional hits stratagem combo (literally free if they kill a character with it)...if it's turn 3 just forget it. In melee - you die. You just die. Ultramarines are a middle tier army yet again by the stats...
Yeah the constant Marine release schedule is leading to burn out for actual Marine players around here. And this is on top of them not really enjoying the army anymore because some of them honestly feel embarrassed to be playing it. I played a game against a friends Black Templar's for our Crusade campaign and he was just constantly apologetic and making self-disparaging remarks about the army (and it was only BT!) All the Marine players I've spoken to locally are actually hoping for Marine nerfs because the way the army plays and interacts with the rules system makes it feel bad to play.
I've said this numerous times before but a lot of the current issues are more design focused than they are balance focused. You can "balance" a lot of the problems by hiking points up and making things super cost inefficient. But when an Imperial Fists Veteran Intercessor Sergeant with the Fist Relic is deadlier in close combat than a Tyranid Hive Tyrant, it just feels bad for everyone involved. The Fists player wants the fantasy of a horrible Alien threat fighting them, the Nid player wants that creature to represent an apex predator at the top of the evolutionary foodchain. The fact that the opposite happens is bad design. When 6 Aggressors leads to a larger increase in game time than the presence of 120 Ork Boyz, that's bad design. You can double the points of the Aggressors and make them irrelevant, but they'll still have mechanics that slow the game down to a crawl and make it a boring, miserable time for everyone involved.
A good example of this is Naga Siren and Goblin Techies in Dota 2. I've not kept up with the game for a while now, but whenever those heroes would get picked a few years ago you'd hear boos from crowds and ResidentSleeper in the Twitch chat. People despised those heroes. But they had sub-40% winrates so were actually underpowered more than anything. It's just they were absolutely miserable to play against and watch because everything about their mechanics and design were anti-fun.
A good example of this is Naga Siren and Goblin Techies in Dota 2. I've not kept up with the game for a while now, but whenever those heroes would get picked a few years ago you'd hear boos from crowds and ResidentSleeper in the Twitch chat. People despised those heroes. But they had sub-40% winrates so were actually underpowered more than anything. It's just they were absolutely miserable to play against and watch because everything about their mechanics and design were anti-fun.
Now why did you have to do my guy Techies like that?
As for Marine power level, its not that marines have to be put down, but they can't be at the top and certainly not by a wide margin like we have seen since Marine 2.0
Simply because the army is so popular. If Nids are the best army in the game (by a small margin, a big margin is always bad) then there will be a couple of nids at a tournament but your not going to see 30% of the field being Nids.
With Marines this does happen because who doesn't have a marine army lying around somewhere.
This feels like it's worth singling out.
No army should be top, not by any discernable margin at least. But to suggest an army should be harder to do well with because they're more popular is counter productive. Just because an army sells well, it doesn't mean they should be automatically at a disadvantage.
As for Marine power level, its not that marines have to be put down, but they can't be at the top and certainly not by a wide margin like we have seen since Marine 2.0
Simply because the army is so popular. If Nids are the best army in the game (by a small margin, a big margin is always bad) then there will be a couple of nids at a tournament but your not going to see 30% of the field being Nids.
With Marines this does happen because who doesn't have a marine army lying around somewhere.
This feels like it's worth singling out.
No army should be top, not by any discernable margin at least. But to suggest an army should be harder to do well with because they're more popular is counter productive. Just because an army sells well, it doesn't mean they should be automatically at a disadvantage.
Aye, however the popularity indeed exemplifies issues especially in the competitive realm where we had 28% of attendees playing SM of some flavour..
As for Marine power level, its not that marines have to be put down, but they can't be at the top and certainly not by a wide margin like we have seen since Marine 2.0
Simply because the army is so popular. If Nids are the best army in the game (by a small margin, a big margin is always bad) then there will be a couple of nids at a tournament but your not going to see 30% of the field being Nids.
With Marines this does happen because who doesn't have a marine army lying around somewhere.
This feels like it's worth singling out.
No army should be top, not by any discernable margin at least. But to suggest an army should be harder to do well with because they're more popular is counter productive. Just because an army sells well, it doesn't mean they should be automatically at a disadvantage.
When an army played by 1% of players is OP you will have a bad game once in a blue moon.
When an army played by 30% of players is OP you will constantly have bad games.
This is a problem for the perception of your players and we are certainly seeing the effect of that right now.
That doesn't mean marines should be disadvantaged because they are popular, but when the popular army is broken its effect is large and oppressive.
As for Marine power level, its not that marines have to be put down, but they can't be at the top and certainly not by a wide margin like we have seen since Marine 2.0
Simply because the army is so popular. If Nids are the best army in the game (by a small margin, a big margin is always bad) then there will be a couple of nids at a tournament but your not going to see 30% of the field being Nids.
With Marines this does happen because who doesn't have a marine army lying around somewhere.
This feels like it's worth singling out.
No army should be top, not by any discernable margin at least. But to suggest an army should be harder to do well with because they're more popular is counter productive. Just because an army sells well, it doesn't mean they should be automatically at a disadvantage.
When an army played by 1% of players is OP you will have a bad game once in a blue moon.
When an army played by 30% of players is OP you will constantly have bad games.
This is a problem for the perception of your players and we are certainly seeing the effect of that right now.
That doesn't mean marines should be disadvantaged because they are popular, but when the popular army is broken its effect is large and oppressive.
Yes but there is a place where nobody is op and that's the dream. It's not about marines being weaker and someone else being op, its about everyone having reasonable odds to win.
You'd see more marine wins due to more marine armies still, but it'd be proportional is the idea.
Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?
At least 3 armies off the top of my head that aren't loyalist marines can reroll hits in an aura. As far as the warlord traits go a lot of armies in PA got strats to give out additional warlord traits to nonwarlord models or the ability to give units additional abilities that are similar to warlord traits, such as Harlequins pivotal role strat. So that isn't really unique to marines.
Drop pods can arrive on turn one but are more of a trade off. Yes you can arrive on turn 1 but the drop pod itself ranges from awful to a liability once it arrives. Drop pods breaking the normal reserve rules has been a thing for what a least a decade in GW games IIRC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Where are all these space marine players asking for their army to be nerfed? LOL.
Nerf my army please! No one will play with me! LOL.
I have seen this before myself. It usually happens because the other person is complaining non stop about marines and the marine player is trying to be "nice".
Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?
At least 3 armies off the top of my head that aren't loyalist marines can reroll hits in an aura. As far as the warlord traits go a lot of armies in PA got strats to give out additional warlord traits to nonwarlord models or the ability to give units additional abilities that are similar to warlord traits, such as Harlequins pivotal role strat. So that isn't really unique to marines.
Drop pods can arrive on turn one but are more of a trade off. Yes you can arrive on turn 1 but the drop pod itself ranges from awful to a liability once it arrives. Drop pods breaking the normal reserve rules has been a thing for what a least a decade in GW games IIRC.
What armies can reroll all hits as an aura?
Sure but nobody can have two warlord traits on the same model.
Tyranids have awful drop pods too. Why can't they also drop T1? Also, bs. Drop pods were so stupid they even were able to completely block forward objectives when they lowered the doors and didn't allow enemies to contest them. Or they kept the doors closed and created LoS blocking terrain on demand. Just because they could do whatever the frack they wanted, as marines usually do. Also, tell me how "marines have been breaking core rules of the game for a decade now" is a comfort. In 8th everyone could drop T1. Then they saw how powerful it can be and they limited from everyone....except marines.
This here too. There was almost a 40% drop in attendance about 2 months after the drop of marines 2.0, and that continued on. Interestingly the pandemic gave us a chance to take a breather and regrow our club a bit, as we had people who were previously just online/hobby warhammer fans join in to the pandemic chats and a bunch of them turned into regular players.
Of course, predictably, a few of them are already showing signs of frustration at the continued imbalance. There's already someone quite confused as to how his eldar wraiths could be like this in the game, while Aggressors are very similar statwise but seem to have the firepower to delete a whole guardian squad off the board each...
I can only laugh when an eldar player asks how something can be some level of good. I really don't get why xeno players somehow want to kill the fun marine players of different factions have right now. As historicaly new codex for factions like eldar always ended up much better then the initial marine books anyway. Armies, that were considered casual by eldar player, were beating up a fair share of tournament marine lists, and practicaly everything that was not tournament list. On top of that with the corona in full effect a ton of marine players, don't even get to play their army when it is OP anyway. I got my GKPA book mid Feb, by that time all shops closed and I didn't get to play any games till 9th started with its changes to how GK work.
So after 2+ years of zero fun, I didn't get to enjoy those paladin bombs shoting from inside ruins without LoS and being practicaly unkillable with stratagem stacking. I can imagine there is a ton of salamander or SW players who feel the same. Not to mention those DA players, whose armies in 9th didn't get a lot better, specialy if we consider 2.0 marines as the good tier.
Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?
At least 3 armies off the top of my head that aren't loyalist marines can reroll hits in an aura. As far as the warlord traits go a lot of armies in PA got strats to give out additional warlord traits to nonwarlord models or the ability to give units additional abilities that are similar to warlord traits, such as Harlequins pivotal role strat. So that isn't really unique to marines.
Drop pods can arrive on turn one but are more of a trade off. Yes you can arrive on turn 1 but the drop pod itself ranges from awful to a liability once it arrives. Drop pods breaking the normal reserve rules has been a thing for what a least a decade in GW games IIRC.
What armies can reroll all hits as an aura?
Sure but nobody can have two warlord traits on the same model. Also armies like Tyranids have to actually give up their warlord traits in order to gain those other abilities.
Tyranids have awful drop pods too. Why can't they also drop T1? Also, bs. Drop pods were so stupid they even were able to completely block forward objectives when they lowered the doors and didn't allow enemies to contest them. Or they kept the doors closed and created LoS blocking terrain on demand. Just because they could do whatever the frack they wanted, as marines usually do. Also, tell me how "marines have been breaking core rules of the game for a decade now" is a comfort. In 8th everyone could drop T1. Then they saw how powerful it can be and they limited from everyone....except marines.
This here too. There was almost a 40% drop in attendance about 2 months after the drop of marines 2.0, and that continued on. Interestingly the pandemic gave us a chance to take a breather and regrow our club a bit, as we had people who were previously just online/hobby warhammer fans join in to the pandemic chats and a bunch of them turned into regular players.
Of course, predictably, a few of them are already showing signs of frustration at the continued imbalance. There's already someone quite confused as to how his eldar wraiths could be like this in the game, while Aggressors are very similar statwise but seem to have the firepower to delete a whole guardian squad off the board each...
I can only laugh when an eldar player asks how something can be some level of good. I really don't get why xeno players somehow want to kill the fun marine players of different factions have right now. As historicaly new codex for factions like eldar always ended up much better then the initial marine books anyway. Armies, that were considered casual by eldar player, were beating up a fair share of tournament marine lists, and practicaly everything that was not tournament list. On top of that with the corona in full effect a ton of marine players, don't even get to play their army when it is OP anyway. I got my GKPA book mid Feb, by that time all shops closed and I didn't get to play any games till 9th started with its changes to how GK work.
So after 2+ years of zero fun, I didn't get to enjoy those paladin bombs shoting from inside ruins without LoS and being practicaly unkillable with stratagem stacking. I can imagine there is a ton of salamander or SW players who feel the same. Not to mention those DA players, whose armies in 9th didn't get a lot better, specialy if we consider 2.0 marines as the good tier.
Pretty sure we're going to get a math analysis on time dilation that will explain how Marines have really only been OP for about 16 days total if you really look into it.
"i don't want the game to be balanced and for nobody to have a list that's miserable to play against, I just want to get to take my turn playing the list that's miserable to play against" is a weird take, but not a surprising one.
This here too. There was almost a 40% drop in attendance about 2 months after the drop of marines 2.0, and that continued on. Interestingly the pandemic gave us a chance to take a breather and regrow our club a bit, as we had people who were previously just online/hobby warhammer fans join in to the pandemic chats and a bunch of them turned into regular players.
Of course, predictably, a few of them are already showing signs of frustration at the continued imbalance. There's already someone quite confused as to how his eldar wraiths could be like this in the game, while Aggressors are very similar statwise but seem to have the firepower to delete a whole guardian squad off the board each...
I can only laugh when an eldar player asks how something can be some level of good. I really don't get why xeno players somehow want to kill the fun marine players of different factions have right now. As historicaly new codex for factions like eldar always ended up much better then the initial marine books anyway. Armies, that were considered casual by eldar player, were beating up a fair share of tournament marine lists, and practicaly everything that was not tournament list. On top of that with the corona in full effect a ton of marine players, don't even get to play their army when it is OP anyway. I got my GKPA book mid Feb, by that time all shops closed and I didn't get to play any games till 9th started with its changes to how GK work.
So after 2+ years of zero fun, I didn't get to enjoy those paladin bombs shoting from inside ruins without LoS and being practicaly unkillable with stratagem stacking. I can imagine there is a ton of salamander or SW players who feel the same. Not to mention those DA players, whose armies in 9th didn't get a lot better, specialy if we consider 2.0 marines as the good tier.
Are you being serious right now?
You keep missing the point. People that are complaining about marines right now were the same complaining about Eldar when they were the boogeyman.
Its not about marines specifically being OP, its about any army being OP. It sucks to play a one-sided game.
If you really feel like your GK deserve to be "OP" because they sucked so much for a long time, then its a pretty dumb opinion honestly.
No army should be miles ahead of the others. Each army should have a roughly equal chance to win, no matter the matchup (were talking theoretically here, i doubt getting every army at a 50-50 winrate against all matchups is a possible thing).
You really need to play with other people than your playgroup, theyre filling your head with toxic viewpoints. You should really try out Table top simulator.
EDIT: I play eldar and i made a point in 8th of not playing the OP stuff. No shining spears, No flyer spam, no dark reapers. In fact, i played a wraith host for most of 8th, even before the PA actually made it viable. I still complained about basically one list being viable for the codex.
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was giving reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Sure but nobody can have two warlord traits on the same model. Also armies like Tyranids have to actually give up their warlord traits in order to gain those other abilities.
No offense but I find it amusing that your counter example of Nids getting screwed is over the ability to give up relics to give upgrades to non character units, which marines can't do.
Tyranids have awful drop pods too. Why can't they also drop T1? Also, bs. Drop pods were so stupid they even were able to completely block forward objectives when they lowered the doors and didn't allow enemies to contest them. Or they kept the doors closed and created LoS blocking terrain on demand. Just because they could do whatever the frack they wanted, as marines usually do. Also, tell me how "marines have been breaking core rules of the game for a decade now" is a comfort. In 8th everyone could drop T1. Then they saw how powerful it can be and they limited from everyone....except marines.
Who knows why GW didn't give that to nid pods. Also the problems you outlay with pods have more to due with the design of the model then the rules really. That model has created issues for years with some SM players gluing their doors in place and other always dropping them. Most sane players I have played over the years game up with house rules to deal with those issues and moved on with their lives. So Marines have a unit that breaks the core rules. Who cares? Every army does that.
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
It is still reroll all hits when it counts (the shooting phase). If you want to claim the Codex Space Marine reroll all hits aura is better than some others I would agree. It is not unique to that codex however.
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
It is still reroll all hits when it counts (the shooting phase). If you want to claim the Codex Space Marine reroll all hits aura is better than some others I would agree. It is not unique to that codex however.
theres more to the game than the shooting phase. I would love to play Admech with melee threats that get full rerolls. Same with my CSM.
In 9th more than ever, the full reroll in all phases is super relevant.
And Tau, a shooting only army that hits on 4 gets it for 1 shooting phase. While SM get it in all their phases.
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
It is still reroll all hits when it counts (the shooting phase). If you want to claim the Codex Space Marine reroll all hits aura is better than some others I would agree. It is not unique to that codex however.
theres more to the game than the shooting phase. I would love to play Admech with melee threats that get full rerolls. Same with my CSM.
In 9th more than ever, the full reroll in all phases is super relevant.
And Tau, a shooting only army that hits on 4 gets it for 1 shooting phase. While SM get it in all their phases.
CSM have Abaddon the Despoiler which gives reroll all hits. He is your CM style character. The other legions don't get it for some reason but the ability does exist in that codex.
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
It is still reroll all hits when it counts (the shooting phase). If you want to claim the Codex Space Marine reroll all hits aura is better than some others I would agree. It is not unique to that codex however.
theres more to the game than the shooting phase. I would love to play Admech with melee threats that get full rerolls. Same with my CSM.
In 9th more than ever, the full reroll in all phases is super relevant.
And Tau, a shooting only army that hits on 4 gets it for 1 shooting phase. While SM get it in all their phases.
CSM have Abaddon the Despoiler which gives reroll all hits.
No, Black Legion has Abaddon. He does jack diddley for the other eight Legions. And since you think loyalist drop pods coming down on turn is perfectly fine I guess you wouldn't complain if when the new fw books are finally released Dreadclaws and Kharybdis Assault Claws get the same rule?
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
It is still reroll all hits when it counts (the shooting phase). If you want to claim the Codex Space Marine reroll all hits aura is better than some others I would agree. It is not unique to that codex however.
250 point subfaction-locked named character, only for shooting
500 point named character
500 point named character
250 point subfaction-locked named character
once per game ability, only for shooting
2CP stratagem on 68pt generic character.
one of these things is not like the others...one of these things just doesn't belong.
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
It is still reroll all hits when it counts (the shooting phase). If you want to claim the Codex Space Marine reroll all hits aura is better than some others I would agree. It is not unique to that codex however.
250 point subfaction-locked named character, only for shooting
500 point named character
500 point named character
250 point subfaction-locked named character
once per game ability, only for shooting
2CP stratagem on 68pt generic character.
one of these things is not like the others...one of these things just doesn't belong.
Got to agree, 2cp is too cheap, at least if it must exist, make it a separate entry with a points value.
Gadzilla666 wrote:Edit: Oh goody, another stealth editor.
Not my fault you can't handle my mad skills.
the_scotsman wrote:
250 point subfaction-locked named character, only for shooting
500 point named character
500 point named character
250 point subfaction-locked named character
once per game ability, only for shooting
2CP stratagem on 68pt generic character.
one of these things is not like the others...one of these things just doesn't belong.
Once again I would agree that the CM strat is better than the others. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets changed again in October.
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
It is still reroll all hits when it counts (the shooting phase). If you want to claim the Codex Space Marine reroll all hits aura is better than some others I would agree. It is not unique to that codex however.
250 point subfaction-locked named character, only for shooting
500 point named character
500 point named character
250 point subfaction-locked named character
once per game ability, only for shooting
2CP stratagem on 68pt generic character.
one of these things is not like the others...one of these things just doesn't belong.
Got to agree, 2cp is too cheap, at least if it must exist, make it a separate entry with a points value.
There are a ton of abilities that I find it incredibly strange GW decided that they would use the command point system instead of the points system to represent them. It's just embarrassing to see every chapter master in the game currently sitting around basically butt-naked waving a butterknife while his buddy Captain Chad Thundercock has 15 warlord traits, a relic, and the best equipment the chapter can provide.
Dudeface wrote: Got to agree, 2cp is too cheap, at least if it must exist, make it a separate entry with a points value.
I would love a separate entry honestly. A lot of strats should just be upgrades purchased with pts.
I would love for flat rerolls everything to go away. Yes from everyone. gak shouldn't have ~100% accuracy else what's the point of having a ballistic skill in the first place?
Off the top of my head? Tau, CSM, and Ad Mec for starters. CM strat exists because most of the chapters represented in codex space marine don't have rules for their named CM in the game and GW in the index was gives reroll hits out like candy to all the CM type special characters in the game. Reroll hits is not unique to marines.
Tau get it once per game, twice if they pick shadowsun.
Ad mech only gets it in shooting, not in melee and overwatch. Oh and only for mars on a named character.
CSM get it if you give a specific warlord trait to a black legion chaos lord in a (now illegal in tournament) specialist detachment?. Or purge but only on infantry and dreads against already wounded models.
So they don't really get the cheap, always on, full reroll that marines get as an aura.
It is still reroll all hits when it counts (the shooting phase). If you want to claim the Codex Space Marine reroll all hits aura is better than some others I would agree. It is not unique to that codex however.
250 point subfaction-locked named character, only for shooting
500 point named character
500 point named character
250 point subfaction-locked named character
once per game ability, only for shooting
2CP stratagem on 68pt generic character.
one of these things is not like the others...one of these things just doesn't belong.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
I would love for flat rerolls everything to go away. Yes from everyone. gak shouldn't have ~100% accuracy else what's the point of having a ballistic skill in the first place?
yeah, reroll all hits is too much. I dont even mind the power level but having aggressors shoot + overwatch in the same turn makes me want to pull my eyes out.
I'd change it to something like this :
Captains/Lords: Give 1 squad rerolls of 1 to hit.
Chapter master/Possible Lord++ : Give 2 squads rerolls of 1 to hit.
Dudeface wrote: It's OK I have numerous people telling me in the other threads that we don't separate out marines and as such we must declare marines are actually average.
Well, if you fold all those together you end up with ~58% iirc, so not average and still really good. Not as good as Harlies, but certainly not merely average by this data.
EDIT
Oh wait, I see SM are there at 52%, that's not too bad.
28% of the field is Space Marines. 28%. Every SM/SM mirror match conceals the imbalance by adding 1 loss and 1 win, driving it towards 50. It's 58% or so I head from people with the data if you eliminate mirror matchups.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.
The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.
Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?
At least 3 armies off the top of my head that aren't loyalist marines can reroll hits in an aura. As far as the warlord traits go a lot of armies in PA got strats to give out additional warlord traits to nonwarlord models or the ability to give units additional abilities that are similar to warlord traits, such as Harlequins pivotal role strat. So that isn't really unique to marines.
Drop pods can arrive on turn one but are more of a trade off. Yes you can arrive on turn 1 but the drop pod itself ranges from awful to a liability once it arrives. Drop pods breaking the normal reserve rules has been a thing for what a least a decade in GW games IIRC.
Nids have a drop pod aswell.
It does not get to break the normal reserve rules, because it is not a space marine...
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.
The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.
They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.
Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?
At least 3 armies off the top of my head that aren't loyalist marines can reroll hits in an aura. As far as the warlord traits go a lot of armies in PA got strats to give out additional warlord traits to nonwarlord models or the ability to give units additional abilities that are similar to warlord traits, such as Harlequins pivotal role strat. So that isn't really unique to marines.
Drop pods can arrive on turn one but are more of a trade off. Yes you can arrive on turn 1 but the drop pod itself ranges from awful to a liability once it arrives. Drop pods breaking the normal reserve rules has been a thing for what a least a decade in GW games IIRC.
Nids have a drop pod aswell.
It does not get to break the normal reserve rules, because it is not a space marine...
The Nid pod has LOTS of advantages. It can carry Monsters as large as the Tervigon/Tyrannofex. It can carry 20 infantry models instead of 10. It has better armament, and can move after it's landed like a normal unit, flies, and can assault stuff to be a total troll.
The Marine Pod is very good, but very specialized. I have both armies and I think they're both good units.
Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?
At least 3 armies off the top of my head that aren't loyalist marines can reroll hits in an aura. As far as the warlord traits go a lot of armies in PA got strats to give out additional warlord traits to nonwarlord models or the ability to give units additional abilities that are similar to warlord traits, such as Harlequins pivotal role strat. So that isn't really unique to marines.
Drop pods can arrive on turn one but are more of a trade off. Yes you can arrive on turn 1 but the drop pod itself ranges from awful to a liability once it arrives. Drop pods breaking the normal reserve rules has been a thing for what a least a decade in GW games IIRC.
Nids have a drop pod aswell.
It does not get to break the normal reserve rules, because it is not a space marine...
The Nid pod has LOTS of advantages. It can carry Monsters as large as the Tervigon/Tyrannofex. It can carry 20 infantry models instead of 10. It has better armament, and can move after it's landed like a normal unit, flies, and can assault stuff to be a total troll.
The Marine Pod is very good, but very specialized. I have both armies and I think they're both good units.
RAW today, the Nid pod can't even transport monsters. Ignoring that, with the smaller board size and changes to 9th... I think the Nid pod is one of the worst units in the game. Maybe at the end of 8th with the larger board and the point cuts, it was okay, but now it's just putrid. Meanwhile, the SM drop pod has always been good; it was too expensive for much of 8th and didn't have great payloads, but the point cuts and the turn 1 drop and the strong Sternguard options makes it great. I don't think there's a comparison here.
RAW today, the Nid pod can't even transport monsters. Ignoring that, with the smaller board size and changes to 9th... I think the Nid pod is one of the worst units in the game. Maybe at the end of 8th with the larger board and the point cuts, it was okay, but now it's just putrid. Meanwhile, the SM drop pod has always been good; it was too expensive for much of 8th and didn't have great payloads, but the point cuts and the turn 1 drop and the strong Sternguard options makes it great. I don't think there's a comparison here.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.
The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.
They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.
As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.
Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.
You keep missing the point. People that are complaining about marines right now were the same complaining about Eldar when they were the boogeyman.
Its not about marines specifically being OP, its about any army being OP. It sucks to play a one-sided game.
If you really feel like your GK deserve to be "OP" because they sucked so much for a long time, then its a pretty dumb opinion honestly.
No army should be miles ahead of the others. Each army should have a roughly equal chance to win, no matter the matchup (were talking theoretically here, i doubt getting every army at a 50-50 winrate against all matchups is a possible thing).
You really need to play with other people than your playgroup, theyre filling your head with toxic viewpoints. You should really try out Table top simulator.
EDIT: I play eldar and i made a point in 8th of not playing the OP stuff. No shining spears, No flyer spam, no dark reapers. In fact, i played a wraith host for most of 8th, even before the PA actually made it viable. I still complained about basically one list being viable for the codex.
yes, I am serious. I tried doing something funny one time and it got removed, which kind of a goes along my real life expiriance.
Also my expiriance about people not liking marines is, that the most vocal are not those that play orcs or tyranids, because those armies were often gimmik builds driven or out right bad for a long time. The vocal ones are those played the boogyman eldar themselfs. I don't know if it is the fact that 8 editions of having armies better then the rest made eldar players think they are somehow entitled to be better. It sure does look like it.
Marines armies are different depending on the faction, and give for the first time since I started in 8th a chance to have fun games with the models their like. That is somehow bad? Because given option for majority or minority to have fun I pick the majority. And I already am playing at a different place, as my old store closed, there is practicaly no difference, aside for them using a lot of FW recasts, and it is a different town.
Ah and if you think that just because in 8th my army was bad, get a load of this, your army was OP since when 1st edition, OP in every edition there was, with casual lists beating up tournament lists of other armies? And you think there shouldn't not be a time where your army is not the best of the best? That balance is somehow eldar being better then other armies? And I am not smart, but that is a lot more stupid then me wanting marines, who don't even share much stuff with GK.
What is next, you think that there should be a ton of eldar exclusive models, more new rules (specialy those that punish marines) ? So we are suppose to go back to how stuff was for most 8th. Ah and if you think that playing a wraith army, then play GK termintors with early or mid 8th ed rules for a few months, then we can talk about what can be considered bad or casual.
Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?
At least 3 armies off the top of my head that aren't loyalist marines can reroll hits in an aura. As far as the warlord traits go a lot of armies in PA got strats to give out additional warlord traits to nonwarlord models or the ability to give units additional abilities that are similar to warlord traits, such as Harlequins pivotal role strat. So that isn't really unique to marines.
Drop pods can arrive on turn one but are more of a trade off. Yes you can arrive on turn 1 but the drop pod itself ranges from awful to a liability once it arrives. Drop pods breaking the normal reserve rules has been a thing for what a least a decade in GW games IIRC.
What armies can reroll all hits as an aura?
Sure but nobody can have two warlord traits on the same model.
Tyranids have awful drop pods too. Why can't they also drop T1? Also, bs. Drop pods were so stupid they even were able to completely block forward objectives when they lowered the doors and didn't allow enemies to contest them. Or they kept the doors closed and created LoS blocking terrain on demand. Just because they could do whatever the frack they wanted, as marines usually do. Also, tell me how "marines have been breaking core rules of the game for a decade now" is a comfort. In 8th everyone could drop T1. Then they saw how powerful it can be and they limited from everyone....except marines.
Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.
Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.
Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.
Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.
You keep missing the point. People that are complaining about marines right now were the same complaining about Eldar when they were the boogeyman.
Its not about marines specifically being OP, its about any army being OP. It sucks to play a one-sided game.
If you really feel like your GK deserve to be "OP" because they sucked so much for a long time, then its a pretty dumb opinion honestly.
No army should be miles ahead of the others. Each army should have a roughly equal chance to win, no matter the matchup (were talking theoretically here, i doubt getting every army at a 50-50 winrate against all matchups is a possible thing).
You really need to play with other people than your playgroup, theyre filling your head with toxic viewpoints. You should really try out Table top simulator.
EDIT: I play eldar and i made a point in 8th of not playing the OP stuff. No shining spears, No flyer spam, no dark reapers. In fact, i played a wraith host for most of 8th, even before the PA actually made it viable. I still complained about basically one list being viable for the codex.
yes, I am serious. I tried doing something funny one time and it got removed, which kind of a goes along my real life expiriance.
Also my expiriance about people not liking marines is, that the most vocal are not those that play orcs or tyranids, because those armies were often gimmik builds driven or out right bad for a long time. The vocal ones are those played the boogyman eldar themselfs. I don't know if it is the fact that 8 editions of having armies better then the rest made eldar players think they are somehow entitled to be better. It sure does look like it.
Marines armies are different depending on the faction, and give for the first time since I started in 8th a chance to have fun games with the models their like. That is somehow bad? Because given option for majority or minority to have fun I pick the majority. And I already am playing at a different place, as my old store closed, there is practicaly no difference, aside for them using a lot of FW recasts, and it is a different town.
Ah and if you think that just because in 8th my army was bad, get a load of this, your army was OP since when 1st edition, OP in every edition there was, with casual lists beating up tournament lists of other armies? And you think there shouldn't not be a time where your army is not the best of the best? That balance is somehow eldar being better then other armies? And I am not smart, but that is a lot more stupid then me wanting marines, who don't even share much stuff with GK.
What is next, you think that there should be a ton of eldar exclusive models, more new rules (specialy those that punish marines) ? So we are suppose to go back to how stuff was for most 8th. Ah and if you think that playing a wraith army, then play GK termintors with early or mid 8th ed rules for a few months, then we can talk about what can be considered bad or casual.
Wow, good job completely missing my meaning.
Eldar is not my main army, its one i play on the side and i purposefully use the non top tier lists because i dislike playing "OP" stuff.
From what i see on this website at least (with the armies people have in their signatures), the complaints about marines come from every army.
GK isnt a marine army.
GK were op in past editions too.
Eldar or GK being OP is a problem just as much as marines being OP.
Do i think Eldar need new models? Absolutely, but not for the rules to be OP or for the army to get better, just because the army still uses metal sculpts for a big part of the army.
You keep focusing on the fact that i play eldar. I play CSM, Thousand sons, Admech, drukhari, harlequins, demons and knights and i can still say that a certain army is unfun to play as/against.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.
The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.
They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.
As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.
Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.
I’m confused by what you’re trying to say here Audustum. Are you saying that marines being extremely prevalent and Salamanders being strong against marines is inflating the winrate of the (SALAMANDER) subfaction, or are you saying that Salamanders being strong vs marines and having an inflated winrate is somehow inflating “the overall marine winrate”. The first is a valid point, the second not so much.
Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.
Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.
Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.
Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.
When most other armies have T3 4+ models, being at the minimum T4 3+ is a defensive buff by itself already. Marines arent exactly a glass cannon army.
The strength of drop pods is that they come in turn one and take some space before your opponent can spread out of his deployment.
what aura gives +1 to invuln for demons? I dont seem to recall one.
Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.
Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.
Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.
Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.
When most other armies have T3 4+ models, being at the minimum T4 3+ is a defensive buff by itself already. Marines arent exactly a glass cannon army.
The strength of drop pods is that they come in turn one and take some space before your opponent can spread out of his deployment.
what aura gives +1 to invuln for demons? I dont seem to recall one.
Psychic ability. +1 invune save to all daemons in 6 inch aura. Forget its name.
True Marines can be quite tough if you bringing bad weapons with ap-0. They do pay extra points for their stats though. Which hurts even more if you have the right weapon and they die like chaff (see Riptide). I've recently started building Necrons and assembled some lists. I believe the Crons are going to murder marines at a pretty high rate with all these new buffed weapons profiles.
Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.
Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.
Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.
Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.
When most other armies have T3 4+ models, being at the minimum T4 3+ is a defensive buff by itself already. Marines arent exactly a glass cannon army.
The strength of drop pods is that they come in turn one and take some space before your opponent can spread out of his deployment.
what aura gives +1 to invuln for demons? I dont seem to recall one.
Psychic ability. +1 invune save to all daemons in 6 inch aura. Forget its name.
True Marines can be quite tough if you bringing bad weapons with ap-0. They do pay extra points for their stats though. Which hurts even more if you have the right weapon and they die like chaff (see Riptide). I've recently started building Necrons and assembled some lists. I believe the Crons are going to murder marines at a pretty high rate with all these new buffed weapons profiles.
Cursed earth? Thats a CSM spell that only affect <Legion> demons.
Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.
Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.
Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.
Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.
When most other armies have T3 4+ models, being at the minimum T4 3+ is a defensive buff by itself already. Marines arent exactly a glass cannon army.
The strength of drop pods is that they come in turn one and take some space before your opponent can spread out of his deployment.
what aura gives +1 to invuln for demons? I dont seem to recall one.
Psychic ability. +1 invune save to all daemons in 6 inch aura. Forget its name.
True Marines can be quite tough if you bringing bad weapons with ap-0. They do pay extra points for their stats though. Which hurts even more if you have the right weapon and they die like chaff (see Riptide). I've recently started building Necrons and assembled some lists. I believe the Crons are going to murder marines at a pretty high rate with all these new buffed weapons profiles.
Cursed earth? Thats a CSM spell that only affect <Legion> demons.
Yeah true. I should have called it a CSM buff. It is amazing though - I use it with my black legion. Generally - defeisve buffs are better than offensive ones IMO.
Just look at all the armies that dominate.
Ironhands LVO winner - Indestructable Levi dread due to 3 different defensive abiltiies active at once.
Shinning spears. 3++ save with 5+ FNP with double move shenanigans
Immortal Castellan knight with 3++ save and 28 wounds.
Yeah true. I should have called it a CSM buff. It is amazing though - I use it with my black legion. Generally - defeisve buffs are better than offensive ones IMO.
Just look at all the armies that dominate.
Ironhands LVO winner - Indestructable Levi dread due to 3 different defensive abiltiies active at once.
Shinning spears. 3++ save with 5+ FNP with double move shenanigans
Immortal Castellan knight with 3++ save and 28 wounds.
I think it scales with the base stats of the unit. Harlequin troupes getting a 3++ doesnt break anything. Its when you get things that are already hard to take down and give them extra survivability that it gets in a territory that isnt enjoyable.
The Loyalist levi is already hard to take down with his T8 and 4++, half damage + fnp on top and it gets ridiculous beause theres basically no weapon profile that manages to get through it.
Shining spears still die to bolter fire, even with the possible 2++ (theyre still super good but not the same level of survivability as the levi).
Yeah true. I should have called it a CSM buff. It is amazing though - I use it with my black legion. Generally - defeisve buffs are better than offensive ones IMO.
Just look at all the armies that dominate.
Ironhands LVO winner - Indestructable Levi dread due to 3 different defensive abiltiies active at once.
Shinning spears. 3++ save with 5+ FNP with double move shenanigans
Immortal Castellan knight with 3++ save and 28 wounds.
I think it scales with the base stats of the unit. Harlequin troupes getting a 3++ doesnt break anything. Its when you get things that are already hard to take down and give them extra survivability that it gets in a territory that isnt enjoyable.
The Loyalist levi is already hard to take down with his T8 and 4++, half damage + fnp on top and it gets ridiculous beause theres basically no weapon profile that manages to get through it.
Shining spears still die to bolter fire, even with the possible 2++ (theyre still super good but not the same level of survivability as the levi).
Levi is good. No argument. They did nerf that stratagem to -1 damage instead of half though.
10 man rapid fire intercessors with reroll all hits deals less than 3 wounds to a 2++ save spreas unit with fortune. With a reroll of the save they wound even lose the 2++ statistically with a 3 wound exarch. Not particularly effective there.
No disagreement about the troops with a 3++. It is undeniable damage mitigation though. Where as even a Centurian with t5 and 4 wounds and a 2++ dies at the same rate as gaurdsmen to a DDA. Quin troopers though...pretty much indestructable to powerful weapons. Risk reward. Good defensive stats vs some weapons vs no defensive stats vs others.
RAW today, the Nid pod can't even transport monsters. Ignoring that, with the smaller board size and changes to 9th... I think the Nid pod is one of the worst units in the game. Maybe at the end of 8th with the larger board and the point cuts, it was okay, but now it's just putrid. Meanwhile, the SM drop pod has always been good; it was too expensive for much of 8th and didn't have great payloads, but the point cuts and the turn 1 drop and the strong Sternguard options makes it great. I don't think there's a comparison here.
why couldnt it carry monsters?
RAW the Tyrannocyte disembarks models in the exact same way as disembarkation from a transport. 9th ed rules define disembark as *wholly within* 3''. Most monsters can't get their bases wholly within 3'' (i.e. every part of the base within 3''). So yeah, it's a stupid technicality, but it's also quite clear RAW. Not that I wouldn't bring monsters in Tyrannocytes against my buddies for that reason... I wouldn't bring monsters against Tyrannocytes against my buddies for several other reasons instead
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even releases would be nice. Marines get constant release. Npc factions good if you get something in decade
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.
Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.
The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.
They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.
As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.
Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.
I’m confused by what you’re trying to say here Audustum. Are you saying that marines being extremely prevalent and Salamanders being strong against marines is inflating the winrate of the (SALAMANDER) subfaction, or are you saying that Salamanders being strong vs marines and having an inflated winrate is somehow inflating “the overall marine winrate”. The first is a valid point, the second not so much.
I'm saying both and they do make sense as long as we take into account that Marines aren't proportioned equally in representation.
When they calculated 'Space Marine' win rate, I believe they just took the percentages of every individual Space Marine faction and averaged them against the number of Space Marine factions. The problem with this is that it assumes all Space Marine factions were represented equally.
Let's assume there are 4 SM factions. SM 1, 2 and 3 make up 90% of the SM field. SM 4 is just 10%. SM 1, 2 and 3 each play 100 games against other SM. SM 4 plays just 9. The average winrate of SM 1-3 is 50% against each other. SM 4, because it is great at killing other SM has a 90% win rate. Thus, the average total winrate of SM 1-3 is ~49%.
If you just average the winrates then you do 49% + 49%% + 49% + 90% and then divided by 4, however. That over represents the Sallies and makes a winrate of ~59%. Sallies being great and treating all SM as equal skewed the result.
Can something like that happen with just raw win/loss numbers not separated by faction? Yeah, but only if we have the opposite: a SM chapter that is particularly good against other Imperium/Chaos/Xenos. If they got 'lucky' and hit a disproportionate amount of those they'd skew the wins too high.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even releases would be nice. Marines get constant release. Npc factions good if you get something in decade
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.
Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.
The stats in the op literally show beating marines isn't "once in a blue moon" it's just less often than ideal.
I agree other races need more release windows, although every faction has had something in the last decade, just not enough.
Marines need to be brought down a little but I believe Gadzilla means rather than their bleeding edge efficiency lists getting buffed, other factions need their iffy choices brought up like marines.
I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.
Dudeface wrote: I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.
Dudeface wrote: I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.
VladimirHerzog wrote:I think it scales with the base stats of the unit. Harlequin troupes getting a 3++ doesnt break anything. Its when you get things that are already hard to take down and give them extra survivability that it gets in a territory that isnt enjoyable.
The Loyalist levi is already hard to take down with his T8 and 4++, half damage + fnp on top and it gets ridiculous beause theres basically no weapon profile that manages to get through it.
Shining spears still die to bolter fire, even with the possible 2++ (theyre still super good but not the same level of survivability as the levi).
Xenomancers wrote:Levi is good. No argument. They did nerf that stratagem to -1 damage instead of half though.
10 man rapid fire intercessors with reroll all hits deals less than 3 wounds to a 2++ save spreas unit with fortune. With a reroll of the save they wound even lose the 2++ statistically with a 3 wound exarch. Not particularly effective there.
No disagreement about the troops with a 3++. It is undeniable damage mitigation though. Where as even a Centurian with t5 and 4 wounds and a 2++ dies at the same rate as gaurdsmen to a DDA. Quin troopers though...pretty much indestructable to powerful weapons. Risk reward. Good defensive stats vs some weapons vs no defensive stats vs others.
I think you both recognize this, but to state it clearly, the important thing is that invulns really only provide protection against high-AP fire, so how useful an invuln is depends entirely on the unit's resilience to low-AP fire. Units that have otherwise weak defensive profiles but strong invulns (like Harlequins) remain vulnerable to the high-volume, low-strength firepower that was optimal against them to begin with, so the invuln is nice to have but doesn't make a huge difference. Units that are extremely tough and have invulns (like Leviathans) are able to strongly mitigate the weapons otherwise most effective against them and this dramatically impacts their survivability. That's the biggest difference between Harlequins and Leviathans as far as invulns.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.
The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.
They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.
As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.
Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.
I’m confused by what you’re trying to say here Audustum. Are you saying that marines being extremely prevalent and Salamanders being strong against marines is inflating the winrate of the (SALAMANDER) subfaction, or are you saying that Salamanders being strong vs marines and having an inflated winrate is somehow inflating “the overall marine winrate”. The first is a valid point, the second not so much.
I'm saying both and they do make sense as long as we take into account that Marines aren't proportioned equally in representation.
When they calculated 'Space Marine' win rate, I believe they just took the percentages of every individual Space Marine faction and averaged them against the number of Space Marine factions. The problem with this is that it assumes all Space Marine factions were represented equally.
Let's assume there are 4 SM factions. SM 1, 2 and 3 make up 90% of the SM field. SM 4 is just 10%. SM 1, 2 and 3 each play 100 games against other SM. SM 4 plays just 9. The average winrate of SM 1-3 is 50% against each other. SM 4, because it is great at killing other SM has a 90% win rate. Thus, the average total winrate of SM 1-3 is ~49%.
If you just average the winrates then you do 49% + 49%% + 49% + 90% and then divided by 4, however. That over represents the Sallies and makes a winrate of ~59%. Sallies being great and treating all SM as equal skewed the result.
Can something like that happen with just raw win/loss numbers not separated by faction? Yeah, but only if we have the opposite: a SM chapter that is particularly good against other Imperium/Chaos/Xenos. If they got 'lucky' and hit a disproportionate amount of those they'd skew the wins too high.
Edit: I notice you specify that subfaction 4 only played 9 games, which I missed. My bad haha.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even releases would be nice. Marines get constant release. Npc factions good if you get something in decade
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.
Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.
The stats in the op literally show beating marines isn't "once in a blue moon" it's just less often than ideal.
I agree other races need more release windows, although every faction has had something in the last decade, just not enough.
Marines need to be brought down a little but I believe Gadzilla means rather than their bleeding edge efficiency lists getting buffed, other factions need their iffy choices brought up like marines.
I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up Dudeface.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even releases would be nice. Marines get constant release. Npc factions good if you get something in decade
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.
Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.
The stats in the op literally show beating marines isn't "once in a blue moon" it's just less often than ideal.
I agree other races need more release windows, although every faction has had something in the last decade, just not enough.
Marines need to be brought down a little but I believe Gadzilla means rather than their bleeding edge efficiency lists getting buffed, other factions need their iffy choices brought up like marines.
I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.
Nerfing marines is simple. You just nerf the marine factions that are overperfoming. In most cases you could just reduce a single over performing stratagem or warlord trait. That and nerf the new eradicators (obviously undercosted).Does it make any sense to nerf Ultramarines when they have a 48 % WR? Retorical question ofc.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?
What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?
Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.
Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even releases would be nice. Marines get constant release. Npc factions good if you get something in decade
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.
Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.
The stats in the op literally show beating marines isn't "once in a blue moon" it's just less often than ideal.
I agree other races need more release windows, although every faction has had something in the last decade, just not enough.
Marines need to be brought down a little but I believe Gadzilla means rather than their bleeding edge efficiency lists getting buffed, other factions need their iffy choices brought up like marines.
I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.
Nerfing marines is simple. You just nerf the marine factions that are overperfoming. In most cases you could just reduce a single over performing stratagem or warlord trait. That and nerf the new eradicators (obviously undercosted).Does it make any sense to nerf Ultramarines when they have a 48 % WR? Retorical question ofc.
Depends on your side of the fence, there are plenty of posters on here who just consider them "marines" and the individual chapters etc. Don't count essentially. This means that if "marines" hit 50% they don't care that dark angels are 40% and salamanders 60% for example.
I would like to add that one Xenos army being top contender does not necessarily mean doom and gloom. People tend to forget that the amount of people playing each faction varies and the amount of people playing Harlequins(or any Aeldari really) is going to be so much smaller than the amount of Space Marine players. This is also why the Space Marine codex in its current form is so dangerous. Not only does it boost a majority faction, but makes the bandwagoners and others jump ship to join the Marine extravaganza, leaving less and less xenos players in the game potentially and making the overall scene very monotonous.
Because when Ynnari was OP it only meant that some bandwagoners jumped onto the new hot thing, but the overall change to the number of people playing Ynnari wasn't much and you didn't really encounter them repeatedly; unless you were a tourney player or one of those unlucky people to only have that one friend who only ever played Ynnari.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.
The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.
They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.
As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.
Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.
I’m confused by what you’re trying to say here Audustum. Are you saying that marines being extremely prevalent and Salamanders being strong against marines is inflating the winrate of the (SALAMANDER) subfaction, or are you saying that Salamanders being strong vs marines and having an inflated winrate is somehow inflating “the overall marine winrate”. The first is a valid point, the second not so much.
I'm saying both and they do make sense as long as we take into account that Marines aren't proportioned equally in representation.
When they calculated 'Space Marine' win rate, I believe they just took the percentages of every individual Space Marine faction and averaged them against the number of Space Marine factions. The problem with this is that it assumes all Space Marine factions were represented equally.
Let's assume there are 4 SM factions. SM 1, 2 and 3 make up 90% of the SM field. SM 4 is just 10%. SM 1, 2 and 3 each play 100 games against other SM. SM 4 plays just 9. The average winrate of SM 1-3 is 50% against each other. SM 4, because it is great at killing other SM has a 90% win rate. Thus, the average total winrate of SM 1-3 is ~49%.
If you just average the winrates then you do 49% + 49%% + 49% + 90% and then divided by 4, however. That over represents the Sallies and makes a winrate of ~59%. Sallies being great and treating all SM as equal skewed the result.
Can something like that happen with just raw win/loss numbers not separated by faction? Yeah, but only if we have the opposite: a SM chapter that is particularly good against other Imperium/Chaos/Xenos. If they got 'lucky' and hit a disproportionate amount of those they'd skew the wins too high.
Edit: I notice you specify that subfaction 4 only played 9 games, which I missed. My bad haha.
Eldarsif wrote: I would like to add that one Xenos army being top contender does not necessarily mean doom and gloom. People tend to forget that the amount of people playing each faction varies and the amount of people playing Harlequins(or any Aeldari really) is going to be so much smaller than the amount of Space Marine players. This is also why the Space Marine codex in its current form is so dangerous. Not only does it boost a majority faction, but makes the bandwagoners and others jump ship to join the Marine extravaganza, leaving less and less xenos players in the game potentially and making the overall scene very monotonous.
Because when Ynnari was OP it only meant that some bandwagoners jumped onto the new hot thing, but the overall change to the number of people playing Ynnari wasn't much and you didn't really encounter them repeatedly; unless you were a tourney player or one of those unlucky people to only have that one friend who only ever played Ynnari.
We're going to 30K, boys! Conspiracy to eliminate xenos confirmed!
Eldarsif wrote: I would like to add that one Xenos army being top contender does not necessarily mean doom and gloom. People tend to forget that the amount of people playing each faction varies and the amount of people playing Harlequins(or any Aeldari really) is going to be so much smaller than the amount of Space Marine players. This is also why the Space Marine codex in its current form is so dangerous. Not only does it boost a majority faction, but makes the bandwagoners and others jump ship to join the Marine extravaganza, leaving less and less xenos players in the game potentially and making the overall scene very monotonous.
Because when Ynnari was OP it only meant that some bandwagoners jumped onto the new hot thing, but the overall change to the number of people playing Ynnari wasn't much and you didn't really encounter them repeatedly; unless you were a tourney player or one of those unlucky people to only have that one friend who only ever played Ynnari.
We're going to 30K, boys! Conspiracy to eliminate xenos confirmed!
You flatter me mam, but no, I do not work at Games Workshop so I can't really confirm what direction GW is aiming for. I can only say that if you have something that is already a majority faction and boost it further you risk converting the non-Marines or alienating them.
catbarf wrote: I think you both recognize this, but to state it clearly, the important thing is that invulns really only provide protection against high-AP fire, so how useful an invuln is depends entirely on the unit's resilience to low-AP fire. Units that have otherwise weak defensive profiles but strong invulns (like Harlequins) remain vulnerable to the high-volume, low-strength firepower that was optimal against them to begin with, so the invuln is nice to have but doesn't make a huge difference. Units that are extremely tough and have invulns (like Leviathans) are able to strongly mitigate the weapons otherwise most effective against them and this dramatically impacts their survivability. That's the biggest difference between Harlequins and Leviathans as far as invulns.
If a Harlequin (7+/4++) gets a 3++ then it becomes 50% more durable against all attacks. If a Maulerfiend (3+/5++) gets a 4++ then it becomes 33% more durable against some attacks, let's say it is 70% of attacks pointed at it. On top of that your opponent might continue pointing their AP-0 and AP-1 attacks at the Maulerfiend but change the targets of their premium weapons to other targets, in the end your opponent might just kill the Maulerfiend without ever engaging with the increased invuln if they have enough S5 AP- weapons for example. The only way around the Harlequin invul buff would be mortal wounds or not killing it.
If a Harlequin (7+/4++) gets a 3++ then it becomes 50% more durable against all attacks.
How in the world do you get a 50% increase in durability going from a 4++ to a 3++?
Normally you need 36 attacks to do 18 wounds to a unit with a 4++ (18*6/3), against a unit with a 3++ you need 18*6/2=54. 54/36=1,5. So to climb back to the 18 wounds caused you need 50% more attacks, ergo, the unit is 50% more durable.
Eldarsif wrote: I would like to add that one Xenos army being top contender does not necessarily mean doom and gloom. People tend to forget that the amount of people playing each faction varies and the amount of people playing Harlequins(or any Aeldari really) is going to be so much smaller than the amount of Space Marine players. This is also why the Space Marine codex in its current form is so dangerous. Not only does it boost a majority faction, but makes the bandwagoners and others jump ship to join the Marine extravaganza, leaving less and less xenos players in the game potentially and making the overall scene very monotonous.
Because when Ynnari was OP it only meant that some bandwagoners jumped onto the new hot thing, but the overall change to the number of people playing Ynnari wasn't much and you didn't really encounter them repeatedly; unless you were a tourney player or one of those unlucky people to only have that one friend who only ever played Ynnari.
Hell, even in tournaments you'd often be unlikely to come across Ynnari or even general Eldar soup.
There was a good long period of time when the meta was 60% Castellans and I personally had many tournaments where it was all 5 or 6 of my games versus some Imperium soup variant (and later on, 5 or 6 games versus Marines)
If a Harlequin (7+/4++) gets a 3++ then it becomes 50% more durable against all attacks.
How in the world do you get a 50% increase in durability going from a 4++ to a 3++?
Normally you need 36 attacks to do 18 wounds to a unit with a 4++ (18*6/3), against a unit with a 3++ you need 18*6/2=54. 54/36=1,5. So to climb back to the 18 wounds caused you need 50% more attacks, ergo, the unit is 50% more durable.
To simplify further: 1/2 wounds make it through a 4++, so it takes 2 wounds on average to deal damage. 1/3 wounds make it through a 3++, so it averages 3 wounds to deal damage.
A 3++ takes 1 more wound to beat than a 4++ (3-2=1). 1 is 50% of 2. So going from a 4++ to a 3++ means it takes 50% more wounds to do the same damage. Ergo, a 3++ is a 50% increase in durability from a 4++.
But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.
Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).
Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.
It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.
Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.
Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.
The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).
Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.
52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.
The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.
They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.
As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.
Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.
Um....no. No, by definition every single mirror match reaults in 1 win and 1 loss for marines, moving them back towards 50% because thats how that gak works bud.
If SM play against SM 28% of the time and they have an overall 52% win-rate then the win-rate against other factions would have to be 53%. (100*52-28*50)/72.
As Audustum previously pointed out, that only applies if the average winrate of (SPACE MARINES) is taken as an average of the wins and losses of all games played by (SPACE MARINES). If the average marine winrate is created by averaging the winrates of all the marine subfactions (and weighting each subfaction as the same even though some subfactions are played less) then a couple can skew the results.
Example:
Let us say Ultramarines play 100 games. 90 of these games are against Xenos, and they win 45 of these (I know it would be higher using the tourny stats but hey this is example).
Then they play 10 games against Salamanders and win 0.
The Salamander player has only played 10 games, all of which are against Ultras. They win all 10.
Ignoring marine vs marine winrate, marine vs xenos gives 50% winrate, however treating subfactions equally will actually allow marine vs marine to skew results above 50%.
Average marine winrate: (45+100)/2= 72.5%. Far higher than it would be if you ignored marine vs marine.
Now I don’t think this is actually happening- I expect marine vs xenos winrate to be much higher than average marine winrate total-, but it is possible.
Popey45696321 wrote: As Audustum previously pointed out, that only applies if the average winrate of (SPACE MARINES) is taken as an average of the wins and losses of all games played by (SPACE MARINES). If the average marine winrate is created by averaging the winrates of all the marine subfactions (and weighting each subfaction as the same even though some subfactions are played less) then a couple can skew the results.
Example:
Let us say Ultramarines play 100 games. 90 of these games are against Xenos, and they win 45 of these (I know it would be higher using the tourny stats but hey this is example). Then they play 10 games against Salamanders and win 0. The Salamander player has only played 10 games, all of which are against Ultras. They win all 10.
Ignoring marine vs marine winrate, marine vs xenos gives 50% winrate, however treating subfactions equally will actually allow marine vs marine to skew results above 50%.
Average marine winrate: (45+100)/2= 72.5%. Far higher than it would be if you ignored marine vs marine.
Now I don’t think this is actually happening- I expect marine vs xenos winrate to be much higher than average marine winrate total-, but it is possible.
Nowhere in the article does it say they did that, so Marines are a little better than the 52% the article says. 52% is nothing to whine about, even if it was 54% it would be perfectly fair.
Popey45696321 wrote: As Audustum previously pointed out, that only applies if the average winrate of (SPACE MARINES) is taken as an average of the wins and losses of all games played by (SPACE MARINES). If the average marine winrate is created by averaging the winrates of all the marine subfactions (and weighting each subfaction as the same even though some subfactions are played less) then a couple can skew the results.
Example:
Let us say Ultramarines play 100 games. 90 of these games are against Xenos, and they win 45 of these (I know it would be higher using the tourny stats but hey this is example).
Then they play 10 games against Salamanders and win 0.
The Salamander player has only played 10 games, all of which are against Ultras. They win all 10.
Ignoring marine vs marine winrate, marine vs xenos gives 50% winrate, however treating subfactions equally will actually allow marine vs marine to skew results above 50%.
Average marine winrate: (45+100)/2= 72.5%. Far higher than it would be if you ignored marine vs marine.
Now I don’t think this is actually happening- I expect marine vs xenos winrate to be much higher than average marine winrate total-, but it is possible.
Nowhere in the article does it say they did that, so Marines are a little better than the 52% the article says. 52% is nothing to whine about, even if it was 54% it would be perfectly fair.
And yet people do whinge, because they refuse to consider marines as anything other than a catch all term.
The win rate in the Goonhammer statistics is created by Marines playing 421 games and winning 221 of them, for a 52% win rate (technically 42.49% and rounding down).
We know 12 Salamander lists played X games, and got a 71% win rate between them in those games. We know 4 Iron Hands lists played Y games and got a 69% win rate down to 1 Death Watch list playing K games and winning 33% of them. (You'd guess 3.)
We know that X+Y+Z etc would eventually get you to 421 games.
From there though I don't think you can go much further. On average each list played 4.52 games, so tournaments being 3-4 with mirrors making up the difference seems logical. The games played per list is weirdly high for Custodes (5.22) which I want to say is explained by mirrors - but Marines should have the highest mirrored games - and the highest games in general - unless mirrors are counting as only 1 game for some reason.
From there I'm not sure you can work anything else out.
As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups. I was simply pointing out that it is mathematically possible for mirrors to inflate winrates above 50% if statistics are used carelessly, in response to the_scotsman saying it isn’t.
However we dance around with the available statistics, Harlequins do have the toolkit to deal with Space Marines. I just played with Deathwing Terminators against Harlequins - my opponent had won all previous eight games with his list including three at last week's local tournament. Those Fusion Pistols delete Marines, and melee weapons doing D2 can also chew through Marines. Haywire deals with Primaris vehicles. I am not saying they are unbeatable, but I think that their win rate will stay high as the sample size increases.
Popey45696321 wrote: As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.
I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot
Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.
As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?
Popey45696321 wrote: As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.
I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot
Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.
As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?
Only DA vs DAWR is 50%, not DA vs BA etc. The amount of DA mirrors is probably very low. Sallies are good because of tactical reinforcements and Eradicators. DW Vets got hit on SBsSSs and base cost, had they not they would be great. DW Vets w/SBSS went up 33%, IH Intercessors 18%.
Popey45696321 wrote: As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.
I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot
Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.
As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?
Except Salamanders and WS (and other Chapters) are all winning with Codex/Indomitus units.
There are probably just 3 games out of 1500+ involving DW.
From this you can probably determine people don't like the faction and think they are weak. You can probably in turn suggest they are weak, but its an incredibly small pool so plenty of things could lurk in the faction that are not being exploited. On these stats if one good player took DW to a 3 game tournament and went 3-0 they'd go to a 66% win rate, top tier omg nerf.
Popey45696321 wrote: As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.
I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot
Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.
As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?
Except Salamanders and WS (and other Chapters) are all winning with Codex/Indomitus units.
Not from what I have seen. Relic units are common in a lot of lists (Contemptors, Leviathans, Scorpius, etc.) The imperial soup list (Sisters and IF) that won the first tournament had 3 relic contemptors and both Salamanders winning lists had FW in them.
We really need the updated FW books. We are still working with index rules for FW and the balance is painful. The relic contemptor is the same cost as the base codex one and is better in everyway.
Popey45696321 wrote: As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.
I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot
Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.
As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?
Except Salamanders and WS (and other Chapters) are all winning with Codex/Indomitus units.
Not from what I have seen. Relic units are common in a lot of lists (Contemptors, Leviathans, Scorpius, etc.) The imperial soup list (Sisters and IF) that won the first tournament had 3 relic contemptors and both Salamanders winning lists had FW in them.
We really need the updated FW books. We are still working with index rules for FW and the balance is painful. The relic contemptor is the same cost as the base codex one and is better in everyway.
While I agree that the Relic Contemptor is underpriced, it isn't because we're still using index rules. The original Forge World Indexes priced the 3 contemptor variants differently based on their different stats and abilities, with the Mortis being 75 PPM, the Hellforged being 116 PPM, and the relic being 135 PPM. This current situation is due entirely to gw's continued bungling of the prices for fw units which they continued with the decrease of the Relic Contemptor while increasing the prices on all other variants in CA 2020. Which, I can only assume, was done by gw assuming, since they all had the word "Contemptor" in their names, that they all had the same rules.
One thing that's important to keep in mind with marine win rates is that the more competitive oriented marine players will tend to switch their subfaction to whichever one promises the best results, just like with many other armies. So, the win rates of the suboptimal chapters are pretty meaningless because many of the players that bring the hardest list will be going for the flavour of the month chapter, boosting that win rate and decreasing that of the other chapters.
You would see exactly the same with other armies. Why bring Ulthwe when you can go custom or Alaitoc when your goal is to win tournaments?
Super Ready wrote: Have to admit, today's community article did give me a giggle. It's basically confirmation that GW recognises Marines dominate the meta.
"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.
"Sometimes,** Space Marines fight Space Marines. ..............**Pretty often, actually."
NUMBER 8 GSC Aberrants - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hooooo....
....that gave me a good laugh. Thanks, GW, never change.
And number 9 is, of course, a space marine unit.
"uhhh we ran out of ideas after that one flyer that costs like 160pts and kills like 1 primaris marine on average with its shooting."
Denegaar wrote: I didn't understand the article, or why they posted it.
A) They are trying to convince people that SMs are not that good and are easily killable (by using units twice the cost of a unit of Intercessors).
B) They are just making fun of us.
At least they are aware of how broken their game is. That's a start.
I think it's just "They understand that the change of all firstborn stuff to have +1 wound with a nominal points increase is highly likely to be way out of wack with a large chunk of the rest of the game and will necessitate the meta to become almost entirely damage flat 2 weaponry to compensate, but they only have plans to bring everyone elses standard weaponry to that level with their codexes, so they're just reminding everyone that meta compensation is a possibility, albeit in a very stupid way by listing units that are in no way suitable for that task."
Hey, at least they got "spam dissie ravagers, spam exocrines' right. Two for 9 aint bad.
Super Ready wrote: Have to admit, today's community article did give me a giggle. It's basically confirmation that GW recognises Marines dominate the meta.
"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.
"Sometimes,** Space Marines fight Space Marines. ..............**Pretty often, actually."
These are some evidences GW seems to admit now.
If this lead to some rethinking of Xenos armies, we will see...
Super Ready wrote: Have to admit, today's community article did give me a giggle. It's basically confirmation that GW recognises Marines dominate the meta.
"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.
"Sometimes,** Space Marines fight Space Marines. ..............**Pretty often, actually."
These are some evidences GW seems to admit now.
If this lead to some rethinking of Xenos armies, we will see...
Highly unlikely given that most (if not all) of the Xeno books will have been written already.
I think that's putting way too much faith both on the creative process of creating new units, and the time available to the rules-writing team.
As a business, why on earth would you have them crunch down to getting Codexes written for everything right at the start of an edition, leaving little work for them for the rest of the year, only to have to update them for new units anyway when the creative team can get round to handing over their details?
Sorry, but the idea that the Codexes are all written and ready to go is naive at best. They'll be working to a cycle.
You could release one Codex for each faction in short order at the beginning of the edition, and then put out a supplement later, pretty much along the lines of Vigilus or Psychic Awakening.
I wouldn't say that this is naive to believe. Especially since GW seems willing to modify the profiles for every unit and weapon out there. So it would make sense to lift everyone up to the new profiles and then go from there with expansions.
"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.
Um, that's been true since at least... well forever.
GW knew that in RT, 2e, 3rd, 4th,5th, 6th, 7th, 8th.... Oh look, they still know it. Didn't the rest of you?
It definitely wasn't so much of a thing back in 2nd, when both armour modifiers and the weapons that had them were more commonplace.
If you knew there was a Marine player in the group, you had to make a plan for Terminators specifically, but that's a whole other issue.
3rd onwards? Yeah, I'll give you that. I just found it funny that the article is so upfront about it.
I mean, it's a pretty blatant piece to try and counter the "people are mad at marines!" stuff currently on social media/forums etc.
They just kind of looked through codexes and said "what's got a D2 weapon? That unit that costs 160pts and kills a single primaris body with its shooting attack? Throw it in! That unit that costs 32ppm, kills 80pts of primaris and then takes 64pts of casualties in return when fighting equal points of ranged intercessors? THATs gotta be an answer!"
At least the rules for them are done. Not all the fluff that goes into them, the translations, the art work, etc.. it takes months to just get the fluff writing and translations done.
Sorry, but the idea that the Codexes are all written and ready to go is naive at best. They'll be working to a cycle.
And yet, several of the playtesters have said that they are done.
It'll be both I assume, they're likely written but will be given a cycle/staggered release.
Yup, probably. I suppose it also doesn't mean that they won't feel free to mess with the codexes all the way up to release.
I would guess so, they might actually learn something as the edition progresses and tweak things for the unreleased ones to bring things in line (wishful thinking), or they may have new units for the furthest out that don't exist as of yet to test assuming the last one will be 2 years or so out again.
Amishprn86 wrote: At least the rules for them are done. Not all the fluff that goes into them, the translations, the art work, etc.. it takes months to just get the fluff writing and translations done.
The translations maybe, but the fluff and artwork have a tendency to be mostly recycled from previous editions.
As far as I'm concerned, until I see proof, the rules for them are about as "done" as the Munitorum Field Manual is. That is - nowhere near Codex standard.
Amishprn86 wrote: At least the rules for them are done. Not all the fluff that goes into them, the translations, the art work, etc.. it takes months to just get the fluff writing and translations done.
The translations maybe, but the fluff and artwork have a tendency to be mostly recycled from previous editions.
Having written books for other business and managing that, even using 75% of old material takes a long time b.c its not just rewritting it its everything, book layout, design of pages, where everything goes, proofing, etc..
Amishprn86 wrote: At least the rules for them are done. Not all the fluff that goes into them, the translations, the art work, etc.. it takes months to just get the fluff writing and translations done.
The translations maybe, but the fluff and artwork have a tendency to be mostly recycled from previous editions.
Having written books for other business and managing that, even using 75% of old material takes a long time b.c its not just rewritting it its everything, book layout, design of pages, where everything goes, proofing, etc..
I would like to offer an alternative to GW's pts values, but even just copy-pasting the pts values in Chapter Approved 2019 as a baseline is taking me forever. My fingers got sore from copying the 300 different SM units, not to mention their three hundred pieces of wargear that have pts costs. In a previous project I must have spent a hundred hours because I wanted to change the style I was using for the project, it's a great hassle that gets in the way of good work, while simultaneously being very important. The layout for 7th edition was ghastly, 8th edition is extremely good. Hopefully, 9th will do as good or better, the only real improvement I can see would be having pts on the datasheet, but due to the changing nature of pts these days it can only really be done in the digital books. I doubt that GW spends any great time proofing, given their propensity to leave rather large errors in, Elites turning into troops, models costing ten times what they were supposed to, the wrong Ogryn unit getting a pts increase etc. etc.
Super Ready wrote: Have to admit, today's community article did give me a giggle. It's basically confirmation that GW recognises Marines dominate the meta.
"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.
"Sometimes,** Space Marines fight Space Marines. ..............**Pretty often, actually."
These are some evidences GW seems to admit now.
If this lead to some rethinking of Xenos armies, we will see...
Highly unlikely given that most (if not all) of the Xeno books will have been written already.
i mean you could play a daemonkin army with the DREADFULL HELLDRAKE, which is a marine killer par excellence....
wait, why are all the Chaos space marine players laughing?
i still like that the chucklefucks put the Helldrake of all things in as an effective marine killer.
that thing is so inneficent
its almost like most of articles are written to flog kits to those with poor impulse control and even weaker theory-knowots, shirley not
absolutely, but they could've, ya know, atleast tried to make it somewhat ernestly? Considering the satirical angle has slowly eroded away?
To be fair to them a heldrake will very slowly whittle down a unit of intercessors for minimal damage (killing 3 marines on the charge then 2 a turn-ish while taking at most 2 wounds per game round then regenerating one back). Odds of it happening in reality - slim to none, but it's not the most stupid thing they could have picked.
Make the baleflamer 2d6 and the claws ap -2 or -3 and suddenly we're talking though.
Well, Harlies need an ingenious battle plan.
It begins with deployment and movement.
However, I've seen to battle reports on youtube and the would-be pros played like amateurs.
tneva82 wrote: Btw how serious tabletop titans are? Do they actually have a clue or are they "stompa will be broken good" reece level?
Tt's are ranking harlequins as top at least
Both of them are highly ranking ITC players with several tournament wins under their belts.
And if you've been watching the TTT Tournament, Harlies are looking incredibly dominant but also in the matches they've played there's been some serious misplays/mistakes in deployment on Brian's side of things. However that also shows how well the Clowns can exploit a mistake.
a_typical_hero wrote: During one of the recent battle reports they also stated that their lists are more on the friendly side and less competitive minded.
Friendly reminder that pointing out mistakes of others is easy from an outside view without having any game pressure or a camera to the face.
Nobody is always playing perfectly.
The Friendly lists I think for most of their battle reports, but for the TT Tournament they are bringing more serious lists.
Another new tournament update and article from Goonhammer here.
The tournament was held sometime during the past week in Sweden and from what I understand had a little under 26 starting players. I've only just started reading through it but thought it might be good to share with others as well.
Edit: Skimmed through, here are the first and second place lists and other interesting things according to the article:
Devastator Squad [8 PL, 120pts]: Armorium Cherub
. Space Marine Sergeant: Boltgun
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp . Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp . Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp . Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp
++ Vanguard Detachment -3CP (Imperium – Adeptus Astartes – White Scars) [45 PL, -5CP, 887pts] ++
+ Configuration +
**Chapter Selection**: White Scars
+ HQ +
Chaplain [6 PL, -2CP, 115pts]: 4. Mantra of Strength, 6. Canticle of Hate, Jump Pack, Litany of Hate, Plume of the Plainsrunner, Power fist, Stratagem: Hero of the Chapter, Stratagem: Master of Sanctity, Strike off the Head, Wise Orator
Impulsor [7 PL, 131pts]: 2x Storm Bolters, Shield Dome
Impulsor [7 PL, 131pts]: 2x Storm Bolters, Shield Dome
++ Total: [99 PL, 6CP, 2,000pts] ++
Chaos Daemons - 2nd Place
Spoiler:
++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Chaos – Daemons) ++
Chaos Allegiance: Chaos Undivided
+ Stratagems +
Rewards of Chaos (1 Relic)
+ HQ +
Fluxmaster: Gaze of Fate, Staff of Change
Lord of Change: Bolt of Change, Incorporeal Form, Infernal Gateway, Rod of Sorcery, The Impossible Robe, Treason of Tzeentch, Warlord
. Exalted Lord of Change: 5. Aura of Mutability
Poxbringer: Miasma of Pestilence
+ Troops +
Nurglings
. 3x Nurgling Swarms: 3x Diseased claws and teeth
Nurglings
. 3x Nurgling Swarms: 3x Diseased claws and teeth
Another new tournament update and article from Goonhammer here.
The tournament was held sometime during the past week in Sweden and from what I understand had a little under 26 starting players. I've only just started reading through it but thought it might be good to share with others as well.
Have a look into 40stats.com:
Varberg GT:
8/29/2020 - 26 Players
Automatically Appended Next Post: At another tourney,
Vanguard Tactics Grand Series: 8/1/2020 - 30 Players
