There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades.
footfoe wrote: There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades.
I don't think there is confusion on that. Folks just don't like that marines get lots of releases. They'd rather see literally anything else released.
footfoe wrote: There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades.
1/4? At this point its only space marines or more space marines especially with model lines. What has had more releases than any other faction in 40k? Space Marines thats the issue here. Their market share is incredibly high right now and thats what people definately do not like that.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades.
It is purely intentional since SM is the showcase faction of the game and GW's money-making machine.
SM have now more than 100 data sheets, more than a few factions together.
They went overboard with more than 30 bolter type weapons.
To a certain extent, I don't care about SM releases. What pisses me off is the combination of no releases with 'no model no rules'.
I get that Drukhari are very much a minority faction, and there isn't much money to be had in making new stuff for them. But if they aren't a money spinner, then why be so fething precious about models for them? I would be more than happy to kitbash an Archon on a bike, or with wings, or a Venom with a Blaster, or heaven forbid a Baron Sathonyx...GW could even do articles on how to do so with the stuff they already sell.
I mean... the faction keyword IMPERIUM is written right there.
Then again, I see your point that GW lists "Space Marines" as its own category on its sales website. Saying that this qualifies as the way it's "supposed" to be is an assumption that the way GW intends for the way things to be is the way that the players are "supposed" to be happy with it. That's like saying "You should consider this to be beautiful not because of what you define as beauty, but because of what I define as beauty." It's just one way to define it, and while that may be a fine way for you to define it, it is no more a "correct" way of defining it as anything else.
I disagree because I think that Space Marines should only be a part of the "40k sales picture" and not the entirety of it. The recent video by GW showing Guardsmen, Sisters, and Space Marines, to me, is a far more excellent sales tactic. Since Space Marines should be only a part of that picture, I am happy to put them under the "Imperium" umbrella. I believe that GW should have a 3-way split; Imperium / Chaos / Xenos. But that's just my belief, and GW has no reason to follow the ravings of one regular dude on the internet.
footfoe wrote: There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades.
1/4? At this point its only space marines or more space marines especially with model lines. What has had more releases than any other faction in 40k? Space Marines thats the issue here. Their market share is incredibly high right now and thats what people definately do not like that.
It's been around 1/3 since 2017 and the primaris launch, but generally speaking on average it's been about 1/4.
You can look at the BCB thread with all the releases in the infographic if you don't believe me.
There's no confusion on that fact on my front. I just think it makes for a much, much shittier and less interesting game setup. I generally like the science fantasy setup of 40k more than the ultra-high fantasy setup of AOS, but AOS absolutely has a VASTLY more interesting release lineup as of late. The 40k releases have been utterly formulaic, predictable and dull, and the AOS releases have been absolutely incredible. Incredibly menacing, Dark Souls bad guys black knight faction, gorgeous monkey king aesthetic imperial chinese looking high elves, huge spectacular giants, a boxed game that if it has anything going for it rules-wise is going to blow every Coolminiornot fancy miniatures board game out of the water in terms of quality with its incredible undead-vs-undead-hunters miniatures....
And 40k has had...fat versions of space marines. And a mildly interesting admech and necron release wave, but nothing totally spectacular at least IMO. Some of the necron sculpts are pretty cool I guess, and the admech bat guys and horsedog guys were cool.
footfoe wrote: There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades.
Still doesn't really work out because Space Marines are only two Codizes (in 9th, 6 in 8th and prior) as opposed to 6 for Imperium, 5 for Chaos and 8 for Xenos. I think that's what makes people consider Space Marines not to be as big as a faction comparable to the other superfactions. Also aside from some named characters, special units and Grey Knights all Space Marines use the same models while that is only partly true for Chaos and not true at all for Imperium or Xenos.
I know Dark Eldar players are the most vocal of this, but in 5th edition there were a lot of characters who had rules, but no model, and are now gone. It was hardly a Dark Eldar only problem. Tyranids, Daemons, and Grey Knights are a few of the main ones who come to mind who lost characters in the same way. Granted, I think it was a mistake to create datasheets for a new hero without a model to begin with. I will never miss the Doom of Malan'tai though lol.
I understand the frustration though, as those factions lost almost all their special characters all in the same way, and all the most characterful ones too.
I know Dark Eldar players are the most vocal of this, but in that edition there were a lot of characters who had rules, but no model, and are now gone. It was hardly a Dark Eldar only problem. Tyranids, Daemons, and Grey Knights are a few of the main ones who come to mind who lost characters in the same way. Granted, I think it was a mistake to create datasheets for a new hero without a model to begin with. I will never miss the doom of malan'tai though lol.
That might be because Orks still had warbosses, many different big meks, doks, small meks, runtherds, waagh banner nobz, weirdboyz etc for HQs, and nids also have many HQs big and small.
Dark eldar were left with 3 HQs, all of which are just "X subfaction category generic commander."
Dark Eldar have by far the least interesting HQs of any faction, so the loss of the named HQs that allowed players to make things more interesting was a much greater blow. They haven't got psykers, they haven't got any "supercharged super-fighter" HQs like Tank Commanders/Tau Suit Commanders/Nid monster HQs/Daemon Princes, they haven't got any HQs with flexible abilities like guard commanders, they're just three very similar generic commandy-types. Like if the only HQs for marines were footslogging relic blade captains, chainsword lieutenants and on foot techmarines.
I think the products in the 40k section of the website are organized for ease of use/ access.
If I'm shopping, finding what I want without going through a long list improves my experience. From that point of view, putting marines and non-marine imperium in different sub menus makes sense.
I think a larger issue is the idea that Xenos are a superfaction. They aren't. Nids, Tau and Eldar don't ally up on the field of battle the way Custodes, Marines, Guard and Sisters do, or the way Chaos marines and Daemons do.
This why you have eldar players screaming for a range update despite the fact that Crons just got one- the cron release makes no difference to the Eldar player.
But EVERY Imperial release has a potential benefit for my Sisters via their potential for alliance. Ditto for Daemons and my CSM.
harlokin wrote: To a certain extent, I don't care about SM releases. What pisses me off is the combination of no releases with 'no model no rules'.
I get that Drukhari are very much a minority faction, and there isn't much money to be had in making new stuff for them. But if they aren't a money spinner, then why be so fething precious about models for them? I would be more than happy to kitbash an Archon on a bike, or with wings, or a Venom with a Blaster, or heaven forbid a Baron Sathonyx...GW could even do articles on how to do so with the stuff they already sell.
Exactly this.
If GW thinks that there's no money to be made in new DE sculpts, then why are they so utterly paranoid about 3rd party companies making them?
Surely they could easily give DE back some of their many lost HQs? Or even (heaven forbid) some newHQs. As harlokin says, I'm sure most DE players would settle just for unit entries - at least then we can convert models for them.
the_scotsman wrote: That might be because Orks still had warbosses, many different big meks, doks, small meks, runtherds, waagh banner nobz, weirdboyz etc for HQs, and nids also have many HQs big and small.
Dark eldar were left with 3 HQs, all of which are just "X subfaction category generic commander."
Dark Eldar have by far the least interesting HQs of any faction, so the loss of the named HQs that allowed players to make things more interesting was a much greater blow. They haven't got psykers, they haven't got any "supercharged super-fighter" HQs like Tank Commanders/Tau Suit Commanders/Nid monster HQs/Daemon Princes, they haven't got any HQs with flexible abilities like guard commanders, they're just three very similar generic commandy-types. Like if the only HQs for marines were footslogging relic blade captains, chainsword lieutenants and on foot techmarines.
This is also true.
The 5th edition DE book was very dependant on special characters in order to round out its HQ section. For example:
- Baron Sathonyx was the only HQ with a mobility option (so if you wanted to run an HQ with beasts, hellions or such, he was the only option)
- The Decapitator was the only option for a Mandrake HQ. Yeah, he sucked in the role but I'd rather see him improved than removed.
- The Duke was one of the only HQs to provide a global buff.
etc.
The point being, the loss of Special Characters hurt DE far more than it would most armies.
Then there came a further blow in that most of their wargear was subsequently removed or restricted. Archons, for example, can no longer take Webway Portals, Soul Traps, Haywire Grenades, Combat Drugs, Clone Fields, Ghostplate Armour etc.
Similarly, Haemonculi have lost access to Webway Portals, Dark Gates, Shattershards, Orbs of Despair etc.
As scotsman says, we've been left with 3 HQs that aren't even especially different from one another and which all fulfil basically the same role in an army (to sit around not doing a whole lot).
I know Dark Eldar players are the most vocal of this, but in 5th edition there were a lot of characters who had rules, but no model, and are now gone. It was hardly a Dark Eldar only problem. Tyranids, Daemons, and Grey Knights are a few of the main ones who come to mind who lost characters in the same way. Granted, I think it was a mistake to create datasheets for a new hero without a model to begin with. I will never miss the Doom of Malan'tai though lol.
I understand the frustration though, as those factions lost almost all their special characters all in the same way, and all the most characterful ones too.
I want the Blood Angels to get Moriar the Chosen back. For that matter, why does Chaplain Xavier have to stay dead? We could have a Primaris version of him easy! And why can't SM dreads take four Autocannons anymore? Why has Samael parked his Land Speed?
It's less noticeable because they have more units but Marines have lost plenty over the years themselves.
I know Dark Eldar players are the most vocal of this, but in 5th edition there were a lot of characters who had rules, but no model, and are now gone. It was hardly a Dark Eldar only problem. Tyranids, Daemons, and Grey Knights are a few of the main ones who come to mind who lost characters in the same way. Granted, I think it was a mistake to create datasheets for a new hero without a model to begin with. I will never miss the Doom of Malan'tai though lol.
I understand the frustration though, as those factions lost almost all their special characters all in the same way, and all the most characterful ones too.
I want the Blood Angels to get Moriar the Chosen back. For that matter, why does Chaplain Xavier have to stay dead? We could have a Primaris version of him easy! And why can't SM dreads take four Autocannons anymore? Why has Samael parked his Land Speed?
It's less noticeable because they have more units but Marines have lost plenty over the years themselves.
But EVERY Imperial release has a potential benefit for my Sisters via their potential for alliance. Ditto for Daemons and my CSM.
That's not really as true in 9th as it was in 8th. Honestly, maintaining multiple Imperium armies in 9th is more of a burden. I'd rather have a Xenos army than a second Imperium faction now.
The main complaint is that people and occasionally GW going "only Marines sell, make all the Marines."
And then they'll do a non-SM release that flies off the shelves - suggesting that yes, good models+good rules will sell, regardless of whether it happens to be available in Ultramarine Blue.
But then 3 months later its "eh, whatever. No one really wants Tau/Sisters/GSC. Coming soon: Intercessors riding Intercessors riding Flying Bikes."
I want the Blood Angels to get Moriar the Chosen back. For that matter, why does Chaplain Xavier have to stay dead? We could have a Primaris version of him easy! And why can't SM dreads take four Autocannons anymore? Why has Samael parked his Land Speed?
It's less noticeable because they have more units but Marines have lost plenty over the years themselves.
The autocannon thing really feels bad. I have two dreads with two each, and can't use them anymore.
I remember looking at an old GK codex and was mind blown how many stuff got just removed. Special grenades, storm shields from termintors, cheap servo skull that could be great chaff nowadays.
there was like two whole pages of special stuff characters and squad leaders could take. No idea how that was limited, besides point costs, but comparing to that the GK codex nowadays is very bare bones.
Karol wrote: [The autocannon thing really feels bad. I have two dreads with two each, and can't use them anymore.
I remember looking at an old GK codex and was mind blown how many stuff got just removed. Special grenades, storm shields from termintors, cheap servo skull that could be great chaff nowadays.
there was like two whole pages of special stuff characters and squad leaders could take. No idea how that was limited, besides point costs, but comparing to that the GK codex nowadays is very bare bones.
Why do you need anything extra, don't you know that you're OP because your units are from the Imperium and your troops wear power armor.
Marines might’ve lost some, but what they have left is more than anyone else has.
It’s fine to say “I’d like to get quad auto cannon dreads back,” but is that really more important than updating DEHQs? When they have three with barely any options.
It's so funny when people think that people just need the situation EXPLAINED to them and then they will be like "Oh, GW intends it to be this way? Well now I am obviously completely happy with the situation! Because this is what GW intended! Thank you!"
Seriously, have a word with yourself. No one is "confused". What patronizing bollocks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Marines might’ve lost some, but what they have left is more than anyone else has.
It’s fine to say “I’d like to get quad auto cannon dreads back,” but is that really more important than updating DEHQs? When they have three with barely any options.
It's obviously a troll post looking for reaction. Canadian 5th has already said he only comes on here because he's bored in work.
footfoe wrote: There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades.
I don't think there is confusion on that. Folks just don't like that marines get lots of releases. They'd rather see literally anything else released.
No they don't. At best what they really want is stuff for "their" faction released.
Why do you need anything extra, don't you know that you're OP because your units are from the Imperium and your troops wear power armor.
This seems like you're missing the point. The main complaint about Marines is that theyre overrepresented and oversupported, not necessarily that theyre OP.
Since theyre overrepresented, people also overfocus on every standout unit and get called OP, especially if other armies have similar units that are simply outshined by SM ones (fire dragon vs eradicators for example.)
People think that marins do not make up at least 40% of all armies being played? And that they are not the big money makers for GW, even when GW themselfs said it through the mouths of their employees?
Karol wrote: People think that marins do not make up at least 40% of all armies being played? And that they are not the big money makers for GW, even when GW themselfs said it through the mouths of their employees?
No, people know that marines make up 40% of the armies being played, thats exactly where to complaining comes from. A single subfaction (with 3 sub subfactions) makes up almost half of all played armies and most of the model/rules support.
In a perfect world, every army would receive the exact same amount of support. Its just painful as a eldar/guard/tau/etc player to see the constant influx or marine content and get nothing more than crumbs in return.
Karol wrote: People think that marins do not make up at least 40% of all armies being played? And that they are not the big money makers for GW, even when GW themselfs said it through the mouths of their employees?
Honestly...no, I don't actually buy that marines are 40% of all armies played overall.
Back when marines were king with 70% winrate in their best lists, competitive lists were around 33-36% marines.
Competitive faction breakdown is really the only factor we have, and it fluctuates based on which army is competitively stronger obviously, but still only so much, reflecting the actual size of the community that plays that faction. That's why only 3% of people are playing Harlequins - there's just not that many people that play Harlequins.
Da Boss wrote: It's so funny when people think that people just need the situation EXPLAINED to them and then they will be like "Oh, GW intends it to be this way? Well now I am obviously completely happy with the situation! Because this is what GW intended! Thank you!"
Seriously, have a word with yourself. No one is "confused". What patronizing bollocks.
It's more like, 1/4 of the releases are Space Marines because those models drive interest in people picking up the game for the first time, we know some long-time players will see this as unfair and lose interest, we account for attrition by releasing new Space Marine models that will bring in new players to replace the ones who left.
If we did the same thing with, say, Slaanesh Daemons, there's a certain percentage of potential players who will never play because their moms are not going to pay for expensive plastic soldiers with claws and bare breasts. We use Space Marines because they are the least threatening of all the factions.
That's not meant to make you happy. But understanding reality is better than uninformed optimism that will never be satisfied.
JNAProductions wrote: Marines might’ve lost some, but what they have left is more than anyone else has.
It’s fine to say “I’d like to get quad auto cannon dreads back,” but is that really more important than updating DEHQs? When they have three with barely any options.
No, but given that I don't decide what comes out, what's removed, and when these things happen why not poke a little fun. 40k is just a game after all, if it isn't fun take a break.
Da Boss wrote: It's so funny when people think that people just need the situation EXPLAINED to them and then they will be like "Oh, GW intends it to be this way? Well now I am obviously completely happy with the situation! Because this is what GW intended! Thank you!"
Seriously, have a word with yourself. No one is "confused". What patronizing bollocks.
It's more like, 1/4 of the releases are Space Marines because those models drive interest in people picking up the game for the first time, we know some long-time players will see this as unfair and lose interest, we account for attrition by releasing new Space Marine models that will bring in new players to replace the ones who left.
If we did the same thing with, say, Slaanesh Daemons, there's a certain percentage of potential players who will never play because their moms are not going to pay for expensive plastic soldiers with claws and bare breasts. We use Space Marines because they are the least threatening of all the factions.
That's not meant to make you happy. But understanding reality is better than uninformed optimism that will never be satisfied.
"Uninformed Optimism" is a hell of a way to describe the general attitude on dakkadakka.
D'you think you might be dishonestly characterizing there?
VladimirHerzog wrote: This seems like you're missing the point. The main complaint about Marines is that theyre overrepresented and oversupported, not necessarily that they're OP.
Since theyre overrepresented, people also overfocus on every standout unit and get called OP, especially if other armies have similar units that are simply outshined by SM ones (fire dragon vs eradicators for example.)
What does this have to do with all the options GK have lost over the years?
Honestly...no, I don't actually buy that marines are 40% of all armies played overall.
Back when marines were king with 70% winrate in their best lists, competitive lists were around 33-36% marines.
I wasn't talking about tournament break downs, although if a faction is not that strong but still gets played a lot in tournaments, it does show a sign of a dedicated community.
So which faction people think is the big money makers and most played in w40k? Because one would expect that the popular army would be getting the biggest number of new models, as the market of people to sell them to, would be the largest.
If we did the same thing with, say, Slaanesh Daemons, there's a certain percentage of potential players who will never play because their moms are not going to pay for expensive plastic soldiers with claws and bare breasts. We use Space Marines because they are the least threatening of all the factions
I don't get this logic. Every other w40k faction is good, has real fans, real supporters that really want to play the army, and cores for its rules and lore.
Marines on the other hand are a faction that is either played by some super WAAC types, if they happen to have a good set of rules for any of the marine factions, or kids who don't know it yet. Why can't there be a large base of people who like the marine esthetics, like the models, like the diverse lists they can builds, like their lore etc.
No, people know that marines make up 40% of the armies being played, thats exactly where to complaining comes from. A single subfaction (with 3 sub subfactions) makes up almost half of all played armies and most of the model/rules support.
Jesus, so now marines are not even a faction, but a sub faction with sub factions. But let me guess, orks or tau are an actual faction, not just a sub faction of the xeno faction?
And how can you claim that they make up most of the model/rules support, when both in 8th and in 9th, they were never the best army, and model wise there were whole factions or subfactions, what ever you want to call them, put out by GW. DG got a new model line, as did SoB, adeptus mechanicus got new stuff, knights got multiple new kits. All marines are getting is primaris stuff, because GW decided way before 8th ed, that they want to reset the whole space marine line. If someone likes to play termintor DW army in 8th, and actual subfaction of marines, they got no actual new models for their army, unless we count the limited edition chaplain and librarian, and the impossible to get marine models from japan. That is less support then my GK, who at least got Voldus re released without Cawl and Gulliman in 8th ed.
VladimirHerzog wrote: This seems like you're missing the point. The main complaint about Marines is that theyre overrepresented and oversupported, not necessarily that they're OP.
Since theyre overrepresented, people also overfocus on every standout unit and get called OP, especially if other armies have similar units that are simply outshined by SM ones (fire dragon vs eradicators for example.)
What does this have to do with all the options GK have lost over the years?
i was answering to your sarcasm about ALL power armor being considered OP.
Jesus, so now marines are not even a faction, but a sub faction with sub factions. But let me guess, orks or tau are an actual faction, not just a sub faction of the xeno faction?
Orks and tau cannot be taken in the same army so "Xenos" has no real baggage when compared to "Imperium".
Factions are a regroupement of units that can be taken together at the highest level.
Imperium (Faction) -> Space marines (Subfaction) -> Ultramarines(SubSubfaction)
Xenos(Nothing) -> Orks (Faction) -> Deathskulls (Subfaction)
Xenos(Nothing) -> Tau (Faction) -> Farsight enclaves (Subfaction)
And how can you claim that they make up most of the model/rules support, when both in 8th and in 9th, they were never the best army, and model wise there were whole factions or subfactions, what ever you want to call them, put out by GW. DG got a new model line, as did SoB, adeptus mechanicus got new stuff, knights got multiple new kits. All marines are getting is primaris stuff, because GW decided way before 8th ed, that they want to reset the whole space marine line. If someone likes to play termintor DW army in 8th, and actual subfaction of marines, they got no actual new models for their army, unless we count the limited edition chaplain and librarian, and the impossible to get marine models from japan. That is less support then my GK, who at least got Voldus re released without Cawl and Gulliman in 8th ed.
because they do? Theyre the army that consistently gets the most releases, its not about their powerlevel, they could be litterally (and i mean litterally like that custodes and sister of silence combo) unplayable and they would still be the army with the most model/rules support.
DG, SoB, Admech, Knights are all separate factions, you can't put all of them in the same basket and say "But look! SM have equal less support than other armies!".
And i agree that for someone hellbent on playing deathwing in 8th they would have gotten no support for their specific list. Doesn't change the fact that all these new Primaris units were still added to their army, just because they elected not to play a list that doesnt include them doesnt mean their army got no support.
DG, SoB, Admech, Knights are all separate factions, you can't put all of them in the same basket and say "But look! SM have equal less support than other armies!".
Subfactions.
By your definition above.
(I think your defininition here is silly, honestly.)
DG, SoB, Admech, Knights are all separate factions, you can't put all of them in the same basket and say "But look! SM have equal less support than other armies!".
Subfactions.
By your definition above.
(I think your defininition here is silly, honestly.)
yeah, i got mixed up in the levels.
I think my definition makes sense tho. Space marines can ally with Admech so theyre both part of the same "Faction". Orks can't ally with tau so theyre not part of the same "Faction", but they are part of the same "Superfaction"(xenos).
Its basically about levels of compatibility in my eyes.
If we did the same thing with, say, Slaanesh Daemons, there's a certain percentage of potential players who will never play because their moms are not going to pay for expensive plastic soldiers with claws and bare breasts. We use Space Marines because they are the least threatening of all the factions
I don't get this logic. Every other w40k faction is good, has real fans, real supporters that really want to play the army, and cores for its rules and lore.
Marines on the other hand are a faction that is either played by some super WAAC types, if they happen to have a good set of rules for any of the marine factions, or kids who don't know it yet. Why can't there be a large base of people who like the marine esthetics, like the models, like the diverse lists they can builds, like their lore etc.
It's not about the size of the following. That's just what keeps any given faction from being squatted.
GW has an interest in keeping Space Marines at the forefront of the hobby. Think about it. How many people do you know who started playing in their teens? How many could afford to buy an army on their own without help from their parents?
If I told my mother to get me a box of Daemons and some paint from Games Workshop, she would have encouraged me to pick up a new hobby. If I told her Space Marines, she probably would not have minded.
If GW can't hook you before you turn 25, odds are you will never buy their stuff. If they do get you hooked, odds are they will have you as a customer for a long time.
My hypothesis is this drives a lot of decisions about rules and models. They don't want Xenos becoming so awesome players would flock to those armies, they want the popular army to be somewhat familiar and unoffensive on the surface. So we don't see as many releases, but Marines are always getting awesome stuff.
VladimirHerzog wrote: And i agree that for someone hellbent on playing deathwing in 8th they would have gotten no support for their specific list. Doesn't change the fact that all these new Primaris units were still added to their army, just because they elected not to play a list that doesnt include them doesnt mean their army got no support.
Yet we have people complaining that mono-god Daemon builds aren't viable and people, aside from myself, rarely say this to them so this feels like a double standard.
DG, SoB, Admech, Knights are all separate factions, you can't put all of them in the same basket and say "But look! SM have equal less support than other armies!".
Subfactions.
By your definition above.
(I think your defininition here is silly, honestly.)
yeah, i got mixed up in the levels.
I think my definition makes sense tho. Space marines can ally with Admech so theyre both part of the same "Faction". Orks can't ally with tau so theyre not part of the same "Faction", but they are part of the same "Superfaction"(xenos).
Its basically about levels of compatibility in my eyes.
I'm going to be level with you: I think you've made up your classification system specifically so you can call space marines a "subfaction" and that feels good.
Space Marines are a faction. They have their own codex. The various subcategories of space marines are subfactions except for Grey Knights - they use the core codex, they just happen to have enough content within each of them to be contained within their own separate supplement books.
The only distinction between Space Wolves and Cadians is scale - cadians have a half dozen unique units, Space Wolves have..ten, or twelve or whatever they have, and GW added a bunch more warlord traits and psychic powers and stratagems to justify making them buy their own book.
VladimirHerzog wrote: And i agree that for someone hellbent on playing deathwing in 8th they would have gotten no support for their specific list. Doesn't change the fact that all these new Primaris units were still added to their army, just because they elected not to play a list that doesnt include them doesnt mean their army got no support.
Yet we have people complaining that mono-god Daemon builds aren't viable and people, aside from myself, rarely say this to them so this feels like a double standard.
Given the way the daemon codex is subdivided into what is in essence the same level of division that exists between Adepta Sororitas and Space Wolves, I don't think it is.
......Also, complaining that mono-god daemon builds aren't viable these days would be what the kids call a "hot take" I think.
The website division of Space Marines being their own "super faction" is very recent. They used to be, and have been for many decades, been categorized as Imperium.
All marines are getting is primaris stuff, because GW decided way before 8th ed, that they want to reset the whole space marine line.
Whether YOU like them or not, Primaris ARE marine releases. You don't get to ignore them because you don't like them. I'm with you because I'd like to see GW release some new Old Marine kits, just to shut people up. But a Primaris release DOES count as a Marine release, whether you like Primaris or not.
If someone likes to play termintor DW army in 8th, and actual subfaction of marines, they got no actual new models for their army, unless we count the limited edition chaplain and librarian, and the impossible to get marine models from japan. That is less support then my GK, who at least got Voldus re released without Cawl and Gulliman in 8th ed.
In 9th, 3 new types of Kill Teams were added to DW to reflect the 3 types of Primaris armour (Regular Primaris = Fortis, Gravis = Indomitor and Phobos = Spectrus). So your guy who just wants to play Terminators? Yeah, he's going to feel bad because he didn't get a shiny new bespoke DW Terminator crew, but he can't say he gets no new models- he's getting some going on Prerelease this Saturday, because whether he WANTS to or not, he is ALLOWED to use BOTH the Gravis Captain and the Heavy Intercessors in his DW army; he can even make the Heavy Intercessors part of an Indomitor Kill Team so that they end up with special rules unique to Death Watch which other Heavy Intercessors don't get.
If someone likes to play termintor DW army in 8th, and actual subfaction of marines, they got no actual new models for their army, unless we count the limited edition chaplain and librarian, and the impossible to get marine models from japan. That is less support then my GK, who at least got Voldus re released without Cawl and Gulliman in 8th ed.
In 9th, 3 new types of Kill Teams were added to DW to reflect the 3 types of Primaris armour (Regular Primaris = Fortis, Gravis = Indomitor and Phobos = Spectrus). So your guy who just wants to play Terminators? Yeah, he's going to feel bad because he didn't get a shiny new bespoke DW Terminator crew, but he can't say he gets no new models- he's getting some going on Prerelease this Saturday, because whether he WANTS to or not, he is ALLOWED to use BOTH the Gravis Captain and the Heavy Intercessors in his DW army; he can even make the Heavy Intercessors part of an Indomitor Kill Team so that they end up with special rules unique to Death Watch which other Heavy Intercessors don't get.
Eldarsif wrote: The website division of Space Marines being their own "super faction" is very recent. They used to be, and have been for many decades, been categorized as Imperium.
Also, it's utterly silly to be basing the definition of what is a faction and what is a subfaction based on the structure of the online webstore vs how their rules actually work in the game.
It's clear that there's factions, the groupings of units you can legally create a detachment out of, and subfactions, the groupings of units that grant an army-wide special rule if the entire detachment is composed of them. And then there are the larger "superfactions" or whatever you want to call them, that dictate other factions you can legally compose a battleforged army from with detachments - Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Tyranids.
Some factions have only a single subfaction, with no choices, like Death Guard, and some units can only belong to one subfaction, like Tempestus Scions, Freebootas, Aun'Va, or Deathwatch Veterans.
There is no "Xenos" in the actual game. It mostly exists as a term for people to use to either ask for something, anything other than a space marine, or to claim that because soemthing has been released for anything other than a space marine, people who play a totally unrelated faction should be happy.
If someone likes to play termintor DW army in 8th, and actual subfaction of marines, they got no actual new models for their army, unless we count the limited edition chaplain and librarian, and the impossible to get marine models from japan. That is less support then my GK, who at least got Voldus re released without Cawl and Gulliman in 8th ed.
In 9th, 3 new types of Kill Teams were added to DW to reflect the 3 types of Primaris armour (Regular Primaris = Fortis, Gravis = Indomitor and Phobos = Spectrus). So your guy who just wants to play Terminators? Yeah, he's going to feel bad because he didn't get a shiny new bespoke DW Terminator crew, but he can't say he gets no new models- he's getting some going on Prerelease this Saturday, because whether he WANTS to or not, he is ALLOWED to use BOTH the Gravis Captain and the Heavy Intercessors in his DW army; he can even make the Heavy Intercessors part of an Indomitor Kill Team so that they end up with special rules unique to Death Watch which other Heavy Intercessors don't get.
I think in this case DW means Deathwing.
I think you're right, which is weird, because there were in fact several new models added in 8th/9th that are DEATHWING. Even in Karol's own example, you have to willfully ignore the fact that GW did in fact give Deathwing specifically access to bladeguard veterans, Repulsors, Gravis captains and i think some of the infiltrating troops (?)
Ahhh. Yeah, that makes way more sense. I've got Death Watch on the brain because I'm actually considering getting KT for the Heavy Intercessors for my Indomitor team...
footfoe wrote: There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades.
This is the funniest cope ever, especially since no one in AoS community actually views releases by Grand Alliance, and GW itself pretty much capitulated from the idea that people will run some huge, amalgamated Alliance army instead of individual battletomes.
Don't drag AoS into 40k's horrible release schedule, darling
the_scotsman wrote: The only distinction between Space Wolves and Cadians is scale - cadians have a half dozen unique units, Space Wolves have..ten, or twelve or whatever they have, and GW added a bunch more warlord traits and psychic powers and stratagems to justify making them buy their own book.
As I have both books to hand, I thought I'd check the numbers.
3 (Creed, Kell, Pask) plays 29 (no, I'm not listing them here, but I just counted the datasheets in the book), but who's going for accuracy here?
the_scotsman wrote: I think you're right, which is weird, because there were in fact several new models added in 8th/9th that are DEATHWING. Even in Karol's own example, you have to willfully ignore the fact that GW did in fact give Deathwing specifically access to bladeguard veterans, Repulsors, Gravis captains and i think some of the infiltrating troops (?)
I know the new SM and/or DA 'dex gives the DEATHWING keyword to certain units by default - and you can pay to give it to others as an option - but I don't recall that being a thing in 8th, which is what Karol was talking about. Another poster dragged 9th into the comparison, not Karol, so if we're being fair to him for some reason, he might actually be right...
the_scotsman wrote: The only distinction between Space Wolves and Cadians is scale - cadians have a half dozen unique units, Space Wolves have..ten, or twelve or whatever they have, and GW added a bunch more warlord traits and psychic powers and stratagems to justify making them buy their own book.
As I have both books to hand, I thought I'd check the numbers.
3 (Creed, Kell, Pask) plays 29 (no, I'm not listing them here, but I just counted the datasheets in the book), but who's going for accuracy here?
the_scotsman wrote: I think you're right, which is weird, because there were in fact several new models added in 8th/9th that are DEATHWING. Even in Karol's own example, you have to willfully ignore the fact that GW did in fact give Deathwing specifically access to bladeguard veterans, Repulsors, Gravis captains and i think some of the infiltrating troops (?)
I know the new SM and/or DA 'dex gives the DEATHWING keyword to certain units by default - and you can pay to give it to others as an option - but I don't recall that being a thing in 8th, which is what Karol was talking about. Another poster dragged 9th into the comparison, not Karol, so if we're being fair to him for some reason, he might actually be right...
The 8th edition DA codex definitely added DEATHWING to some unit or another. I recall the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
MB on the numbers. Point still stands, though - Space Wolves is no different in gameplay terms from Cadian, except that Space Wolves have a larger number of unique units, strats, warlord traits, etc than Cadians do. You still take <Chapter> and pick SPACE WOLVES and gain benefits based on that.
TechSoldaten: What gives you the impression that I don't understand the reasons why Space Marines are the lead faction? Or the impression that I am optimistic about that changing?
Seriously, what did I say that made you think that? It seems to me you took that stance purely so you could be condescending. Might want to cut that out, eh?
Same to you Karol. Obviously we know why GW pushes Space Marines. It's not a mystery. We know all about it.
Knowing and understanding stuff doesn't make you happy about it. I studied tumour biology for my degree, it didn't make me happy about tumours.
Ahhh. Yeah, that makes way more sense. I've got Death Watch on the brain because I'm actually considering getting KT for the Heavy Intercessors for my Indomitor team...
Peril of too many acronyms...
I know it all too well playing Deathwatch primarily. I've gotten very used to scouring the acronym for context.
harlokin wrote: To a certain extent, I don't care about SM releases. What pisses me off is the combination of no releases with 'no model no rules'.
I get that Drukhari are very much a minority faction, and there isn't much money to be had in making new stuff for them. But if they aren't a money spinner, then why be so fething precious about models for them? I would be more than happy to kitbash an Archon on a bike, or with wings, or a Venom with a Blaster, or heaven forbid a Baron Sathonyx...GW could even do articles on how to do so with the stuff they already sell.
^^^
This is part one of the "big" problem with the modern SM release schedule.
No one who's reasonably familiar with 40k expects a race like Dark Eldar, or even xenos at large, to get a release schedule on par with SM. That's something we've come to expect and, in its own way, can be a relief. There's far less of a keeping-up aspect to collecting xenos races, which can allow for a slower pace. However it becomes an issue when, in modern times, it finally being "your turn" means that you end up losing options. No-Model No-Rules has seen non-SM codex & factions losing more options each time they're revisited. The Dark Eldar range is now pathetically restricted, what with the richest and most eccentric leaders apparently refusing to do anything but foot slog with a gun and a pistol.
The second "big" problem is power.
SM have basically crushed the competitive scene for the last three editions.The most recent SM dex, and the short-term dex before it, have been some of the most power creeped codex's we've ever seen. To the point where SM not only are they the power players on the competitive scene, but their casual lists are incredibly potent. Non-SM armies need to bring optimized and competitive lists just to hold their own against a random assortments of SM units / or fluffy lists, and those who dare play a fluffy list into SM are mercilessly curb-stomped.
The net result is that SM eat up the lion's share of the releases (fine, whatever). Other armies actively lose options whenever GW visits them, while SM have mountains of overlap and similar units (pretty uncool). And non-SM factions are pigeonholed into playing specifically gimmicky / powerful lists to compete with even 'low tier' SM lists, less then be reduced to nothing but cannon fodder mooks for the setting protagonists.
It's the sort of thing which understandably leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
Ok wait, I was with you until the second part of the post.
I agree with the 8.5 SM dex being all kind of OP, but the 9th one is generally regarded as a mild nerf over their previous incarnation.
Also, they are in no way dominating the game competitvely, and have so many trap options that a casual marine list isn't exactly that scary for another casual list. They may have 100+ datasheets but only a really small part of them gets used.
Spoletta wrote: Ok wait, I was with you until the second part of the post.
I agree with the 8.5 SM dex being all kind of OP, but the 9th one is generally regarded as a mild nerf over their previous incarnation.
Also, they are in no way dominating the game competitvely, and have so many trap options that a casual marine list isn't exactly that scary for another casual list. They may have 100+ datasheets but only a really small part of them gets used.
Ok, I'll bite. What loyalist units do you consider to be "trap options"?
harlokin wrote: To a certain extent, I don't care about SM releases. What pisses me off is the combination of no releases with 'no model no rules'.
I get that Drukhari are very much a minority faction, and there isn't much money to be had in making new stuff for them. But if they aren't a money spinner, then why be so fething precious about models for them? I would be more than happy to kitbash an Archon on a bike, or with wings, or a Venom with a Blaster, or heaven forbid a Baron Sathonyx...GW could even do articles on how to do so with the stuff they already sell.
So very much THIS. I mean fine, SM is the cash cow and apparently only SM sell so lord knows they cannot do one single all new DE miniature for the 9E codex. Fine. But then why not do the above? Why not give some units and rules where you do simple kitbashes to achieve them? It is just so dang frustrating.
Spoletta wrote: Ok wait, I was with you until the second part of the post.
I agree with the 8.5 SM dex being all kind of OP, but the 9th one is generally regarded as a mild nerf over their previous incarnation.
Also, they are in no way dominating the game competitvely, and have so many trap options that a casual marine list isn't exactly that scary for another casual list. They may have 100+ datasheets but only a really small part of them gets used.
Ok, I'll bite. What loyalist units do you consider to be "trap options"?
This will vary by subfaction but, off the top of my head,
-Tactical Marines
-Assault Marines
-Scouts
-Repulsors
-Tech Marines
-Half the Named Characters
-Land Speeder Storms
-Reivers
-Vanguard Veterans
-Normal Dreads when Compared to Specialist Dreads
-Land Speeders in General
-Storm Speeders
-Land Raiders of all kinds
-Thunderhawks
-Every LoW Aside from Gulliman
-Every Fortification
-Impulsors
-Predators
-Any Dedicated AA Vehicle
-Every Flyer except the Dark Talon
Yeah, there are a lot of units that range from bad to merely inefficient and I didn't even start on the chapter-specific units that can be duds.
Da Boss wrote: It's so funny when people think that people just need the situation EXPLAINED to them and then they will be like "Oh, GW intends it to be this way? Well now I am obviously completely happy with the situation! Because this is what GW intended! Thank you!"
Seriously, have a word with yourself. No one is "confused". What patronizing bollocks.
It's more like, 1/4 of the releases are Space Marines because those models drive interest in people picking up the game for the first time, we know some long-time players will see this as unfair and lose interest, we account for attrition by releasing new Space Marine models that will bring in new players to replace the ones who left.
If we did the same thing with, say, Slaanesh Daemons, there's a certain percentage of potential players who will never play because their moms are not going to pay for expensive plastic soldiers with claws and bare breasts. We use Space Marines because they are the least threatening of all the factions.
That's not meant to make you happy. But understanding reality is better than uninformed optimism that will never be satisfied.
Self fulfilling prophecy perhaps? They release Space Marines, this drives interest so they release more marines which drives interest etc. If you then have something crap to compare it to (such as no new Tyranids in 7 years) that makes Marines look even more appealing to new players.
Spoletta wrote: Ok wait, I was with you until the second part of the post.
I agree with the 8.5 SM dex being all kind of OP, but the 9th one is generally regarded as a mild nerf over their previous incarnation.
Also, they are in no way dominating the game competitvely, and have so many trap options that a casual marine list isn't exactly that scary for another casual list. They may have 100+ datasheets but only a really small part of them gets used.
Ok, I'll bite. What loyalist units do you consider to be "trap options"?
This will vary by subfaction but, off the top of my head,
-Tactical Marines
-Assault Marines
-Scouts
-Repulsors
-Tech Marines
-Half the Named Characters
-Land Speeder Storms
-Reivers
-Vanguard Veterans
-Normal Dreads when Compared to Specialist Dreads
-Land Speeders in General
-Storm Speeders
-Land Raiders of all kinds
-Thunderhawks
-Every LoW Aside from Gulliman
-Every Fortification
-Impulsors
-Predators
-Any Dedicated AA Vehicle
-Every Flyer except the Dark Talon
Yeah, there are a lot of units that range from bad to merely inefficient and I didn't even start on the chapter-specific units that can be duds.
Ok, how many of those are actually "bad" instead of just "bad for loyalists"? Yeah, Thunderhawks and the like, but Vanguard Veterans? Those show up in top placing tournament lists. And normal dreadnoughts "when compared to specialist dreadnoughts" just sounds like specialist dreads are better, not that normal dreads are bad. Remember, we're talking casual, not hard-core tournament lists here. "Merely inefficient" isn't the same as "bad" in a casual game.
I have normal dreads that can ignore LoS, and I can tell you that if they fail the ignore LoS spell they are bad. A lot worse then the plasma primaris dreads too.
And inefficient very much is bad, when you have 5+ other options you can take instead of the unit, then it very much slips in to the bad cathegory.
harlokin wrote: To a certain extent, I don't care about SM releases. What pisses me off is the combination of no releases with 'no model no rules'.
I get that Drukhari are very much a minority faction, and there isn't much money to be had in making new stuff for them. But if they aren't a money spinner, then why be so fething precious about models for them? I would be more than happy to kitbash an Archon on a bike, or with wings, or a Venom with a Blaster, or heaven forbid a Baron Sathonyx...GW could even do articles on how to do so with the stuff they already sell.
So very much THIS. I mean fine, SM is the cash cow and apparently only SM sell so lord knows they cannot do one single all new DE miniature for the 9E codex. Fine. But then why not do the above? Why not give some units and rules where you do simple kitbashes to achieve them? It is just so dang frustrating.
Because then 3ed party companies could start making models for the unit and in GW eyes they would be losing money? So it is safter to limit the number of units being put out.
harlokin wrote: To a certain extent, I don't care about SM releases. What pisses me off is the combination of no releases with 'no model no rules'.
Because GW doesn't want people to kit bash stuff? I know this falls in to yours , I don't care about SM way of thinking. But Primaris players could also ask why, when the chaplain on outridder bike exist, they can't just kitbash Lt or Capts or librarians or bikes too. Same with waiting for jet packs since the RG special character got his.
SM have basically crushed the competitive scene for the last three editions.
Now I can't talk about 7th ed, but 8th ed was not very marine friendly up until the 2.0 sm codex came out. And in 9th there are more powerful lists then the most powerful sm list, and most marines sit in the middle with multiple other factions. So I don't know where you see the crushing happen. The data delivered by the Goons does not seem to support it in anywa.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman 796430 11064032 wrote:
Just out of pure morbid peek-in-the-curtain-at-the-circus curiosity, I HAVE to know how you logically justify this statement here.
Aside for the very short lived Gulliman lists, for most of 8th ed, marines were no where near the top army. Tau and various forms of eldar were winning a lot more events. And if marines were winning anything it was lists like the 15 scouts 2 BA captins with bucket of IG and a castellan, being counted as a marine list.
Karol wrote: I have normal dreads that can ignore LoS, and I can tell you that if they fail the ignore LoS spell they are bad. A lot worse then the plasma primaris dreads too.
And inefficient very much is bad, when you have 5+ other options you can take instead of the unit, then it very much slips in to the bad cathegory.
No, having a good unit, and 5+ more that are better, isn't a bad thing. The current loyalist codex has pretty good internal balance, and I'm hoping we see more of that as other codexes are released. So far they've been doing pretty good.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok, how many of those are actually "bad" instead of just "bad for loyalists"?
Most of them.
but Vanguard Veterans? Those show up in top placing tournament lists.
In specific subfactions they're excellent, in others they're dead weight that just doesn't synergize with any of your special rules.
And normal dreadnoughts "when compared to specialist dreadnoughts" just sounds like specialist dreads are better, not that normal dreads are bad.
That's like saying Teddy Bridgewater is a good QB. Sure, compared to a college QB or even most CFL QBs he is, but by NFL standards he's below average, and if you had the choice between him and any of the 21 better-rated QBs in the league you'd almost certainly want to take one of them (not accounting for systems fits of course, but you get the idea).
Remember, we're talking casual, not hard-core tournament lists here. "Merely inefficient" isn't the same as "bad" in a casual game.
It's not the end of the world in a casual list but most of the units I listed are objectively worse than other options in any list to the point where taking them should only happen if your collection is limited, you need a handicap versus a bad army/unskilled opponent, or you really like the model. Taking them for any other reason is almost certain to be objectively wrong and that makes the units I listed bad.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok, how many of those are actually "bad" instead of just "bad for loyalists"?
Most of them.
but Vanguard Veterans? Those show up in top placing tournament lists.
In specific subfactions they're excellent, in others they're dead weight that just doesn't synergize with any of your special rules.
And normal dreadnoughts "when compared to specialist dreadnoughts" just sounds like specialist dreads are better, not that normal dreads are bad.
That's like saying Teddy Bridgewater is a good QB. Sure, compared to a college QB or even most CFL QBs he is, but by NFL standards he's below average, and if you had the choice between him and any of the 21 better-rated QBs in the league you'd almost certainly want to take one of them (not accounting for systems fits of course, but you get the idea).
Remember, we're talking casual, not hard-core tournament lists here. "Merely inefficient" isn't the same as "bad" in a casual game.
It's not the end of the world in a casual list but most of the units I listed are objectively worse than other options in any list to the point where taking them should only happen if your collection is limited, you need a handicap versus a bad army/unskilled opponent, or you really like the model. Taking them for any other reason is almost certain to be objectively wrong and that makes the units I listed bad.
Ok, always thinking competitvely I see. That's fine if that's what you enjoy. Keep watching those battle reports and min-maxing your heart out.
The whole imperium, chaos, xenos division is entirely artificial and feeds into the worst 'imperial perspective is true perspective' propaganda.
To no one but the imperium are nids, tau and necrons the same thing.
They even had to admit this in their new crusade rules, where they actually split the game into Imperial, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Orks and Necrons, ie along actual lines as opposed to artificial ones.
What's hilarious is that the 'Xenos' catchall contains, per capita, more individuals than the other two combined.
As in, if you added all the eldar, tau, ork, necron and tyranid numbers together, they would far exceed all the imperial and chaos forces - although there is no clarity on how many daemons there are so you might shore it up there....
From a marketing and business perspective, marines are their own faction. From an IN universe perspective they are a speck of dust drowned in all the other imperial forces.
There are more Warlord titans than there are Thunderwolf Cavalry.
There are more warlord titans than there are deathwing.
There are very likely more ork warbosses than there are space marines in total (a million warbosses isn't much).
The argument here is basically that marines are positioned and marketed completely at odds to their presence in the game, making them take up far more narrative space then they have any right to.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok, always thinking competitvely I see. That's fine if that's what you enjoy. Keep watching those battle reports and min-maxing your heart out.
I love sports and I see 40k and most other games as an extension of that mindset. The joy is in analyzing the game, watching high-level play, tinkering with a list and seeing if the theory matches reality and none of that stops me from also enjoying the fluff and forging the narrative of each game.
JNAProductions wrote: How do those units compare to similar units (or units that fill Similar roles) in IG, for instance?
How about we compare them to Harlequins, Custodes, Daemons, and Death Guard instead?
Spoletta wrote: Ok wait, I was with you until the second part of the post.
I agree with the 8.5 SM dex being all kind of OP, but the 9th one is generally regarded as a mild nerf over their previous incarnation.
Also, they are in no way dominating the game competitvely, and have so many trap options that a casual marine list isn't exactly that scary for another casual list. They may have 100+ datasheets but only a really small part of them gets used.
Ok, I'll bite. What loyalist units do you consider to be "trap options"?
This will vary by subfaction but, off the top of my head,
-Tactical Marines
-Assault Marines
-Scouts
-Repulsors
-Tech Marines
-Half the Named Characters
-Land Speeder Storms
-Reivers
-Vanguard Veterans
-Normal Dreads when Compared to Specialist Dreads
-Land Speeders in General
-Storm Speeders
-Land Raiders of all kinds
-Thunderhawks
-Every LoW Aside from Gulliman
-Every Fortification
-Impulsors
-Predators
-Any Dedicated AA Vehicle
-Every Flyer except the Dark Talon
Yeah, there are a lot of units that range from bad to merely inefficient and I didn't even start on the chapter-specific units that can be duds.
Ok, how many of those are actually "bad" instead of just "bad for loyalists"? Yeah, Thunderhawks and the like, but Vanguard Veterans? Those show up in top placing tournament lists. And normal dreadnoughts "when compared to specialist dreadnoughts" just sounds like specialist dreads are better, not that normal dreads are bad. Remember, we're talking casual, not hard-core tournament lists here. "Merely inefficient" isn't the same as "bad" in a casual game.
For a fun laugh compare loyalist dreadnoughts to any of the various xenos 'similar to dreads' units.
The basic MM+CCW dreadnought fething wipes the floor with any of them effortlessly for a suspiciously similar (sometimes less lol Wraithlords...) point cost. But it's a 'trap option' lol...
Lol I didn't read the thread, but the original post should be taught in logic class as a perfect example of circular reasoning.
"Space Marines get the right amount of attention because they are such an outsized part of the game that they actually belong in their own super category, completely separate from the super category they actually belong to in terms of lore!"
Um....yeah, I guess? Way to define your way out of the issue, Chief.
The basic MM+CCW dreadnought fething wipes the floor with any of them effortlessly for a suspiciously similar (sometimes less lol Wraithlords...) point cost. But it's a 'trap option' lol...
I notice that you're mostly focusing on armies that have yet to be updated this edition.
You're also doing that thing you like to do in comparing units in a vacuum and ignoring the fact that, for example, Tyranids should be fielding hierodules instead of Fexes right now. Or that a C'Tan or Ghazkul will mince a Dread and ask for seconds.
ccs wrote: No they don't. At best what they really want is stuff for "their" faction released.
Nah. SoB are my least favorite faction in the setting but I'll take the time to say good things about them when their stuff gets released, because at least they aren't more Astartes stuff.
I notice that you're mostly focusing on armies that have yet to be updated this edition.
You're also doing that thing you like to do in comparing units in a vacuum and ignoring the fact that, for example, Tyranids should be fielding hierodules instead of Fexes right now. Or that a C'Tan or Ghazkul will mince a Dread and ask for seconds.
Sure, and Astartes got special carebear handholding with the edition change that no other faction got. More unfairness.
Hecaton wrote: Sure, and Astartes got special carebear handholding with the edition change that no other faction got. More unfairness.
How is the game's single most popular faction getting their rules first and thus maximizing the number of players with a new codex special treatment? It seems like logic to me.
Hecaton wrote: Sure, and Astartes got special carebear handholding with the edition change that no other faction got. More unfairness.
How is the game's single most popular faction getting their rules first and thus maximizing the number of players with a new codex special treatment? It seems like logic to me.
It's special treatment by definition. It's not like GW rushed to produce a whole shitton of SoB releases after their redo sold out. They're hellbent on making money with Astartes, to the exclusion of almost all else.
Hecaton wrote: It's special treatment by definition. It's not like GW rushed to produce a whole shitton of SoB releases after their redo sold out. They're hellbent on making money with Astartes, to the exclusion of almost all else.
So who should have gotten the first codex, some Xeno faction played by <5% of the player base?
Personally, I'm okay with Marines getting some more support, like, the first codex in an edition. That's fine. It's that they got like, what... DA, DW, SW, BA... so 5 out of the first 7?
And indexes to tide them over for those few short months, of course, which no one else gets, and who may be waiting years.
And still have subfaction supplements, which no one else gets.
And got an obscene number of model releases since July, releases which are still ongoing. I'm not sure if they have all the multipose kits out for the Indomitus monopose models, but if they haven't, then the Marine parade hasn't ended yet.
It's honestly a bit soul-crushing if you had, as I had at one point, been emotionally invested in the game.
So who should have gotten the first codex, some Xeno faction played by <5% of the player base?
I'm not talking about the first codex, I'm talking about the index situation.
Do you mean the two wounds for MEQs and weapons changes preceding their soon-to-release codex? I suspect that only happened due to COVID delays and couldn't have happened for other factions because their rules weren't far enough along to roll anything else out.
CEO Kasen wrote: Personally, I'm okay with Marines getting some more support, like, the first codex in an edition. That's fine. It's that they got like, what... DA, DW, SW, BA... so 5 out of the first 7?
You mean one Codex and some supplements.
And still have subfaction supplements, which no one else gets.
Those used to be full codices, would you have enjoyed that more?
And got an obscene number of model releases since July, releases which are still ongoing. I'm not sure if they have all the multipose kits out for the Indomitus monopose models, but if they haven't, then the Marine parade hasn't ended yet.
Yet they're averaging exactly the same model release percentage that they've always had.
Do you mean the two wounds for MEQs and weapons changes preceding their soon-to-release codex? I suspect that only happened due to COVID delays and couldn't have happened for other factions because their rules weren't far enough along to roll anything else out.
I still haven't seen a good argument for why they couldn't do it for CSM.
Canadian 5th wrote: Yet they're averaging exactly the same model release percentage that they've always had.
So what exactly is your point, Canadian? That actually, we're in a great spot, with most armies being neglected, and Space Marines dominating in terms of rules, fluff and model release is a healthy state for the hobby to be in, doesn't need any changing, and all the fans who are sick and tired of YET ANOTHER year of the Marine are wrong for wanting the 40k universe to be better?
Hecaton wrote: I still haven't seen a good argument for why they couldn't do it for CSM.
I have no idea, I'd be fine with them and GK getting the bump but perhaps GW has reason to think that would break something. Neither of us knows why they didn't do it and speculating is pointless.
Compared to what time period?
Basically all of them, except for a couple of periods when they added entire new armies.
posermcbogus wrote: So what exactly is your point, Canadian? That actually, we're in a great spot, with most armies being neglected, and Space Marines dominating in terms of rules, fluff and model release is a healthy state for the hobby to be in, doesn't need any changing, and all the fans who are sick and tired of YET ANOTHER year of the Marine are wrong for wanting the 40k universe to be better?
Between Marines, Necrons, and DG who all got updates and Daemons, Harlequins, Custodes, Orks, and Sisters who don't need an update nearly half the armies in the game already have good rules and that half probably represents an even larger percentage of the player base, so yeah the game is fine as is. We know GW wants to release new rules more quickly than they have been but can't due to COVID so it's entirely possible we were supposed to have every army updated this year.
I have no idea, I'd be fine with them and GK getting the bump but perhaps GW has reason to think that would break something. Neither of us knows why they didn't do it and speculating is pointless.
No, speculating about it tells us, as customers, whether or not to keep engaging with the product. What makes you think that GW's behavior in this matter has anything to do with balance?
Hecaton wrote: No, speculating about it tells us, as customers, whether or not to keep engaging with the product. What makes you think that GW's behavior in this matter has anything to do with balance?
Yes, making up random junk is how I make every choice about the products I engage with... WHAT?!
Hecaton wrote: No, speculating about it tells us, as customers, whether or not to keep engaging with the product. What makes you think that GW's behavior in this matter has anything to do with balance?
Yes, making up random junk is how I make every choice about the products I engage with... WHAT?!
Speculating doesn't baselessly speculating. You've already engaged in speculation by saying it was a balance issue, so clearly you're a hypocrite on this topic.
Hecaton wrote: Speculating doesn't baselessly speculating. You've already engaged in speculation by saying it was a balance issue, so clearly you're a hypocrite on this topic.
I prefaced that speculation with the fact that I have no idea why it's being done and that I would agree with the change, but given the lack of facts about my statement carries exactly zero weight and should have no influence on if or how anybody engages with the game.
That those books were supplements doesn't make it feel any better. Honestly? I was kind of cooler with it when those "Snowflake Chapters" were their own books, back in the Times Before, when I actually played Vanilla Marines. Maybe it's because that means there'd only be 6 Marine books (Just counting this out so I'm sure I have it right: Vanilla, SW, BA, DA, DW, may or may not be able to count GK) instead of 13; (RG, UM, WS, Sallys, IF, BT, IH; Codex 9.0 replaces the "Vanilla" moniker) maybe it's because their rules could be compartmentalized. At least SW/BA/Etc could reasonably be said to have, within an order of magnitude, the number of rules as most other factions. And hell, if you did play SW/BA/DA/Whatever, at least you'd only have to buy one book!
The very existence of Supplements at all is problematic, because for that particular wound to be completely addressed to the point that things feel fair, every subfaction would have to get their own supplements, and A) I strongly doubt that's happening, B) nor am I particularly sure I want it to, because I'm not anywhere near a good enough game designer to even begin to imagine what a spaghettified mess the game would look like if I'm wrong about A), especially since they ditched USR.
It's a pickle they put themselves into. I honestly don't see a way for GW to back out of that problem until they inevitably scrap everything and run to 10th edition.
As for number of Marine model releases: I could reasonably argue that the historical number is still too many, but you're right in that if that number has not changed, it still feels worse than before, and the reason for that deserves analysis.
Here I'm genuinely speculating, without sarcasm: Were the numerous Marine releases before 8th just little niche characters so no one cared? Has it gotten to a more critical point because that historically is too many Marine releases, it's just now finally become too much, and Indomitus was the tipping point? Is it Primaris-related - the rather scammy feeling that they're trying to sell Marine players more Marine armies, the power fantasy way they've been presented, or the Bigger Batman problem? How nonstop the releases have been in the second half of 2020? The way it's marketed, with constant 'leaks' making the Marine parade feel spirit-grindingly endless?
Probably several if not all of the above, and maybe more, because something like this never has just one cause.
CEO Kasen wrote: That those books were supplements doesn't make it feel any better. Honestly? I was kind of cooler with it when those "Snowflake Chapters" were their own books, back in the Times Before, when I actually played Vanilla Marines. Maybe it's because that means there'd only be 6 Marine books (Just counting this out so I'm sure I have it right: Vanilla, SW, BA, DA, DW, may or may not be able to count GK) instead of 13; (RG, UM, WS, Sallys, IF, BT, IH; Codex 9.0 replaces the "Vanilla" moniker) maybe it's because their rules could be compartmentalized. At least SW/BA/Etc could reasonably be said to have, within an order of magnitude, the number of rules as most other factions. And hell, if you did play SW/BA/DA/Whatever, at least you'd only have to buy one book!
The very existence of Supplements at all is problematic, because for that particular wound to be completely addressed to the point that things feel fair, every subfaction would have to get their own supplements, and A) I strongly doubt that's happening, B) nor am I particularly sure I want it to, because I'm not anywhere near a good enough game designer to even begin to imagine what a spaghettified mess the game would look like if I'm wrong about A), especially since they ditched USR.
It's a pickle they put themselves into. I honestly don't see a way for GW to back out of that problem until they inevitably scrap everything and run to 10th edition.
Yes, and? GW will always have a strong incentive to reset the game every 3 - 5 years because that generates sales. Stop thinking of 40k as a game seeking perfection and start thinking of it as a game seeking bursts of excitement and GWs strategy makes more sense.
As for number of Marine model releases: I could reasonably argue that the historical number is still too many, but you're right in that if that number has not changed, it still feels worse than before, and the reason for that deserves analysis.
It feels worse because there are more factions so every non-SM faction gets comparatively fewer releases and because GW isn't trickling out releases these days preferring to drop wholesale army changes all at once. So when you're not getting anything you're really not getting anything and when you are getting something it happens so quickly some players can't enjoy it fully. This doesn't affect everybody equally which is why many of us are fine with the situation and others feel like it's ruining the game.
... Daemons, Harlequins, Custodes, Orks, and Sisters who don't need an update
Perhaps we don't need one to be competitive... But as a Crusade player, who values Crusade content more than anything else in the new dexes, we ALL need dexes. And we'd all love to have a few new models too.
Canadian 5th wrote: We know GW wants to release new rules more quickly than they have been but can't due to COVID so it's entirely possible we were supposed to have every army updated this year.
This is very fair, and I actually suspect GW would have had them all out by the end of the year if not for the Covid/ Brexit double whammy. They had planned to go two/ month in most months- probably only doing one in months with particularly large releases.
PenitentJake wrote: Perhaps we don't need one to be competitive... But as a Crusade player, who values Crusade content more than anything else in the new dexes, we ALL need dexes. And we'd all love to have a few new models too.
That's fair, but you could literally make up your own using the examples from the content that already exists. Narrative game modes are nice like that. You can't house rule your army into being good in a tournament or PUG setting where you may not be playing with a set group so I place greater value on that.
The harlies range is TINY, dude. Loads of Ork kits are really old, and even their plastics are covered with mold slip. Don't even try it, man, the release pattern is stupid, and you can tell how alienated people are getting with the increasing popularity of playing older editions and switching to AOS.
posermcbogus wrote: The harlies range is TINY, dude. Loads of Ork kits are really old, and even their plastics are covered with mold slip. Don't even try it, man, the release pattern is stupid, and you can tell how alienated people are getting with the increasing popularity of playing older editions and switching to AOS.
I couldn't care less about how many models a faction has or if they're a little soft on detail due to old molds. My favorite games were grey plastic on grey plastic with tons of proxying so we could try out any army or unit we were interested in.
As for the popularity of older editions, that's just nostalgia. It's a trend right now what with WoW classic and tons of old games releasing with minor updates every month.
That's fair, but you could literally make up your own using the examples from the content that already exists. Narrative game modes are nice like that. You can't house rule your army into being good in a tournament or PUG setting where you may not be playing with a set group so I place greater value on that.
I take the point about it being more important to update the stuff that can't be homebrewed first; that's legit, and I say that as a crusade nut.
But it is also not as easy to homebrew it as you might think, because there is a real version coming. And when it hits, it invalidates everything you've worked to create. Believe me, I've been agonizing over whether or not to start Crusades for 4 different armies because we don't have our content but, but the edition clock is ticking. It really sucks that the team who gets the last dex will miss out on more than a year worth of growing their army.
As for the popularity of older editions, that's just nostalgia. It's a trend right now what with WoW classic and tons of old games releasing with minor updates every month.
posermcbogus wrote: Then why are you out here clogging up a thread about releases with your gak takes my man?
Why so posters like yourself can have an echo chamber to host your pity party in?
"Hehehehe, I'm in a thread de-railing it because I don't like the idea of people being able to discuss a topic in a forum without also paying attention to me."
posermcbogus wrote: "Hehehehe, I'm in a thread de-railing it because I don't like the idea of people being able to discuss a topic in a forum without also paying attention to me."
Did you miss the OP:
"There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades."
The entire thread is about laughing at the QQ brought about by their being 'too many' marine releases.
Yes, and? GW will always have a strong incentive to reset the game every 3 - 5 years because that generates sales. Stop thinking of 40k as a game seeking perfection and start thinking of it as a game seeking bursts of excitement and GWs strategy makes more sense.
They're not really succeeding, then. They had my excitement. At first. They managed to kill that pretty fast. I've got a post somewhere where the Hounds of Morkai - a token, meaningless, noncompetitive release that I think was just repackaged sprues for a Marine faction I don't even particularly dislike - were the straws that finally broke my camel.
I dunno if I characterized my stance on a 10th edition well, but I honestly don't know I'd be sad if they rebooted for 10th even next year. GW realistically wouldn't do it that fast. But I don't know that I'd be sad. 9th has ... issues, probably beyond the scope of this thread.
It feels worse because there are more factions so every non-SM faction gets comparatively fewer releases and because GW isn't trickling out releases these days preferring to drop wholesale army changes all at once. So when you're not getting anything you're really not getting anything and when you are getting something it happens so quickly some players can't enjoy it fully. This doesn't affect everybody equally which is why many of us are fine with the situation and others feel like it's ruining the game.
If the release wave thing is how it's happening then that's definitely fatiguing.
If feels completely plausible that the change in proportional support is among the reasons. Definitely not mutually exclusive with the list above, though - and if the same absolute support is still more proportional support, well, isn't it still possible to call that too much?
That said, it's certainly been argued before - and I would completely agree - that more factions exist now than GW can reasonably support. What can be done about that... well, that's also its own thread, and that one doesn't end prettily.
posermcbogus wrote: "Hehehehe, I'm in a thread de-railing it because I don't like the idea of people being able to discuss a topic in a forum without also paying attention to me."
Did you miss the OP:
"There seems to be some confusion about this idea in the community. Space marines get a little over 1/4 of all releases, and this confuses and angers some people. This must be based on the misconception that there are 3 super factionsl in the game (imperium, chaos, and xenos). But that is blatantly false.
Take a moment and head to the GW store. Check out the Sigmar section first, and notice how the models are divided 4 ways. (order, destruction, chaos, and death). 4 super factions. Now go to 40k. There are also 4 categories laid out in the exact same way. (space marines, imperium, chaos, and xenos). Space marines are not listed under imperium. Do not confuse this with the in game keyword. Space marines are NOT a subfaction of imperium, but a super faction of their own, complete with about as many sub factions as the other super factions.
Space marines gets about as many releases as it should get based on this. This is intentional, and how it has been for literal decades."
The entire thread is about laughing at the QQ brought about by their being 'too many' marine releases.
Okay, but I'm not sure, despite OP's short-sightedness, how this makes you talking about rules any more relevant, but okay I guess? Not the first time you've yanked goalpoasts at me in a discussion.
Spoletta wrote: Ok wait, I was with you until the second part of the post.
I agree with the 8.5 SM dex being all kind of OP, but the 9th one is generally regarded as a mild nerf over their previous incarnation.
Also, they are in no way dominating the game competitvely, and have so many trap options that a casual marine list isn't exactly that scary for another casual list. They may have 100+ datasheets but only a really small part of them gets used.
Ok, I'll bite. What loyalist units do you consider to be "trap options"?
Lol, this thread got on a tangent while I wasn't looking.
Anyway, to answer your question, the SM lists don't really spike that much in efficiency until they form some specific patterns and take some units that are vital to them right now.
Take a list like this one:
Spoiler:
++ Battalion Detachment -3CP (Imperium - Adeptus Astartes - Iron Hands) ++
+ Configuration +
**Chapter Selection**
Detachment Command Cost
+ HQ +
Captain in Gravis Armour: Boltstorm gauntlet, Chapter Command: Chapter Master, Master-crafted power sword
This is the typical list you could find in the hands of a new player. Focused on the new releases and a lot of rule of cool. This is an IH list, so it is a bit more vehicle heavy than normal, and includes a tech marine.
Like all new lists, It manages to have all of these at the same time:
1) Cringe inducing choices like the equipment on those sergeants. 2) Choices that make sense until you know better (putting 10 assault intercessors in an impulsor) 3) A reasonably structured part of the list, like the Lt+Cpt combo and the 10 intercessors + 5 inflitrating troops. 4) A part of the list which is actually quite scary, which the player randomly managed to hit, like the 2 redemptors of this example.
Is little Timmy going to lose his games with that list? No, the list works decently well, the SM codex is well made afte all. Will little Timmy trample the opposition with this list?
Scarab Occult Terminators: 2x Hellfyre Missile Rack . Scarab Occult Sorcerer: Inferno Combi-bolter . 7x Terminator: 7x Inferno Combi-bolter, 7x Power sword . Terminator w/ Heavy Weapon: Power sword, Soulreaper cannon . Terminator w/ Heavy Weapon: Power sword, Soulreaper cannon
+ Fast Attack +
Tzaangor Enlightened: Aviarch, Fatecaster greatbows . 3x Enlightened: 3x Blades on Disc of Tzeentch
Tzaangor Enlightened: Aviarch, Divining spears . 3x Enlightened: 3x Blades on Disc of Tzeentch
+ Heavy Support +
Defiler: Twin heavy flamer, Twin lascannon
Forgefiend: 2x Hades autocannons, Daemon jaws
Mutalith Vortex Beast
+ Dedicated Transport +
Chaos Rhino: Combi-bolter
This a TS list, a faction which is commonly regarded as very underpowered at the moment. Here too, you can see some good choices mixed with some terrible ones.
Now, who would win? These 2 lists are actually fairly matched as far as lists go. 2 averagely experienced players facing each other with these lists, will have a good game. Now, the SM would probably win the first games, because the SM are much much easier to play. They are designed as the noob faction, so if 2 players without experience were to face each other, then the SM would usually win. That is not in the scope of this comparison though.
The basic MM+CCW dreadnought fething wipes the floor with any of them effortlessly for a suspiciously similar (sometimes less lol Wraithlords...) point cost. But it's a 'trap option' lol...
I notice that you're mostly focusing on armies that have yet to be updated this edition.
You're also doing that thing you like to do in comparing units in a vacuum and ignoring the fact that, for example, Tyranids should be fielding hierodules instead of Fexes right now. Or that a C'Tan or Ghazkul will mince a Dread and ask for seconds.
I listed the equivalent from literally the only non-marine army updated so far this edition so, tbh don't know what you're looking for here buddy For intellectual honesty do you want me to disclaim that helbrutes, in fact, perform identically to dreadnoughts? Or that dark angel dreadnoughts perform identically to dreadnoughts?
Also, yeah, I fething hope Ghazgkhull and a Ctan can mince a dreadnought, it's a 125pt model vs a 350pt model.
Those were the weirdest gotchas I've read on the internet in ages. "I notice you've just listed models that haven't been updated yet, you know, from all the armies except marines and necrons that exist in the game" and "Harlequins can't be overpowered, if you shoot them with a double gatling cannon chaos knight they die really good!"
Its probably fair to say replacing the dreadnought combat weapon for a missile launcher is a trap choice - but that's a reflection of how good the dreadnought combat weapon is and how bad the missile launcher is.
Yes its probably always worth 15 points to make him venerable - but at most you are gaining say 10 points, probably a few less.
All in all when I think of Marines, the trap choices are things like Assault Marines and Reivers. Even in the more assault-focused objective holding game these can easily end up being rubbish - and there are clearly superior options right next to them.
By contrast I feel say Repulsors or the new vehicles are very much like "Timmy" pieces rather than out and out traps. They are too fragile and easy for experienced players to play around. But if two new players face off, and the Marine player is rolling hot, they can do a lot of damage to the opponent's army. Whereas I don't think anyone's ever been annihilated by Reivers.
Scouts too are very trappy, but indeed SM entries are more Timmy than trap, you are right in that.
The problem with SM in 8th was that it was said that you could take random units in a list and it would be a competitive list. Now, that was clearly an hyperbole... but not so far from truth.
In 9th the percentage of the SM dex which can make it onto a table against an experienced opponent, is actually quite scarce.
harlokin wrote: I think that the division of factions on the website has more to do with guiding consumers to their chosen poison, than 'the facts on the ground'.
Space Marines are part of the Imperium superfaction, they simply have so many models that it makes sense to give them their own section of the store.
The only other superfactions in the game (as far as I can recall) are Aeldari, Chaos.....and the Hivemind (?)
Xenos is not a superfaction, just a convenient catchall for "the other guys" on the GW website.
Yeah, thats my reasoning as well. Imperium and Xenos don't have the same rules baggage.
Admech, Guard, sisters, Custodes, knights are all also "subfactions" in my mind.
There is no "Xenos" in the actual game. It mostly exists as a term for people to use to either ask for something, anything other than a space marine, or to claim that because soemthing has been released for anything other than a space marine, people who play a totally unrelated faction should be happy.
I dunno if I characterized my stance on a 10th edition well, but I honestly don't know I'd be sad if they rebooted for 10th even next year. GW realistically wouldn't do it that fast. But I don't know that I'd be sad. 9th has ... issues, probably beyond the scope of this thread.
You may feel there are enough problems with the game that you think you want a 10th. Within the context of this thread though, everyone who is frustrated feels that way because of an addition reset. You see, an edition reset is always the first float in a marine parade. The only way that marine parade can end is if the edition lasts more than 5 years.
If 10th comes, it will be wall to wall space marines for a minimum of six months before we even get to talk about anyone else, except for the one adversary lucky enough to get picked to round out the other half of the box.
Any mechanics are always better fixed by things like CA or FAQ's because they tend to not lead to a marine parade.
I dunno if I characterized my stance on a 10th edition well, but I honestly don't know I'd be sad if they rebooted for 10th even next year. GW realistically wouldn't do it that fast. But I don't know that I'd be sad. 9th has ... issues, probably beyond the scope of this thread.
You may feel there are enough problems with the game that you think you want a 10th. Within the context of this thread though, everyone who is frustrated feels that way because of an addition reset. You see, an edition reset is always the first float in a marine parade. The only way that marine parade can end is if the edition lasts more than 5 years.
If 10th comes, it will be wall to wall space marines for a minimum of six months before we even get to talk about anyone else, except for the one adversary lucky enough to get picked to round out the other half of the box.
Any mechanics are always better fixed by things like CA or FAQ's because they tend to not lead to a marine parade.
Yeah, like in 8th edition when the edition got old enough GW didn't put out a whole gak ton of space marines.
Oh wait, no, they did that anyway because aint no brakes on the marine train baby.
Spoletta 796430 11064386 wrote:[This is the typical list you could find in the hands of a new player. Focused on the new releases and a lot of rule of cool.
This is an IH list, so it is a bit more vehicle heavy than normal, and includes a tech marine.
That is some might inefficient, money wise, units this new players have bought. Ton of singles, vehicles etc.
There is more chance to see new player marines armies being build out of something like 2 patrol boxs and something, or DI halfs back in the past. And I assume in places where you can actualy buy indomitus in stores, people use those models a lot.
Yeah, like in 8th edition when the edition got old enough GW didn't put out a whole gak ton of space marines
How to you update the whole space marine model line, without upseting all the older model users and buyers, without doing it bit by bit? Specially now that GW seems to be in a mind set where a load out requires to be a box of its own.
Yes, and? GW will always have a strong incentive to reset the game every 3 - 5 years because that generates sales. Stop thinking of 40k as a game seeking perfection and start thinking of it as a game seeking bursts of excitement and GWs strategy makes more sense.
They're not really succeeding, then. They had my excitement. At first. They managed to kill that pretty fast. I've got a post somewhere where the Hounds of Morkai - a token, meaningless, noncompetitive release that I think was just repackaged sprues for a Marine faction I don't even particularly dislike - were the straws that finally broke my camel.
Your camel broke because we SW players got a non-competitive release? And that's killed your enthusiasm for the game/edition?
Um, that's weird, but ok....
But, assuming you aren't a SW player, WhyTF do you care?
1) Most people get upset about new units that are:
Non-competitive in forces they play.
Competitive in armies they play against. "Oh no, x will break the game/I must take this unit into account when I build my lists" - things that'll never be said of the Hounds.....
What might eventually be said? "Oh cool, The Hounds of Morkai. I've never seen anyone use those before."
2) Is it that overall another SM unit has been released? If that's the case, are you aware that GW tends to release something related for each force alongside their book? In this case the kind of "meh" Hounds were one of the SW releases. So it's not like it was ever going to be something not SM/SW related. No Eldar were harmed here. If you aren't a SW player then you weren't going to be spending $ that week anyways on the new release....
3) GW often makes additional non-competitive/competitive neutral units. They've been doing it for many years & across all editions of WHFB, 40k, & AoS. So we SW players got one this time, to the rest of you, so what?
Yes, and? GW will always have a strong incentive to reset the game every 3 - 5 years because that generates sales. Stop thinking of 40k as a game seeking perfection and start thinking of it as a game seeking bursts of excitement and GWs strategy makes more sense.
They're not really succeeding, then. They had my excitement. At first. They managed to kill that pretty fast. I've got a post somewhere where the Hounds of Morkai - a token, meaningless, noncompetitive release that I think was just repackaged sprues for a Marine faction I don't even particularly dislike - were the straws that finally broke my camel.
Your camel broke because we SW players got a non-competitive release? And that's killed your enthusiasm for the game/edition?
Um, that's weird, but ok....
But, assuming you aren't a SW player, WhyTF do you care?
1) Most people get upset about new units that are:
Non-competitive in forces they play.
Competitive in armies they play against. "Oh no, x will break the game/I must take this unit into account when I build my lists" - things that'll never be said of the Hounds.....
What might eventually be said? "Oh cool, The Hounds of Morkai. I've never seen anyone use those before."
2) Is it that overall another SM unit has been released? If that's the case, are you aware that GW tends to release something related for each force alongside their book? In this case the kind of "meh" Hounds were one of the SW releases. So it's not like it was ever going to be something not SM/SW related. No Eldar were harmed here. If you aren't a SW player then you weren't going to be spending $ that week anyways on the new release....
3) GW often makes additional non-competitive/competitive neutral units. They've been doing it for many years & across all editions of WHFB, 40k, & AoS. So we SW players got one this time, to the rest of you, so what?
Honestly, dunno. I really wish they'd do that MORE OFTEN with MORE ARMIES - but otherwise it doesn't annoy me.
I really don't know why GW doesn't make "Veteran Intercessors" and "HQ on *easily available GW item, brainless kitbash*" and "hounds of Morkai (just an existing unit with the space wolf upgrade heads)" for every army.
Accompany them with an 'official picture' of what the model is supposed to look like when kitbashed, and I just...do not understand how that's not exactly as legally defensible/copyright valid as, for example, a 30-strong unit of ork boyz.
GW doesn't sell a kit of 30 ork boyz miniatures, you have to take the miniatures from 3 boyz boxes, set 2 of them aside, and put them together to make that unit.
IN WHAT WAY is that legally distinct from telling me "You can give a Big Mek a Warbike" and showing me a picture of a warbike from the warbiker kit, with the mek head and KFF bit from the Meganobz kit right there on the page?
I feel like I am beating my head against a wall here, but it seems like these discussions boil down to (apart from the troll posts, which we should all ignore)
- GW does something that is not very customer friendly
- But that thing is good for GW's bottom line.
And like, you guys come in to explain it to us every time like "Yeah but GW are doing that to make money!"
We KNOW. We know they are doing it because it is profitable.
You don't have to like stuff that is profitable.
Personally, I have calmed down completely on this score. I don't care what GW release and I'm happy just getting minis I want for the projects I am working on. No worries. But I am capable of empathy with people who are frustrated because they are not in my position.
CEO Kasen wrote: They're not really succeeding, then. They had my excitement. At first. They managed to kill that pretty fast. I've got a post somewhere where the Hounds of Morkai - a token, meaningless, noncompetitive release that I think was just repackaged sprues for a Marine faction I don't even particularly dislike - were the straws that finally broke my camel.
Then you're not GWs current target audience. Even then, I'd be willing to bet you'll at least spend (or have already spent) money on your new rules so GW will get money from you either way.
If the release wave thing is how it's happening then that's definitely fatiguing.
What fatigues you excites others.
If feels completely plausible that the change in proportional support is among the reasons. Definitely not mutually exclusive with the list above, though - and if the same absolute support is still more proportional support, well, isn't it still possible to call that too much?
SM might be under-served in terms of support if it's actually true that they make up >33% of the player base.
the_scotsman wrote: I listed the equivalent from literally the only non-marine army updated so far this edition so, tbh don't know what you're looking for here buddy
You ignored that units don't stand in a vacuum. Yes, some of those units are just bad, but most of them are fine in the context of their army.
Also, yeah, I fething hope Ghazgkhull and a Ctan can mince a dreadnought, it's a 125pt model vs a 350pt model.
You should probably compare models that armies actually take against one another, rather than trying to prove that Dreads are OP just because a list mainly comprised of units that haven't been updated for 9th are underpowered in a vacuum.
Mainly, I'm not trying to prove dreads are OP. Mainly I'm just pointing out that, once again, marine players have a thing that's better than everybody else's thing and they're still bitching and moaning that it's a 'trap unit.'
it's like that drop pod thread from earlier. "Waaaah, my unit with a super special ability that literally no other unit in the entire fething game gets to have isn't undercosted enough to get used often in competitive play (though it does turn up in some lists), I demand a buff! I demand additional design team attention! Plenty of factions are still playing with basically index rules but this unit that's had 3 redesigns in the past two years still isn't good enough for me!"
There's still a lot of denial going on here. I'm not stating how it should be, but merely what is. We are not playing the perfect version of 40k that exists in your head.
It is clearly GW's intention to have the number of releases, rules support, and representation in the player base to be roughly 1/4. This means Space marines intentionally get as much "stuff" as all xenos armies combined for example.
It doesn't matter if you think that's how it should or shouldn't be. I'm stating how it is. Arguing against it, is a lot like arguing that 40k shouldn't be a dice game, or shouldn't be set in the future.
the_scotsman wrote: Mainly, I'm not trying to prove dreads are OP. Mainly I'm just pointing out that, once again, marine players have a thing that's better than everybody else's thing and they're still bitching and moaning that it's a 'trap unit.'
I think the best thing out of all of this Space Marine Mania is that I finally caved in and got myself a force in Star Wars Legion.
I am actually quite optimistic about the Space Marine Mania as it will push away non-Marine players and maybe into other games that deserve more attention. So you never know, this might end up being healthy for the hobby in the long run. The last time GW did the stupid we had some strong contenders coming from various corners of the globe, and now with 3D printing and more it is much easier for new entries into the wargaming hobby.
Spoletta wrote: Scouts too are very trappy, but indeed SM entries are more Timmy than trap, you are right in that.
The problem with SM in 8th was that it was said that you could take random units in a list and it would be a competitive list. Now, that was clearly an hyperbole... but not so far from truth.
In 9th the percentage of the SM dex which can make it onto a table against an experienced opponent, is actually quite scarce.
Thing is, these are only "trap" choices because of how many good units marines have access to.
Once you place them in another codex it's different. Reivers, if placed in the Ork codex, would basically be mega-armored kommando nobz with superior movement. They'd be an incredibly potent and versatile unit which had a combination of durability, movement, deployment shenanigans, and damage output. Even Assault Marines would be solid in other codex's.
Which is the entire point. While other armies are having their options slashed, receiving no releases, and being given plenty of gimp stuff... Marines have multiple squads which all accomplish the same thing, with the worst of them merely being "bad by marine standards," which still puts them head-and-shoulders above what other armies have access to.
Theres a COUPLE of "trap" choices in marine lists.
Compared with 90% of the game that isnt top competitive options of Custodes/Sisters/Harlequins, they are perfectly fine units.
The space marine codex is phenomenal, theres really not many units that you could not make a competent (not competitive) list.
Even vehicle heavy lists, with the amount of support in the form of Iron Hands psychic discipline, techmarines, etc... can work. The reason why they dont has less to do with marine vehicles and more to do with the fact that 9th is a infantry and meele based edition, not a shooting vehicle one.
Galas wrote: Theres a COUPLE of "trap" choices in marine lists.
Compared with 90% of the game that isnt top competitive options of Custodes/Sisters/Harlequins, they are perfectly fine units.
The space marine codex is phenomenal, theres really not many units that you could not make a competent (not competitive) list.
Even vehicle heavy lists, with the amount of support in the form of Iron Hands psychic discipline, techmarines, etc... can work. The reason why they dont has less to do with marine vehicles and more to do with the fact that 9th is a infantry and meele based edition, not a shooting vehicle one.
And a lot of the worst trap units are that BECAUSE of changes GW put into the game IN ORDER TO SELL MORE MARINES.
Many marine vehicles are trap choices because if you take them someone will take eradicators or attack bikes or retributors or myphitic blight-haulers against them and blast them off the board instantly for a 120% points return and 3 BID points. Nice Land Raider idiot, GW had 3 new marine kits featuring multimeltas to sell so they casually tripled their damage output and didnt change their points costs.
The basic MM+CCW dreadnought fething wipes the floor with any of them effortlessly for a suspiciously similar (sometimes less lol Wraithlords...) point cost. But it's a 'trap option' lol...
I notice that you're mostly focusing on armies that have yet to be updated this edition.
You're also doing that thing you like to do in comparing units in a vacuum and ignoring the fact that, for example, Tyranids should be fielding hierodules instead of Fexes right now. Or that a C'Tan or Ghazkul will mince a Dread and ask for seconds.
Somewhat telling that you are shown that Dreadnoughts are better than their non-SM competition and you respond with "yeah they don't have updates yet" and "But ghaz can kill a dread".
So your argument is that when those factions get their release their dread equivalents will be as good as dreadnoughts and that Orkz should be happy that their 1 off LoW, 300pt special character can kill a 120pt dread easily...mind you only in close combat.
Well lets do a rewind to 8th edition, were Dreadnoughts better than DeffDreadz than? Yep, and by a long shot how about in 7th? yep...hmm, so its almost like the edition doesn't matter....
A deffdread has worse shooting options by far, is less accurate and when it finally gets into CC isn't all that much better than a normal SM Dread. So yes, it is better than its orky counterpart and yet Marine players complain that its a "Trap" because they have options which make this one look like garbage. So its a trap in the sense that there are better options because SM's have more codex options than any other 2 factions combined LOL.
Spoletta wrote: Scouts too are very trappy, but indeed SM entries are more Timmy than trap, you are right in that.
The problem with SM in 8th was that it was said that you could take random units in a list and it would be a competitive list. Now, that was clearly an hyperbole... but not so far from truth.
In 9th the percentage of the SM dex which can make it onto a table against an experienced opponent, is actually quite scarce.
Thing is, these are only "trap" choices because of how many good units marines have access to.
Once you place them in another codex it's different. Reivers, if placed in the Ork codex, would basically be mega-armored kommando nobz with superior movement. They'd be an incredibly potent and versatile unit which had a combination of durability, movement, deployment shenanigans, and damage output. Even Assault Marines would be solid in other codex's.
Which is the entire point. While other armies are having their options slashed, receiving no releases, and being given plenty of gimp stuff... Marines have multiple squads which all accomplish the same thing, with the worst of them merely being "bad by marine standards," which still puts them head-and-shoulders above what other armies have access to.
Talk about being dishonest.
Many of those SM units, if they were in the nid codex I would never look at them.
Why would I ever take an assault intercessor when a warrior with swords is better under every single aspect? Seriously, look at it! One more attack instead of having it only in shock assault, one more AP, immune to morale (and provides synapse), hinders enemy psykers, better defensive profile, huge stratagem support... and we are talking about a warrior build which is considered a bad one!
Scouts? Really? For little more than 2 scouts I can take a lictor!
Assault squads good in other factions? Then raveners must look horribly OP to you.
And I mean, we are talking about the nid codex here! Which isn't exactly boasting excellent profiles, right now we live on scoring tricks and FW beasts.
Marines are full of good tools, but saying that their bad choices would be good in other codici, means that you have to take off your SMOP tainted googles.
SemperMortis wrote: Somewhat telling that you are shown that Dreadnoughts are better than their non-SM competition and you respond with "yeah they don't have updates yet" and "But ghaz can kill a dread".
So your argument is that when those factions get their release their dread equivalents will be as good as dreadnoughts and that Orkz should be happy that their 1 off LoW, 300pt special character can kill a 120pt dread easily...mind you only in close combat.
Well lets do a rewind to 8th edition, were Dreadnoughts better than DeffDreadz than? Yep, and by a long shot how about in 7th? yep...hmm, so its almost like the edition doesn't matter....
A deffdread has worse shooting options by far, is less accurate and when it finally gets into CC isn't all that much better than a normal SM Dread. So yes, it is better than its orky counterpart and yet Marine players complain that its a "Trap" because they have options which make this one look like garbage. So its a trap in the sense that there are better options because SM's have more codex options than any other 2 factions combined LOL.
Yet, as of the end of January, Orks are more highly rated than any space except White Scars, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels and easily hold an above-average position in the tournament meta. Yes, Orks have more internal balance issues than some other factions but you don't solve that by going down the list and making sure that each faction's ~100 point walkers/MCs are equal to one another.
Spoletta wrote: Scouts too are very trappy, but indeed SM entries are more Timmy than trap, you are right in that.
The problem with SM in 8th was that it was said that you could take random units in a list and it would be a competitive list. Now, that was clearly an hyperbole... but not so far from truth.
In 9th the percentage of the SM dex which can make it onto a table against an experienced opponent, is actually quite scarce.
Thing is, these are only "trap" choices because of how many good units marines have access to.
Once you place them in another codex it's different. Reivers, if placed in the Ork codex, would basically be mega-armored kommando nobz with superior movement. They'd be an incredibly potent and versatile unit which had a combination of durability, movement, deployment shenanigans, and damage output. Even Assault Marines would be solid in other codex's.
Which is the entire point. While other armies are having their options slashed, receiving no releases, and being given plenty of gimp stuff... Marines have multiple squads which all accomplish the same thing, with the worst of them merely being "bad by marine standards," which still puts them head-and-shoulders above what other armies have access to.
Talk about being dishonest.
Many of those SM units, if they were in the nid codex I would never look at them.
Why would I ever take an assault intercessor when a warrior with swords is better under every single aspect? Seriously, look at it! One more attack instead of having it only in shock assault, one more AP, immune to morale (and provides synapse), hinders enemy psykers, better defensive profile, huge stratagem support... and we are talking about a warrior build which is considered a bad one!
Scouts? Really? For little more than 2 scouts I can take a lictor!
Assault squads good in other factions? Then raveners must look horribly OP to you.
And I mean, we are talking about the nid codex here! Which isn't exactly boasting excellent profiles, right now we live on scoring tricks and FW beasts.
Marines are full of good tools, but saying that their bad choices would be good in other codici, means that you have to take off your SMOP tainted googles.
Okay, I don't disagree with you on the Warrior/Lictor comparison, but you've got to explain how the hell a Ravener is better than anything lol (or at least what you're comparing it to, and why that unit somehow dies even faster than Raveners do)
SemperMortis wrote: Somewhat telling that you are shown that Dreadnoughts are better than their non-SM competition and you respond with "yeah they don't have updates yet" and "But ghaz can kill a dread".
So your argument is that when those factions get their release their dread equivalents will be as good as dreadnoughts and that Orkz should be happy that their 1 off LoW, 300pt special character can kill a 120pt dread easily...mind you only in close combat.
Well lets do a rewind to 8th edition, were Dreadnoughts better than DeffDreadz than? Yep, and by a long shot how about in 7th? yep...hmm, so its almost like the edition doesn't matter....
A deffdread has worse shooting options by far, is less accurate and when it finally gets into CC isn't all that much better than a normal SM Dread. So yes, it is better than its orky counterpart and yet Marine players complain that its a "Trap" because they have options which make this one look like garbage. So its a trap in the sense that there are better options because SM's have more codex options than any other 2 factions combined LOL.
Yet, as of the end of January, Orks are more highly rated than any space except White Scars, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels and easily hold an above-average position in the tournament meta. Yes, Orks have more internal balance issues than some other factions but you don't solve that by going down the list and making sure that each faction's ~100 point walkers/MCs are equal to one another.
And we keep pointing out that Win/Loss isn't a useful stat, hell I literally posted a GT where space marines had 3 of the top 4 placings and 5 of the top 8 and BARELY had more wins than losses across the entire faction at the tournament. Space Marines are the entry level army and generally speaking have some of the newest (read that as, bad) players. And if you are talking about tiers for orkz, most tier rankings have orkz as middle of the pack where as most space marine chapters are higher than that.
Also, I really want you to explain to me how orkz have "internal balance issues" specifically in relation to Deff Dreadz and how that internal balance isn't more apparent in Codex: Space Marines where they have literally 3-4 options for every option orkz have.
Internal balance means that units inside the codex aren't balanced against one another and you have no brainer choices. External balance would be the codex itself is weak against other codexs...keeping in mind i am talking specifically about dreads in this instance. In this instance I think the deffdread/Dreadnought debate is an issue with EXTERNAL not internal balance.
SemperMortis wrote: And we keep pointing out that Win/Loss isn't a useful stat, hell I literally posted a GT where space marines had 3 of the top 4 placings and 5 of the top 8 and BARELY had more wins than losses across the entire faction at the tournament. Space Marines are the entry level army and generally speaking have some of the newest (read that as, bad) players.
If you want to assert that SM are god-tier and only brought down due to bad players and mirror matches then find the evidence and show your work. I'd be shocked if they had that many more new players at tournaments than any other faction has.
And if you are talking about tiers for orkz, most tier rankings have orkz as middle of the pack where as most space marine chapters are higher than that.
Most? Which ones? The one I'm quoting is from the Goonhammer article I posted a ways back shows them as being well above the midpoint in terms of power and normalizes for wins against weaker armies
Also, I really want you to explain to me how orkz have "internal balance issues" specifically in relation to Deff Dreadz and how that internal balance isn't more apparent in Codex: Space Marines where they have literally 3-4 options for every option orkz have.
Orkz have a larger distance between their tournament-viable units and their bad units than Marines have. Most bad Marine units are still somewhat playable at a casual level even if they're not good, whereas the Ork codex has stuff like grots, killa kanz, and squig buggies stinking up the joint; even deff dreads aren't seeing any tournament play among skilled players and they're probably close to the average power of that codex. That's what I mean by internal balance issues.
Spoletta wrote: Scouts too are very trappy, but indeed SM entries are more Timmy than trap, you are right in that.
The problem with SM in 8th was that it was said that you could take random units in a list and it would be a competitive list. Now, that was clearly an hyperbole... but not so far from truth.
In 9th the percentage of the SM dex which can make it onto a table against an experienced opponent, is actually quite scarce.
Thing is, these are only "trap" choices because of how many good units marines have access to.
Once you place them in another codex it's different. Reivers, if placed in the Ork codex, would basically be mega-armored kommando nobz with superior movement. They'd be an incredibly potent and versatile unit which had a combination of durability, movement, deployment shenanigans, and damage output. Even Assault Marines would be solid in other codex's.
Which is the entire point. While other armies are having their options slashed, receiving no releases, and being given plenty of gimp stuff... Marines have multiple squads which all accomplish the same thing, with the worst of them merely being "bad by marine standards," which still puts them head-and-shoulders above what other armies have access to.
Talk about being dishonest.
Many of those SM units, if they were in the nid codex I would never look at them.
Why would I ever take an assault intercessor when a warrior with swords is better under every single aspect? Seriously, look at it! One more attack instead of having it only in shock assault, one more AP, immune to morale (and provides synapse), hinders enemy psykers, better defensive profile, huge stratagem support... and we are talking about a warrior build which is considered a bad one!
Scouts? Really? For little more than 2 scouts I can take a lictor!
Assault squads good in other factions? Then raveners must look horribly OP to you.
And I mean, we are talking about the nid codex here! Which isn't exactly boasting excellent profiles, right now we live on scoring tricks and FW beasts.
Marines are full of good tools, but saying that their bad choices would be good in other codici, means that you have to take off your SMOP tainted googles.
Okay, I don't disagree with you on the Warrior/Lictor comparison, but you've got to explain how the hell a Ravener is better than anything lol (or at least what you're comparing it to, and why that unit somehow dies even faster than Raveners do)
In that case it was in relation to assault squads An assault squad with jetpack costs the same as a ravener. They both deepstrike and have the same speed. Assault marines have a slight advantage on mobility thanks to fly, yet they are both infantry so fly is only marginally useful. Also, the assault marines have a slightly better defensive profile at 2W 3+ vs the 3W 5+ of the ravener. The difference in offensive power between the two though is staggering.
Yeah, raveners are not exactly a great unit, but that just shows how bad are assault squads.
Of course Space Marines have more newer, more casual players at events than any other faction. They're the most popular army and the easiest to collect.
Ever notice how Necron numbers in tournies shot up recently? Almost like a ton of new, easily collectible, affordable releases came out for the army.
Ever notice how Ynnari lists were like 0.5% of total tournament numbers or how Harlequins are pretty much the same right now? Despite being incredibly strong? Almost like they're difficult armies to collect and not ones that new players gravitate towards.
Bosskelot wrote: Of course Space Marines have more newer, more casual players at events than any other faction. They're the most popular army and the easiest to collect.
Bosskelot wrote: Of course Space Marines have more newer, more casual players at events than any other faction. They're the most popular army and the easiest to collect.
If it's so obvious prove it.
Build any other list and an SM one, compare:
Model count.
Price total.
Availability in bundles.
Models to paint.
Material of models
Forgiving ruleset Attributed to faction.
Model count.
Price total.
Availability in bundles.
Models to paint.
Material of models
Forgiving ruleset Attributed to faction.
None of that is proof. That's a hypothesis at best, now you need to gather data and test it.
Well gw doesn't Breakdown sales but:
beyond general sales we don't get much from gw, unless you Check the Hard data released by it from chapterhouse lawsuit.
There's also statements from gw officials f.e. which paint a picture but incomplete one f.e. in regards to tacs outselling any other kit.
Or Trends in regards to rules and subsequent massive Spikes in competitve or slow increases , e.g. Space marines turning good meant massive Space marines attendance compared to slow(er) increases of other factions with decent rules..
Bosskelot wrote: Of course Space Marines have more newer, more casual players at events than any other faction. They're the most popular army and the easiest to collect.
Not Online!!! wrote: beyond general sales we don't get much from gw, unless you Check the Hard data released by it from chapterhouse lawsuit.
There's also statements from gw officials f.e. which paint a picture but incomplete one f.e. in regards to tacs outselling any other kit.
Or Trends in regards to rules and subsequent massive Spikes in competitve or slow increases , e.g. Space marines turning good meant massive Space marines attendance compared to slow(er) increases of other factions with decent rules..
Literally, none of that is proof.
If you want to show that the trends you claim exist, gather up the data, slap it on a graph, and show that SMs trend upwards at a rate that outpaces what we'd expect to see based on their overall popularity. Even then, those spike rates could be skewed as many players will have a secondary SM army so when the rules are good it's easier to bust that army out and shelve your other force(s). So you'd need to show that these spikes are driven by new/casual players and to do that you need to know who those players are, what their records are, and what they play. Marines will have the most players, in general, playing them and thus the most new players as well so rather than showing that you'd need to show that they make up a greater percentage of the marine player base than they do in other factions.
Then, because you now have the data for what percentage of each faction is played by casual/new players you can create a conversion factor and show corrected win-rates for all factions. This would prove your point.
Canadian 5th wrote:If you want to assert that SM are god-tier and only brought down due to bad players and mirror matches then find the evidence and show your work. I'd be shocked if they had that many more new players at tournaments than any other faction has.
Reading the thread tends to answer context questions like yours. You should try that sometime.
Not Online!!! wrote: beyond general sales we don't get much from gw, unless you Check the Hard data released by it from chapterhouse lawsuit.
There's also statements from gw officials f.e. which paint a picture but incomplete one f.e. in regards to tacs outselling any other kit.
Or Trends in regards to rules and subsequent massive Spikes in competitve or slow increases , e.g. Space marines turning good meant massive Space marines attendance compared to slow(er) increases of other factions with decent rules..
Literally, none of that is proof.
If you want to show that the trends you claim exist, gather up the data, slap it on a graph, and show that SMs trend upwards at a rate that outpaces what we'd expect to see based on their overall popularity. Even then, those spike rates could be skewed as many players will have a secondary SM army so when the rules are good it's easier to bust that army out and shelve your other force(s). So you'd need to show that these spikes are driven by new/casual players and to do that you need to know who those players are, what their records are, and what they play. Marines will have the most players, in general, playing them and thus the most new players as well so rather than showing that you'd need to show that they make up a greater percentage of the marine player base than they do in other factions.
Then, because you now have the data for what percentage of each faction is played by casual/new players you can create a conversion factor and show corrected win-rates for all factions. This would prove your point.
I don't need to , i am not the one that claimed it, however i have bothered to give a potential answer as to why it could be.
Space Marines are simply easy to collect due to the amount of Space Marines that have been historically been put into dual boxes on top of being in every single starter. As well as having quite a few Combat Patrol boxes that are very generic despite their sub-faction insignia.
Putting the Indomitus box aside I would say that this is the first edition that starters aren't chuck full of easy to collect standard Space Marine warriors.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't need to , i am not the one that claimed it, however i have bothered to give a potential answer as to why it could be.
So you're going to dispute hard numbers as presented by sites such as Goonhammer and 40k stats by shrugging and going, "I 'unno, these wild ass guesses seem right so you must be wrong." That's hardly convincing.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't need to , i am not the one that claimed it, however i have bothered to give a potential answer as to why it could be.
So you're going to dispute hard numbers as presented by sites such as Goonhammer and 40k stats by shrugging and going, "I 'unno, these wild ass guesses seem right so you must be wrong." That's hardly convincing.
None of which is here.
Is focussed on comp.
But sure Buddy you of all people know what is up with the casual meta
But sure Buddy you of all people know what is up with the casual meta
Given that this line of conversation started with:
Me wrote:Yet, as of the end of January, Orks are more highly rated than any space except White Scars, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels and easily hold an above-average position in the tournament meta. Yes, Orks have more internal balance issues than some other factions but you don't solve that by going down the list and making sure that each faction's ~100 point walkers/MCs are equal to one another.
SemperMortis wrote:And we keep pointing out that Win/Loss isn't a useful stat, hell I literally posted a GT where space marines had 3 of the top 4 placings and 5 of the top 8 and BARELY had more wins than losses across the entire faction at the tournament. Space Marines are the entry level army and generally speaking have some of the newest (read that as, bad) players.
Me wrote:If you want to assert that SM are god-tier and only brought down due to bad players and mirror matches then find the evidence and show your work. I'd be shocked if they had that many more new players at tournaments than any other faction has.
ccs wrote: Well the only one of those that can't be proven is the # of new casual SM players at tourneys. Not even GW could prove that.
That rather hurts the assertion that SM win-rates are skewed due to these masses of new/casual players then, doesn't it? Also, if anybody cared to poll such stats at tournaments we could hand out sheets with questions like:
1) How many years have you been playing this game for?
1a) Have you played other war games before getting into 40k? If so, did you play them competitively?
2) How many tournaments have you attended? Do you intend to enter more in the near future?
2a) If you have played in previous tournaments what was your record and how did you place?
3) Do you consider yourself a competitive player with an optimized list?
4) Which army are you playing in this event?
This would be enough to get a good idea of what the demographics at tournaments look like.
It's hard to argue that marine W/L rate isn't affected by a certain amount of new players.
It is also true though that such effect is often overstimated. To have an hint to that, let's look at the lists reported on 40k stats for the month of January.
10 ultramarines 10 white scars 7 salamanders 5 iron hands 4 black templars 4 raven guards 2 IF/CF
One data point we can use is that competitive players that go to an event and want to win, tend to faction hop to the best SM of the moment. New players are usually loyal to their favourite flavor.
From those lists, you can see that white scars, ultramarines and salamanders have more lists submitted than the other chapters. It also happens that ultramarines, white scares and salamanders were considered the best chapters in January. This points to a certain amount of faction hopping.
5 iron hands on the other hand tell us that there is still a good core of players loyal to their favourite chapter. Iron hands have not been winning anything for a good while. Part of that could be inertia from 8th though.
BA/DA/DW and SW were not considered, since faction hopping to and from those SM factions is much harder due to an high amount of specific datasheets.
Spoletta wrote: One data point we can use is that competitive players that go to an event and want to win, tend to faction hop to the best SM of the moment. New players are usually loyal to their favourite flavor.
I think its clear we saw competitive Marine players move around over the last 18+ months as new supplements/9th codex, FAQs and rules changes etc made certain flavours weaker or stronger.
No, I didn't take screenshots of this process, but we were all there.
Its why I find the idea that "Iron Hands" are as much a faction as Orks or Dark Eldar hard to credit. If that suite of perks isn't working for you just pick one of the others. That's largely what competitive players seem to do - they don't try and make "the best Imperial Fist army you can".
Which unfortunately means those people who are still keeping the yellow alive, are probably not the most competitively minded. And the win rates will represent that. (Realistically this is probably an issue for all factions - i.e. good players go for good factions, bad/disinterested players don't care, so things will tend to appear a bit more skewed than they actually are from purely win percentages. Which is why placing/winning tournaments is probably a better bar.)
Spoletta wrote: Actually a little more than that. SM have 11 factions, and the game totals 34 I think.
They are around 1/3 of the players.
Problem is that right now they are also way more than 1/3 of the releases.
1/3 players based on...what? Because there's 11 factions out of 34? That assumes there's as many harlequin players as IG or ultramarines...Which is obviously false.
Spoletta wrote: Actually a little more than that. SM have 11 factions, and the game totals 34 I think.
They are around 1/3 of the players.
Problem is that right now they are also way more than 1/3 of the releases.
1/3 players based on...what? Because there's 11 factions out of 34? That assumes there's as many harlequin players as IG or ultramarines...Which is obviously false.
Based on goonhammer data showing that currently about 1/3 of players are playing marines.
Compared to, reminder, 3% playing the strongest army atm by winrate (Harlequins)
And a lot of the worst trap units are that BECAUSE of changes GW put into the game IN ORDER TO SELL MORE MARINES.
Many marine vehicles are trap choices because if you take them someone will take eradicators or attack bikes or retributors or myphitic blight-haulers against them and blast them off the board instantly for a 120% points return and 3 BID points. Nice Land Raider idiot, GW had 3 new marine kits featuring multimeltas to sell so they casually tripled their damage output and didnt change their points costs.
I'm more of the mind that many vehicles are dodged, because they don't have anything to shoot. There's two dynamics that will change that. First, a re-emergence of knight heavy lists, which seems to be picking up steam due to very limited anti-tank. Second, armies like DG and DA suppressing the effectiveness of high strength/D2 weapons.
A Reaper does a fair bit of damage to gravis, hordes, and PMs. It is T8 and should be capable of hopping out from cover and getting the jump on things. It can survive a round from Eradicators even without smokescreen up.
If you want to assert that SM are god-tier and only brought down due to bad players and mirror matches then find the evidence and show your work. I'd be shocked if they had that many more new players at tournaments than any other faction has.
Where did I assert that SM were god tier? Stop building strawman arguments. However, I will gladly assert that Space Marines as a faction are doing significantly better than most and absolutely have their W/L dropped by new/bad players. Again this is evident by tournament results, you will have Space Marines in the top 4 and 8 at major tournaments and have at least as many in the bottom 4 and 8. A great example is the recent Hobart GT. 3 separate flavors of Space Marine finished 1st 2nd and 3rd. And guess what? Grand total they had 36 wins and 29 Losses. So lets see, that is a W/L of 55% The top 5 SM players who all finished in the top 8 had 19 wins and 6 losses or a W/L rate of 76% the bottom 5 SM players finished with a W/L rate of 9 wins and 16 losses or 36% and again, the tournament was 30 players with 13 being Space Marine, so mirror matches ABSOLUTELY happened.
So the question than becomes, if a faction taking all 3 medal positions in a GT isn't proof that the faction is doing amazing, what is? The fact is that W/L rate is USELESS as a stat, what is meaningful is Top 4 and Top 8 finishes, and Space Marines are doing great there.
And if you are talking about tiers for orkz, most tier rankings have orkz as middle of the pack where as most space marine chapters are higher than that.
Canadian 5th wrote: Most? Which ones? The one I'm quoting is from the Goonhammer article I posted a ways back shows them as being well above the midpoint in terms of power and normalizes for wins against weaker armies
Competitive 40k on Facebook has a bunch of posts regarding tiers, there's the BIF podcast which has ranked tiers, basically a host of places have tier lists, Goonhammer relies on a tournaments to come up with their rankings based on ....W/L and scoring. So they also don't take into account Top 4 and top 8 placings in tournaments. So go figure they agree with you
Also, I really want you to explain to me how orkz have "internal balance issues" specifically in relation to Deff Dreadz and how that internal balance isn't more apparent in Codex: Space Marines where they have literally 3-4 options for every option orkz have.
Canadian 5th wrote: Orkz have a larger distance between their tournament-viable units and their bad units than Marines have. Most bad Marine units are still somewhat playable at a casual level even if they're not good, whereas the Ork codex has stuff like grots, killa kanz, and squig buggies stinking up the joint; even deff dreads aren't seeing any tournament play among skilled players and they're probably close to the average power of that codex. That's what I mean by internal balance issues.
...That isn't internal balance that is external balance. A killakan and a deffdread aren't equal but they are close and deffdreadz and Mork/gorkanaughts are roughly in the same category as far as playability with the edge going to Naughts (points wise) so the internal balance is probably BETTER than the internal balance between low performing SM dread types and high performing SM Dread types.
yet again this is an example of SM's being basically +1 Thanks for confirming that.
SemperMortis wrote: Again this is evident by tournament results, you will have Space Marines in the top 4 and 8 at major tournaments and have at least as many in the bottom 4 and 8.
It's almost like being the faction with the highest level of representation will get you a spread of results at every tournament... However, you need to look deeper than that. Are the SM lists that are at the top playing the same sub-faction as those at the bottom? How many SM lists of each type attended and what percentage of the field were they? How did their spread compare to the spread for other factions? Where did they take their losses in the early or late rounds and against which factions?
A great example is the recent Hobart GT. 3 separate flavors of Space Marine finished 1st 2nd and 3rd. And guess what? Grand total they had 36 wins and 29 Losses.
You can't use single event results to prove a trend. You need to list every 9th edition tournament since the current codex dropped and then you can prove a trend.
So the question than becomes, if a faction taking all 3 medal positions in a GT isn't proof that the faction is doing amazing, what is?
That faction doing so consistently and disproportionately compared to their number of tournament entrants. You know, what Harlequins, Daemons, and DG have been doing.
Competitive 40k on Facebook has a bunch of posts regarding tiers, there's the BIF podcast which has ranked tiers, basically a host of places have tier lists, Goonhammer relies on a couple tournaments to come up with their rankings based on ....W/L and scoring. So they also don't take into account Top 4 and top 8 placings in tournaments. So go figure they agree with you
You claim to have all this data, why don't you bother, IDK, posting some of it for once?
...That isn't internal balance that is external balance. A killakan and a deffdread aren't equal but they are close and deffdreadz and Mork/gorkanaughts are roughly in the same category as far as playability with the edge going to Naughts (points wise) so the internal balance is probably BETTER than the internal balance between low performing SM dread types and high performing SM Dread types.
Why are you only wanting to compare Dreads in the codex? Shouldn't we be comparing them to every unit in their codex to get a delta between the units winning lists play most often, the units that losing lists play most often, and the units that never see play and using that to determine the state of a codex's internal balance?
It's almost like being the faction with the highest level of representation will get you a spread of results at every tournament... However, you need to look deeper than that. Are the SM lists that are at the top playing the same sub-faction as those at the bottom? How many SM lists of each type attended and what percentage of the field were they? How did their spread compare to the spread for other factions? Where did they take their losses in the early or late rounds and against which factions?
Highest level of spread, per 40k stats SM usually make up about 1/3rd of tournaments, per 40k stats the top lists are spread across several different chapters, as an example Hobart had SM finish 1st 2nd and 3rd, 2 space wolves and a ravenguard. Battle in the Bush also had 3 SM top 3 finishes blood angels, dark angels and white scars. So thats 6 total top 3 finishes in 2 events with only 1 SM Chapter being repeated, Space Wolves. But yet again, W/L doesn't matter compared to top finishes as a general statistic.
Canadian 5th wrote: You can't use single event results to prove a trend. You need to list every 9th edition tournament since the current codex dropped and then you can prove a trend.
I can and have used a number of events in the past to prove my point, you just seem to keep forgetting 40kstats records top 4 finishes, space marines are HEAVILY over represented if they are merely an "ok" faction. I believe they have 8 top 4 finishes in 6 tournaments on 40kstats website, sadly you have to manually go through and check since they don't keep the actual top4 section up to date.
Canadian 5th wrote: That faction doing so consistently and disproportionately compared to their number of tournament entrants. You know, what Harlequins, Daemons, and DG have been doing.
Ah, well if other groups are doing good as well that must completely disprove my point....ohh wait, that is a strawman.
Canadian 5th wrote: You claim to have all this data, why don't you bother, IDK, posting some of it for once?
I have done so in the past on this very subject and have done so again. simply to go 40k stats or FLG to confirm the numbers i have given, i tend to use only GT's and Majors for results because they reflect a bit better on the general state of the game rather than 6-12 person tournaments which tend to reflect the meta of the local gamestore.
Canadian 5th wrote: Why are you only wanting to compare Dreads in the codex? Shouldn't we be comparing them to every unit in their codex to get a delta between the units winning lists play most often, the units that losing lists play most often, and the units that never see play and using that to determine the state of a codex's internal balance?
Because the original post that started all of this was comparing SM Dreadnoughts to other factions equivalent units hence why I am comparing Dreads to dreads in terms of internal/external balance. If you wanted to compare complete internal to external balance of a faction and compare it against SM the likelihood is the SM will be better balanced because SM's don't tend to get trash units like the Stompa or Burna boyz for example.
SemperMortis wrote: Highest level of spread, per 40k stats SM usually make up about 1/3rd of tournaments, per 40k stats the top lists are spread across several different chapters, as an example Hobart had SM finish 1st 2nd and 3rd, 2 space wolves and a ravenguard. Battle in the Bush also had 3 SM top 3 finishes blood angels, dark angels and white scars. So thats 6 total top 3 finishes in 2 events with only 1 SM Chapter being repeated, Space Wolves. But yet again, W/L doesn't matter compared to top finishes as a general statistic.
You realize that SW wins don't change how BA wins are tabulated right? You can't just say SM is too strong and then lump them all together when nobody tracking stats in 40k is doing that.
Canadian 5th wrote: I can and have used a number of events in the past to prove my point, you just seem to keep forgetting 40kstats records top 4 finishes, space marines are HEAVILY over represented if they are merely an "ok" faction. I believe they have 8 top 4 finishes in 6 tournaments on 40kstats website, sadly you have to manually go through and check since they don't keep the actual top4 section up to date.
8 of 24 spots is bang on where they should be as 1/3rd of all factions. Also, which exact SM subfactions are picking up these wins? That also matters.
Canadian 5th wrote: Ah, well if other groups are doing good as well that must completely disprove my point....ohh wait, that is a strawman.
Not a strawman at all, I'm showing what a top tier faction should look like. Do the stats for Marines fit that same curve or are you going to insist that we throw out every bit of data that doesn't fit your model and then force your data to fit?
I have done so in the past on this very subject and have done so again. simply to go 40k stats or FLG to confirm the numbers i have given, i tend to use only GT's and Majors for results because they reflect a bit better on the general state of the game rather than 6-12 person tournaments which tend to reflect the meta of the local gamestore.
One link to 40k stats. You going to collate that data or do you expect me to do your job for you?
Because the original post that started all of this was comparing SM Dreadnoughts to other factions equivalent units hence why I am comparing Dreads to dreads in terms of internal/external balance.
Except that's not how codices are balanced. Necrons aren't a bad army because their Dreadnought equivalent is x% worse than SM Dreadnoughts, in fact, they're a good army because they have so many overlapping buffs. The same goes for Orkz.
The factions that are bad wouldn't become good even if their Dreadnoughts were equal to SM Dreadnoughts. They would see a winrate bump if those units are good enough and a list can be built around them but that won't change much.
Why does sub faction suddenly matter when we are talking about SM? Nobody looks at say Ork winrates/top placements and goes: "stop complaining guys it's just Goffs taking all those places, every other Ork army is fine". If SM are taking that many top placings something is wrong with their codex regardless of which color of SM is taking them.
Castozor wrote: Why does sub faction suddenly matter when we are talking about SM? Nobody looks at say Ork winrates/top placements and goes: "stop complaining guys it's just Goffs taking all those places, every other Ork army is fine". If SM are taking that many top placings something is wrong with their codex regardless of which color of SM is taking them.
It matters because of how the stats are counted. Also, why is getting 1/3rd of the top 4s when your army makes up 1/3rd of the field a sign that something is wrong? Should marines be nerfed so that they can be 1/3rd of the field and not take an equal share of the top places?
If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong. Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.
Castozor wrote: If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong. Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.
Then people need to buy and play Xenos and Chaos armies. As long as Marines are 30 to 40% of the meta they should be claiming 30 to 40% of the top places.
Castozor wrote: If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong. Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.
The Space Marines are an incredible bloated mess thanks to the Supplement system, but how do you go about addressing that? I can't imagine GW actually going and axing 11-12 supplements, including 4 they just released, until the eventual 10th edition reboot.
Castozor wrote: If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong. Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.
Then people need to buy and play Xenos and Chaos armies. As long as Marines are 30 to 40% of the meta they should be claiming 30 to 40% of the top places.
You realize that SW wins don't change how BA wins are tabulated right? You can't just say SM is too strong and then lump them all together when nobody tracking stats in 40k is doing that.
Ahh the old, subfactions are totally different than the main faction argument. When 90%+ of all units in BA and SW are the same as Codex:Space Marines I absolutely can. Hell, even individual units which are technically different are usually just a different name and different weapons load out, BAAL predator...exactly the same as a normal predator but with a special rule and twin assault cannons for its main gun.
If you want to follow this logical fallacy to its conclusion that means we need to break every faction up by its sub categories. So orkz now get a sub category for every kulture and eldar get one for every craftworld etc etc. Or, we can just stick with the common sense approach that we group all SM chapters together (mind You, i was still nice enough to exclude Grey Knights and Custodians which are....Space Marines, but they at least differ significantly and don't share 90% of models/units)
8 of 24 spots is bang on where they should be as 1/3rd of all factions. Also, which exact SM subfactions are picking up these wins? That also matters.
The argument was a strawman that you developed saying that SM weren't ...I think you said "God Tier" army. I pointed to the fact that they are winning 1/3rd of every tournament they enter, and posted 2 events where they swept 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. Anyone who understands competitive 40k (something you have admitted you don't understand since you don't play anymore) will tell you that the top couple of places are determined by a handful of dice rolls and realistically anyone in the top 8 was competing for the top spot in a 30 man tournament.
Regardless, I would agree with you that they are "bang on" where they should be IF every other faction was equally represented, the fact is they are not, SM's are "Bang on" where they need to be because they are steam rolling everyone else AND that is with most people list tailoring against them...you know, since they represent 1/3rd of the meta. I would argue that a 1/3rd tournament finish rate is amazing since everyone is gunning for them.
Canadian 5th wrote: Not a strawman at all, I'm showing what a top tier faction should look like. Do the stats for Marines fit that same curve or are you going to insist that we throw out every bit of data that doesn't fit your model and then force your data to fit?
100% a strawman Again, your point was that SM are not "God tier" or some other nonsense, others doing well is irrelevant to that point. In 7th edition SM, Tau and Eldar were on a Tier to themselves, yet they were still only winning about 1/3rd of the time, does that mean they weren't god tier? no.
Canadian 5th wrote: One link to 40k stats. You going to collate that data or do you expect me to do your job for you?
You mean like...I don't know....listing out wins/losses for tournaments and showing you how W/L ratio is irrelevant compared to placement? something like that? I assumed you had the wherewithal to be able to navigate to the other sources I mentioned without needing a link, if you really need a link to FLG let me know. As for tier lists, google will show you a bunch, ironically I do feel the need to share this one because its a bit funny, this is from 40k competitive group on facebook and has the results from over 1,200 participants. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=4037952019563066&set=gm.2664565170501021 Dark angels made the "God level" tier and Blood angels, Ultrasmurfs, Space furries, White scars and Salamanders made the 2nd highest group with Ravenguard, Imperial Fists, Black Templars, and Deathwatch considered Mid tier. By my math that is 6 factions of Space Marines in the top 2 tiers and 4 in the mid tier with NONE in the below average tiers.
I also want to take a second to point out that within each tier the factions are also ranked, So DA are ranked 2nd strongest in S Tier, White Scars and Blood Angels are ranked as 1st in 2nd within the 2nd tier, and the Mid tier is ranked with Raven guard as the strongest.
Canadian 5th wrote: Except that's not how codices are balanced. Necrons aren't a bad army because their Dreadnought equivalent is x% worse than SM Dreadnoughts, in fact, they're a good army because they have so many overlapping buffs. The same goes for Orkz.
Congrats on defending an argument NOBODY has made In case you forgot, YOU argued against the dreads post created by scots I believe. You ran to the defense of space marines when he pointed out that the Space Marine Dreadnought was better than its non SM counter-parts Here, let me refresh your memory.
The basic MM+CCW dreadnought fething wipes the floor with any of them effortlessly for a suspiciously similar (sometimes less lol Wraithlords...) point cost. But it's a 'trap option' lol...
I notice that you're mostly focusing on armies that have yet to be updated this edition.
You're also doing that thing you like to do in comparing units in a vacuum and ignoring the fact that, for example, Tyranids should be fielding hierodules instead of Fexes right now. Or that a C'Tan or Ghazkul will mince a Dread and ask for seconds.
So I pointed out that the dread has been superior for several editions compared to its orkish counterpart and here we are.
Canadian 5th wrote: The factions that are bad wouldn't become good even if their Dreadnoughts were equal to SM Dreadnoughts. They would see a winrate bump if those units are good enough and a list can be built around them but that won't change much.
Ah, thank you for completing another argument that again NOBODY made The Canadian 5th dubbed the Strawmen
Bud, SM are one of the best performing factions in the game right now, You would know this if you played or looked at the data besides W/L rate. You would also know that SM are the beginners army because of ease of access and massive marketing, you would see first hand how tournaments have players who show up for fun and newbies trying their hand and those poor guys get steam rolled. Don't take my word for it, someone who has been playing tournaments for years, take the word of all the posters here who also regularly go to tournaments around the world and say the exact same thing. 1 person is an anecdote, 10 is a trend you won't be able to deny that claim except by demanding an impossible level of evidence which you regularly do. "Show me proof that beginners go to tournaments" How do we do that exactly? Should I travel around the country collecting data just to win a useless debate with someone on the internet who doesn't even play the game anymore?
...Are you saying we should buy a product that doesn't exist, or give them money for a product we don't want?
You need to show interest in a faction or else the cycle continues. So yeah, if you want new models make sure those 25-year-old models move.
Hecaton wrote: If people buy the product what reason do they have to update it?
Ask Marine players about how it works. They buy products, they get the new products. It's the same with everything, Apple doesn't say the iPhone 11 sold well so we'll just not make the iPhone 12 this year, they say the iPhone 11 sold well let's see how many people we can get to buy a new phone next year too.
SemperMortis wrote: Ahh the old, subfactions are totally different than the main faction argument. When 90%+ of all units in BA and SW are the same as Codex:Space Marines I absolutely can. Hell, even individual units which are technically different are usually just a different name and different weapons load out, BAAL predator...exactly the same as a normal predator but with a special rule and twin assault cannons for its main gun.
If you want to follow this logical fallacy to its conclusion that means we need to break every faction up by its sub categories. So orkz now get a sub category for every kulture and eldar get one for every craftworld etc etc. Or, we can just stick with the common sense approach that we group all SM chapters together (mind You, i was still nice enough to exclude Grey Knights and Custodians which are....Space Marines, but they at least differ significantly and don't share 90% of models/units)
Except that this isn't how anybody who stat tracks 40k does things. So either you need to go through the data and apply your standards to it or you need to accept that a SW win counts as different than a BA win.
The argument was a strawman that you developed saying that SM weren't ...I think you said "God Tier" army. I pointed to the fact that they are winning 1/3rd of every tournament they enter, and posted 2 events where they swept 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. Anyone who understands competitive 40k (something you have admitted you don't understand since you don't play anymore) will tell you that the top couple of places are determined by a handful of dice rolls and realistically anyone in the top 8 was competing for the top spot in a 30 man tournament.
So yeah, those Marines could have as easily finished 6th, 7th, and 8th and nobody would bother bringing this tournament up. How does this help your case?
Regardless, I would agree with you that they are "bang on" where they should be IF every other faction was equally represented, the fact is they are not, SM's are "Bang on" where they need to be because they are steam rolling everyone else AND that is with most people list tailoring against them...you know, since they represent 1/3rd of the meta. I would argue that a 1/3rd tournament finish rate is amazing since everyone is gunning for them.
You do realize that if you nerf them it doesn't appreciably change how many players bring them to tournaments, it just means that those players don't get to win as the meta is still against them and now they don't have the buffs needed to count that effect. You can't just buff or nerf units in a vacuum, you need to base any changes on the actual meta and their predicted effects on said meta.
100% a strawman Again, your point was that SM are not "God tier" or some other nonsense, others doing well is irrelevant to that point. In 7th edition SM, Tau and Eldar were on a Tier to themselves, yet they were still only winning about 1/3rd of the time, does that mean they weren't god tier? no.
If they were winning a 1/3rd of the time without being 1/3rd of the field it absolutely makes them a god-tier army. In what world are two factions being 66% of the meta with like 10% of the entries not far worse than the current meta?
You mean like...I don't know....listing out wins/losses for tournaments and showing you how W/L ratio is irrelevant compared to placement? something like that?
Much like how a scientific paper isn't just a bunch of data you actually need to take the time to gather and format your data, explain why the data says what you claim it says, and then test to see if the experts agree with your view of things. If you want to claim that W/L data is meaningless PROVE IT.
I assumed you had the wherewithal to be able to navigate to the other sources I mentioned without needing a link,
"Yes your honor, I didn't bother bringing any evidence to court today because I assumed the jury would have the wherewithal to do their own research on the subject."
Just showing a bunch of lists proves nothing. I want the underlaying data for how these opinions were formed, exact meanings behind each tier and the thresholds for them, I'd also like to see the error bars and margine of error for these lists if at all possible. Otherwise these lists are just a circle jerk of what people lost to recently, people voting/making a list for memes, and are thus 100% meaningless.
Congrats on defending an argument NOBODY has made In case you forgot, YOU argued against the dreads post created by scots I believe. You ran to the defense of space marines when he pointed out that the Space Marine Dreadnought was better than its non SM counter-parts Here, let me refresh your memory.
<snip>
So I pointed out that the dread has been superior for several editions compared to its orkish counterpart and here we are.
Yes, and what was your point again? That Orkz needs their Deff Dreads buffed before they can be considered a good army, that Marines need nerfs, or is this just whinging for the sake of it?
Bud, SM are one of the best performing factions in the game right now, You would know this if you played or looked at the data besides W/L rate. You would also know that SM are the beginners army because of ease of access and massive marketing, you would see first hand how tournaments have players who show up for fun and newbies trying their hand and those poor guys get steam rolled. Don't take my word for it, someone who has been playing tournaments for years, take the word of all the posters here who also regularly go to tournaments around the world and say the exact same thing. 1 person is an anecdote, 10 is a trend you won't be able to deny that claim except by demanding an impossible level of evidence which you regularly do. "Show me proof that beginners go to tournaments" How do we do that exactly? Should I travel around the country collecting data just to win a useless debate with someone on the internet who doesn't even play the game anymore?
10 is still an anecdote. Hell every active member on Dakka is still an anecdote. Hit 5% of the player base reporting the same thing and we can talk trends.
Except that this isn't how anybody who stat tracks 40k does things. So either you need to go through the data and apply your standards to it or you need to accept that a SW win counts as different than a BA win.
So you have graduated from the logical fallacy of a Strawman and ran straight into the Argument from Authority. Congrats and this new fallacious argument. I do not give any merit to how others "track" their stats, and have shown how W/L is meaningless. "But muh speese mehreens only have a 50% W/L ratio!" cool story bud, still placing more than 1/3rd of the time.
So yeah, those Marines could have as easily finished 6th, 7th, and 8th and nobody would bother bringing this tournament up. How does this help your case?
Because those 5th-8th places usually contain at least 1-2 more space Marine lists Another wonderful example at the aforementioned Hobart tournament, Space Marines also held 7th and 8th place with white scars and Salamanders, which if my math serves me correctly would make it 5/8ths Space Marines. In fact, atm, 4 of the top 8 spots in ITC rankings belong to space marines.
You do realize that if you nerf them it doesn't appreciably change how many players bring them to tournaments, it just means that those players don't get to win as the meta is still against them and now they don't have the buffs needed to count that effect. You can't just buff or nerf units in a vacuum, you need to base any changes on the actual meta and their predicted effects on said meta.
YAY, another strawman, when you switched to Argument from Authority I was afraid you wouldn't keep firing off these Strawmen arguments. Show me exactly where I said "NERF ALL DA SPEESE MEHREENS!" in this thread. Ah, I haven't, I have only pointed out that they are doing extremely well for themselves you than jumped into assumption mode faster than you jump into strawman arguments.
Canadian 5th wrote: If they were winning a 1/3rd of the time without being 1/3rd of the field it absolutely makes them a god-tier army. In what world are two factions being 66% of the meta with like 10% of the entries not far worse than the current meta?
Woohoo! another strawman. I never claimed Harlies and custodes doing well was a good thing, in fact, I think for the most part custodes are doing too well while harlies need a slight nerf but are mostly doing well because they are anti-speese mehreens which benefits them greatly. Kind of like how the Ork tournament list is counter to most Space Marine lists because it spams cheap throw away infantry that most Space marine lists aren't built to handle.
Canadian 5th wrote: Much like how a scientific paper isn't just a bunch of data you actually need to take the time to gather and format your data, explain why the data says what you claim it says, and then test to see if the experts agree with your view of things. If you want to claim that W/L data is meaningless PROVE IT.
Just showing a bunch of lists proves nothing. I want the underlaying data for how these opinions were formed, exact meanings behind each tier and the thresholds for them, I'd also like to see the error bars and margine of error for these lists if at all possible. Otherwise these lists are just a circle jerk of what people lost to recently, people voting/making a list for memes, and are thus 100% meaningless.
10 is still an anecdote. Hell every active member on Dakka is still an anecdote. Hit 5% of the player base reporting the same thing and we can talk trends.
Pretty sure I answered these last 3 of yours with a statement that amounts to basically you demanding an impossible level of evidence that isn't available anywhere on the web. So what your defense amounts to is "spend tens of thousands of dollars flying around the country to EVERY GT and Major and interview every single attendee and get every single army list, compile them all into scientific paper and than maybe i'll believe you". There is probably over a million players in 40k right now, so all i have to do to convince you is interview 50k people? seems fair LMAO!
I'm sorry you stopped playing and haven't been to a tournament in like 4 editions or whenever you decided to stop playing, but that is the facts. I've played tournaments in 3 time zones across 5 states in 3 different regions of the US, I have been to dozens if not hundreds of tournaments and have not only played against these newbies but have talked with many of them as well as the players who show up to play their narrative army that they love. I played against a guy at a GT in 8th who loved his Imperial Fists Siege army based around Vindicator tanks, I know you stopped playing so i'll point out why that is terrible. The Vindicator used to get D6 shots a turn. 3 of them amounts to an average of 10-11 shots a turn, keep in mind this is 8th, so thats SHOTS not hits nor wounds. Basically i swamped his vehicles and destroyed his entire army by turn 3. Dude went 0 and 5 at the event but had a great time, and he is absolutely not the only guy like that running around GT's that I met
But, here is the kicker, every other tournament goer who has talked to you on here has said the exact same things, to my knowledge there aren't any frequent tournament attendees who disagree with what I have said on here. So its literally you with your opinion based on ZERO evidence and ZERO experience arguing a point against people who are literally going to these events all the time. But I know this won't satisfy you and you are going to hop onto your high horse yet again and demand we pull together a better scientific paper on why you are wrong than what doctoral candidates put out in their thesis papers. I'll put it bluntly, you are wrong
If I still had my university Dissertation on hand I could give you your coveted and fetishized data that W/L percentage is often misleading and usually meaningless, and that was based around SC2, not even Warhammer.
But really, you just need to actually engage and be familiar with any competitive game to know this is the case. There's a wealth of material written on this subject, especially when it concerns e-sports, but there's plenty on Warhammer too. If you were actually engaged and familiar with competitive 40k, which you have admitted you aren't, you would know this and would have read it. Top 4 or maybe even top 10 finishes are really the only concrete way to measure a factions relative power in this game, because as you somehow refuse to believe despite every competitive player telling you, the majority of tournament attendees are not hyper competitive in-it-to-win-it players. I was facing people playing all Primaris Imperial Fist armies in the middle of 8th tournaments for instance.
If you want data on this, just go and check tournament results. Scroll down to the bottom half of placings and see what armies are being run and what sorts of lists they're using. There's your fething proof.
Bosskelot wrote: Top 4 or maybe even top 10 finishes are really the only concrete way to measure a factions relative power in this game, because as you somehow refuse to believe despite every competitive player telling you, the majority of tournament attendees are not hyper competitive in-it-to-win-it players. I was facing people playing all Primaris Imperial Fist armies in the middle of 8th tournaments for instance.
Not to be whatever but wouldn't that skew the results if you have a mix of WAAC donkey-caves and casual playing in the same tourney??
I have zero skin in the competitive scene and it boggles the mind why anyone would play like that. That said, if everyone is bandying about hard data and taking that data as gospel, all the while the data has games that amount to pickup league vs Major League Baseball teams in it seems flawed.
If we were talking about something like the N.I.T.(March madness invitational) then you could correlate from a known dataset(i.e. all teams have a similar ability), not Joe Drukharilover vs nanavanti(or whomever, I don't know only know his name from the stupid metawatch article).
Otherwise SM take up waaaayyyyyyy too much of the design space available. I love my Salamanders, but not to the detriment of the rest.
Bosskelot wrote: Top 4 or maybe even top 10 finishes are really the only concrete way to measure a factions relative power in this game, because as you somehow refuse to believe despite every competitive player telling you, the majority of tournament attendees are not hyper competitive in-it-to-win-it players. I was facing people playing all Primaris Imperial Fist armies in the middle of 8th tournaments for instance.
Not to be whatever but wouldn't that skew the results if you have a mix of WAAC donkey-caves and casual playing in the same tourney??
I have zero skin in the competitive scene and it boggles the mind why anyone would play like that. That said, if everyone is bandying about hard data and taking that data as gospel, all the while the data has games that amount to pickup league vs Major League Baseball teams in it seems flawed.
If we were talking about something like the N.I.T.(March madness invitational) then you could correlate from a known dataset(i.e. all teams have a similar ability), not Joe Drukharilover vs nanavanti(or whomever, I don't know only know his name from the stupid metawatch article).
Otherwise SM take up waaaayyyyyyy too much of the design space available. I love my Salamanders, but not to the detriment of the rest.
Because the casual players will usually only be facing the true contenders in the early stages. Past the first 2 games, if you've won both of yours, you're more likely to start facing more serious resistance. (and this is to say nothing of ITC ranking and Seeded players etc.)
But you're right, it does skew the results. That's why looking at and relying completely upon absolute winrates in 40k is a flawed endeavour.
Also calling competitive players WAAC donkey-caves is pretty distasteful, shockingly ignorant and insulting to other hobbyists.
You do realize that it was to illustrate the wide spectrum of players at tourneys, which furthermore proved my point. I know plenty of people who play hard-core tourney lists but are not waac donkey-caves. The 2 are not mutually inclusive.
But it doesn't just skew win rates. It skews every other metric you could use to draw popularity or anything other than pure mathematical power.
Canadian is doing an argumentative trick by narrowing the field of discussion to an area he feels more confident he can win. He's made the entire thread become about tournament win rates and whether Space Marines are powerful on the table (an argument favoured by others like Irbis as well).
This is a trick, it cuts out questions about the releases and the fiction of the game and anything else that feeds into dissatisfaction with the Space Marine dominated status quo.
It's pointless to engage with someone who does this in internet arguments. They're not interested in engaging with you, only making you annoyed or "winning" by narrowing things down to an area where your argument is weaker.
Da Boss wrote: Canadian is doing an argumentative trick by narrowing the field of discussion to an area he feels more confident he can win. He's made the entire thread become about tournament win rates and whether Space Marines are powerful on the table (an argument favoured by others like Irbis as well).
This is a trick, it cuts out questions about the releases and the fiction of the game and anything else that feeds into dissatisfaction with the Space Marine dominated status quo.
It's pointless to engage with someone who does this in internet arguments. They're not interested in engaging with you, only making you annoyed or "winning" by narrowing things down to an area where your argument is weaker.
Are you sure he's aware he's doing this, like, maliciously? Yes, the Marine status quo is awful, and I imagine I'm missing a lot of history here, but I see a lot of people accusing each other of argumentative trickery and disingenuousness when really isn't it just kind of natural to press the points you think you can win on an internet board?
I like to assume people I'm talking to are intelligent enough to understand the other side and not misrepresent or twist things like this, so I tend to assume he is doing it knowingly. I guess you are right, he might not be doing it like that. I saw other comments basically saying that he does this to amuse himself, and he likes to laugh at non-Marine players who dislike the status quo, so I tend to suspect a less than innocent approach on his part. Which is a shame because sometimes he has good points, he had a good idea about how to fix Eldar to make them play better for example. And anyway, some people enjoy the argument and would have it no matter what.
This board has very little informative content (except for painting) and very little general knowledge about the game.
So you don't come here to get enlightened.
At the same time, GW would have to be extremely dumb to take ideas from this board, so we surely don't come here proposing ideas because we think that they could potentially get implemented.
The main reason most of dakkanauts are here, is to kill time and enjoy fruitless discussions
This board has very little informative content (except for painting) and very little general knowledge about the game.
Some of the tactics threads aren't too bad.
But yes. This is why I think "put everyone on ignore" isn't really an answer. If you don't like threads to the tune of "faction X is overpowered and overrepresented/no u", or "I like 5th edition pls bring it back/I'd rather eat my own face", I'm not sure why you'd stay.
Lol. Ok. I love hearing this competitive 40K!!!!
I love my hobby I think it’s great and like too attended events. But this is not a competitive thing people,, it’s adults playing with little bonhommes that we painted. Space marines are the most popular faction that’s why you see them the most, sorry people like em more then your Dark Eldar, deal with it, sorry if that sounds rude. But GW makes product that they want too sell. And marines players buy more models then players from other factions, I’m sure GW pays attention too this. They are a very successful company, the biggest guy on the block by far when you look at it without your TROLL eyes. So I’m sure they understand they customer base more then us. So if you don’t like that, just move on, put your BonHommes on eBay and let someone else enjoy them.
And wow this site is full a negative Nancy’s. lol.
If you just have negative gak too type, just don’t and go troll somewhere else.
dogboy311 wrote: Lol. Ok. I love hearing this competitive 40K!!!!
I love my hobby I think it’s great and like too attended events. But this is not a competitive thing people,, it’s adults playing with little bonhommes that we painted. Space marines are the most popular faction that’s why you see them the most, sorry people like em more then your Dark Eldar, deal with it, sorry if that sounds rude. But GW makes product that they want too sell. And marines players buy models for whatever reason they want.
yeah. we know?
Your argument has no basis because its arguing against something none of us has said.
Da Boss wrote:Canadian is doing an argumentative trick by narrowing the field of discussion to an area he feels more confident he can win. He's made the entire thread become about tournament win rates and whether Space Marines are powerful on the table (an argument favoured by others like Irbis as well).
This is a trick, it cuts out questions about the releases and the fiction of the game and anything else that feeds into dissatisfaction with the Space Marine dominated status quo.
CEO Kasen wrote:Are you sure he's aware he's doing this, like, maliciously?
Canadian 5th hasn't played 9th and has some very weird takes on the game born from what seems like a hyper-competitive attitude, so I wouldn't take it as a malicious redirection of the thread so much as blithely hijacking it for his personal hobby of arguing about tournament stats.
Castozor wrote: If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong.
Interesting way to look at the situation.
So, in an ideal world, every faction would have the same number of models (or close to it?) How about Custodes / Chaos Knights / Grey Knights?
Castozor wrote: Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.
I wonder how the number of people playing Space Marines, historically, compares with the number of people playing Xenos factions.
Anecdotally, I helped manage a FLGS for a couple years. For the 40k stuff, a lot of Xenos stuff sold around the time 6th edition Tau and Eldar Codexes were released. Outside of that, we mostly sold Imperial stuff (Space Marines and Guard.)
While this should not be taken as proof of anything, my impression was there's larger demand for Imperial factions, at least for first time players. The demand for Xenos stuff was greater amongst people starting their second army, which was a smaller number.
dogboy311 wrote: I’m sure GW pays attention too this. They are a very successful company, the biggest guy on the block by far when you look at it without your TROLL eyes. So I’m sure they understand they customer base more then us. So if you don’t like that, just move on, put your BonHommes on eBay and let someone else enjoy them.
I had to do a double take when I read this, and yep, brand new poster. GW has historically NOT paid attention to his customer base nor understood them. Hell, they didn't even start selling basic things like T-shirts and stuff until very recently. They were literally known as one of the least responsive companies in the games industry, as proven by their sheer lack of Feths to give when asked for rules clarifications "We are a model company not a game company" or some such nonsense. Some broken rules went YEARS without getting fixed in prior editions. As it stands they push out a rules fix and a points adjustment once a year and get an extra FAQ out for new releases. For a lot of companies this would be considered the bare minimum, but for GW this is literally light years better than they used to be. Generally speaking I have anecdotally seen a LOT of players LOVE the game but hate the company. 40k is just about the best IP out there right now, but that has more to do with the original concept rather than how the company was run for the last few decades. Put it this way, if a MMORPG like World of Warcraft ran their game like GW has historically run 40k, they would be out of business and Lineage2 or some other MMORPG would have taken over as the dominant game.
SemperMortis wrote: Hell, they didn't even start selling basic things like T-shirts and stuff until very recently.
I still have GW shirts from the 90s. 3 with logos and 1 with Abaddon.
It's a practice that comes and goes.
Should have clarified, they haven't sold merchandise regularly until very recently, not so much a practice that comes and goes as much as "were you lucky to catch it" back in the day
SemperMortis wrote: So you have graduated from the logical fallacy of a Strawman and ran straight into the Argument from Authority. Congrats and this new fallacious argument. I do not give any merit to how others "track" their stats, and have shown how W/L is meaningless. "But muh speese mehreens only have a 50% W/L ratio!" cool story bud, still placing more than 1/3rd of the time.
My argument is that the data we have isn't organized to easily see if your claim is supported. So you need to organize the data and present your case before we can evaluate the truth of your statements.
Because those 5th-8th places usually contain at least 1-2 more space Marine lists Another wonderful example at the aforementioned Hobart tournament, Space Marines also held 7th and 8th place with white scars and Salamanders, which if my math serves me correctly would make it 5/8ths Space Marines. In fact, atm, 4 of the top 8 spots in ITC rankings belong to space marines.
More anecdotes. Please put in the work to show that this is actually a trend and not just you cherry-picking tournaments that suit your narrative.
YAY, another strawman, when you switched to Argument from Authority I was afraid you wouldn't keep firing off these Strawmen arguments. Show me exactly where I said "NERF ALL DA SPEESE MEHREENS!" in this thread. Ah, I haven't, I have only pointed out that they are doing extremely well for themselves you than jumped into assumption mode faster than you jump into strawman arguments.
So what's your argument then? Space Marines are taking their expected number of places in the top 4 based on your own numbers which shows that they're balanced, not that they're over-tuned.
Woohoo! another strawman. I never claimed Harlies and custodes doing well was a good thing, in fact, I think for the most part custodes are doing too well while harlies need a slight nerf but are mostly doing well because they are anti-speese mehreens which benefits them greatly. Kind of like how the Ork tournament list is counter to most Space Marine lists because it spams cheap throw away infantry that most Space marine lists aren't built to handle.
Every good list plays to the meta unless it becomes so powerful that it becomes the meta. This isn't news and proves nothing.
Pretty sure I answered these last 3 of yours with a statement that amounts to basically you demanding an impossible level of evidence that isn't available anywhere on the web. So what your defense amounts to is "spend tens of thousands of dollars flying around the country to EVERY GT and Major and interview every single attendee and get every single army list, compile them all into scientific paper and than maybe i'll believe you". There is probably over a million players in 40k right now, so all i have to do to convince you is interview 50k people? seems fair LMAO!
So you have no proof and will continue to rely on cherry-picked anecdotes while claiming that your numbers are true and have meaning while any numbers I pick are somehow wrong because the handful of tournaments you attend make you an expert. Your unproven hundreds of tournaments mean nothing as they're still just an anecdote and represent only a bare fraction of the tournament games played at that tournament let alone every tournament worldwide that also ran that same day/weekend. Your stories aren't and never will be proof.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: If I still had my university Dissertation on hand I could give you your coveted and fetishized data that W/L percentage is often misleading and usually meaningless, and that was based around SC2, not even Warhammer.
SC2, you mean a joke of an e-sport with a tiny player base and massive skill gaps between players? Try analyzing something that people actual play with good players from more than one region rather than a failed esport that allowed Koreans to qualify in every region because the game never took off in Europe or NA.
But really, you just need to actually engage and be familiar with any competitive game to know this is the case. There's a wealth of material written on this subject, especially when it concerns e-sports, but there's plenty on Warhammer too. If you were actually engaged and familiar with competitive 40k, which you have admitted you aren't, you would know this and would have read it.
If it's so common why is it so hard for you to link to any of it?
Top 4 or maybe even top 10 finishes are really the only concrete way to measure a factions relative power in this game, because as you somehow refuse to believe despite every competitive player telling you, the majority of tournament attendees are not hyper competitive in-it-to-win-it players. I was facing people playing all Primaris Imperial Fist armies in the middle of 8th tournaments for instance.
That's not what I'm arguing though. I'm arguing that these players play Space Marines to a greater extent than they play other factions and that they do so to such a degree that the skew SM win-rate stats compared to those same stats for other factions. This is what needs proving, not that casual players attend tournaments.
If you want data on this, just go and check tournament results. Scroll down to the bottom half of placings and see what armies are being run and what sorts of lists they're using. There's your fething proof.
Why is it my job to go do that? If it's so obvious you should be able to comb the data and present an argument that doesn't require the reader to do your work for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: But you're right, it does skew the results. That's why looking at and relying completely upon absolute winrates in 40k is a flawed endeavour.
Also calling competitive players WAAC donkey-caves is pretty distasteful, shockingly ignorant and insulting to other hobbyists.
You can correct for this issue by placing a higher weight on games played deeper into tournaments. This is one of the things that Goonhammers method has sought to do by assigning wins against different factions different values and using that to rank armies. Or is this still not good enough because...
"YAY, another strawman, when you switched to Argument from Authority I was afraid you wouldn't keep firing off these Strawmen arguments. Show me exactly where I said "NERF ALL DA SPEESE MEHREENS!" in this thread. Ah, I haven't, I have only pointed out that they are doing extremely well for themselves you than jumped into assumption mode faster than you jump into strawman arguments.
So what's your argument then? Space Marines are taking their expected number of places in the top 4 based on your own numbers which shows that they're balanced, not that they're over-tuned.
"
There is no argument. The argument is that they don't like marines because marines get all the attention. They are just a dumb beginner army that only newbs play and they are so OP and easy to play that even a newb can win majors with them. These are facts Canadian - they aren't anecdotes.
Look dude. This is a fact. For the majority of 8th eddition marines of almost all types had aprox a 40-45% win rate. Which is phenomenally bad. It had 1 list archetype that worked and it got nerfed "Gman" while having lower win rates than other armies winning archetypes. At that time Ultramarines were consider "OP". LOL
Xenomancers wrote: "YAY, another strawman, when you switched to Argument from Authority I was afraid you wouldn't keep firing off these Strawmen arguments. Show me exactly where I said "NERF ALL DA SPEESE MEHREENS!" in this thread. Ah, I haven't, I have only pointed out that they are doing extremely well for themselves you than jumped into assumption mode faster than you jump into strawman arguments.
So what's your argument then? Space Marines are taking their expected number of places in the top 4 based on your own numbers which shows that they're balanced, not that they're over-tuned.
"
There is no argument. The argument is that they don't like marines because marines get all the attention. They are just a dumb beginner army that only newbs play and they are so OP and easy to play that even a newb can win majors with them. These are facts Canadian - they aren't anecdotes.
Look dude. This is a fact. For the majority of 8th eddition marines of almost all types had aprox a 40-45% win rate. Which is phenomenally bad. It had 1 list archetype that worked and it got nerfed "Gman" while having lower win rates than other armies winning archetypes. At that time Ultramarines were consider "OP". LOL
I'm confused by this post. From the lack of quote tags to the rambling paragraphs I have no idea who this is directed to or what case it seeks make.
SC2, you mean a joke of an e-sport with a tiny player base and massive skill gaps between players? Try analyzing something that people actual play with good players from more than one region rather than a failed esport that allowed Koreans to qualify in every region because the game never took off in Europe or NA.
Holy gak dude, 2 things. First, POT, MEET KETTLE -- you're over here asking for "PROOFS!!!!1!!!!1" on everything and you just throw this little canard out there about SC2 skill gaps with nothing to back it up? Second (and more importantly)... you really think SC2 has fewer players than 40k?! Maybe I'm off-base, but even if SC2 underperformed expectations, the barrier of entry is so, so much lower to play than 40k; and in general, video games/e-sports seem much more popular than tabletop games (I will acknowledge that that's speculation and assert no fact here.) In any case, especially if we look at competitive community size, competitive tabletop is much smaller than competitive e-sports (pick SC2, pick LoL, whatever).
Xenomancers wrote: "YAY, another strawman, when you switched to Argument from Authority I was afraid you wouldn't keep firing off these Strawmen arguments. Show me exactly where I said "NERF ALL DA SPEESE MEHREENS!" in this thread. Ah, I haven't, I have only pointed out that they are doing extremely well for themselves you than jumped into assumption mode faster than you jump into strawman arguments.
So what's your argument then? Space Marines are taking their expected number of places in the top 4 based on your own numbers which shows that they're balanced, not that they're over-tuned.
"
There is no argument. The argument is that they don't like marines because marines get all the attention. They are just a dumb beginner army that only newbs play and they are so OP and easy to play that even a newb can win majors with them. These are facts Canadian - they aren't anecdotes.
Look dude. This is a fact. For the majority of 8th eddition marines of almost all types had aprox a 40-45% win rate. Which is phenomenally bad. It had 1 list archetype that worked and it got nerfed "Gman" while having lower win rates than other armies winning archetypes. At that time Ultramarines were consider "OP". LOL
I'm confused by this post. From the lack of quote tags to the rambling paragraphs I have no idea who this is directed to or what case it seeks make.
The point is they hate marines to the core. They will ignore all the data that proves your point and pick data they like to support their opinions.
SC2, you mean a joke of an e-sport with a tiny player base and massive skill gaps between players? Try analyzing something that people actual play with good players from more than one region rather than a failed esport that allowed Koreans to qualify in every region because the game never took off in Europe or NA.
Holy gak dude, 2 things. First, POT, MEET KETTLE -- you're over here asking for "PROOFS!!!!1!!!!1" on everything and you just throw this little canard out there about SC2 skill gaps with nothing to back it up? Second (and more importantly)... you really think SC2 has fewer players than 40k?! Maybe I'm off-base, but even if SC2 underperformed expectations, the barrier of entry is so, so much lower to play than 40k; and in general, video games/e-sports seem much more popular than tabletop games (I will acknowledge that that's speculation and assert no fact here.) In any case, especially if we look at competitive community size, competitive tabletop is much smaller than competitive e-sports (pick SC2, pick LoL, whatever).
Sc2 is so incredibly hard. There are maybe 500 players in the world that can compete at the top level. It requires super human levels of concentration a conditioning.
40k on the other hand is a simple game. I could teach a new player how to beat a "pro player" in a few weeks of game play.
dogboy311 wrote: I’m sure GW pays attention too this. They are a very successful company, the biggest guy on the block by far when you look at it without your TROLL eyes. So I’m sure they understand they customer base more then us. So if you don’t like that, just move on, put your BonHommes on eBay and let someone else enjoy them.
I had to do a double take when I read this, and yep, brand new poster. GW has historically NOT paid attention to his customer base nor understood them. Hell, they didn't even start selling basic things like T-shirts and stuff until very recently. They were literally known as one of the least responsive companies in the games industry, as proven by their sheer lack of Feths to give when asked for rules clarifications "We are a model company not a game company" or some such nonsense. Some broken rules went YEARS without getting fixed in prior editions. As it stands they push out a rules fix and a points adjustment once a year and get an extra FAQ out for new releases. For a lot of companies this would be considered the bare minimum, but for GW this is literally light years better than they used to be. Generally speaking I have anecdotally seen a LOT of players LOVE the game but hate the company. 40k is just about the best IP out there right now, but that has more to do with the original concept rather than how the company was run for the last few decades. Put it this way, if a MMORPG like World of Warcraft ran their game like GW has historically run 40k, they would be out of business and Lineage2 or some other MMORPG would have taken over as the dominant game.
Why because I’m not on the I hate GW train. I’ve played for years man. And have never had any issues with the game, or the company for that matter, maybe it’s because I understand it’s a game of plastic toy soldiers. Also again you have the choice too play this game, or too not play this game. People like the way the company works and have for years, or it would have failed a long time ago. Sorry you don’t like it, then quit, it’s an easy solution.
dogboy311 796430 11066407 wrote:Why because I’m not on the I hate GW train. I’ve played for years man. And have never had any issues with the game, or the company for that matter, maybe it’s because I understand it’s a game of plastic toy soldiers. Also again you have the choice too play this game, or too not play this game. People like the way the company works and have for years, or it would have failed a long time ago. Sorry you don’t like it, then quit, it’s an easy solution.
but if you pay for GW models shouldn't you expect a similar quality of product for similar money? It should not be okey that spending 900$ on one army gives you 3 years of fun, while spending the same on the other does not.
I'd say it is more likely that people have little to no idea how the country works. Most people don't pay that much attention to the products they're buying.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Holy gak dude, 2 things. First, POT, MEET KETTLE -- you're over here asking for "PROOFS!!!!1!!!!1" on everything and you just throw this little canard out there about SC2 skill gaps with nothing to back it up?
"In sum, Korea in the late 2000s was ahead of every other region in terms of developing and growing the very best real-time strategy players. This advantage extended into StarCraft II, with Korean professionals dominating the early days of the game. In 2013, 74% of all prize money flowed to Korean players. The WCS Premiere League that same year - ostensibly featuring separate regions for NA, EU and KR - sent half- or majority-Korean squads from America and Europe in every single season."
"Interestingly, foreigners' larger share of the global prize pool did not coincide with significantly better win rates against their Korean counterparts. In 2013, the top eight Korean players at Blizzcon - sOs, Jaedong, Maru, Bomber, Soulkey, Polt, Dear, and duckdeok - collectively went 82-14 in offline matches against foreigners, translating to an 85% win rate. The corresponding group in 2018 - Maru, Classic, Stats, Zest, TY, Rogue, Dark, and sOs - went 134-33, a fairly similar 80% win rate.
Anecdotal evidence in 2018 also suggested that the skills gap between foreigners and Koreans had not significantly changed. In 2018, Blizzard put on a tournament entitled "GSL vs. The World", in which foreign and Korean players competed head-to-head. While this was eventually won by a foreigner - Serral - three out of the top four finishers were Koreans. The Teams competition showed a similar result, in which Serral won his match while every other foreigner lost. Shortly afterward, Serral himself listed only Koreans when asked to name the next four best players in the world."
"The data shows that the best foreigners have closed the gap considerably with the Koreans. But it's noteworthy that only a handful of top-top players like Serral found consistent success: even Tier-1 foreigners struggle to break the 50% mark. For example, ASUS Assembly Summer 2019, held just weeks prior to GSL vs. The World, featured six Koreans in its round-of-8 in addition to an all-Korean finals. Furthermore, while a 30-40% win-rate against Koreans sounds like a pretty good number, it is in-line with the lifetime winrates of the historically best foreign players in the scene, including such greats as Stephano, Scarlett, NaNiwa, HuK, IdrA, and Snute."
I watched a lot of Pro-SCII myself before its English language coverage basically fell off a cliff. I know what I'm talking about here and have the sources to back myself up.
Second (and more importantly)... you really think SC2 has fewer players than 40k?!
I never said that. I was laughing at how small and imbalanced the SCII scene is compared to other current e-sports.
Look at LoL and you'll see a much more even global meta than what SCII and Broodwar have.
In any case, especially if we look at competitive community size, competitive tabletop is much smaller than competitive e-sports (pick SC2, pick LoL, whatever).
I suspect that this might not actually be true. Given how old SCII is, the skill it takes to play, and the tiny prize pools the scene can't be very large.
I'd need time to check player records and see how many of these players even hit top-32 at tournaments but for how accessible SCII is this is a tiny pool of pro players.
This list is likely just for 2021 and we all know what the tournament scene is like so it's probable that the 40k tournament scene is comparable to what SCII has.
***TRANSLATION*** you have no argument except to demand evidence that is literally unachievable by any person or group of people barring a major company like GW to collect and collate.
Honestly canadian, if you actually played the game let alone play tournaments you might be believed, but since you don't and have stated you haven't played for years your argument is reduced to demanding others either believe you or provide an amount of evidence that is simply not reasonable. You are wrong, everyone with the exception of Space Marine defenders like Xeno know you are wrong.
And xeno, bud, you aren't helping his case by trying to defend him with your own strawmen
SemperMortis wrote: ***TRANSLATION*** you have no argument except to demand evidence that is literally unachievable by any person or group of people barring a major company like GW to collect and collate.
If you wish to refute the Glicko scores* that Goonhammer uses to rank armies you're going to need to gather data and prove that they're wrong. Your anecdotes and suppositions are not a basis by which you can refute evidence-based claims.
Sorry Canadian, I think you need to offer proof of that. I expect you to personally conduct surveys of everyone involved in the Goonhammer scoring system to ensure there's no bias, as well as detailing exhaustively how they achieved their results.
JNAProductions wrote: Sorry Canadian, I think you need to offer proof of that. I expect you to personally conduct surveys of everyone involved in the Goonhammer scoring system to ensure there's no bias, as well as detailing exhaustively how they achieved their results.
For the system itself Glicko is well understood, so I need do nothing there:
As for Goonhammer's data they're transparent there as well:
"Thanks to the wonderful efforts of tournament organizers and app developers around the world, we have access to what is essentially every meaningful piece of data around competitive games of 40k. The data in this month’s study comes primarily from The ITC Battles App, a brilliant app for tracking games both in and out of tournaments. With tournament activity currently slowed in most areas thanks to the pandemic, we were still able to analyze data on nearly 4,000 games of Warhammer 40k played in January."
You can easily go and look at the data they had access to and see if it fits what's coming out of their model.
Unlike your anecdotes my data is transparent and available. Where is your data?
JNAProductions wrote: Sorry Canadian, I think you need to offer proof of that. I expect you to personally conduct surveys of everyone involved in the Goonhammer scoring system to ensure there's no bias, as well as detailing exhaustively how they achieved their results.
For the system itself Glicko is well understood, so I need do nothing there:
As for Goonhammer's data they're transparent there as well:
"Thanks to the wonderful efforts of tournament organizers and app developers around the world, we have access to what is essentially every meaningful piece of data around competitive games of 40k. The data in this month’s study comes primarily from The ITC Battles App, a brilliant app for tracking games both in and out of tournaments. With tournament activity currently slowed in most areas thanks to the pandemic, we were still able to analyze data on nearly 4,000 games of Warhammer 40k played in January."
You can easily go and look at the data they had access to and see if it fits what's coming out of their model.
Unlike your anecdotes my data is transparent and available. Where is your data?
Sorry that isn't enough, that is merely hearsay and a random statement with no bearing on fact or truth. We need you to go ahead and conduct those interviews, preferably live on air so we can watch as well and ask questions. until then your argument is invalid no matter how many links you provide.
SemperMortis wrote: Sorry that isn't enough, that is merely hearsay and a random statement with no bearing on fact or truth. We need you to go ahead and conduct those interviews, preferably live on air so we can watch as well and ask questions. until then your argument is invalid no matter how many links you provide.
I've provided concrete numbers, can you show me literally any data that you or JNA have provided that isn't an anecdote?
Keep in mind that I'm not the one who suggested that SM have a greater percentage of new/casual players than other factions and that this invalidates their w/l record. I brought up things based on data, you brought up a counterpointed based on nothing and have refused to do so much as look at the data you claim proves your point and summarize it. Instead, you've brought up tier lists, without actually linking to any of them or showing the methodology behind how they were created as if it were equivalent to what Goonhammer has done.
When the quality of data is limited and poor, then it is reasonable to make suppositions without data based on logical reasoning. We are not talking about a scientific paper here and the data collected from tournaments would not stand up to that standard of rigor in any case.
And you know that the data you are asking for does not exist, so what do you want to achieve with these demands? It's an unrealistic standard to hold other posters to.
SemperMortis wrote: Sorry that isn't enough, that is merely hearsay and a random statement with no bearing on fact or truth. We need you to go ahead and conduct those interviews, preferably live on air so we can watch as well and ask questions. until then your argument is invalid no matter how many links you provide.
I've provided concrete numbers, can you show me literally any data that you or JNA have provided that isn't an anecdote?
Keep in mind that I'm not the one who suggested that SM have a greater percentage of new/casual players than other factions and that this invalidates their w/l record. I brought up things based on data, you brought up a counterpointed based on nothing and have refused to do so much as look at the data you claim proves your point and summarize it. Instead, you've brought up tier lists, without actually linking to any of them or showing the methodology behind how they were created as if it were equivalent to what Goonhammer has done.
A system isn't hard numbers But what I did do was provide HARD numbers from 2 GTs which showed Space Marines of one flavor or another taking all 3 of the top placings AND which had further Marines in the top 8 and used that as justification to say that Marines are in a good place as one of the best factions in the game, I also provided feedback from over 1,200 individuals which said the same thing. All you did was provide a link to a website which agrees with you that W/L is relevant So, i'll be waiting for you to provide those interviews for us to cross examine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: When the quality of data is limited and poor, then it is reasonable to make suppositions without data based on logical reasoning. We are not talking about a scientific paper here and the data collected from tournaments would not stand up to that standard of rigor in any case.
And you know that the data you are asking for does not exist, so what do you want to achieve with these demands? It's an unrealistic standard to hold other posters to.
He knows, he also knows he was proven wrong by the community as a whole, but he wants to continue to argue and the only way he can logically do so is to demand an unreasonable amount of evidence.
Da Boss wrote: And you know that the data you are asking for does not exist, so what do you want to achieve with these demands? It's an unrealistic standard to hold other posters to.
Then retract the statement about Marine w/l records being meaningless or append the statement to make it clear that such a stance is purely opinion-based and not backed up by any meaningful data.
It shouldn't be required. And you'll have to define meaningful for me, I don't think I'd be accepting this data collection method as particularly valid for anything other than very limited analysis.
Also, I haven't made any such statements so it would be tricky for me to retract them.
SemperMortis wrote: A system isn't hard numbers But what I did do was provide HARD numbers from 2 GTs which showed Space Marines of one flavor or another taking all 3 of the top placings AND which had further Marines in the top 8 and used that as justification to say that Marines are in a good place as one of the best factions in the game, I also provided feedback from over 1,200 individuals which said the same thing. All you did was provide a link to a website which agrees with you that W/L is relevant So, i'll be waiting for you to provide those interviews for us to cross examine.
Wow, 2 whole GTs and statements from 1,200 players which is meaningless without any information as to why they submitted the feedback they did. That sure beats an article with transparent sources for the methodology and the data set used to generate their ratings... Not. Please back up your data by using at least as many games as Goonhammer did (~4,000) and with as much transparency as they did (a clearly explained methodology, explanations for why this works better than other systems, and updates monthly so we can continue to monitor the system to see if it fits reality). I'm able to provide that so why is making such a request of you unreasonable?
Da Boss wrote: It shouldn't be required. And you'll have to define meaningful for me, I don't think I'd be accepting this data collection method as particularly valid for anything other than very limited analysis.
You don't think ~4,000 games of publicly sourced tournament data is meaningful yet are willing to defend people who've brought even less data to the table? That seems rather unreasonable to me.
Also, I haven't made any such statements so it would be tricky for me to retract them.
I was replying with "what do you want to achieve with these demands" and figured you could use context to figure things out. I guess I overestimated you.
Well, you could have used the correct grammar to communicate what you were trying to say to prevent misunderstanding as is common when trying to communicate. But I guess you are operating on another level to me.
And the quality of data is about more than the number of data points available.
That said, it's better quality than any other available data, but I think it's not really the be all and end all of argument about something so trivial and in a statistical sense complex.
Da Boss wrote: .And the quality of data is about more than the number of data points available.
That said, it's better quality than any other available data, but I think it's not really the be all and end all of argument about something so trivial and in a statistical sense complex.
I've advocated for gathering better data and laid out ways I'd go about data collection and sorting if I were in charge of GW but alas we'll never get that. I'll keep following the data and hoping for improvement rather than being swayed by emotion and anecdote-driven arguments.
SC2, you mean a joke of an e-sport with a tiny player base and massive skill gaps between players? Try analyzing something that people actual play with good players from more than one region rather than a failed esport that allowed Koreans to qualify in every region because the game never took off in Europe or NA.
None of these things have any bearing on its status as a "Good" E-sport. In fact, my Dissertation was about how SC2 had failed as a competitive game in a lot of ways, specifically with regards to balance and how the supposed equal W/L percentages hid very real structural and core-design problems. In fact it was Blizzard's slavish fetishization of their W/L data that stopped them from making changes that needed to be made because they didn't perceive a problem (even though Terrans in the pro scene and at higher ranks on the Ladder were abandoning the race in ludicrous numbers to play Zerg instead)
In fact, with the numbers of pro players, the numbers of games being played and specifically all being played at incredibly high levels you could get a very good idea as to what SC2 was like. Trying to denigrate it by saying it was focused on one region is meaningless because that region was still a huge proportion of that games numbers. Do we discount Brood War from what counts as a "good" E-sport, despite it being the ur-example and universally agreed upon to have essentially popularized the whole concept in the first place? Because that was even more Korea-centric than its sequel. In fact, lets look at other e-sports like LoL. A massive game, featuring many different regio- oh wait Korea still wins everything in that game too. Huh. Almost like the infrastructure to train people to be professional e-sport athletes gives one region an edge over everyone else.
If we want to look at the topic of winrates again and how misleading they are we can look at Dota and how it's had periods of intense banning of overpowered or problematic heroes who, when they do make it through the pick-ban phase, end up not having spectacular winrates. This isn't because everyone misunderstands the game and the heroes, it's because when they were let through the opposing team had a plan to counter them completely and utterly, to the exclusion of everything else.
Then again, I don't know why I'm posting this or why this discussion is even being had. You've clearly shown yourself to be incredibly obtuse and ignorant to everyone who challenges you while having 0 direct experience of the issues being discussed. Hell, if we wanna go and rely on winrates again, last I checked Marines had 56% still.
Bosskelot wrote: In fact, my Dissertation was about how SC2 had failed as a competitive game in a lot of ways, specifically with regards to balance and how the supposed equal W/L percentages hid very real structural and core-design problems.
You mean to say that obsessing over basic statistics and methodologies might paint a misleading picture of the state of the game, especially if you don't actually play the game to know any better?
Bosskelot wrote: In fact, my Dissertation was about how SC2 had failed as a competitive game in a lot of ways, specifically with regards to balance and how the supposed equal W/L percentages hid very real structural and core-design problems.
You mean to say that obsessing over basic statistics and methodologies might paint a misleading picture of the state of the game, especially if you don't actually play the game to know any better?
Perish the thought.
Right?
There's an even better example from Blizzard again with Overwatch and its infamous Bastion patch.
They basically reworked the character based on nothing more than internal data and algorithms and then released it into the wild where it proceeded to, uh, break the game. For about a week it turned the games pub play into more of a dumpster fire than it already is, but Blizzard refused to understand or believe there was a problem.
Jeff Kaplan, the lead designer, had to be forcibly sat down and play his own damn game in order to see what the problem was because none of the changes and decisions had been made based on actual experience or playtesting and Blizzard's methods of data gathering really had no way to gauge the effect the hero was actually having in-game.
Da Boss wrote: It shouldn't be required. And you'll have to define meaningful for me, I don't think I'd be accepting this data collection method as particularly valid for anything other than very limited analysis.
Also, I haven't made any such statements so it would be tricky for me to retract them.
Do you have a peer reviewed study to back up this post?
Bosskelot wrote: None of these things have any bearing on its status as a "Good" E-sport. In fact, my Dissertation was about how SC2 had failed as a competitive game in a lot of ways, specifically with regards to balance and how the supposed equal W/L percentages hid very real structural and core-design problems. In fact it was Blizzard's slavish fetishization of their W/L data that stopped them from making changes that needed to be made because they didn't perceive a problem (even though Terrans in the pro scene and at higher ranks on the Ladder were abandoning the race in ludicrous numbers to play Zerg instead)
I too recall that happening. Blizzard has gone through periods of being good at balancing its games to what they are now which doesn't seem to even care beyond putting out periodic patches to prove that a game isn't dead.
In fact, with the numbers of pro players, the numbers of games being played and specifically all being played at incredibly high levels you could get a very good idea as to what SC2 was like. Trying to denigrate it by saying it was focused on one region is meaningless because that region was still a huge proportion of that games numbers. Do we discount Brood War from what counts as a "good" E-sport, despite it being the ur-example and universally agreed upon to have essentially popularized the whole concept in the first place?
Broodwar is a better game and more important historically than SCII. I can't prove it, but I don't think SCII had much impact on the growth of e-Sports into what they are today.
In fact, lets look at other e-sports like LoL. A massive game, featuring many different regio- oh wait Korea still wins everything in that game too. Huh. Almost like the infrastructure to train people to be professional e-sport athletes gives one region an edge over everyone else.
Korea is still an excellent region but look at the spread of top-4 and top-8 teams at last years worlds and you'll see:
1st - Damwon - Korea
2nd - Suning - China
3rd - G2 - Europe
4th - Top - China
5th - DRX - Korea
6th - JD Gaming - China
7th - Fnatic - Europe
8th - GenG - Korea
Before that we had:
1st - FPX - China
2nd - G2 - Europe
3rd - Invictus - China
4th - SK T1 - Korea
5th - Griffin - Korea
6th - Fnatic - Europe
7th - Splyce - Europe
8th - Damwon - Korea
The only top region not in the top-8 is NA*, beyond that any region can win any season. That is excellent regional balance.
*There are deep structural issues that cause NA to lag behind as the worst of the top-4 regions.
If we want to look at the topic of winrates again and how misleading they are we can look at Dota and how it's had periods of intense banning of overpowered or problematic heroes who, when they do make it through the pick-ban phase, end up not having spectacular winrates. This isn't because everyone misunderstands the game and the heroes, it's because when they were let through the opposing team had a plan to counter them completely and utterly, to the exclusion of everything else.
Yes, meta will always be a massive factor in how powerful something is in practice versus its theoretical power level. There's also the fact that teams often don't practice banned picks and this is borne out in post-game interviews with players and coaches when a permabanned pick does well or flops. Teams, even excellent ones, can also misunderstand a meta and make bans that aren't actually correct so when the bans final do drop we see them for the poor choices that they were.
Bosskelot wrote: In fact, my Dissertation was about how SC2 had failed as a competitive game in a lot of ways, specifically with regards to balance and how the supposed equal W/L percentages hid very real structural and core-design problems.
You mean to say that obsessing over basic statistics and methodologies might paint a misleading picture of the state of the game, especially if you don't actually play the game to know any better?
Perish the thought.
It's a good thing I'm not doing that. I've been beating the 40k Glicko drum and not asking for raw W/L data to be considered. The argument I have made is that posters here haven't provided evidence that W/L data is less reliable for Marines than for other factions.
Da Boss wrote: .And the quality of data is about more than the number of data points available.
That said, it's better quality than any other available data, but I think it's not really the be all and end all of argument about something so trivial and in a statistical sense complex.
I've advocated for gathering better data and laid out ways I'd go about data collection and sorting if I were in charge of GW but alas we'll never get that. I'll keep following the data and hoping for improvement rather than being swayed by emotion and anecdote-driven arguments.
In a discussion of a game played for fun, emotion is a perfectly valid way to look at the game. How it feels is important. It's not like we're optimising space rockets here.
Da Boss wrote: In a discussion of a game played for fun, emotion is a perfectly valid way to look at the game. How it feels is important. It's not like we're optimising space rockets here.
I disagree. Give me a balanced game and I'll make it fun far more easily than I'll make a match between Tau and Harlequins fun. In the same way, I find watching sports can be fun but diving into the stats is even more rewarding.
Broodwar is a better game and more important historically than SCII. I can't prove it, but I don't think SCII had much impact on the growth of e-Sports into what they are today.
why don't you hold yourself to the same standard you seem to be expecting of others and back up your claims with some evidence hmm?
Da Boss wrote: In a discussion of a game played for fun, emotion is a perfectly valid way to look at the game. How it feels is important. It's not like we're optimising space rockets here.
I disagree. Give me a balanced game and I'll make it fun far more easily than I'll make a match between Tau and Harlequins fun. In the same way, I find watching sports can be fun but diving into the stats is even more rewarding.
I agree that, in general, a more balanced game is more fun, or at least easier to make fun. So on that, we're in agreement.
VladimirHerzog wrote: why don't you hold yourself to the same standard you seem to be expecting of others and back up your claims with some evidence hmm?
Read the post. My hypothetical can't have any evidence because it requires a world where SCII was never released. It literally can't be proven because the data doesn't and cannot even exist. FFS if you want to debate me, debate the substance of my argument and not the flavor nuggets tossed in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: I agree that, in general, a more balanced game is more fun, or at least easier to make fun. So on that, we're in agreement.
I'm for balance and for Xenos and Chaos getting more cool and powerful options. I'm against excessive whining and people expecting GW to do things they're never going to do. I'm strongly against people being unwilling to back up their claims with data.
dogboy311 796430 11066407 wrote:Why because I’m not on the I hate GW train. I’ve played for years man. And have never had any issues with the game, or the company for that matter, maybe it’s because I understand it’s a game of plastic toy soldiers. Also again you have the choice too play this game, or too not play this game. People like the way the company works and have for years, or it would have failed a long time ago. Sorry you don’t like it, then quit, it’s an easy solution.
but if you pay for GW models shouldn't you expect a similar quality of product for similar money? It should not be okey that spending 900$ on one army gives you 3 years of fun, while spending the same on the other does not.
Holy crap man do the math!!! That’s less then 1$ a day. If you’re having fun at the price it’s all a win for you. If you are not having fun at that price it’s not a big loss by any means. I’m sure most people pay more then 900$ on coffee in 3 years. Lol. That’s the weakest rebuttal I have ever heard. Lol. Get over it, more GW fans and players love space marines then any other army. So they don’t feel the need too pump out new models for other armies at the same rate as marines. And if you don’t have fun. Nobody is making you play or spend money on this product.
dogboy311 wrote: Holy crap man do the math!!! That’s less then 1$ a day. If you’re having fun at the price it’s all a win for you. If you are not having fun at that price it’s not a big loss by any means. I’m sure most people pay more then 900$ on coffee in 3 years. Lol. That’s the weakest rebuttal I have ever heard. Lol. Get over it, more GW fans and players love space marines then any other army. So they don’t feel the need too pump out new models for other armies at the same rate as marines. And if you don’t have fun. Nobody is making you play or spend money on this product.
But in the odd chance they are, blink 3 times,
You do realize that Karol is a student living in a nation where the average salary is ~3x less than what we have here in Canada, right? It's entirely fair that his evaluation of the cost of a game he enjoys (or used to enjoy) might be different than yours.
Holy crap man do the math!!! That’s less then 1$ a day. If you’re having fun at the price it’s all a win for you. If you are not having fun at that price it’s not a big loss by any means. I’m sure most people pay more then 900$ on coffee in 3 years. Lol. That’s the weakest rebuttal I have ever heard. Lol. Get over it, more GW fans and players love space marines then any other army. So they don’t feel the need too pump out new models for other armies at the same rate as marines. And if you don’t have fun. Nobody is making you play or spend money on this product.
But in the odd chance they are, blink 3 times,
the avarge income in my country is 1300$, although it is largely boosted by large cities like Warsaw. It also doesn't include more then 3 milion people that were made to become single entity companies, so their employers could cut costs. The 1300$ is a salary for a person with a degree, and with a stable job. If you work a regular job in my region of the country you make half of that. Now imagine you are 15. What do you think is 900$ a lot to you, if your parents do 2600$ monthly pre tax or not?
Canadian 5th 796430 11065963 wrote:
Ask Marine players about how it works. They buy products, they get the new products. It's the same with everything, Apple doesn't say the iPhone 11 sold well so we'll just not make the iPhone 12 this year, they say the iPhone 11 sold well let's see how many people we can get to buy a new phone next year too.
Nah, that's not how it works for non-Astartes factions. If the models sell, they figure the product is good and let it ride. They treat the factions fundamentally differently in this regard.
A book is a product that sells to the vast majority of that faction's players. A model is a product which sells to only a part of the faction, depending on how much you nailed it on looks and rules.
With marines, you can afford to release models after models, since the player base is so high that you will still get a good amount of sales.
With less popular factions, releasing models is a big gamble and it could very well end up in a loss. So you release mostly books for it, since you can more accurately predict the volume of sales.
The best way to release models for less played factions is to do that all at once, like they did with DG, Orks and Necrons. If you dump a huge amount of new models on one of those factions, you generate an influx of new players to that faction, which is going to be attracted in particular by those new models. Those same models released one by one wouldn't have reached the volume of sales they got by being lumped together. That's because a model here and there isn't attractive enough to make a player start a second faction. The impact of a big release is important for that.
In short, GW can keep this steady influx of small marine releases, but doing the same for the other factions is less remunerative. Also, don't expect chapter specific releases.
Non-SM factions will probably keep being ignored until all of a sudden they get hit with an Orktober.
I keep saying it but Marines have just finished rounding out their 2nd complete plastic army.
While Craftworld Eldar still have most of their models not even updated to plastic and a good few not even updated since the damn 90s!
Spoletta wrote: In short, GW can keep this steady influx of small marine releases, but doing the same for the other factions is less remunerative. Also, don't expect chapter specific releases.
Non-SM factions will probably keep being ignored until all of a sudden they get hit with an Orktober.
I agree with the principle, but I don't think practically that's what's happened.
The issue isn't "steady influx of small Marine releases". If it was the odd Primaris Lieutenant here, a new unit of 3 bikers there then I think there would be less of an issue.
Instead in 2017, 2019 and 2020/21 Marines have had 3 waves of releases that are of a comparable scale (often larger) to the releases offered to any other faction. (You can, if you want, break these into around 6 "smaller" waves, but I think that's splitting hairs as we knew they were coming in a couple of months).
I think that releasing models is a risk, but since almost everything GW put out seems to sell out, I'm not sure how much of one it is. You have to push past "No one really wants Sisters" etc. (I find this doubly funny because a friend said this to me around 2018 and now he has an army of them.)
dan2026 wrote: I keep saying it but Marines have just finished rounding out their 2nd complete plastic army.
While Craftworld Eldar still have most of their models not even updated to plastic and a good few not even updated since the damn 90s!
How does this make sense?
Marines are a safe sell to a massive market
Eldar are a reasonably safe sell to a smaller market.
Simply a matter of what will safely return more $$.
As I've said previously that thinking makes increasingly less sense.
Hedonites of Slaanesh or the Gloomspite Gitz Sneaky Snufflers probably sell a fraction of what CWE still sells and yet GW still released them.
Nothing sells as well as Marines, yet other products and model lines do get made and they are profitable (outside of bombs like Fyreslayers).
Other model lines going unsupported is often more down to internal studio enthusiasm for a project just not being there. In fact the wealth of new AOS armies in recent years is more down to internal studio eagerness and enthusiasm to do them, despite OBR, Lumineth, Idoneth, Hedonites and Sons of Behemat not selling as much as Marines combined.
Bosskelot wrote: As I've said previously that thinking makes increasingly less sense.
Hedonites of Slaanesh or the Gloomspite Gitz Sneaky Snufflers probably sell a fraction of what CWE still sells and yet GW still released them.
Nothing sells as well as Marines, yet other products and model lines do get made and they are profitable (outside of bombs like Fyreslayers).
Other model lines going unsupported is often more down to internal studio enthusiasm for a project just not being there. In fact the wealth of new AOS armies in recent years is more down to internal studio eagerness and enthusiasm to do them, despite OBR, Lumineth, Idoneth, Hedonites and Sons of Behemat not selling as much as Marines combined.
Because the studio's are entirely separated and don't communicate or work together?
Which is made extra obvious when they release similar products like their army building apps or when they released mini rulebooks back in 8th. AoS was fully updated with all changes from Generals Handbooks and the 40k version was a literal copy of the original rulebook and out of date.
40k and AoS might aswell be made by different companies.
Fyreslayers did suffer from a pretty appalling series of flaws though.
1. Extremely limited army - barely any variation in what you could field, no cavalry or units other than very visually similar infantry, and a big monster.
2. Weird, polarizing design. The headgear being bigger than the little dwarf bodies and the odd visuals of the beards kinda being hair and kinda being fire is really gonna be a marmite design.
3. Extremely high price. They were costed like super premium kits that were gonna be highly desireable across the range, and didn't have the chops to support that. Even in ranges where everything is supporting certain releases stuff priced at that level often doesn't sell as much as it might otherwise do.
4. Stupid name and background - putting a y in the name is dumb, and having them be all about Ur-Gold is also dumb. People don't want dumb, one dimensional armies. Dwarves in WFB might have been stereotypical, but they absolutely ooze character from every aspect.
But 40K seems to be a much more conservative game. I'd say Ad Mech and Genestealer Cults were probably passion projects like you describe, but it seems to me that there is a lot of mandated "make more marines" coming from higher up and to me a lot of the designs do seem fairly phoned in and especially the awful naming scheme is uninspired and bland.
Da Boss wrote: Fyreslayers did suffer from a pretty appalling series of flaws though.
1. Extremely limited army - barely any variation in what you could field, no cavalry or units other than very visually similar infantry, and a big monster.
You're not wrong, there's very little variation in this force. I think they represent a small skirmish force/some allies due to this better than they do an entire army.
Da Boss wrote: 2. Weird, polarizing design. The headgear being bigger than the little dwarf bodies and the odd visuals of the beards kinda being hair and kinda being fire is really gonna be a marmite design.
I'll grant you that the crests on the helmets can get a bit exaggerated. The helmets themselves are perfectly fine though. You can even build them without the helmets.
Beards of fire?? What dwarves are you looking at? As the owner of a FS army I can assure that NONE of the sculpts have beards that in any way resemble fire. My dwarves have assorted braided beards, and they have some unbraided beards, all very viking-esque looking. But there's no fire beards.... And I have all of the sculpts available.
Spoiler:
Da Boss wrote: 3. Extremely high price. They were costed like super premium kits that were gonna be highly desireable across the range, and didn't have the chops to support that. Even in ranges where everything is supporting certain releases stuff priced at that level often doesn't sell as much as it might otherwise do.
So priced like any other contemporary GW/AoS kit.
Spoiler:
Da Boss wrote: 4. Stupid name and background - putting a y in the name is dumb, and having them be all about Ur-Gold is also dumb. People don't want dumb, one dimensional armies. Dwarves in WFB might have been stereotypical, but they absolutely ooze character from every aspect.
Eh. I presume they'll get better lore wise as they age.
Models like Sly Marbo probably didn't pay for themselves.
This is like... absolutely untrue.
There may be some flop here and there specially with fringe boxed products.
But just think about it.
Lets put for example the Mega Gargants. What costs GW to do the molds of those? Maybe 7-10k€ because they do them in house? Now lets add the cost of designing them, sculpting them, etc... lets put another 15k€.
25-30k€ for the Megagargant kit.
And then on release day you have guys that even when many people stayed away for the price, bought 2-3, even 5 or more (I have a friend that bought 3 on release day). You just need 100 guys like that on the PLANET to cover the up-front cost of releasing that kit.
GW is literally printing money. I doubt they have loses with any they produce. But thats not how corporations operate. If something causes you loses , someone really screwed up. In most cases is whats the most profitable of a ton of products where most of them are profitable enough. But in capitalism theres never enough profit.
Sly Marbo is a resin small miniature done for the biggest miniatures company on the planet with the biggest market. You have gremlings on their garages running whole business about selling small resin miniatures, and they can make a profit and GW didn't for Sly Fething Marbo?
Sly Marbo is a resin small miniature done for the biggest miniatures company on the planet with the biggest market. You have gremlings on their garages running whole business about selling small resin miniatures, and they can make a profit and GW didn't for Sly Fething Marbo?
Yeah, and then you have this same company producing things like the Christmas LE Red Gobbo. IN PLASTIC. No rules, just a one off plastic gobbo - who had to be designed and have an entire mold made for it - to sell it once.
Clearly the cost of producing single minis, even in plastic, is not losing the company $.....
As for Sly? I'm sure that being a actual useful mini, in general ongoing release, has resulted in him outselling the Red Gobbo.
ccs: Maybe it's my own misunderstanding about the fire thing. Some of the hair is sculpted in weird ways that to me looks like it is trying to mimic flame, and I thought that was what they were trying to go for.
I agree that lots of contemporary kits are overpriced, but generally with a more broadly appealing design, background or general range to help people get over the sticker shock. I didn't see that for Fyreslayers. And I wanted to like them, elemental dwarves are really cool. I love Azers in dungeons and dragons. In fact I plan to convert some of my own from AoW plastic berskerkers.
I don't think the Fyreslayers are that bad as models - but there are very few of them, they were at ludicrously high prices (which have now, sadly, been normalised and even exceeded - but it is 5 years on or something) and views on AOS were at rock bottom. Wasn't there a brief moment a couple of years ago though when they were the top army in AoS though and seemingly everywhere competitively as a result?
Sure, but the truly competitive scene is tiny compared to nerds in their living rooms, so it really isn't reflection of the general population's choices.
Da Boss wrote: ccs: Maybe it's my own misunderstanding about the fire thing. Some of the hair is sculpted in weird ways that to me looks like it is trying to mimic flame, and I thought that was what they were trying to go for.
Well, the sculpt of alot of the non-braided beards & loose mustaches are mimicking motion as many of the dwarves are running/charging.
Wich is alot more dynamic that 99% of my WHFB dwarves....
I think what's throwing your perception is their hair & helmet crests being painted orange, on units called Fyresslayers. And I'm also sure it's GWs intent that your mind makes this connection - earthy tones, bronze/brass, alot of orange + a name that includes fire (though misspelled) all add up to nice simple marketing.
But the models do not have fiery beards.
Models like Sly Marbo probably didn't pay for themselves.
This is like... absolutely untrue.
There may be some flop here and there specially with fringe boxed products.
But just think about it.
Lets put for example the Mega Gargants. What costs GW to do the molds of those? Maybe 7-10k€ because they do them in house? Now lets add the cost of designing them, sculpting them, etc... lets put another 15k€.
25-30k€ for the Megagargant kit.
And then on release day you have guys that even when many people stayed away for the price, bought 2-3, even 5 or more (I have a friend that bought 3 on release day). You just need 100 guys like that on the PLANET to cover the up-front cost of releasing that kit.
GW is literally printing money. I doubt they have loses with any they produce. But thats not how corporations operate. If something causes you loses , someone really screwed up. In most cases is whats the most profitable of a ton of products where most of them are profitable enough. But in capitalism theres never enough profit.
Sly Marbo is a resin small miniature done for the biggest miniatures company on the planet with the biggest market. You have gremlings on their garages running whole business about selling small resin miniatures, and they can make a profit and GW didn't for Sly Fething Marbo?
Out of what you pay to the store, around 20% is what actually goes to GW.
Don't know in other countries, but in Italy it splits like this:
22% are taxes
Out of the remaining 78%, 55% goes to the shop.
We are now at 35% before expenses.
Out of those 35%, you have to cut 20% for miscellanous costs (advertising, administration and so on.)
We are now at 28%. On a 25$ character, this means that 7 dollars are finally going to GW.
Now you need to detract flat expenses for actually making sure that the model exists and is in that store.
Those kits need to be produced. Materials don't cost much, but machine time and power have a cost.
Then they need to be packed and stored, and this costs manpower.
You then need to transport them all over the world, and this is the biggest cost.
After summing everything up, it wouldn't be an exageration that GW has payed 2$ for that model.
The profit GW realized on that sell is 5$.
They need to sell 5k Sly Marbos for it to be worth it.
Models like Sly Marbo probably didn't pay for themselves.
This is like... absolutely untrue.
There may be some flop here and there specially with fringe boxed products.
But just think about it.
Lets put for example the Mega Gargants. What costs GW to do the molds of those? Maybe 7-10k€ because they do them in house? Now lets add the cost of designing them, sculpting them, etc... lets put another 15k€.
25-30k€ for the Megagargant kit.
And then on release day you have guys that even when many people stayed away for the price, bought 2-3, even 5 or more (I have a friend that bought 3 on release day). You just need 100 guys like that on the PLANET to cover the up-front cost of releasing that kit.
GW is literally printing money. I doubt they have loses with any they produce. But thats not how corporations operate. If something causes you loses , someone really screwed up. In most cases is whats the most profitable of a ton of products where most of them are profitable enough. But in capitalism theres never enough profit.
Sly Marbo is a resin small miniature done for the biggest miniatures company on the planet with the biggest market. You have gremlings on their garages running whole business about selling small resin miniatures, and they can make a profit and GW didn't for Sly Fething Marbo?
Out of what you pay to the store, around 20% is what actually goes to GW.
Don't know in other countries, but in Italy it splits like this:
22% are taxes
Out of the remaining 78%, 55% goes to the shop.
We are now at 35% before expenses.
Out of those 35%, you have to cut 20% for miscellanous costs (advertising, administration and so on.)
We are now at 28%. On a 25$ character, this means that 7 dollars are finally going to GW.
Now you need to detract flat expenses for actually making sure that the model exists and is in that store.
Those kits need to be produced. Materials don't cost much, but machine time and power have a cost.
Then they need to be packed and stored, and this costs manpower.
You then need to transport them all over the world, and this is the biggest cost.
After summing everything up, it wouldn't be an exageration that GW has payed 2$ for that model.
The profit GW realized on that sell is 5$.
They need to sell 5k Sly Marbos for it to be worth it.
Thats not how this works. Covering their operating costs is part of the equation and many of those costs are there because GW considers them worth it in other ways (Like their one man stores as marketing). You cannot put all those costs on a SINGLE kit to arguee that it should cover them.
And I don't know what kind of stores do you have there. Here, normal stores receive a 35% discount from GW. That means they are paying 65% of what one would pay direct from GW to then sell it to you normally at a 10-15% discount for a 15-20% margin. You are greately undervaluing what GW gains for each kit.
But I'll say again, GW would not do anything that it is not profitable. Maybe they have their math wrong sometimes but that happens with things like fringe boxed games, not with core 40k or aos products. Not in modern GW.
I'm giving you the numbers I know from friends that run stores.
It isn't a given that conditions are the same everywhere.
And yes, the overall manpower required to sell a product is meant to be counted as a percentage on the single kits. Who is paying for all of that stuff otherwise?
Da Boss wrote: ccs: Maybe it's my own misunderstanding about the fire thing. Some of the hair is sculpted in weird ways that to me looks like it is trying to mimic flame, and I thought that was what they were trying to go for.
Well, the sculpt of alot of the non-braided beards & loose mustaches are mimicking motion as many of the dwarves are running/charging.
Wich is alot more dynamic that 99% of my WHFB dwarves....
I think what's throwing your perception is their hair & helmet crests being painted orange, on units called Fyresslayers. And I'm also sure it's GWs intent that your mind makes this connection - earthy tones, bronze/brass, alot of orange + a name that includes fire (though misspelled) all add up to nice simple marketing.
But the models do not have fiery beards.
Ewww, I can't stand to watch somebody be gaslit like this (even over something as insignificant as plastic army men).
Fyreslayers' beards are 1000% intentionally designed to mimic or recall the appearance of flames. No other GW Dwarven facial hair (or any facial hair in any GW range, regardless of whether the model is in motion) is sculpted with comparable undulating curves and an abundance of strands that curl and taper to points aimed in different directions.
You either took the original comment literally and assumed they were talking about beards made of actual flame, or you're numb to aesthetic motifs.
Edit: Your comment about mimicking motion is particularly deranged. A lot of Fyreslayer beards are splayed out roughly symmetrically, with a sense of forward motion. That movement is in complete contradiction to a model posed in an advancing gait. It does, however, call to mind the unpredictable motion of flame.
Edit 2: Thanks to today's Dakka front page, I actually noticed some GW hair that DOES resemble Fyreslayers' beards; Daemonettes scalp hair! Which is magically floating hair.
Lord Damocles wrote: The idea that GW would produce/sell any product at a loss is completely asinine.
I wonder how many GK models GW physically made and how many books they printed, that didn't get sold in the end.
Books are an open question, though the modern day book printing industry makes cheap and intentionally disposable things, and GW can plan around finite lifespans for books.
Models, none. There hasn't been any 'end' for any GK plastics.
The far more limited metal range is old enough that it doesn't matter.
I'd be interested to know if "design" is paid on this supposedly piece-work basis.
It just seems more likely today you'd have a design studio told "right, this year we are making SM/Necrons/Gargants/Lumineth/Vampires, get on with it" and you pay for the whole lot rather than explicitly identifying £15k of design work for this Primaris Captain, £50k for the Elves on Kangaroos etc.
By contrast things like the molds are a marginal cost they have to cover.
It just seems to me that if GW did have to sell 5k of these individual clam packs to break even, and thought that was unlikely, they wouldn't seemingly be churning them out like no tomorrow.
there was this one interview with the design studio that left, that spilled the beans about the Wright Knight point costs. But he also said, he was designing one of the side games more or less on his own, and he was expected to do playtesting on his own. And then he told stories how his friends, not working at GW, helped him doing it for free. I don't know if they do that the same today, I hope they don't, but it would explain some of their projects.
People in my area got crazy angry at GW about the Indomitus update for kill team.
Tyel wrote: I'd be interested to know if "design" is paid on this supposedly piece-work basis.
It just seems more likely today you'd have a design studio told "right, this year we are making SM/Necrons/Gargants/Lumineth/Vampires, get on with it" and you pay for the whole lot rather than explicitly identifying £15k of design work for this Primaris Captain, £50k for the Elves on Kangaroos etc.
By contrast things like the molds are a marginal cost they have to cover.
It just seems to me that if GW did have to sell 5k of these individual clam packs to break even, and thought that was unlikely, they wouldn't seemingly be churning them out like no tomorrow.
Paying them by the lot or by singular design changes only how that number figures in the ledger.
Doesn't change the business plan behind the single model.
how about in 7th? yep...hmm, so its almost like the edition doesn't matter....
