I don't think Devastators need to be cheaper than Tactical Marines to be viable. 10-man Tac units aren't viable either and their excess bodies also need a pts cut. I don't think 75 pts for 10 ablative wounds on your Devastators is a no-brainer choice, if you think so we can discuss whether it should be 17 or 16 pts/model instead. I don't think Insectum has made a sober analysis of whether 18 pts/model was actually worth it, I think Insectum was biased towards taking the fluffy choice and enjoying that choice despite its slight pts-inefficiency and is now getting slapped in the face with a fish by GW for having the gall of not taking min-size Devastator units.
vict0988 wrote: There is a cost at which both 5 Devastators and 10 Devastators is viable. That cost isn't 23 pts per model + 10 for MM. That's kind of obvious since I don't think anyone other than Insectum was taking the extra 5 dudes for 18 PPM, so the extra 5 dudes needed to be far less points, not far more points. Maybe something like 15 PPM, that's even if you believe in free wargear.
What does 'viable' mean here? What are the extra 5 bolter devs doing? If the extra 5 devs were 18 points thereby saving you 25 points how would they become more viable?
All I can see here is a complaint around a fluffy gamer edge case and not really an issue that needs attention.
Not clearly degrading your chance of scoring VP compared to nearly all other options you can spend pts on. By lowering their points their inclusion wouldn't negatively affect your list's ability to score VP.
Insectum7 wrote: If you want to leave your expensive Heavy Weapons as easy pickings, sure. . . I didn't.
How were your tournament results with that setup?
1: Only played local tourneys and this is back in 8th pre pandemic, but the results were solid. Fantastic units. Had I gone to larger tournies I would have absolutely brought them along.
2: Don't get sidetracked. Are you going to defend the heavy-weapon-premium for models that can't take heavy weapons?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: I don't think Insectum has made a sober analysis of whether 18 pts/model was actually worth it, I think Insectum was biased towards taking the fluffy choice
My reasoning has little to do with fluff tbh, it's primarily a defensive measure. Spamming Devs historically puts a lot of value into a few Heavy Weapon toting models. Killing 15 Marines (3×5man squads) is reasonably easy. Killing 30 is not only twice as hard, but even if you're focussing firepower ideally, killing the same first 15 only removes 5 of the Heavy Weapons. If the squads are acting cagey, the return on casualty removal can be even less ideal for the opponent.
There are secondary benefits in the option of combat squadding as well, where you have the choice of either concentrating your Heavy Weapons into a deployment option like a Drop Pod (common move), or further diffusing the Heavies into 6 5 man squads with 2 heavies each. The 10 man squads plus Combat Squads essentially let me list tailor a bit based on opponent, which can be a very useful utility.
Insectum7 wrote: 1: Only played local tourneys and this is back in 8th pre pandemic, but the results were solid. Fantastic units. Had I gone to larger tournies I would have absolutely brought them along.
So a different meta and played entirely against the local yokels and by solid, I think we can understand that you were exactly stacking trophies even at that level.
2: Don't get sidetracked. Are you going to defend the heavy-weapon-premium for models that can't take heavy weapons?
It almost doesn't matter how cheap you make the 6th through 10th model as MSU Devastators are going to be the correct choice 99% of the time regardless.
My reasoning has little to do with fluff tbh, it's primarily a defensive measure. Spamming Devs historically puts a lot of value into a few Heavy Weapon toting models. Killing 15 Marines (3×5man squads) is reasonably easy. Killing 30 is not only twice as hard, but even if you're focussing firepower ideally, killing the same first 15 only removes 5 of the Heavy Weapons. If the squads are acting cagey, the return on casualty removal can be even less ideal for the opponent.
There are secondary benefits in the option of combat squadding as well, where you have the choice of either concentrating your Heavy Weapons into a deployment option like a Drop Pod (common move), or further diffusing the Heavies into 6 5 man squads with 2 heavies each. The 10 man squads plus Combat Squads essentially let me list tailor a bit based on opponent, which can be a very useful utility.
This isn't history though. Devs were bad as things stood and this change has fixed that in a way that most players will understand and thus be able to interact with. When the choice is between making Devs unplayable by shifting more points up front or keeping them on the table, I think we know which option most players will favor.
It might be an edge case for certain competitive types, although a lot of people DO try to engage in the game for fluff reasons, I'm sure you're aware. Personally I found it quite competitive prior to this nonsensical "free upgrades" paradigm. The lists I settled on for most of 8th ran 28-30 Devastators, and it was the s***.
As for "not really an issue that needs attention" I also disagree. It's just one example highlighting the total idiocy of the current pointing system.
Sorry - I definitely came across as a huge dick there and didn't intend to.
I remember taking full dev squads ages ago and enjoyed it.
I think just there's too much crossover between people wanting efficiency and fluff. Those two things don't always mix and sometimes it just isn't big enough to be on the radar with other issues.
vict0988 wrote: I'm not seeing anything worrying like the 62% win rates or 75% top 4 placements we've seen previously when an army was OP. The job for GW now is to look at internal balance it seems.
alextroy wrote: I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models
Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.
Which isn't worth the points and you know it.
Isn't worth it to you.
Are you going to try to sell me on not taking the free upgrade from S6 AP-3 D1 to S7 AP-4 D2 on my Overlords next?
No. I don't care what you do/don't take. Or why you do so. You're the one presuming to tell me what I know to be worth taking.....
vict0988 wrote: Why do you even take Devastators? If you like the basic bolters so much just take Tacs and get ObSec.
1) Why I take Devs:
Because in my most oft played SM force, built long ago (likely before you were playing this game) & still in use today, I have 3 full Dev squads fully painted, based, finished etc. I built them because at the time there really wasn't any other heavy support choice besides the AC armed predator kit available. Yes, the Landraider technically existed but the kit was impossible to actually find at the time.... The Lascannon turret Pred variant model, the Whirlwind, & the Vindicator would all come along a bit later. Razorbacks weren't even a thing yet. So I built according to what was available.
The force was HQ characters, Tac Squads, a pair of super derpy looking RT era dreads, some termies, an assault squad with jump packs, & 3 Dev squads. + a number of Rhinos. I built ALL my infantry as 10 man teams.
Over the years some additions have been made to this force. Notably modular magnetized bitz to turn several of those Rhinos into 1 whirlwind/1 Vindicator/1 Las-turret Pred/& several Razorbacks.
But I'm not a player who's in the habit of discarding finished units that have worked well for me. I'm also not concerned with optimizing stuff to fit the tourney metas or conform to whatever the group-think on a subject is.
So when I play this force, very often at least 2 of those Dev squads see battle. The question is: How many in each squad? And am I including a transport? Often depends upon pts & what I'm expecting to face.
2) On why not take Tacs & get Obsec: Who said I don't? I already have plenty of tacs with ObSec. I've got that covered. I take Devs #6+ specifically to absorb a bit of damage before I start losing the heavy weapons. That's their job. To die 1st. Any shooting/fighting they do is just a bonus.
Insectum7 wrote: 1: Only played local tourneys and this is back in 8th pre pandemic, but the results were solid. Fantastic units. Had I gone to larger tournies I would have absolutely brought them along.
So a different meta and played entirely against the local yokels and by solid, I think we can understand that you were exactly stacking trophies even at that level.
By "solid", I mean I've been at the top of whatever local meta I've played in for about 25 years.
And before you go on the "Oh that's just locally so it doesn't count, blah blah blah" road. I'll tell you that the vast majority of players are playing in their local metas. The amount of people who are chasing 100+ person tournament events is miniscule. They say politics is local, and I'd say 40K is the same.
2: Don't get sidetracked. Are you going to defend the heavy-weapon-premium for models that can't take heavy weapons?
It almost doesn't matter how cheap you make the 6th through 10th model as MSU Devastators are going to be the correct choice 99% of the time regardless.
That's poor logic combined with bad data. Where do you draw the 99% figure from, exactly? And all of it in support of a bad position to begin with.
My reasoning has little to do with fluff tbh, it's primarily a defensive measure. Spamming Devs historically puts a lot of value into a few Heavy Weapon toting models. Killing 15 Marines (3×5man squads) is reasonably easy. Killing 30 is not only twice as hard, but even if you're focussing firepower ideally, killing the same first 15 only removes 5 of the Heavy Weapons. If the squads are acting cagey, the return on casualty removal can be even less ideal for the opponent.
There are secondary benefits in the option of combat squadding as well, where you have the choice of either concentrating your Heavy Weapons into a deployment option like a Drop Pod (common move), or further diffusing the Heavies into 6 5 man squads with 2 heavies each. The 10 man squads plus Combat Squads essentially let me list tailor a bit based on opponent, which can be a very useful utility.
This isn't history though. Devs were bad as things stood and this change has fixed that in a way that most players will understand and thus be able to interact with. When the choice is between making Devs unplayable by shifting more points up front or keeping them on the table, I think we know which option most players will favor.
"Devs were bad as thing stood" also doesn't hold up. I've seen people lauding the firepower of Devastators throughout 9th edition, even though Real/True/firstborn Marines have slipped in popularity for Primaris. Now maybe you play Marines and you weren't able to get value out of Devsastators. . . . to which I would respond: "git gud"
I think just there's too much crossover between people wanting efficiency and fluff. Those two things don't always mix and sometimes it just isn't big enough to be on the radar with other issues.
I want balance. I think ObSec being Troops instead of INFANTRY (or what have you) is silly. I think Marines should encouraged (not forced) into x10 squads to open up BLAST, I think "max" squads should provide a benefit beyond being killed faster by said BLAST. I think there's too much push into MSU.
I don't play standard marines, and my Deathwatch lean so heavily on Kill Teams that I have no Devatators.
But 10 man squads in Crusade are a bit different than 10 man squads in matched. Are the extra five bodies making it easier to hit an agenda, thereby making the unit level up faster?
And everytime the unit does level up, who would rather have 5 guys get a battle honour than 10?
Of course, being points changes, the dataslate doesn't affect Crusade at all, and we've been getting weapons "for free" since the edition began.
But the extra value of the 10 man unit is still greater in Crusade than Matched.
The Infiltrators have no weapon swaps, and took no optional options. Edit to add: Whoops I missed it - they did take Helix Gauntlets. 20 Points. Most of the characters also aren't really getting "free wargear" and just got points drops. You're not including base points drops that everybody got in the "free wargear" are you? I mean we get it, its hard to be honest about the faction you hate. But its also hard not to see it when it happens.
I'm not including base points drops? Weird...I feel like I said
SemperMortis wrote: With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.
...oh wait...I did...it was the premise of the entire thread.
Insectum7 wrote: Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.
From a competitive standpoint, nobody ever took the extra bodies on devastators because they are just ablative wounds at best and realistically you were better off just chunking your devs in terrain and using the saved points on other threats.
Insectum7 wrote: Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.
From a competitive standpoint, nobody ever took the extra bodies on devastators because they are just ablative wounds at best and realistically you were better off just chunking your devs in terrain and using the saved points on other threats.
Having played competetively and taken 10 man Devastator squads, I heartily disagree!
I'm not including base points drops? Weird...I feel like I said
SemperMortis wrote: With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.
...oh wait...I did...it was the premise of the entire thread.
Whats amazing is that the underperforming SM that got 20% Fewer units before the points drops and now perform as they should with the points drops still leads to people complaining about SM.
Oh wait. No it's not.
Insectum7 wrote: Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.
From a competitive standpoint, nobody ever took the extra bodies on devastators because they are just ablative wounds at best and realistically you were better off just chunking your devs in terrain and using the saved points on other threats.
Yeah, that's one of the problems that still hasn't been fixed, not justification for complaining about SM.
Insectum7 wrote: And before you go on the "Oh that's just locally so it doesn't count, blah blah blah" road. I'll tell you that the vast majority of players are playing in their local metas. The amount of people who are chasing 100+ person tournament events is miniscule. They say politics is local, and I'd say 40K is the same.
If we balance around what works for you it will likely screw things up and kill the competitive scene without moving the needle for casual fans who don't tend to be sensitive to the game's balance. So why should we focus on a target that doesn't gain GW anything?
That's poor logic combined with bad data. Where do you draw the 99% figure from, exactly? And all of it in support of a bad position to begin with.
Let's look at a system with what you want implemented and see what's more likely to see play:
5-Devs with whatever weapons cost 115 points - 23ppm)
10-Devs with whatever weapons cost 190 points - 23ppm for the first 5 and 15ppm for the ablative wounds
You could take 3 units of 10 models for 570 points or 5 units of 5 models for 575 points.
The 3x10 mix has 10 more wounds while the 5x5 mix has 8 more heavy weapons. Which setup is more likely to see play in highly competitive environments?
"Devs were bad as thing stood" also doesn't hold up. I've seen people lauding the firepower of Devastators throughout 9th edition, even though Real/True/firstborn Marines have slipped in popularity for Primaris. Now maybe you play Marines and you weren't able to get value out of Devsastators. . . . to which I would respond: "git gud"
Who was lauding Devs and what events were they pulling top-8s in? The data suggests that pre-buff marines were pretty bad and that none of their units had sufficient power to get tournament wins. So Devs could have been the best of a bad lot but that doesn't say much.
5-Devs with whatever weapons cost 115 points - 23ppm)
10-Devs with whatever weapons cost 190 points - 23ppm for the first 5 and 15ppm for the ablative wounds
Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.
You could take 3 units of 10 models for 570 points or 5 units of 5 models for 575 points.
The 3x10 mix has 10 more wounds while the 5x5 mix has 8 more heavy weapons. Which setup is more likely to see play in highly competitive environments?
Depends - How fast do 5x5 die, vs how many rounds of 3x10 shooting do you get?
The Infiltrators have no weapon swaps, and took no optional options. Edit to add: Whoops I missed it - they did take Helix Gauntlets. 20 Points. Most of the characters also aren't really getting "free wargear" and just got points drops. You're not including base points drops that everybody got in the "free wargear" are you? I mean we get it, its hard to be honest about the faction you hate. But its also hard not to see it when it happens.
I'm not including base points drops? Weird...I feel like I said
SemperMortis wrote: With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.
...oh wait...I did...it was the premise of the entire thread.
Insectum7 wrote: Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.
From a competitive standpoint, nobody ever took the extra bodies on devastators because they are just ablative wounds at best and realistically you were better off just chunking your devs in terrain and using the saved points on other threats.
Back when I played in tourneys I regularly took 6 man dev squads mounted in Razorbacks.
Sometimes more + Rhino.
Breton wrote: Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.
I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.
Depends - How fast do 5x5 die, vs how many rounds of 3x10 shooting do you get?
The 5x5 dies exactly 10 wounds faster than the 3x10 squad, though they probably draw more attention due to having vastly more offensive output.
In terms of raw stats, you get 20% more wounds and 6 disposable models per unit before you start losing weapons but give up 8 heavy weapons which are likely to improve survivability by killing threats before they get more rounds of fire. Marines with AoC just aren't tough enough to be tanky so I highly suspect that tuned lists would lean very heavily into more firepower over 5 more 15-point bodies with bolters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Back when I played in tourneys I regularly took 6 man dev squads mounted in Razorbacks.
Sometimes more + Rhino.
Most people who did that were doing it for the Razorback which was a good value. You could also have considered 5-man units with an attached IC if we're thinking of the same time period.
Breton wrote: Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.
I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.
We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse TacMSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.
Breton wrote: Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.
I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.
We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse TacMSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.
I'm not advocating for this change. I'm pointing out that even with an absurd points cut people likely wouldn't want 5 extra bodies unless having them breaks something.
There likely isn't a good solution for fixing this in the current 40k ruleset. Blast is stupid, doesn't fix what it tries to fix, and punishes certain armies just for daring to show up. Even with objectives being more important than ever killing the other guy's dudes as fast as possible is still a very good strategy and you can hold the objective better with two units of 5 than with one unit of 10. I could go on...
Breton wrote: Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.
I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.
We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse TacMSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.
Morale being an issue for bigger units instead of smaller units doesn't really make sense, but Stratagems and single-target HQ buffs are two ways of fixing the issue. The problem with Tacticals is that if you make a buff worth using on Tacticals, it'll be an auto-include for Terminators and Sternguard, so for 10-man Tacs to be viable they need something unique to them. The simplest answer is as I mentioned, lowering the points cost of taking additional models, but I guess people are afraid of going back to 7th's Marine hordes.
Insectum7 wrote: And before you go on the "Oh that's just locally so it doesn't count, blah blah blah" road. I'll tell you that the vast majority of players are playing in their local metas. The amount of people who are chasing 100+ person tournament events is miniscule. They say politics is local, and I'd say 40K is the same.
If we balance around what works for you it will likely screw things up and kill the competitive scene . . .
You be smokin something now, brah.
"What works for me" is literally just pricing the Marine "body" at the same price as the other Marine bodies (18 ppm), and thinking that's going to kill the competitive scene is just delusional.
Let's look at a system with what you want implemented and see what's more likely to see play:
5-Devs with whatever weapons cost 115 points - 23ppm)
10-Devs with whatever weapons cost 190 points - 23ppm for the first 5 and 15ppm for the ablative wounds
You could take 3 units of 10 models for 570 points or 5 units of 5 models for 575 points.
The 3x10 mix has 10 more wounds while the 5x5 mix has 8 more heavy weapons. Which setup is more likely to see play in highly competitive environments?
Except . . . you can't take 5 Devastator Squads . . . and you're isolating the units rather than looking at them in the entirety of army composition.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.
And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.
I'll tell all of the Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Cults and Militia, and Daemons of the Ruinstorm players that they don't exist (at least on your planet). As for your "trash" comment, I can't really figure out how to respond when your entire explanation is simply:
vict0988 wrote:Because it's not what I like.
I guess you're so attached to the board game/CCG amalgam that is 8th/9th edition that you dislike everything else to the point that you don't even understand what you dislike, or why?
ccs wrote: Back when I played in tourneys I regularly took 6 man dev squads mounted in Razorbacks.
Sometimes more + Rhino.
Most people who did that were doing it for the Razorback which was a good value. You could also have considered 5-man units with an attached IC if we're thinking of the same time period.
Your not wrong about the RB being a good value, BUT....
The debate is why some of us choose to run extra bodies in our Dev squads. And that reason is to have extra wounds to shield the 4 heavy weapons.
So no, since my intent was to have at least +1 meat-shield, I could not have (and still dont) considered running a 5 man Dev squad.
And then or now, why the would I consider attaching an IC to them? Those characters have their own jobs to do (often many many inches away) - wich is NOT serving as ablative wounds for a Dev squad. That is the job of boltrr guy #6+.
The irony of this post is now apparent The first of the major GTs that people track has results come in and Marines swept 1st - 3rd and people are still trying to argue that this is the correct amount of wins Marines should have Again, i'll happily admit we are still very early into AoO but the initial results from the larger GTs and now one of the biggest of the year is indicating that they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction. Apparently me stating an opinion which is now corroborated by evidence is me "hating Space Marines".
SemperMortis wrote: The irony of this post is now apparent The first of the major GTs that people track has results come in and Marines swept 1st - 3rd and people are still trying to argue that this is the correct amount of wins Marines should have Again, i'll happily admit we are still very early into AoO but the initial results from the larger GTs and now one of the biggest of the year is indicating that they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction. Apparently me stating an opinion which is now corroborated by evidence is me "hating Space Marines".
You didn't address the other events where marines didn't perform, or the fact the only place they're regularly being dominant to any degree is the US.
personally I think the big issues are the secondary objectives and stratagems. It should be way simpler: Each mission should have a primary and say 2 secondaries, that's it. Per mission, not "put more around list building". If you wanted to add some player agency, allow one secondary to be selected from the relevant codex (i.e. no generic secondaries) to make 3 in total. But none of this "building your list around secondaries" crap that we have today.
Any argument I've seen against that ignores the fact that missions were 1 primary + 1 secondary for 20+ years and worked just fine, until ITC came up with their secondary objectives garbage to focus on listbuilding instead of actual gameplay and claim it made the game better when it really just convoluted things more.
I'd also prefer to see streamlining of terrain. The current terrain rules are a bad joke overly complicated with needless keyword junk when it should be concise and simple and intuitive, like worked for 20 years. On top of that, the whole "mirror image" terrain junk you see in tournaments is an even bigger joke, as it literally makes choice of deployment zone meaningless when that is supposed to be an actual tactical decision. That's not to say you should have one side be wide open and one with terrain, but instead of 100% identical sides it should be like one side may have more cover than another, while the other has less cover but more of something else, such that it actually becomes a choice what side you pick.
Troops are a weird subject because they haven't been able to make troops desireable in years, despite things like ObSec and others. The only time it was relevant is when they actually had restrictions in everything else.
Nobody is forcing anyone to play AoO, if you prefer Only War then play that. Old missions are also forward-compatible for the most part, exploring new design space is awesome for games with forwards compatibility. MtG would be really boring if they kept using Phasing and Banding instead of expanding the game to include new concepts like Planeswalkers and Sagas.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.
And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.
I'll tell all of the Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Cults and Militia, and Daemons of the Ruinstorm players that they don't exist (at least on your planet). As for your "trash" comment, I can't really figure out how to respond when your entire explanation is simply:
vict0988 wrote:Because it's not what I like.
I guess you're so attached to the board game/CCG amalgam that is 8th/9th edition that you dislike everything else to the point that you don't even understand what you dislike, or why?
I don't like units being immune to damage from most units like what the old Toughness and Armour Value systems do. I hate the old assault rules with a passion that will continue burning until the heat death of the universe. I like CP re-rolls and Necrons. I like plenty of games, I've recently gotten really into Spirit Island, it has a wonderful mix of board game and deck-building elements.
8th/9th don't have CCG elements, they have a resource system and play aides. Scary-scary play aides, too bad you don't get as much support as 40k because 30k is trash and you have to rely entirely on books.
Breton wrote: Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.
I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.
We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse TacMSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.
I'm not advocating for this change. I'm pointing out that even with an absurd points cut people likely wouldn't want 5 extra bodies unless having them breaks something.
There likely isn't a good solution for fixing this in the current 40k ruleset. Blast is stupid, doesn't fix what it tries to fix, and punishes certain armies just for daring to show up. Even with objectives being more important than ever killing the other guy's dudes as fast as possible is still a very good strategy and you can hold the objective better with two units of 5 than with one unit of 10. I could go on...
I wouldn't go that far, BLAST does make logical sense, but it's only half finished. There's no benefit to risking blast anymore than you have to. I'd probably try something like: "Buying squads in multiples of 5, Blast works off of how many multiples of 5 you have. Blast only affects more than 10 with X + Y shots per extra 5 or part thereof - and as a seperate rule units more than 10 get X rule that makes them better." For Marines, I'd say buy in multiples of 5, you unlock the Sgt and his upgrades at 5, special and heavies (where appropriate) at 10. At 10 you also unlock the Veteran Squad Leader who is a Sergeant in all but name (thus missing out on Strats like Honoured Sgt), but still opens up the Sgt Upgrades. Marines have way too much pushing them into MSU. The "free" Sgt but only for the first five. Getting a special or a heavy in the Tac Squads, there's no reason to take the 10, because you can take two five's to get the 10 and still get the Sgt.
SemperMortis wrote: The irony of this post is now apparent The first of the major GTs that people track has results come in and Marines swept 1st - 3rd and people are still trying to argue that this is the correct amount of wins Marines should have Again, i'll happily admit we are still very early into AoO but the initial results from the larger GTs and now one of the biggest of the year is indicating that they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction. Apparently me stating an opinion which is now corroborated by evidence is me "hating Space Marines".
If a ~52% win rate at that event is evidence that "they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction", then the game is the healthiest it has been in years.
Things that may explain why people think this thread is still you "hating Space Marines"
- Attempting to roll a faction with a different core Codex into Space Marines group, despite a number of posters pointing out you were wrong to do so.
- Continually trying to use the top 10 as a data point, despite it being too large for some events and not large enough for the most recent one.
- Only concentrating on the placing of players at the top of the event, rather than looking at the event as a whole.
- Not taking faction participation rates into account when looking at events. SM taking 31% of top 16 spots when they make up 21% of entrants is them over-performing, sure - but so is LoV or Necrons achieving 12.5% of those spots while being 4-5% of participation each, and by a much larger %.
- Cherry-picking what you report - for example, you're shouting here about SM sweeping the top 3 (after the cut-to-top-8 games were included), yet you made no mention in your initial report about the previous batch of events that the IG had swept the top 3 at one of them.
I'm sure others can add reasons to that.
For me, the core problem is you've got a narrative you want to tell - "This latest balance slate/MFM overtuned Space Marines" - and you're looking for data to support that narrative, while excluding anything that doesn't fit with it. Someone who was being responsible about how they were reporting would be looking at the data to see what stories it would tell them, without going in with preconceptions.
Dark Angels and Iron Hands are definitely overtuned, but the rest of the Space Marine factions seem somewhat fine, some melee Space Marines are even weak.
Tyran wrote: Dark Angels and Iron Hands are definitely overtuned, but the rest of the Space Marine factions seem somewhat fine, some melee Space Marines are even weak.
How do you fix this? Is reverting the change to Combat Doctrines so the codex actually has the right rule and that Secondary that rewards being in the Devastator Doctrine a crazy idea from a casual that would cause 3 issues without fixing anything or would it solve a lot of issues without actually breaking anything or would it just be a nothing burger? Do you fix Dark Angels by nerfing Terminators? That seems unfair since Dark Angels are the only ones running Terminators right? Do you add a couple of points to the corvus hammers of the Ravenwing guys? Those hammers seemed popular in the lists I had a look at.
The problem from determining balance based on results is tahat pro-players are not going to run say Imperial Fists when there are better options of running marines.
I think nerfing IH/DA would be sensible. But I suspect you could get "better" performance from the other chapters if top players who are currently running IH/DA moved over to say WS/RG/Salamanders etc.
If a ~52% win rate at that event is evidence that "they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction", then the game is the healthiest it has been in years.
Ah yes, Win Loss rate, the only way to judge how powerful a faction is. Just ignore the Top placings and focus on the one that is directly impacted by the plethora of Marine players who show up with fluffy lists or who are first time attendees to tournaments and as such get swept. I mean, when IH were ridiculously over powered to the point where they were sweeping tournaments marines still had a sub 50% win loss ratio so they were still fine right?
Dysartes wrote: - Attempting to roll a faction with a different core Codex into Space Marines group, despite a number of posters pointing out you were wrong to do so.
You mean the different core codex which relies on almost the exact same statline, same power armor, huge number of same vehicles/weapons/stats/abilities/rolls/names. You mean that core codex? The one that got the EXACT same treatment as Codex: SM, IE Massive point reductions and free gear on a host of units? I know what kind of lunatic would lump them in, I mean...its not like they are exactly the same in almost every single way except "Oooo! Psykers".
Dysartes wrote: - Continually trying to use the top 10 as a data point, despite it being too large for some events and not large enough for the most recent one.
You can switch between top 10, top 4, top 6 or top 8, if the data shows that Marines are winning a huge percentage of tournaments then they were too over tuned to compensate for losing AoC. But yeah, totally my trying to play with numbers as opposed to others trying to disguise the fact that Marines SWEPT the top 3 at the Cherokee Open which is billeted as one of the biggest events of the entire year and the first since AoO came out.
Dysartes wrote: - Only concentrating on the placing of players at the top of the event, rather than looking at the event as a whole.
I mean...yes, because Joe Smuckatelli who shows up to an event with a half painted force of UltraSmurfs, all of whom have substandard equipment isn't a fair representation of how well a faction can do in a competitive meta...in fact its actually the opposite, its bad data points. The top placings are how you determine how competitive a faction can be. My first GT I walked into an event with a badly written Ork list, should Orkz therefore be judged by how well my n00b butt did? Or should they have been judged by the fact that a week later an Ork player almost won a Major GT?
Dysartes wrote: - Not taking faction participation rates into account when looking at events. SM taking 31% of top 16 spots when they make up 21% of entrants is them over-performing, sure - but so is LoV or Necrons achieving 12.5% of those spots while being 4-5% of participation each, and by a much larger %.
The blatant misrepresentation of facts in this specific part of your post is astounding. Marines Swept 1st - 3rd. They made up 5 of the top 16 spots INCLUDING 1st through 3rd. As opposed to the Necrons getting 12.5 which is how many spots? Oh yeah...1 Faction participation is USELESS as a stat since it incorporates muppets who show up to an event with lists they know which will get steamrolled. It includes newbies, it includes that guy who brought his girlfriend for her first ever competitive game not against her boyfriend (yeah i've seen that happen) The only accurate way to measure if a faction is over tuned is not win/loss, its not participation, its how often they appear on the podium at events, and specifically bigger events.
Dysartes wrote: - Cherry-picking what you report - for example, you're shouting here about SM sweeping the top 3 (after the cut-to-top-8 games were included), yet you made no mention in your initial report about the previous batch of events that the IG had swept the top 3 at one of them.
Numerous posts I went through and grabbed all recent tournaments, I reported participation rate and top 10 placement across the board in all those events. Thats cherry picking now is it? Or is it that you don't like it when the facts go against what you want. But lets take a closer look into your complaint about IG taking top 3 in a significantly smaller event compared to cherokee and see how they've done compared to Marines since then and who the problems are.
Milwaukee GT: 70 Players
1st Place: Dark Angels, 2nd Place: Black Templars, 3rd Place: Iron Hands, 4th Place: Grey Knights
Scheunenkloppen Open - War Zone Erkelenz: GT: 133 Players
1st Place: Eldar, 2nd Place: Dark Angels, 3rd Place: IG, 4th Place: Eldar
Scorched Earth Open: 60 Players
1st Place: Tau, 2nd Place: Death Guard, 3rd Place: world eaters, 4th Place: Eldar
So the IG have scored 9 top 4 placements out of 56 spots as reported by 40kstats. Marines, Including Grey Knights because we are talking about the problem of free gear teamed with sweeping points cuts and since Grey Knights are literally just Marines +1 I'm including them, deal with it. Marines recorded 17 top 4 Placements out of 56, including 5 1st place finishes to the IG's 1. Only other faction doing really well in tournament placings is Space Elves with 7 placings. So here is the best part about my argument, it doesn't have to be an either or scenario. I still think, especially in light of recent data that Marines are the #1 faction in the game right now, but that doesn't mean that IG and Space Elves aren't over powered at the moment as well.
For me, the core problem is you've got a narrative you want to tell - "This latest balance slate/MFM overtuned Space Marines" - and you're looking for data to support that narrative, while excluding anything that doesn't fit with it. Someone who was being responsible about how they were reporting would be looking at the data to see what stories it would tell them, without going in with preconceptions.
I just lumped in all Data since the IG swept the top 3 of a smaller GT, there was no cherry picking, I grabbed the data right off 40kstats and presented it, I didn't have to "look for data" to support my narrative, Its just blatantly there. The problem we are having is that you guys are looking for BS excuses for why Marines deserve to win that often at GTs. "Oh but the win/loss ratio is still low" or your new claim "they make up X% of the meta so therefore...". Space Marines got over tuned, IG are currently over tuned, Eldar are still over tuned. OMG! Look at that, I must hate IG and Eldar now as well right? Or I could be making an opinion based upon data as opposed to feelings.
Another 5 only have 1 marine placement. Of these 5, they won 2 of them.
What does this tell us?
That 4 events account for 11 out of 16 marine placements following the somewhat incorrect inclusion of GK.
So the better question now in my mind, is why are marines able to hammer the gak out of 4 events so heavily to create a skew like that. Does the fact they racked up so many top 4 places in 4 events get balanced out by their total absence in 5 and at best "reasonable" representation in 5 more.
In honesty Semper I still don't think the evidence is there, they've overperformed in 4 events and if they were a dominating top meta force, I wouldn't expect them to simply not appear in a third of events.
Not really sure I'm contributing much - but I think the evidence is there. Marines are doing very well on a reasonably neutral basis. Dysartes and others have shown they are winning tournaments on a better basis than you would expect on their player %. (Which is itself a bit skewed, because "good" factions tend to attract players over "bad" ones.)
I mean its the line that's be dropped for Custodes & Tau, Harlequins and Tyranids. (And I don't think Marines are as far ahead of the pack as these were in their era). How many tournament wins do SM have to get to be considered an issue?
Because - and I realise this is a dated reference - there are echos of "Eldar are fine in late 7th". They don't win all the tournaments - but they win a lot. But when about 30% of tournament attendees run Eldar, arguably they should win 30%+ of tournaments and its fine right? I'm sure Eldar rules have no relation to the fact there's such a disproportionate number of people running Eldar - and in turn their performance.
Another thing is that Space Marines aren't the only arguably overpowered factions.
Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army, Genestealer Cults are also considerably overperforming although they still have a small player pop. And World Eaters had a notably strong early performance although admittedly it is still to early to tell in their case. Eldar are also overperforming at the top tables although their win rate is fineish.
Space Marines aren't the only issue around, just the most notable one thanks to their massive player pop.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.
And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.
I'll tell all of the Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Cults and Militia, and Daemons of the Ruinstorm players that they don't exist (at least on your planet). As for your "trash" comment, I can't really figure out how to respond when your entire explanation is simply:
vict0988 wrote:Because it's not what I like.
I guess you're so attached to the board game/CCG amalgam that is 8th/9th edition that you dislike everything else to the point that you don't even understand what you dislike, or why?
I don't like units being immune to damage from most units like what the old Toughness and Armour Value systems do. I hate the old assault rules with a passion that will continue burning until the heat death of the universe. I like CP re-rolls and Necrons. I like plenty of games, I've recently gotten really into Spirit Island, it has a wonderful mix of board game and deck-building elements.
8th/9th don't have CCG elements, they have a resource system and play aides. Scary-scary play aides, too bad you don't get as much support as 40k because 30k is trash and you have to rely entirely on books.
Yes, if you don't like those things, then HH isn't for you. But that doesn't make the rules "trash", it just makes them "something that Vict0988 doesn't like". And what do you mean by "play aids"? The cards? Because gw released cards for HH, and I had the same response to them as in 40k: I didn't buy them. I also, personally, like books. So no problem there, for me, at least (also: what ccs said).
But what does any of this "anti-HH" tirade have to do with my suggestion that buffs and strategems be removed from 9th edition 40k? I suggested no changes to the wounding table, or Assault Phase. I guess it would leave you without your "do over" CP reroll, but beyond that? What does it have to do with HH? Other than just attacking my preferred set of rules instead of actually addressing the statement?
How are you going to get an objective definition of which games are and aren't trash? By listening to me
I made a tirade because you were confused by me saying "HH is trash". I said HH is trash because you suggested removing things that are in 9th and are not in HH and because I thought I remembered you playing HH.
vict0988 wrote: How are you going to get an objective definition of which games are and aren't trash? By listening to me
I made a tirade because you were confused by me saying "HH is trash". I said HH is trash because you suggested removing things that are in 9th and are not in HH and because I thought I remembered you playing HH.
vict0988 wrote: How are you going to get an objective definition of which games are and aren't trash? By listening to me
I made a tirade because you were confused by me saying "HH is trash". I said HH is trash because you suggested removing things that are in 9th and are not in HH and because I thought I remembered you playing HH.
Breton wrote: Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.
I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.
We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse TacMSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.
I'm not advocating for this change. I'm pointing out that even with an absurd points cut people likely wouldn't want 5 extra bodies unless having them breaks something.
There likely isn't a good solution for fixing this in the current 40k ruleset. Blast is stupid, doesn't fix what it tries to fix, and punishes certain armies just for daring to show up. Even with objectives being more important than ever killing the other guy's dudes as fast as possible is still a very good strategy and you can hold the objective better with two units of 5 than with one unit of 10. I could go on...
I wouldn't go that far, BLAST does make logical sense, but it's only half finished. There's no benefit to risking blast anymore than you have to. I'd probably try something like: "Buying squads in multiples of 5, Blast works off of how many multiples of 5 you have. Blast only affects more than 10 with X + Y shots per extra 5 or part thereof - and as a seperate rule units more than 10 get X rule that makes them better." For Marines, I'd say buy in multiples of 5, you unlock the Sgt and his upgrades at 5, special and heavies (where appropriate) at 10. At 10 you also unlock the Veteran Squad Leader who is a Sergeant in all but name (thus missing out on Strats like Honoured Sgt), but still opens up the Sgt Upgrades. Marines have way too much pushing them into MSU. The "free" Sgt but only for the first five. Getting a special or a heavy in the Tac Squads, there's no reason to take the 10, because you can take two five's to get the 10 and still get the Sgt.
realistically blast rule should have like exploding 6s at half S
Tyel wrote: Not really sure I'm contributing much - but I think the evidence is there. Marines are doing very well on a reasonably neutral basis. Dysartes and others have shown they are winning tournaments on a better basis than you would expect on their player %. (Which is itself a bit skewed, because "good" factions tend to attract players over "bad" ones.)
I mean its the line that's be dropped for Custodes & Tau, Harlequins and Tyranids. (And I don't think Marines are as far ahead of the pack as these were in their era). How many tournament wins do SM have to get to be considered an issue?
Because - and I realise this is a dated reference - there are echos of "Eldar are fine in late 7th". They don't win all the tournaments - but they win a lot. But when about 30% of tournament attendees run Eldar, arguably they should win 30%+ of tournaments and its fine right? I'm sure Eldar rules have no relation to the fact there's such a disproportionate number of people running Eldar - and in turn their performance.
this comparison isn't particularly accurate.
marines have always been the most popular faction. eldar not so much. if an unpopular faction is suddenly surging in popularity after a new rules update, then that's likely a red flag all on it's own.
however the new hotness will always attract the metachasers who have to make up for their short comings by having the best toys in the game, who have memorized every rule and interaction, which itself will skew the results as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Another thing is that Space Marines aren't the only arguably overpowered factions.
Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army, Genestealer Cults are also considerably overperforming although they still have a small player pop. And World Eaters had a notably strong early performance although admittedly it is still to early to tell in their case. Eldar are also overperforming at the top tables although their win rate is fineish.
Space Marines aren't the only issue around, just the most notable one thanks to their massive player pop.
the question i guess to me is, can you claim marines are overpowered when there are so many other factions out stripping their population of players for tournament wins and top 5s?
if GSC is 5% of the player base but winning 15-20% of tournaments, meanwhile marines are 30% of the player base winning 35-40% of tournaments i'd say the marines are not the problem on the scene.
the question i guess to me is, can you claim marines are overpowered when there are so many other factions out stripping their population of players for tournament wins and top 5s?
if GSC is 5% of the player base but winning 15-20% of tournaments, meanwhile marines are 30% of the player base winning 35-40% of tournaments i'd say the marines are not the problem on the scene.
Define "many other". The other factions with notable overrepresentation at the top tables are Craftwolrd Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Orks, World Eaters and Genestealer Cults.
Meanwhile Dark Eldar, Harlequins, both flavors of Knights, Chaos Spaces Marines, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Tyranids, Admech, LoV and Sisters are suffering underrepresentation.
Definitely there are problems. Space Marines are not the entirety of the problems, but they are a problem.
GSC CK
BT Sisters
BA DG Ynnari
Black Legion
DE Orks
Custodes
Votann
Iron Hands
Have you ever seen a list like that in a weekend?
Ynnari and GSC seem like the "problem" armies. The next tier is probably DA, IH, Guard, and Custodes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: I'm just irked that a kitted-out Lord of Change is more durable than a kitted-out GUO.
For sure. He should be slow and absurdly hard to kill.
Tzeentch can do his manipulation shenanigans and Nurgle should just take it on the chin and laugh. Don't ask me how to make that happen or how to balance it though.
Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army
God, flamers piss me off so much :( The army feels so boring and unfluffy to play yet its doing great because Flamers have such good output.
The followers of the god of magic only having acces to 6 spells means that after 2 Characters, you're already maxed out on your casts
You also have Smite and psychic actions. I don't think the answer to stat creep of casts available to Tzeentch units is giving Tzeentch more powers, it's too much mental load for opponents to learn 18 powers.
GSC CK
BT Sisters
BA DG Ynnari
Black Legion
DE Orks
Custodes
Votann
Iron Hands
Have you ever seen a list like that in a weekend?
Pre-SM2.0. But the meta seems very healthy and I don't really have to give a gak about SM internal balance, having free upgrades on a handful of Necrons units isn't the worst thing in the world even if it is stupid and unnecessary.
vict0988 wrote: having free upgrades on a handful of Necrons units isn't the worst thing in the world even if it is stupid and unnecessary.
It's been really interesting to see this unfold. I expected free upgrades to do a whole lot of shenanigans at first. If someone would have suggested 6 months ago that you could make the changes they did and it would come out "okay-ish" I probably would have thought it was pretty foolish.
Overall I think it's the mission system that underpins all of this. GSC is probably mediocre without their pretty strong objectives. Same thing with Codex Warfare. I'm not sure about Ynnari since I haven't played them recently.
Thousand Sons are suffering with Flamers getting knocked on top of losing AoC. AP2 bolters are at full effect, but not enough to balance out the ( comparatively ) more difficult to achieve secondaries.
Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army
God, flamers piss me off so much :( The army feels so boring and unfluffy to play yet its doing great because Flamers have such good output.
The followers of the god of magic only having acces to 6 spells means that after 2 Characters, you're already maxed out on your casts
You also have Smite and psychic actions. I don't think the answer to stat creep of casts available to Tzeentch units is giving Tzeentch more powers, it's too much mental load for opponents to learn 18 powers.
GSC CK
BT Sisters
BA DG Ynnari
Black Legion
DE Orks
Custodes
Votann
Iron Hands
Have you ever seen a list like that in a weekend?
Pre-SM2.0. But the meta seems very healthy and I don't really have to give a gak about SM internal balance, having free upgrades on a handful of Necrons units isn't the worst thing in the world even if it is stupid and unnecessary.
Necrons have so little in the way of options that most of those are kinda sidegrades
GSC CK
BT Sisters
BA DG Ynnari
Black Legion
DE Orks
Custodes
Votann
Iron Hands
3/13 doesn't seem terrible - do you have a list of the events, Daed, so I can run through them? I'm assuming the Iron Hands one is the bit GT I already looked at.
Dysartes wrote: 3/13 doesn't seem terrible - do you have a list of the events, Daed, so I can run through them? I'm assuming the Iron Hands one is the bit GT I already looked at.
Clutch City GT. Houston, TX
Game of Westeros XIV. Vastmanlands, Sweden
Dicehammer Open. Irvine, CA Midtcon GT. Viborg, Denmark
9th Barrie Bash. Barrie, Canada
CAGBASH XVI. Hamilton, OH
Corsair Open GT. Munchen, Germany
Winter Ruin GT. Coplay, PA Norsehammer Open 2023. Bjodnabeen, Norway
Iberian Ham Tournament. Sant Joan Despi, Spain
Drop Assault On Coast Con. Biloxi, MS
Scottish Take Over GT. Scotland
Talvisota- Winter Assualt. Hesinki, Finland
the question i guess to me is, can you claim marines are overpowered when there are so many other factions out stripping their population of players for tournament wins and top 5s?
if GSC is 5% of the player base but winning 15-20% of tournaments, meanwhile marines are 30% of the player base winning 35-40% of tournaments i'd say the marines are not the problem on the scene.
Define "many other". The other factions with notable overrepresentation at the top tables are Craftwolrd Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Orks, World Eaters and Genestealer Cults.
Meanwhile Dark Eldar, Harlequins, both flavors of Knights, Chaos Spaces Marines, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Tyranids, Admech, LoV and Sisters are suffering underrepresentation.
Definitely there are problems. Space Marines are not the entirety of the problems, but they are a problem.
I’d say the 6 you listed fit the definition of many
vict0988 wrote: How are you going to get an objective definition of which games are and aren't trash? By listening to me
That's subjective, not objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
johnpjones1775 wrote: realistically blast rule should have like exploding 6s at half S
That would murder Characters and super small squads. It should be some sort of Hits per Model ratio
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: If someone would have suggested 6 months ago that you could make the changes they did and it would come out "okay-ish" I probably would have thought it was pretty foolish.
Meh, we already looked at it, probably about 6 months ago. I asked how Power Level worked out differently - Powerlevel already gives them free upgrades - and does it everywhere. The gist of the responses is that it doesn't change much. Units that weren't worth it before rarely become worth it. When the first thing I looked at for "abuse" didnt' even have "free upgrades everywhere" I knew this was going to be tame even if the complaints department was not.
If only there was a way to make the blast rule care about the space a collection of models takes up on the table, rather than things like the administrative organization of the men on the other end of the gun.
You could call them "blast guides" or "blast frames" or something. Blast areas? Hmm.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If only there was a way to make the blast rule care about the space a collection of models takes up on the table, rather than things like the administrative organization of the men on the other end of the gun.
You could call them "blast guides" or "blast frames" or something. Blast areas? Hmm.
wait you’re saying big explosions kill people? Ya don’t say?!?
Unit1126PLL wrote: If only there was a way to make the blast rule care about the space a collection of models takes up on the table, rather than things like the administrative organization of the men on the other end of the gun.
You could call them "blast guides" or "blast frames" or something. Blast areas? Hmm.
And go back to counting the millimeters between each model? Pass.
GW could make the "blast frames" deadly. so the mm don't matter, if is under or touched by it you get hit. and they could make them out of transparent plastic.
Would make placements of models more important too. no more 9 small vehicles clumped behind a single terrain.
Karol wrote: GW could make the "blast frames" deadly. so the mm don't matter, if is under or touched by it you get hit. and they could make them out of transparent plastic.
Would make placements of models more important too. no more 9 small vehicles clumped behind a single terrain.
That's pretty much how Blast Templates used to work (and still do in 30k), Karol.
I didn't know that. HH did become oddly popular where I live now, but my gaming/forum time as a first year student got drasticly cut. Good to know that it isn't an idea GW would have to invent from nothing though.
If all else fail then just do flat auto damage based on number of models in opposing unit and the size of the gun. small mortart 3 hits per 5 dudes, regular one 5 per 5. heavy mortar 7 per 5, and then some apocalyptic titant mortar weapon could do 7 per 5 too, but would do splash damage of 5 per 5 to all unit within lets say 3". Such a rule could also represent some sort of fragmentation or multi missile type of weapon. 5 man unit of marines gets hit by rockets the size of two of the squad members, the other squad siting next to it, behind a wall, is going to get hit too.
The age old problem with how template markers used to work, is, that not putting every model of a unit at max coherency of 2" apart from each other can and will severly punish the unit.
1. While it makes positioning matter more, it drags down the game everytime models are moved. Not everybody is using 3 dudes Primaris squads, there are 30 Ork Boyz out there as well.
2. The effectiveness of template weapons vary wildly based on how much both players can be bothered to put up with the 2" coherency. How do you cost them? The weapon could hit everything from a single model up to ~8 models who just came down from deep strike.
3. Templates used to scatter which is a whole different can of worms when two people tried to follow a small arrow for direction where the template would land.
a_typical_hero wrote: The age old problem with how template markers used to work, is, that not putting every model of a unit at max coherency of 2" apart from each other can and will severly punish the unit.
1. While it makes positioning matter more, it drags down the game everytime models are moved. Not everybody is using 3 dudes Primaris squads, there are 30 Ork Boyz out there as well.
2. The effectiveness of template weapons vary wildly based on how much both players can be bothered to put up with the 2" coherency. How do you cost them? The weapon could hit everything from a single model up to ~8 models who just came down from deep strike.
3. Templates used to scatter which is a whole different can of worms when two people tried to follow a small arrow for direction where the template would land.
Caused more disagreements that need to be stopped with the obligatory whippy sticks.
Indeed these people who were getting into such arguments over these things, they are children cranky because it is past bed time, yes?
I mean saving time I can see the reasoning behind even if I'd prefer more impactful rules but to prevent arguments? Never saw it in the wild plus anyone in a mood to grumble over such a thing will find something to do so over anyway.
Just remove blast, give a fixed number of attacks to all d3/d6 shot weapons and balance accordingly.
Daedalus81 wrote: Overall I think it's the mission system that underpins all of this. GSC is probably mediocre without their pretty strong objectives. Same thing with Codex Warfare. I'm not sure about Ynnari since I haven't played them recently.
Yeah. It does feel like GW have managed to get the "mathhammer per points" near enough that combined with varied objective game most factions are capable. You can't just bludgeon someone down with superior probability.
"Skill/knowledge of the game" is therefore probably a bigger determinant of success than list building than at almost any point in 40k's history.
I think some secondaries which are "15 points if things go average, 12 if they go completely wrong", are a bit good. But equally, without a major reform of the whole system, I'm not sure how you'd change it. Since the start of the edition its been unclear how many points you should "expect" to get.
It might be interesting to see a few tournaments with no faction secondaries - but I can't see that ever happening.
In lieu of templates just make every weapon that would have "blast" or "large blast" a variable amount of hits based on the models in the unit to a maximum amount equal to what the old templates could hit at max coherency spacing.
For example, if the old 3" template could cover 4 models at max spacing and optimal scatter, then those weapons would be "This weapon makes a number of hit rolls equal to the number of models in the target unit to a maximum of 4."
Now it doesn't solve all the equivalencies that blast templates use, since the scatter roll was the substitute for a hit roll, but it would be easier to balance these weapons when they have a more consistent number of shots as opposed to d6 or whatever.
Karol wrote: GW could make the "blast frames" deadly. so the mm don't matter, if is under or touched by it you get hit. and they could make them out of transparent plastic. Would make placements of models more important too. no more 9 small vehicles clumped behind a single terrain.
That's pretty much how Blast Templates used to work (and still do in 30k), Karol.
Of course, 30k nerfed most template weapons to the point we had a few threads of militia players complaining their tanks and battle cannons were useless, so YMMV.
Dai wrote: Indeed these people who were getting into such arguments over these things, they are children cranky because it is past bed time, yes?
I mean saving time I can see the reasoning behind even if I'd prefer more impactful rules but to prevent arguments? Never saw it in the wild plus anyone in a mood to grumble over such a thing will find something to do so over anyway.
In the tournament scene I can imagine the insecure manbabies arguing over it because if they can’t win at toy soldiers then they have nothing going on in life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tittliewinks22 wrote: In lieu of templates just make every weapon that would have "blast" or "large blast" a variable amount of hits based on the models in the unit to a maximum amount equal to what the old templates could hit at max coherency spacing.
For example, if the old 3" template could cover 4 models at max spacing and optimal scatter, then those weapons would be "This weapon makes a number of hit rolls equal to the number of models in the target unit to a maximum of 4."
Now it doesn't solve all the equivalencies that blast templates use, since the scatter roll was the substitute for a hit roll, but it would be easier to balance these weapons when they have a more consistent number of shots as opposed to d6 or whatever.
The problem with this is, that getting hit by a tank round is going to be a much higher S and AP hit than the explosion from an HE tank shell.
Number of shots at a profile’s full strength should represent RoF. The blast effect should be a secondary profile that can then be a number of extra hits at a reduced profile based on number of models in a unit.
So a Hvy1 S9 AP-3 D4 blast weapon imho should have a blast profile
Blast S5 AP-1 D1
Karol wrote: GW could make the "blast frames" deadly. so the mm don't matter, if is under or touched by it you get hit. and they could make them out of transparent plastic.
Would make placements of models more important too. no more 9 small vehicles clumped behind a single terrain.
That's pretty much how Blast Templates used to work (and still do in 30k), Karol.
Of course, 30k nerfed most template weapons to the point we had a few threads of militia players complaining their tanks and battle cannons were useless, so YMMV.
It really depends upon the template though. BC/ ES/ Medusa/ Demolishers all got a kick, in some cases severe.
Phosphex and quad launchers have been simplified and contained.
Of these i say most have been justified. Beyond the bc/ medusa and Earthshaker. Which all should've gotten a breaching on 4+ like the scorpious. (or atleast 5+ and a 5"template for the BC)
Overall though the nerf to artillery was justified considering what Phosphex did to HH1.0
Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.
"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"
Unit1126PLL wrote: Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.
"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"
Not like the small blasts would've hit more than currently unless you were intentionally squishing models together.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.
"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"
A narrative sensibility and good rules are not always the same thing. That blast doesnt affect nearby units doesn't automatically make it a bad design.
Moorecox wrote: Still patiently waiting for torrent melta flamers!
...huh?
+ + +
OK, I've gotten through ten of the events on Daed's list, so with a bit of luck I should get the remaining 3 done tomorrow - though those are the largest. Definitely some interesting snapshots in there, though I've yet to see what the overall performance is looking like.
Given three of the events were below 33 players, I've looked at those from a top 4 perspective rather than a top 8.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.
"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"
Not like the small blasts would've hit more than currently unless you were intentionally squishing models together.
Unless staying in cover was a factor, or needing to have the unit wholly within an aura, or there was a tank shock, or...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.
"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"
Not like the small blasts would've hit more than currently unless you were intentionally squishing models together.
Unless staying in cover was a factor, or needing to have the unit wholly within an aura, or there was a tank shock, or...
Or the template simply scatters and misses in all your scenarios, or barrage weapons ignored cover iirc, 6/7th didn't have any wholly within specific auras if I remember either and tank shock was rarely used, often resulting in death to the vehicles more than not. I mean you'd need 2 vehicles to smush them tightly, you're then likely to hit your own vehicles and that's assuming the unit you want to fire at is conveniently stood in the open with an area big enough for 2 vehicles to fit either side.
Yeah, maybe we were just angry young people back in the day, but the idea that you've never had disputes over templates is incredibly alien to me. Its easy to just shrug when it doesn't matter, but when one player is losing, arguing whether a model or two is 1mm or in or out - because the little arrow is this number of degrees that way - suddenly is a matter of life and death.
Its the same as people who say they never had arguments over whether something was in line of sight, whether antenna or banners etc meant you could shoot something with full effect etc. If that was the case great. In my case again, lots of people were very clear on the rules until they were losing, and then suddenly it was full RAW vs RAI arguments (often pushing whatever version happened to be beneficial at the time.)
As far as I can see the issue with a proposed "X hits up to a cap per models in the unit" is you get weird results shooting 1 model units like tanks and monsters. Obviously back in the day that's how it worked - but vehicles effectively had 1 wound, and then sort of 1 wound backed by hull points from 6th. Now they have lots of wounds. Having say a battle cannon just be a worse lascannon into a tank isn't really good design. Saying "its effectively 6 slightly worse lascannons stuck together" may not fit your fluff - but its a lot easier to balance in game.
Get rid of blast, make it so guns that are meant to be anti-horde have the stats to be anti-horde (i.e. lots of say S3 AP- 1 damage shots), and guns which are anti-big can have the stats to be anti-big (i.e. a few high S/AP/damage shots).
Your mileage may vary, but it was an extra thing to remember to take to a game, drop on minis, get into debates over and resulted in almost obligatory 2" movement trays for everyone. Crap design.
Great in a vacuum, terrible in practice. It slows down the game so much when everyone sits there places their minis exactly 1.9999" apart to stay in coherency but not be vulnerable to blasts.
It's fine when you're running very small units but god forbid anyone turn up with a unit with more than 10 models in it. Imagine no one wanting to play against you just because you're forced to slow the game down so much so you don't auto lose to a blast template.
Great in a vacuum, terrible in practice. It slows down the game so much when everyone sits there places their minis exactly 1.9999" apart to stay in coherency but not be vulnerable to blasts.
It's fine when you're running very small units but god forbid anyone turn up with a unit with more than 10 models in it. Imagine no one wanting to play against you just because you're forced to slow the game down so much so you don't auto lose to a blast template.
In my opinion, this was more of a problem with template sizes and coherency rules being a total mismatch.
The flamer template was fun, because it didn't scatter. Anything else...felt more like rules bloat, especially the small templates that would rarely hit more than two models. A plasma gun often ended up being more effective than a plasma cannon.
I'd say templates could have worked better if you have had no scatter but hit a specific model with a normal to hit roll and if you have had coherency rules like OPR, i.e. All models of a squad have to be within 6" of each other.
Your mileage may vary, but it was an extra thing to remember to take to a game, drop on minis, get into debates over and resulted in almost obligatory 2" movement trays for everyone. Crap design.
I'd take them over the implementation of Strats any day.
Blasts in particular worked quite well in conjunction with good terrain rules/setups that encouraged the use of cover. There was a good organic choice between clumping up models in or behind cover, or losing the cover bonus in order to disperse enough to make Blast weapons less effective. When there are rules and situations that disincentivise the '2" spread', reacting to potential Blasts provides important defensive decisions.
As for "Remembering to bring templates, uughh", that's just reaching. Keeping them with your dice and measuring tape is trivial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: The flamer template was fun, because it didn't scatter. Anything else...felt more like rules bloat, especially the small templates that would rarely hit more than two models. A plasma gun often ended up being more effective than a plasma cannon.
I'd say templates could have worked better if you have had no scatter but hit a specific model with a normal to hit roll and if you have had coherency rules like OPR, i.e. All models of a squad have to be within 6" of each other.
I agree that the thing that caused the most arguments was the scatter. That's the place I'd look for making adjustments.
Proposal: Place Blast Marker centered on a model in the target unit. Firing model gets to roll to-hit for each model under the Blast Marker.
Which makes things easier, but does unfortunately cut down on the visceral butt-clinch moments when rolling for Demolisher scatters.
Templates aren't coming back, not at the current scale the game is played.
As for blast rules. Maybe if they had an anti msu rule, something like: If target unit is 5 models or less, blast weapons can make attacks against enemy units within 3" of that enemy unit. Halve (rounding up) the number of attacks made against such units (because all blast weapons are random number of attacks) and those attacks don't further benefit from the blast rules.
Tyran wrote: Templates aren't coming back, not at the current scale the game is played.
And yet they exist in current 30k/HH. A game played at the exact same (or greater) scale as 9e 40k....
And HH is more of a simulationist pseudo-historical game of Space Marines vs Space Marines. And yes it technically has non-Space Marine factions, but it is obvious just by looking at the promotional material and website that it is not build with non-Space Marines in mind, because the Heresy was all about Marine vs Marine.
40k isn't that, and shouldn't be trying to be that.
EDIT: Moreover HH 2.0 balanced templates to minimize them as much as possible with most of them being AP4 or worse in a game in which almost everyone is Sv3+ or better.
Your mileage may vary, but it was an extra thing to remember to take to a game, drop on minis, get into debates over and resulted in almost obligatory 2" movement trays for everyone. Crap design.
I'd take them over the implementation of Strats any day.
Blasts in particular worked quite well in conjunction with good terrain rules/setups that encouraged the use of cover. There was a good organic choice between clumping up models in or behind cover, or losing the cover bonus in order to disperse enough to make Blast weapons less effective. When there are rules and situations that disincentivise the '2" spread', reacting to potential Blasts provides important defensive decisions.
As for "Remembering to bring templates, uughh", that's just reaching. Keeping them with your dice and measuring tape is trivial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: The flamer template was fun, because it didn't scatter. Anything else...felt more like rules bloat, especially the small templates that would rarely hit more than two models. A plasma gun often ended up being more effective than a plasma cannon.
I'd say templates could have worked better if you have had no scatter but hit a specific model with a normal to hit roll and if you have had coherency rules like OPR, i.e. All models of a squad have to be within 6" of each other.
I agree that the thing that caused the most arguments was the scatter. That's the place I'd look for making adjustments.
Proposal: Place Blast Marker centered on a model in the target unit. Firing model gets to roll to-hit for each model under the Blast Marker.
Which makes things easier, but does unfortunately cut down on the visceral butt-clinch moments when rolling for Demolisher scatters.
I mean, yes if having to remember to carry (by the end of 7th) a 3", 5" and 10" disc, multi blast, normal flame or a 15" flame template to a game isn't an inconvenience sure. But that very obviously isn't the main complaint, which you ignore the times people dink/drop them on your models, argue over unclear hits due to it being in the middle and nobody being able to get directly over, the difficulties in agreeing the exact angle on a scatter die that isn't anywhere near the template necessarily, making someone hold the fething thing for 3 mins whilst you check chain blast rules.
They're a nice mechanic for people of a particular mindset, but the games healthier for them having gone imo. Although likewise I agree that the current strst implementation is a cluster of equal magnitude.
Tyran wrote: Templates aren't coming back, not at the current scale the game is played.
And yet they exist in current 30k/HH. A game played at the exact same (or greater) scale as 9e 40k....
And HH is more of a simulationist pseudo-historical game of Space Marines vs Space Marines. And yes it technically has non-Space Marine factions, but it is obvious just by looking at the promotional material and website that it is not build with non-Space Marines in mind, because the Heresy was all about Marine vs Marine.
40k isn't that, and shouldn't be trying to be that.
EDIT: Moreover HH 2.0 balanced templates to minimize them as much as possible with most of them being AP4 or worse in a game in which almost everyone is Sv3+ or better.
I don't see how a focus on Space Marines would have any bearing on including Blasts as a mechanic.
I mean, yes if having to remember to carry (by the end of 7th) a 3", 5" and 10" disc, multi blast, normal flame or a 15" flame template to a game isn't an inconvenience sure. But that very obviously isn't the main complaint, which you ignore the times people dink/drop them on your models, argue over unclear hits due to it being in the middle and nobody being able to get directly over, the difficulties in agreeing the exact angle on a scatter die that isn't anywhere near the template necessarily, making someone hold the fething thing for 3 mins whilst you check chain blast rules.
They're a nice mechanic for people of a particular mindset, but the games healthier for them having gone imo. Although likewise I agree that the current strst implementation is a cluster of equal magnitude.
I agree that accessibility and speed are important in 40k. But the complete removal of template-based mechanics is a net loss. The Flamer in particular is a prime casualty.
As for 7th taking things a bit too far? I think we can all agree on that
Your mileage may vary, but it was an extra thing to remember to take to a game, drop on minis, get into debates over and resulted in almost obligatory 2" movement trays for everyone. Crap design.
I'd take them over the implementation of Strats any day.
Blasts in particular worked quite well in conjunction with good terrain rules/setups that encouraged the use of cover. There was a good organic choice between clumping up models in or behind cover, or losing the cover bonus in order to disperse enough to make Blast weapons less effective. When there are rules and situations that disincentivise the '2" spread', reacting to potential Blasts provides important defensive decisions.
As for "Remembering to bring templates, uughh", that's just reaching. Keeping them with your dice and measuring tape is trivial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: The flamer template was fun, because it didn't scatter. Anything else...felt more like rules bloat, especially the small templates that would rarely hit more than two models. A plasma gun often ended up being more effective than a plasma cannon.
I'd say templates could have worked better if you have had no scatter but hit a specific model with a normal to hit roll and if you have had coherency rules like OPR, i.e. All models of a squad have to be within 6" of each other.
I agree that the thing that caused the most arguments was the scatter. That's the place I'd look for making adjustments.
Proposal: Place Blast Marker centered on a model in the target unit. Firing model gets to roll to-hit for each model under the Blast Marker.
Which makes things easier, but does unfortunately cut down on the visceral butt-clinch moments when rolling for Demolisher scatters.
You could hybridize your proposal with the old scatter rules: place the template anywhere over your target and count the models underneath. Count all as 'hit' on a successful roll to hit. If you miss by one, subtract 2 from the hit total, miss by 2 subtract 4, etc. Rolled ones to hit miss outright as before. Not perfect, but then nothing is. Better at least than these wonky 'if a squad has x models then y happens' silliness.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't see how a focus on Space Marines would have any bearing on including Blasts as a mechanic.
Because on of the most notable effects of blast templates on gameplay is horde players (and xeno horde players in particular) having to spread their models as perfectly as possible, which lead to hours long movement phases.
HH for obvious reasons doesn't care about Ork Boys orTermagants.
EDIT: And again, HH nerfed most blast weapons to the point only the heaviest blast weapons are actually a threat to Space Marines.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't see how a focus on Space Marines would have any bearing on including Blasts as a mechanic.
Because on of the most notable effects of blast templates on gameplay is horde players (and xeno horde players in particular) having to spread their models as perfectly as possible, which lead to hours long movement phases.
HH for obvious reasons doesn't care about Ork Boys orTermagants.
Again, my counter to that is providing downsides to spreading models out so much. Lack of cover being an important element.
EDIT: And again, HH nerfed most blast weapons to the point only the heaviest blast weapons are actually a threat to Space Marines.
Sounds like 3rd/4th edition. Editions which had more restraint in their weapon and army design. It's an indication that the issue isn't the mechanic itself, but how it was distributed.
You could hybridize your proposal with the old scatter rules: place the template anywhere over your target and count the models underneath. Count all as 'hit' on a successful roll to hit. If you miss by one, subtract 2 from the hit total, miss by 2 subtract 4, etc. Rolled ones to hit miss outright as before. Not perfect, but then nothing is. Better at least than these wonky 'if a squad has x models then y happens' silliness.
Yeah, the squad model count thing is really awkward.
Trying to compare proposals. I feel like simply rolling to hit each model is the more straight forward way to go, and accomplishes about the same thing? Am I missing an incentive for your take?
Edit: I guess you're likelier to hit more models with your method.
Insectum7 wrote: Again, my counter to that is providing downsides to spreading models out so much. Lack of cover being an important element.
Except that doesn't really change the issue, and arguably makes it worse because now you have to weight different benefits and downsides. A perfect spread distance is still the goal, that it isn't the full 2" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Insectum7 wrote: Again, my counter to that is providing downsides to spreading models out so much. Lack of cover being an important element.
Except that doesn't really change the issue, and arguably makes it worse because now you have to weight different benefits and downsides. A perfect spread distance is still the goal, that it isn't the full 2" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Weighing different benefits and downsides is the feature? Like . . . The whole point?
There is a meaningful mechanical difference at the tactical level on the tabletop in 40k between a Slaanesh army that bum-rushes enemy units with 48 daemons in 4 groups of 12, and one that bum-rushes enemy units with 48 daemons in 8 groups of 6.
That's like saying "well the big flaw in the Russian battleplan in Ukraine is squad size. Having an 8 man rifle squad makes them far more vulnerable to Ukrainian artillery and tanks than the little five man motorized Rifle squads of the Ukrainians"
And then being okay with that abstraction/analysis.
Weighing different benefits and downsides is the feature? Like . . . The whole point?
When the scale can be hundreds of models per side... that degree of detail becomes cumbersome.
I personally don't enjoy having to measure the position of every gaunt. At the scale 40k operates I want incentives for unit scale maneuvering and positioning because I only have to manage around a dozen units. I don't want to manage the exact position of every model in every unit.
Insectum7 wrote: Again, my counter to that is providing downsides to spreading models out so much. Lack of cover being an important element.
Except that doesn't really change the issue, and arguably makes it worse because now you have to weight different benefits and downsides. A perfect spread distance is still the goal, that it isn't the full 2" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Weighing different benefits and downsides is the feature? Like . . . The whole point?
Meaningful tabletop decisions at the tactical level based on terrain and relative capabilities between friendly and enemy units is *haaaard*, Insectum.
Weighing different benefits and downsides is the feature? Like . . . The whole point?
When the scale can be hundreds of models per side... that degree of detail becomes cumbersome.
I personally don't enjoy having to measure the position of every gaunt. At the scale 40k operates I want incentives for unit scale maneuvering and positioning because I only have to manage around a dozen units. I don't want to manage the exact position of every model in every unit.
Well it's a good thing 9th edition fixes this and individual model position doesn't matter on the tabletop, then.
Well it's a good thing 9th edition fixes this and individual model position doesn't matter on the tabletop, then.
Right?
The fact that 9th edition has plenty bad design decisions doesn't mean that going back to an older (and obsolete) rule set is the answer, because classic 40k also had plenty of bad design decisions.
I would like a good ruleset, 9th isn't it but neither was classic 40k, so I would prefer new attempts at answering these design issues rather than this false "current vs old" paradigm.
Weighing different benefits and downsides is the feature? Like . . . The whole point?
When the scale can be hundreds of models per side... that degree of detail becomes cumbersome.
I personally don't enjoy having to measure the position of every gaunt. At the scale 40k operates I want incentives for unit scale maneuvering and positioning because I only have to manage around a dozen units. I don't want to manage the exact position of every model in every unit.
You don't have to measure it. Measuring every move is your choice.
Do you measure specifically each models move already? If you do, you're already doing the work. If you don't, then eyeballing your squads dispersion should come easy.
Well it's a good thing 9th edition fixes this and individual model position doesn't matter on the tabletop, then.
Right?
The fact that 9th edition has plenty bad design decisions doesn't mean that going back to an older (and obsolete) rule set is the answer, because classic 40k also had plenty of bad design decisions.
I would like a good ruleset, 9th isn't it but neither was classic 40k, so I would prefer new attempts at answering these design issues rather than this false "current vs old" paradigm.
There are many ways to fix this problem; most require the rebuilding of 40k from the ground up and require a second look at some of the most fundamental abstractions in the game.
Templates provide a tongue-in-cheek way to point out that this was a solved problem "back in the day" - and since the critiques of it mostly stem from the rest of the rules *around* templates being bad (e.g. coherency and movement), it's only fair to complain about the rest of the rules of the current edition too.
Great in a vacuum, terrible in practice. It slows down the game so much when everyone sits there places their minis exactly 1.9999" apart to stay in coherency but not be vulnerable to blasts.
It's fine when you're running very small units but god forbid anyone turn up with a unit with more than 10 models in it. Imagine no one wanting to play against you just because you're forced to slow the game down so much so you don't auto lose to a blast template.
just fix coherency, force models to be base 2 base. individual positioning of models in a unit is too precise for the scale of 40k
Great in a vacuum, terrible in practice. It slows down the game so much when everyone sits there places their minis exactly 1.9999" apart to stay in coherency but not be vulnerable to blasts.
It's fine when you're running very small units but god forbid anyone turn up with a unit with more than 10 models in it. Imagine no one wanting to play against you just because you're forced to slow the game down so much so you don't auto lose to a blast template.
just fix coherency, force models to be base 2 base. individual positioning of models in a unit is too precise for the scale of 40k
There's loads of ways to fix having to measure, most not so draconian as this. Most don't affect the movement rules, but changing the movement rules could also work (e.g. measuring from the unit leader and then fitting everyone into a radius around him at the player's discretion, etc.). But again, all these require a reexamination of 40k's most fundamental abstractions so... yeah. Not likely.
Insectum7 wrote: You don't have to measure it. Measuring every move is your choice.
Do you measure specifically each models move already? If you do, you're already doing the work. If you don't, then eyeballing your squads dispersion should come easy.
No it doesn't. To some it may come ease, but it never came ease to me. And because I would be punished by it, I prefer to not have to deal with that.
You mean like proposals as have been presented in this very thread?
The "new vs. Old" framing is yours.
"Bring back templates" is not what I would call a new proposal.
Moreover I wasn't the one that made a comparison argument with 9th ed.
There's loads of ways to fix having to measure, most not so draconian as this. Most don't affect the movement rules, but changing the movement rules could also work (e.g. measuring from the unit leader and then fitting everyone into a radius around him at the player's discretion, etc.). But again, all these require a reexamination of 40k's most fundamental abstractions so... yeah. Not likely.
that wouldnt fix the issue of perfectly spreading out models to minimize the effects of templates tho.
it 100% should already be like that tho, SW:Legions does it and the movement is sooo much more fluid
There's loads of ways to fix having to measure, most not so draconian as this. Most don't affect the movement rules, but changing the movement rules could also work (e.g. measuring from the unit leader and then fitting everyone into a radius around him at the player's discretion, etc.). But again, all these require a reexamination of 40k's most fundamental abstractions so... yeah. Not likely.
that wouldnt fix the issue of perfectly spreading out models to minimize the effects of templates tho.
it 100% should already be like that tho, SW:Legions does it and the movement is sooo much more fluid
Well yes it does only because models can spread out as much or little as they want to fit within the circle around the unit leader. Two termagants could be 6" or .5" away from each other, with empty space or not in between, so long as they meet the radius requirement.
Of course you could do some kind of math with an equation to figure out how to maximize surface area and minimize density, but if someone is willing to go that far then perhaps the problem is them and not the rules...
Moreover I wasn't the one that made a comparison argument with 9th ed.
Well you did say removing templates fixed the issue of having to worry about precise model position.
I think pointing out that this isn't the case rather shoots down the argument, doesn't it?
"Removing templates is good because of x"
"X is still a thing"
"Removing templates is good ... for REASONS!"
And bringing them back would make it worse, so your point?
Would it? I feel like if you just plopped templates into the current edition instead of the Blast keyword, people would still cram behind los blocking terrain and expand to cover their melee frontage when not.
Current blast rules do MORE hits to units than the old blasts did in most cases - a Russ battlecannon would rarely do 9 hits to 30 orks spread out even just an approximation of 1.5".
Would it? I feel like if you just plopped templates into the current edition instead of the Blast keyword, people would still cram behind los blocking terrain and expand to cover their melee frontage when not.Current blast rules do MORE hits to units than the old blasts did in most cases - a Russ battlecannon would rarely do 9 hits to 30 orks spread out even just an approximation of 1.5".
And would do like twice that amount against a densely packed unit. I fail to see the need for that.
In fact, if we are going to bring back blast templates, why not balance them around their targets being clustered together? That's basically what HH did to the battlecannon by making it a 3" blast.
EDIT: And that is without considering the changes to wounding and hitting. A battlecannon back then doing doing 9 hits means 7-8 very dead orks if in the open. Nowadays it means more about 4 because you still need to roll to hit and wounding on 3+ rather than 2+.
Movement sticks like star wars would be sublime for 40k pacing.
Or just standardize front of base to back of base moving, so you can lay down a template or ruler and pick up and move without having to fenagle around the ruler.
So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today. I'll keep checking throughout the week, though. Instead, I'll give the data for the other 12 events I've taken a look at since Daedalus' post a couple of days ago.
Key:
Dropped after 1 round - Dropped after 2 rounds - Dropped after 3 rounds - Dropped after 4 rounds - Dropped after 5 rounds - Dropped after 6 rounds
Game of Westeros XIV. Vastmanlands, Sweden 86, 5R (GH)
Spoiler:
88 entrants, 2 show no results, 2 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - || (60, 85)
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| (4, 28, 35, 77, 79)
Adeptus Mechanicus - || (58, 76)
Aeldari - || (45, 48)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (2, 8, 15)
Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh) - | (62)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (19)
Chaos Space Marines - | (74)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (39)
Craftworld Eldar - | (6)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (21)
Dark Eldar - | (14)
Death Guard - ||| (37, 46, 47)
Genestealer Cult - |||| (7, 43, 49, 61)
Grey Knights - ||| (24, 31, 75)
Harlequins - | (17)
Imperial Guard - ||||| | (5, 26, 34, 50, 55, 70)
Imperial Knights - || (22, 69)
Knights Renegades - |||| (1, 36, 54, 81)
Leagues of Votann - |||| (23, 29, 52, 68)
Necrons - || (64, 66)
Orks - |||| (10, 33, 51, 57)
Space Marines - | (3)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (71)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (42, 53)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||| (11, 12, 40)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Ravenwing)) - | (44)
Space Marines (Deathwatch) - | (9)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - ||| (13, 38, 78)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - |||| (27, 59, 67, 80*)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - || (65, 84*)
Tau Empire - ||| (30, 32, 72)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (73)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - | (82)
Thousand Sons - || (83, 86)
Tyranids - | (16)
World Eaters - | (56)
Ynnari - ||||| (18, 20, 25, 41, 63)
Participation % (by Codex) (86 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 2.33%
Adeptus Custodes - 5.81%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.33%
Aeldari - 2.33%
Chaos Daemons - 5.81%
Chaos Space Marines - 2.33%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.33%
Dark Eldar - 1.16%
Death Guard - 3.49%
Genestealer Cult - 4.65%
Grey Knights - 3.49%
Harlequins - 1.16%
Imperial Guard - 6.98%
Imperial Knights - 2.33%
Knights Renegades - 4.65%
Leagues of Votann - 4.65%
Necrons - 2.33%
Orks - 4.65%
Space Marines - 20.93%
Tau Empire - 5.81%
Thousand Sons - 2.33%
Tyranids - 1.16%
World Eaters - 1.16%
Ynnari - 5.81%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x2
Craftworld Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x1
Imperial Guard x1
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
Chaos Daemons overperformed at this event - with 5.81% of the entrants, they achieved 25% of the top 8 spots. I'd argue that Space Marines underperformed here, by 1 top 8 slot - they're past the point where you'd round them up to 25%, given their participation of 20.93%
Dicehammer Open. Irvine, CA 75, 5R (GH)
Spoiler:
75 entrants, 0 show no results, 9 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - ||| (34, 35, 58)
Chaos Daemons - || (26, 49)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (74*)
Chaos Space Marines (Night Lords) - | (32)
Craftworld Eldar - | (11)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (64)
Death Guard - ||| (15, 42, 72*)
Genestealer Cult - ||||| | (10, 16, 18, 24, 27, 65*)
Grey Knights - ||||| (6, 12, 37, 40, 57)
Imperial Guard - ||||| ||||| | (4, 28, 30, 36, 41, 44, 48, 54*, 59, 63, 67)
Imperial Knights - ||||| | (21, 45, 51, 68, 69, 75*)
Khorne - | (19)
Knights Renegades - || (39, 47)
Leagues of Votann - || (8, 53)
Necrons - || (7, 56)
Orks - | (22)
Orks (Deathskulls) - | (38)
Slaanesh - | (60)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - ||| (1, 20, 73)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (5, 33)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - |||| (3, 17, 43, 61)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (13, 29)
Space Marines (Raptors) - | (62)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (71*)
Tau Empire - ||| (2, 31, 52)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (55*)
Thousand Sons - | (46)
World Eaters - |||| (9, 14, 23, 66)
Ynnari - ||| (25, 50*, 70*)
Participation % (by Codex) (75 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 4.00%
Chaos Daemons - 2.67%
Chaos Space Marines - 2.67%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.67%
Death Guard - 4.00%
Genestealer Cult - 8.00%
Grey Knights - 6.67%
Imperial Guard - 14.67%
Imperial Knights - 8.00%
Khorne - 1.33%
Knights Renegades - 2.67%
Leagues of Votann - 2.67%
Necrons - 2.67%
Orks - 2.67%
Slaanesh - 1.33%
Space Marines - 17.33%
Tau Empire - 5.33%
Thousand Sons - 1.33%
World Eaters - 5.33%
Ynnari - 4.00%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Grey Knights x1
Imperial Guard x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Necrons x1
Space Marines x3
Tau Empire x1
Space Marines did overperform here, relative to their participation %, by around 1 top 8 slot. I'd consider Genestealer Cult and Imperial Knights to have possibly underperformed, given they each made up 8% of the field, and neither managed a top 8 slot.
Midtcon GT. Viborg, Denmark 74, 5R (GH)
Spoiler:
84 entrants, 10 show no results, 8 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - |||| (1, 50, 53, 58)
Adeptus Custodes - |||| (14, 21, 40, 60)
Aeldari - ||| (25, 35, 67)
Chaos Daemons - ||||| (3, 15, 42, 47, 74*)
Chaos Daemons (Nurgle) - | (39)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (30)
Chaos Space Marines - || (36, 65)
Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) - | (59)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - || (10, 11)
Dark Eldar - || (24, 29)
Death Guard - || (33, 71)
Genestealer Cult - | (17)
Grey Knights - ||| (19, 20, 27)
Harlequins - | (49)
Imperial Guard - ||||| (8, 23, 26, 63, 70*)
Imperial Knights - || (55*, 72)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - || (34*, 48)
Necrons - ||| (12, 37, 51)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - | (66)
Orks - ||| (4, 44, 45)
Space Marines - | (69*)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (6)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (38, 56)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (2, 5)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - ||| (16, 22, 57*)
Space Marines (Raptors) - | (46)
Space Marines (Raven Guard) - | (62)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (13)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - |||| (32*, 43, 61, 68)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - || (41, 73*)
Tau Empire - ||| (9, 52, 54)
Tyranids (Jormungandr) - | (31)
Tyranids (Kraken) - | (64)
world Eaters - | (18)
Ynnari - || (7, 28)
Space Marines overperformed by one top 8 spot here - two would've fitted almost exactly with their participation %, but 3 is one too many. Can't really say anyone underperformed, though.
9th Barrie Bash. Barrie, Canada 66, 5R (GH)
Spoiler:
66 entrants, 0 show no results, 7 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - || (63, 66*)
Adeptus Custodes - ||| (4, 51*, 56)
Aeldari - || (20, 62)
Chaos Daemons - || (12, 57)
Chaos Daemons (Khorne) - | (28)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (40)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (27)
Chaos Space Marines (Red Corsairs) - | (31)
Craftworld Eldar - | (48)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (16)
Dark Eldar - | (61*)
Death Guard - || (23, 43)
Genestealer Cult - ||||| (2, 3, 9, 17, 22)
Grey Knights - ||| (34, 52, 53)
Harlequins - || (6, 13)
Imperial Guard - ||||| (5, 10, 30, 42*, 44)
Imperial Knights - || (58, 64)
Knights Renegades - || (38, 55)
Leagues of Votann - ||| (7, 25, 26)
Leagues of Votann (Greater Thurian League) - || (32, 59)
Necrons - | (60*)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - | (35)
Orks (Goffs) - || (24, 54)
Space Marines - | (36)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (41)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (1, 50*)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (15, 37)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - | (21)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - || (18, 46)
Space Marines (White Scars) - | (39)
Tau Empire - ||| (11, 29, 47)
Tau Empire (T'au Sept) - | (49)
Tyranids - | (19)
Tyranids (Jormungandr) - | (45)
World Eaters - ||| (14, 33, 65*)
Ynnari - | (8)
Participation % (by Codex) (66 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 3.03%
Adeptus Custodes - 4.55%
Aeldari - 3.03%
Chaos Daemons - 6.06%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.03%
Craftworld Eldar - 3.03%
Dark Eldar - 1.52%
Death Guard - 3.03%
Genestealer Cult - 7.58%
Grey Knights - 4.55%
Harlequins - 3.03%
Imperial Guard - 7.58%
Imperial Knights - 3.03%
Knights Renegades - 3.03%
Leagues of Votann - 7.58%
Necrons - 3.03%
Orks - 3.03%
Space Marines - 15.15%
Tau Empire - 6.06%
Tyranids - 1.52%
World Eaters - 4.55%
Ynnari - 1.52%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x1
Genestealer Cult x2
Harlequins x1
Imperial Guard x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x1
Ynnari x1
While my gut feeling initially was that SM had underperformed, they haven't done so at this event to a significant degree - 1 top 8 spot is probably right for ~15% of the field. Genestealer Cult, on the other hand, definitely overperformed here, getting 25% of the top 8 slots as 7.58% of the field...
CAGBASH XVI. Hamilton, OH 67, 5R (BCP)
Spoiler:
68 entrants, 12 show no results, 8 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - ||||| || (6, 8, 15, 20, 37, 39, 51*)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (13, 14, 19)
Chaos Space Marines - | (47)
Chaos Space Marines (Night Lords) - || (35, 48)
Craftworld Eldar - | (28)
Death Guard - ||| (1, 42, 45)
Genestealer Cult - | (32)
Harlequins - | (41*)
Imperial Guard - |||| (7, 9, 17, 43)
Imperial Guard (Cadian Shock Troops) - | (49)
Imperial Knights - || (22, 29)
Knights Renegades - | (25)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - || (12, 36)
Necrons - || (31, 44)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - || (11, 55*)
Orks (Deathskulls) - | (33)
Orks (Evil Suns) - | (23)
Orks (Goffs) - | (26)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (5)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (52*)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - |||| (27, 46, 40*, 54)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (30, 34)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - ||| (4, 10, 21)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (24)
Thousand Sons - || (50*, 53*)
Tyranids (Jormungandr) - | (38)
World Eaters - ||| (3, 18, 56*)
Ynnari - || (2, 16)
Participation % (by Codex) (56 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 12.5%
Chaos Daemons - 5.36%
Chaos Space Marines - 5.36%
Craftworld Eldar - 1.79%
Death Guard - 5.36%
Genestealer Cult - 1.79%
Harlequins - 1.79%
Imperial Guard - 8.93%
Imperial Knights - 3.57%
Knights Renegades - 1.79%
Leagues of Votann - 3.57%
Necrons - 7.14%
Orks - 5.36%
Space Marines - 19.64%
Tau Empire - 1.79%
Thousand Sons - 3.57%
Tyranids - 1.79%
World Eaters - 5.36%
Ynnari - 3.57%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x2
Death Guard x1
Imperial Guard x1
Space Marines x2
World Eaters x1
Ynnari x1
Given SM participation % of 19.64% puts them between 1 & 2 expected top 4 slots, I wouldn't say their 2 was overperforming. I would, however, say that the Adeptus Custodes overperformed, netting 25% of the top 8 slots from 12.5% of the entrants.
Corsair Open GT. Munchen, Germany 43, 5R (GH)
Spoiler:
43 entrants, 0 show no results, 3 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - | (6)
Adeptus Custodes - |||| (5, 13, 18, 20)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (42*)
Aeldari - || (26, 27)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (25, 30, 38)
Craftword Eldar - | (35)
Dark Eldar - | (3)
Genestealer Cult - || (9, 23)
Grey Knights - || (32, 33)
Harlequins - | (37)
Imperial Guard - ||| (10, 16, 31)
Imperial Knights - | (24)
Leagues of Votann - | (4)
Orks - | (41)
Space Marines - || (17, 34*)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (19)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - ||| (14, 28, 43)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||||| || (2, 7, 8, 11, 21, 22, 39)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Ravenwing)) - | (29)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (12)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (40*)
World Eaters - || (15, 36)
Ynnari - | (1)
Participation % (by Codex) (43 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 2.33%
Adeptus Custodes - 9.30%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.33%
Aeldari - 4.65%
Chaos Daemons - 6.98%
Craftword Eldar - 2.33%
Dark Eldar - 2.33%
Genestealer Cult - 4.65%
Grey Knights - 4.65%
Harlequins - 2.33%
Imperial Guard - 6.98%
Imperial Knights - 2.33%
Leagues of Votann - 2.33%
Orks - 2.33%
Space Marines - 34.88%
Tau Empire - 2.33%
World Eaters - 4.65%
Ynnari - 2.33%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adepta Sororitas x1
Adeptus Custodes x1
Dark Eldar x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x3
Ynnari x1
I'm sure Semper is going to kick off about this, but despite securing three top 8 spots, Space Marines did not overperform here compared to their participation % - they made up 34.88% of the field, and got 37.5% of the top spots.
Not sure why the German field had so many Space Marines, admittedly.
Full marks to the Adepta Sororitas, Dark Eldar, Leagues of Votann and Ynnari players, by the way - only one person representing each, and they all secured a top 8 spot.
Winter Ruin GT. Coplay, PA 43, 5R (BCP) - Event ran on 25/02
Spoiler:
43 entrants, 1 show no results, 2 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - || (37, 41*)
Adeptus Custodes - | (15)
Adeptus Mechanicus - || (20, 30)
Chaos - | (33*)
Chaos Daemons - | (7)
Chaos Space Marines - | (1)
Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) - | (31)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (22)
Craftworld Eldar - || (5, 36)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (6)
Death Guard - || (27, 34)
Grey Knights - | (35)
Harlequins - | (24)
Imperial Guard - ||| (2, 9, 28)
Imperial Guard (Cadian Shock Troops) - || (21, 40)
Knights Renegades - || (8, 23)
Leagues of Votann - || (14, 17)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (39)
Necrons - | (32)
Orks - | (26)
Orks (Bad Moons) - | (38)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - ||| (4, 18, 19)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (13)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (3)
Space Marines (Deathwatch) - | (16)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (25)
Space Marines (White Scars) - | (29)
Tau Empire - | (42)
Thousand Sons - | (11)
Tyranids - | (10)
Ynnari - | (12)
Participation % (by Codex) (42 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 4.76%
Adeptus Custodes - 2.38%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 4.76%
Chaos - 2.38%
Chaos Daemons - 2.38%
Chaos Space Marines - 7.14%
Craftworld Eldar - 7.14%
Death Guard - 4.76%
Grey Knights - 2.38%
Harlequins - 2.38%
Imperial Guard - 11.9%
Knights Renegades - 4.76%
Leagues of Votann - 7.14%
Necrons - 2.38%
Orks - 4.76%
Space Marines - 19.04%
Tau Empire - 2.38%
Thousand Sons - 2.38%
Tyranids - 2.38%
Ynnari - 2.38%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Chaos Daemons x1
Chaos Space Marines x1
Craftworld Eldar x2
Imperial Guard x1
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x2
Given Space Marines were 19.04% of the field, I wouldn't say 2 top 8 places is overperforming - their participation % puts them in a spot where 1 or 2 top 8 spots would be reasonable. Craftworld Eldar, on the other hand, definitely overperformed, getting 25% of the top 8 from 7.14% of the field.
...I didn't think the Guard had sub-factions these days. Well, maybe Storm Troopers, but that's about it.
Norsehammer Open 2023. Bjodnabeen, Norway 38, 5R (GH)
Spoiler:
39 entrants, 1 show no results, 2 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - || (9, 11)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (20)
Aeldari - || (3, 10)
Chaos Daemons - |||| (2, 12, 16, 19)
Chaos Daemons (Khorne) - | (23)
Chaos Space Marines - | (24)
Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) - | (28)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (37)
Dark Eldar - | (1)
Death Guard - || (18, 22)
Imperial Knights - | (4)
Knights Renegades - | (38)
Leagues of Votann - || (8, 26)
Necrons - ||| (15, 29, 35)
Orks - | (32)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||| (5, 25, 33)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (13, 14)
Space Marines (White Scars) - || (21, 30)
Tau Empire - || (7, 17)
Thousand Sons - || (27*, 34)
Tyranids - | (31)
Tyranids (Gorgon) - | (6)
Tyranids (Kraken) - | (36*)
Factions (by Codex) Adeptus Custodes - || (9, 11)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (20)
Aeldari - || (3, 10)
Chaos Daemons - ||||| (2, 12, 16, 19, 23)
Chaos Space Marines - || (24, 28)
Craftworld Eldar - | (37)
Dark Eldar - | (1)
Death Guard - || (18, 22)
Imperial Knights - | (4)
Knights Renegades - | (38)
Leagues of Votann - || (8, 26)
Necrons - ||| (15, 29, 35)
Orks - | (32)
Space Marines - ||||| || (5, 13, 14, 21, 25, 30, 33)
Tau Empire - || (7, 17)
Thousand Sons - || (27*, 34)
Tyranids - ||| (6, 31, 36*)
Participation % (by Codex) (38 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 5.26%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.63%
Aeldari - 5.26%
Chaos Daemons - 13.15%
Chaos Space Marines - 5.26%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.63%
Dark Eldar - 2.63%
Death Guard - 5.26%
Imperial Knights - 2.63%
Knights Renegades - 2.63%
Leagues of Votann - 5.26%
Necrons - 7.89%
Orks - 2.63%
Space Marines - 18.42%
Tau Empire - 5.26%
Thousand Sons - 5.26%
Tyranids - 7.89%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Aeldari x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Dark Eldar x1
Imperial Knights x1
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x1
Tau Empire x1
Tyranids x1
With eight different factions getting top 8 slots, I don't think anyone can be said to have overperformed or underperformed here. Chaos Daemons and Space Marines did clear 12.5% participation, but neither cleared the mid-point in participation towards getting two top 8 slots.
Bonus points for the Dark Eldar and Imperial Knights players, though, who managed top 8 slots despite being their faction's sole representative at the event.
Iberian Ham Tournament. Sant Joan Despi, Spain 36, 5R (GH)
Spoiler:
36 entrants, 0 show no results, 0 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - ||| (6, 27, 29)
Aeldari - || (12, 32)
Chaos Daemons - | (25)
Chaos Space Marines - | (10)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (35)
Chaos Space Marines (Night Lords) - | (34)
Craftworld Eldar - | (7)
Dark Eldar - || (8, 24)
Death Guard - | (33)
Genestealer Cult - | (4)
Imperial Guard - || (3, 11)
Knights Renegades - | (13)
Leagues of Votann - | (15)
Necrons - || (28, 36)
Orks - ||| (18, 19, 21)
Orks (Deathskulls) - | (1)
Space Marines - | (5)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (20)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (2)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (14)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - || (22, 26)
Tau Empire - | (16)
Thousand Sons - | (23)
World Eaters - || (9, 30)
Ynnari - || (17, 31)
Factions (by Codex) Adeptus Custodes - ||| (6, 27, 29)
Aeldari - || (12, 32)
Chaos Daemons - | (25)
Chaos Space Marines - ||| (10, 34, 35)
Craftworld Eldar - | (7)
Dark Eldar - || (8, 24)
Death Guard - | (33)
Genestealer Cult - | (4)
Imperial Guard - || (3, 11)
Knights Renegades - | (13)
Leagues of Votann - | (15)
Necrons - || (28, 36)
Orks - ||| (1, 18, 19, 21)
Space Marines - ||||| | (2, 5, 14, 20, 22, 26)
Tau Empire - | (16)
Thousand Sons - | (23)
World Eaters - || (9, 30)
Ynnari - || (17, 31)
Participation % (by Codex) (36 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 8.33%
Aeldari - 5.56%
Chaos Daemons - 2.78%
Chaos Space Marines - 8.33%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.78%
Dark Eldar - 5.56%
Death Guard - 2.78%
Genestealer Cult - 2.78%
Imperial Guard - 5.56%
Knights Renegades - 2.78%
Leagues of Votann - 2.78%
Necrons - 5.56%
Orks - 11.11%
Space Marines - 16.67%
Tau Empire - 2.78%
Thousand Sons - 2.78%
World Eaters - 5.56%
Ynnari - 5.56%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Dark Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x1
Imperial Guard x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x2
There's an argument that SMslightly overperformed here - their participation % would round down to 1 top 8 spot, but they still sit between 1 & 2 based on participation %. Fair play to the sole GSC entrant making the top 8, too.
For events below 33 players, I'll look at top 4 rather than top 8 Drop Assault On Coast Con. Biloxi, MS 22, 5R (BCP)
Spoiler:
22 entrants, 0 show no results, 2 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - || (1, 14)
Chaos Daemons - | (2)
Grey Knights - || (18, 22*)
Imperial Guard - | (16)
Imperial Knights - | (3)
Knights Renegades - || (4, 10)
Leagues of Votann - | (19)
Orks (Freebooterz) - | (6)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (5, 13)
Space Marines (Red Scorpions) - | (17)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (11)
Tau Empire (T'au Sept) - | (8)
Tyranids (Leviathan) - | (12)
World Eaters - ||| (15, 20*, 21)
Ynnari - || (7, 9)
Top 4 slots (25% each) Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Imperial Knights x1
Knights Renegades x1
As with all these small events, I wouldn't say any faction has overperformed by getting a top 4 spot. I would say that Space Marines underperformed by not getting one, given they were 18.18% of the field.
Scottish Take Over GT. Scotland 21, 5R (BCP)
Spoiler:
21 entrants, 0 show no results, 1 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Aeldari - | (10)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (7)
Chaos Space Marines - || (16, 19)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (21)
Craftworld Eldar - | (2)
Imperial Guard - | (20*)
Knights Renegades - ||| (3, 5, 9)
Leagues of Votann - | (1)
Necrons - | (4)
Space Marines - | (11)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (8)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (6, 15)
Space Marines (White Scars) - | (14)
Tyranids - || (12, 18)
Tyranids (Leviathan) - | (17)
World Eaters - | (13)
Participation % (by Codex) (21 entrants) Aeldari - 4.76%
Chaos Daemons - 4.76%
Chaos Space Marines - 14.29%
Craftworld Eldar - 4.76%
Imperial Guard - 4.76%
Knights Renegades - 14.29%
Leagues of Votann - 4.76%
Necrons - 4.76%
Space Marines - 23.81%
Tyranids - 14.29%
World Eaters - 4.76%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Leagues of Votann x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Knights Renegades x1
Necrons x1
Can't really say any of these overperformed, given the size of the event. Given no Space Marines made the top 4, despite nearly 25% of the entries, I would consider them as underperforming here.
Talvisota- Winter Assualt. Hesinki, Finland 21, 5R (BCP)
Spoiler:
20 entrants, 0 show no results, 0 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - | (8)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (17)
Aeldari - | (14)
Chaos Daemons - || (7, 11)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (10)
Dark Eldar - | (16)
Death Guard - | (15)
Genestealer Cult - | (13)
Harlequins - | (12)
Imperial Guard - | (5)
Leagues of Votann - || (4, 20)
Necrons - | (2)
Space Marines - | (1)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - | (6)
Space Marines (White Scars) - | (18)
Tau Empire - | (9)
Tyranids (Gorgon) - | (19)
Ynnari - | (3)
Factions (by Codex) Adeptus Custodes - | (8)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (17)
Aeldari - | (14)
Chaos Daemons - || (7, 11)
Craftworld Eldar - | (10)
Dark Eldar - | (16)
Death Guard - | (15)
Genestealer Cult - | (13)
Harlequins - | (12)
Imperial Guard - | (5)
Leagues of Votann - || (4, 20)
Necrons - | (2)
Space Marines - ||| (1, 6, 18)
Tau Empire - | (9)
Tyranids - | (19)
Ynnari - | (3)
Participation % (by Codex) (20 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 5%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 5%
Aeldari - 5%
Chaos Daemons - 10%
Craftworld Eldar - 5%
Dark Eldar - 5%
Death Guard - 5%
Genestealer Cult - 5%
Harlequins - 5%
Imperial Guard - 5%
Leagues of Votann - 10%
Necrons - 5%
Space Marines - 15%
Tau Empire - 5%
Tyranids - 5%
Ynnari - 5%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Leagues of Votann x1
Necrons x1
Space Marines x1
Ynnari x1
As with the Scottish event, can't really say anyone is overperforming here due to the size of the event. Space Marines are about where you'd expect, with 1 top 4 for 15% of the field, as well as being the single largest faction at the event.
Participation vs. top 8 slots for the 9 events with a top 8
In events of 33 or more players, Space Marines are overperforming slightly - they've achieved 25% more top 8 spots than you'd expect from their participation % of 20.54%. That translates to ~3 spots.
Compared to their participation %, Craftworld Eldar are overperforming by ~100%, Adeptus Custodes by ~33% Dark Eldar by 250-300%, Genestealer Cult by ~50%, Leagues of Votann by ~25%, and Ynnari are overdoing things by ~66%.
For those that secured at least one top 8 spot, I'd describe the following as underperforming: Aeldari, Chaos Space Marines, Death Guard, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, Necrons, Orks, Tau Empire & World Eaters.
Participation vs. top 4 slots for the 3 events with a top 4
In these smaller (less than 33 player) events, I'd say there was clear overperformance compared to participation for Knights Renegades, Leagues of Votann and Necrons - with a special shoutout to the one Imperial Knights player, who scored a top 4 slot. In contrast^ Space Marines underperformed at these events, given their participation % - at 19.04% of the field across 3 events, I'd expect 2 top 4 spots, not 1.
^ - Probably not referring to the paint here, but I can't say for sure...
Codex: Space Marines Sub-Factions
Spoiler:
Space Marines - ||||| |||
Black Templars - ||||| ||||| ||
Blood Angels - ||||| ||||| |||||
Dark Angels - ||||| ||||| ||||| ||||| ||||| ||||| |||
Deathwatch - ||
Iron Hands - ||||| ||||| |||
Raptors - ||
Raven Guard - |
Red Scorpions - |
Salamanders - ||
Space Wolves - ||||| ||||| ||||| |||
Ultramarines - |||||
White Scars - ||||| |
Dark Angels definitely leading the way in these events, though Iron Hands are in the following pack, rather than joint leaders.
SM Win Records (5 Swiss Rounds, W/L/Blue) (12 events)
Insectum7 wrote: You don't have to measure it. Measuring every move is your choice.
Do you measure specifically each models move already? If you do, you're already doing the work. If you don't, then eyeballing your squads dispersion should come easy.
No it doesn't. To some it may come ease, but it never came ease to me. And because I would be punished by it, I prefer to not have to deal with that.
I genuinely can't see how eyeballing movement distances is a struggle.
You mean like proposals as have been presented in this very thread?
The "new vs. Old" framing is yours.
"Bring back templates" is not what I would call a new proposal.
Moreover I wasn't the one that made a comparison argument with 9th ed.
"Bring back Templates but not necessarily use the exact same mechanics." is not the same as "Bring back templates exactly how they were implemented in old editions."
Blast X : the attacks characteristic of this weapon is equal to X but cannot exceed the number of models in the target unit.
I actually use something similar.
Blast/Large blast: Make one to hit roll for the weapon. A successful hit causes up to 4/6 wound rolls on the target, if there are enough models in the unit.
If you miss, roll again. If you hit with the reroll, a successful hit causes up to 2/3 wound rolls, if there are enough models in the unit.
This is supposed to act as a full hit with no scatter and a little bit of scatter but still hitting something, respectively.
Dystartes I'm not seeing anything to get mad over, which is surprising given how often GW does something maddening and how easily I get mad. Maybe I'm being blind but this looks great.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There is a meaningful mechanical difference at the tactical level on the tabletop in 40k between a Slaanesh army that bum-rushes enemy units with 48 daemons in 4 groups of 12, and one that bum-rushes enemy units with 48 daemons in 8 groups of 6.
That's like saying "well the big flaw in the Russian battleplan in Ukraine is squad size. Having an 8 man rifle squad makes them far more vulnerable to Ukrainian artillery and tanks than the little five man motorized Rifle squads of the Ukrainians"
And then being okay with that abstraction/analysis.
A horde of 30 football hooligans is different from 3 squads of 10 cops trying to control that horde and preventing them from entering 3 different streets. If the hooligans split up into 3 groups of 10 and worked towards different objectives, like 10 of them taking a leak, 10 of them getting beer and 10 having a fight with fans of the other soccer team then that'd also be a meaningful difference from a horde of 30.
Then there is also the argument that units that are generally considered hordes, like Boys and Termagants can have bigger units than Tactical Marines or Tau Fire Warriors. The opposite might be true for Necron Warriors and Imperial Guardsmen though. I like being able to stretch my units, it increases player agency, I don't want the game to play itself as it simulates a battle in the 40k universe. I liked the old blasts as well though.
Blasts could also hit the nearest unit within 3" of the target with an equal number of shots and all the shots targeting the same unit instead if the target includes more than x models or if you're able to fit x models under a large template. I think not having templates is the right decision for 9th. Having templates was the right choice for 7th because the issues that 7th had with templates causing arguments was repeated so many times because of unclear writing anyway and the problem of the game being slowed down was repeated by having a lot of rules that weren't easy to remember and required you look them up.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd take them over the implementation of Strats any day.
I think I've seen one or two Dakka posters that like the current implementation of Strats, I think a lot of people would prefer 7th edition's broken formations to 9th's broken Stratagems because of the gotchas and anti-flavour of losing melta bombs and various other problems people have with the implementation.
The "blasts hit models rather than units" (i.e. spreads their hits out across all the units in a radius) is how other games like Chain of Command handle fire in general. But it would require a rethinking of 40k because units are so huge.
Doing hits to all units within 3" of 30 orks is different to doing hits to all units within 3" of a Cyclops demolition vehicle.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The "blasts hit models rather than units" (i.e. spreads their hits out across all the units in a radius) is how other games like Chain of Command handle fire in general. But it would require a rethinking of 40k because units are so huge.
Doing hits to all units within 3" of 30 orks is different to doing hits to all units within 3" of a Cyclops demolition vehicle.
If you're measuring out a radius from a model . . . that's suspiciously similar to using a blast template.
Dudeface wrote: Or the template simply scatters and misses in all your scenarios,
Flamers don't scatter and don't roll to hit so...
barrage weapons ignored cover iirc
That doesn't change that a unit may clump up to take advantage of cover that's too small for them to spread out fully behind/within it.
6/7th didn't have any wholly within specific auras
This edition does so if we brought back templates it would be a factor.
if I remember either and tank shock was rarely used
There used to be a combo where a battlewagon with a deffrolla tank shocked did some hits with their deffrolla and clumped the enemy up so that the unit of burnas carried within could melt the unit that is now clumped up.
I mean you'd need 2 vehicles to smush them tightly,
Not especially. You tank shock along one edge of the unit such that the minimum move clumps the displaced units up with the ones that weren't forced to move.
That you are a crap enough player to be unable to use templates isn't a rules issue. It's a skill issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the whole 2" spread issue, just make the templates where this might cause issues either fractionally smaller or fractionally larger to make the issue moot.
For scatter, there are myriad ways to handle it. Everything from a miss simply doesn't place a template to a miss reduces the strength of the template by an amount equal to what it missed by.
A centred 1,5" radius template won't hit a model 1,3" away, a centred 2,5" radius template will hit a model within 2" of a model with a 1" base and won't hit a model that is 3,6" or more away. GW's small blast and large blast templates were already a size at which theoretically it shouldn't matter whether you were 1,3" away or 2" away. Eyeballing somewhere between 1,3" and 2" should be possible with extra allowances given with playing by intent. At this moment I am not remembering spending a lot of time on spreading out models to avoid small blast and large blast templates, less than I remember spreading out models in 8th and 9th for various shenanigans at least, you can blame that on bad design in 8th/9th or poor memory if you believe spacing took more time in previous editions.
It should be either 3 models hit with a large blast if the unit is lined up with a bit of space between them, 5 models if they're in a grid with a bit of space between them, 1 model hit with a small blast if the models have a bit of space between them. The issue from my memory were scenarios where spacing models apart was not an option, so seeing how many a non-scattering small blast would hit in a 10-man unit that got out from a transport or seeing how many got hit after a scatter in an odd direction or getting a good angle on a template in the middle of the table as previously mentioned in the thread.
Tyran wrote: Templates aren't coming back, not at the current scale the game is played.
And yet they exist in current 30k/HH. A game played at the exact same (or greater) scale as 9e 40k....
And HH is more of a simulationist pseudo-historical game of Space Marines vs Space Marines. And yes it technically has non-Space Marine factions, but it is obvious just by looking at the promotional material and website that it is not build with non-Space Marines in mind, because the Heresy was all about Marine vs Marine.
40k isn't that, and shouldn't be trying to be that.
LOL. HH.20 is a slight refinement of HH.1. Wich was essentially 7e. So what you're saying is that 7e (and the earlier 4 editions it was built on) isn't 40k.
And neither the strength &/or AP of the template spawning effect nor wich factions are playable has anything to do with peoples ability* (or lack of) to count # of models underneath a clear plastic template.
* actual ability, not their feigned ignorance that only appears when they're trying to. cheat
Well done. There are 4 other templates that cover more weapons which aren't Flamers and are more likely to see frequesnt use.
That doesn't change that a unit may clump up to take advantage of cover that's too small for them to spread out fully behind/within it.
That's a reasonable point, I do refer back to the old area terrain rules where a model simply needed a toe in to have it apply.
This edition does so if we brought back templates it would be a factor.
Good thing they aren't, it's also largely a moot point.
There used to be a combo where a battlewagon with a deffrolla tank shocked did some hits with their deffrolla and clumped the enemy up so that the unit of burnas carried within could melt the unit that is now clumped up.
Oddly that's about the only example I could recall as well, which means it largely wasn't relevant.
Not especially. You tank shock along one edge of the unit such that the minimum move clumps the displaced units up with the ones that weren't forced to move
Assuming they were 2" spread you're not moving that many unless you were going along a unit front, but you've also then left yourself in blast range, charge range and everything else.
That you are a crap enough player to be unable to use templates isn't a rules issue. It's a skill issue.
If in doubt your tenuous stance is looking a touch weak, throw insults.
As for the whole 2" spread issue, just make the templates where this might cause issues either fractionally smaller or fractionally larger to make the issue moot.
For scatter, there are myriad ways to handle it. Everything from a miss simply doesn't place a template to a miss reduces the strength of the template by an amount equal to what it missed by.
"I love templates, but have to now admit they were implemented poorly, encourage poor mechanics/play and require a change for ease of use."
Dudeface wrote: Well done. There are 4 other templates that cover more weapons which aren't Flamers and are more likely to see frequesnt use.
Okay, so they miss sometimes. That's part of the game.
That's a reasonable point, I do refer back to the old area terrain rules where a model simply needed a toe in to have it apply.
Why are you assuming every rule is written in to make templates as useless as possible?
Good thing they aren't, it's also largely a moot point.
We're talking about a hypothetical where they do, you can't just dismiss the point because you have no argument.
Oddly that's about the only example I could recall as well, which means it largely wasn't relevant.
We have had a lot of new units since the last time it was relevant. It could be that Dark Eldar like the idea of tank shocking in and then dropping their carried units into the enemy or possibly even tank shock into liquefier spam.
Assuming they were 2" spread you're not moving that many unless you were going along a unit front, but you've also then left yourself in blast range, charge range and everything else.
Units are very rarely spread in perfect 2" spacing even in editions where templates are a thing. There are simply too many cases where movement forces them to bunch up.
"I love templates, but have to now admit they were implemented poorly, encourage poor mechanics/play and require a change for ease of use."
I never had any issues with templates when I played with them. This suggestion is to show that they could be brought back with changes that solve perceived issues with their previous implementations.
In an attempt to stop derailing and a debate: templates had some good and bad points, there isn't an oldhammer player out there that hasn't had that fun instance of an ordnance blast scattering back onto the tank firing it, or the pain of a chained wyvern firing round.
The game as it is now could not tolerate a deepstriking unit whoopsing into death by total RNG, it doesn't play in a way that will reward people lobbing vehicles into harms way needlessly, it has enough bloat without adding in layers of rules for templates on top of what there is already.
- People are less tolerant of random now than they ever have been, they would be unwelcome.
- Base sizes are universally larger, so the templates arguably are already less effective than they used to be (for example the 3" template will hit 1-3 32mm bases at most in almost all circumstances for units below 6 man, which is essentially the same as a d3 blast weapon is now).
- Templates have 0 options for interacting with larger targets. i.e. why does a demolisher cannon cap out at 1 hits worth of damage against something the size of a super heavy
- Working around any of these involves more rules than used to be there for templates AND more rules than exist now for blast
- Does nothing to avoid the arguments, the potential damage to models from people dropping stuff, the time spent working stuff out
- Only real reward to blast templates from a narrative perspective are the random bs moments you remember that shouldn't happen (see templates blowing up the unit that fired it)
- Only real benefit game design wise is... a stick to beat people who don't max unit coherency
Dudeface wrote: In an attempt to stop derailing and a debate: templates had some good and bad points, there isn't an oldhammer player out there that hasn't had that fun instance of an ordnance blast scattering back onto the tank firing it, or the pain of a chained wyvern firing round.
The game as it is now could not tolerate a deepstriking unit whoopsing into death by total RNG, it doesn't play in a way that will reward people lobbing vehicles into harms way needlessly, it has enough bloat without adding in layers of rules for templates on top of what there is already.
- People are less tolerant of random now than they ever have been, they would be unwelcome. - Base sizes are universally larger, so the templates arguably are already less effective than they used to be (for example the 3" template will hit 1-3 32mm bases at most in almost all circumstances for units below 6 man, which is essentially the same as a d3 blast weapon is now). - Templates have 0 options for interacting with larger targets. i.e. why does a demolisher cannon cap out at 1 hits worth of damage against something the size of a super heavy - Working around any of these involves more rules than used to be there for templates AND more rules than exist now for blast - Does nothing to avoid the arguments, the potential damage to models from people dropping stuff, the time spent working stuff out - Only real reward to blast templates from a narrative perspective are the random bs moments you remember that shouldn't happen (see templates blowing up the unit that fired it) - Only real benefit game design wise is... a stick to beat people who don't max unit coherency
I don't think you describe accurate what people want. Afterall as a dice game it is still random as all. The problem with randomness was when it was used especially on orks and chaos as "lol get fethed- mechanic". This is highly diffrent from making a deciscion for a dangerous drop. Base size increase has to do with GW sizecreep. Gotta make new models to sell you your army again afterall. Demolishers were ordinance which had better penetration rules. there is a difference in rules beeing bloat (e.g. equipment stratagems f.e. ) and mechanics represented through rules (AV values and templates) one is mechanically intersting if done well. The other is modern GW and as such atleast 75% of the time willfully lobotomised. Mechanically and Melee wise templates reacted indirectly. Beeing closer together was beneficial for a melee unit since it would very well lead to more fighters. Spreading out was a decision therefore and i am sick and tired of people claiming that it just lead to 1.999999 " cohesion spreading when it infact did not.
So no. There are more than enough reasons that you are reaching here.
Dudeface wrote: In an attempt to stop derailing and a debate: templates had some good and bad points, there isn't an oldhammer player out there that hasn't had that fun instance of an ordnance blast scattering back onto the tank firing it, or the pain of a chained wyvern firing round.
The game as it is now could not tolerate a deepstriking unit whoopsing into death by total RNG, it doesn't play in a way that will reward people lobbing vehicles into harms way needlessly, it has enough bloat without adding in layers of rules for templates on top of what there is already.
- People are less tolerant of random now than they ever have been, they would be unwelcome.
- Base sizes are universally larger, so the templates arguably are already less effective than they used to be (for example the 3" template will hit 1-3 32mm bases at most in almost all circumstances for units below 6 man, which is essentially the same as a d3 blast weapon is now).
- Templates have 0 options for interacting with larger targets. i.e. why does a demolisher cannon cap out at 1 hits worth of damage against something the size of a super heavy
- Working around any of these involves more rules than used to be there for templates AND more rules than exist now for blast
- Does nothing to avoid the arguments, the potential damage to models from people dropping stuff, the time spent working stuff out
- Only real reward to blast templates from a narrative perspective are the random bs moments you remember that shouldn't happen (see templates blowing up the unit that fired it)
- Only real benefit game design wise is... a stick to beat people who don't max unit coherency
I don't think you describe accurate what people want. Afterall as a dice game it is still random as all. The problem with randomness was when it was used especially on orks and chaos as "lol get fethed- mechanic". This is highly diffrent from making a deciscion for a dangerous drop.
Base size increase has to do with GW sizecreep. Gotta make new models to sell you your army again afterall.
Demolishers were ordinance which had better penetration rules.
there is a difference in rules beeing bloat (e.g. equipment stratagems f.e. ) and mechanics represented through rules (AV values and templates) one is mechanically intersting if done well. The other is modern GW and as such atleast 75% of the time willfully lobotomised.
Mechanically and Melee wise templates reacted indirectly. Beeing closer together was beneficial for a melee unit since it would very well lead to more fighters. Spreading out was a decision therefore and i am sick and tired of people claiming that it just lead to 1.999999 " cohesion spreading when it infact did not.
So no. There are more than enough reasons that you are reaching here.
There is far less random elements not and people look to minimise them at every turn. Demolishers didn't do any more than 1 wound to a MC at any point which is why they were universally better rules wise. Being closer was beneficial for melee, where you moved closer together on the movement phase and on the charge, then in pile in and consolidate. You had no reason to group up prior to being in melee. Spreading was a decision but there was a right and wrong choice every time. It 100% did lead to people making sure models were spaced correctly.
Insectum7 wrote:@Dudeface: So make templates bigger and less random. Omgwow that was so hard.
So old version:
- I fire my frag missile at this model, hold that template there
- I roll to hit and miss
- I roll the scatter dice and distance
- We debate the precise angle as it does matter
- Arm goes dead
- Move template, which because it's covering in the air is inaccurate
- Debate which models are clipped by it by fractions of inches because it's impossible to tell exactly and nobody can get directly above it + the persons arm isn't entirely steady
- Roll off to decide on the maybes
- Put template down
- Frag missile has hit 2-3 models
- Roll to wound
- Roll to save
New version:
- I fire my frag missile at a target
- I roll a d6 for shots
- It'll be 3-4
- I hit 2-3 models
- Roll to wound
- Roll to save
Both have the same outcome here and there's notably less hassle. They already fixed the problem, the only one I'd make an argument for is flamer templates potentially having value.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There's a thread in proposed rules for it if you guys wish to continue. I'll shush now otherwise.
Just call a judge if someone starts debates every time a template is used. If they do it in 2-3 game they will get removed from the event and if they do it in enough events they will be banned from events. And in store games, where there are no judges or higher entity that can decide, just don't play people that argue everytime a flamer is being used on them.
And templates could be made even simpler all "template" weapons become fixed. Flamers hit X number of models in a unit depending on the flamer size. So had would be unit size/2, flamer would be unit size number of hits, and heavy flamer could be 1.5xunit size number of hits and some really gigantic could be what ever GW wants, everything else could have fixed number of wounds on hit, with some big template guns having splash damage. Most on chance and the gigantic guns of titan class would have higher splash range and more hits splashed.
So a battle canon could be X hits. Roll hit, roll X wounds, roll save. Random numbers of shots, just like random number of wounds caused on an anti tank, is always bad.
I have rarely seen issues with templates and play games using them.
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
I feel this comes a lot from GW rules writing causing so much friction.
Half the fun of templates is watching them go wide into a big horde. No aim, just explosions !
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players. GW games were never designed as competitive tests of wits. But much like many of my other hobbies, GW games have devolved into metagaming and eeking out every ounce of value from each move. It's a symptom of the internet accessibility and unfortunately it's never going to go back to the old days of casual beer+pretzle play what's coolest rules be damned.
I don't know why GW puts in the "player code" or whatever they call it each edition to emphasize the fact that fun is the primary goal when they know full well the community will optimize the fun out of their systems.
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players. GW games were never designed as competitive tests of wits. But much like many of my other hobbies, GW games have devolved into metagaming and eeking out every ounce of value from each move. It's a symptom of the internet accessibility and unfortunately it's never going to go back to the old days of casual beer+pretzle play what's coolest rules be damned.
I don't know why GW puts in the "player code" or whatever they call it each edition to emphasize the fact that fun is the primary goal when they know full well the community will optimize the fun out of their systems.
Honest, I think it was that we are a bear and pretzels attitude that made it such a issue.
Since they didn’t do much for narrative or casual play ether for years.
Bad rules can also be awquard and difficult to use in gameplay, or just unfun and bad for narrative. We play lots here for other games, and narrative in those games.
So I think GW has the players they have now, since that’s the players willing to put up with them.
For me, No 40k is better than Bad 40k and I roll with it now.
I can even play several games by myself with cool scenarios and a less sticky game rules.
Just my thoughts nowadays on the game.
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players.
Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.
How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?
Of course, because as we all know it is the players responsible for what ever the game is good or bad. Army doing bad can be explained with noobs playing it. Another faction doing super good is caused by veterans playing it. Even when a faction goes from one to other in a matter of a week or two of events. And if you know that your Wraight Knights are 200pts undercosted then you should just take 600 points in deep striking units and never deploy them, for fairness sake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tittliewinks22 808330 11502031 wrote:
The issue has always been the players. GW games were never designed as competitive tests of wits. But much like many of my other hobbies, GW games have devolved into metagaming and eeking out every ounce of value from each move. It's a symptom of the internet accessibility and unfortunately it's never going to go back to the old days of casual beer+pretzle play what's coolest rules be damned.
I don't know why GW puts in the "player code" or whatever they call it each edition to emphasize the fact that fun is the primary goal when they know full well the community will optimize the fun out of their systems.
Spiting and hat throw, are competitive games here. If something has a clear winner and loser at the end of it, it will turn in to a competition. And the idea that somehow winning is bad is a really laughable one. I want to see those world class rankers who are winning, because biology grace them with a genetical cheat code, cry that they got first place, when of course in order to make it "fun" for everyone they should have handicaped themselfs or let others win.
The goal of a company, just like the goal of any sports organisation is to notice something that can affect the game to much and fix it before it happens. At worse after it happens. You don't make the people participating in the activity do it on their own, because then you have no common rule set, no clear data what and how to fix, what is and isn't a problem in the game etc.
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players.
Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.
How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?
Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players.
Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.
How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?
Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?
Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players.
Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.
How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?
Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?
Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules
As much as I agree the template rules were a bit gak, you're actually picking a fight with someone that agreed with you. They said the rules weren't great and the only thing that made it work were people agreeing to not take it seriously.
Out of interest where do you fall on the shopping cart/trolley spectrum? Do you always take it back and get annoyed at people that don't or do you just dump it there, as there's no rules so can't be blamed, or somewhere in the middle?
You're not at fault for things you don't cause or things you don't prevent from happening, you're at fault for things you cause. Playing a game by the rules should be the standard way to enjoy a game. If GW wanted people to play soft lists then they should make that the rules.
"If you find that a unit is undercosted leave a unit or two in reserves the entire game to balance our mistake, thanks and have fun". Instead white knights come up with house rules and get mad when people think the game is bad because they haven't played with the right house rules to fix it.
Insectum7 wrote:@Dudeface: So made templates bigger and less random. Omgwow that was so hard.
So old version:
- I fire my frag missile at this model, hold that template there
- I roll to hit and miss
- I roll the scatter dice and distance
- We debate the precise angle as it does matter
- Arm goes dead
- Move template, which because it's covering in the air is inaccurate
- Debate which models are clipped by it by fractions of inches because it's impossible to tell exactly and nobody can get directly above it + the persons arm isn't entirely steady
- Roll off to decide on the maybes
- Put template down
- Frag missile has hit 2-3 models
- Roll to wound
- Roll to save
New version:
- I fire my frag missile at a target
- I roll a d6 for shots
- It'll be 3-4
- I hit 2-3 models
- Roll to wound
- Roll to save
Both have the same outcome here and there's notably less hassle. They already fixed the problem, the only one I'd make an argument for is flamer templates potentially having value.
I feel like I just read the forum post version of a late night infomercial. Did you write the Old version in black and white, with poorly acted trembling and frustrated hands?
And why "Old" version anyways, since it's been established that we're not specifically asking for "old"? We're just asking for templates. Also, the two versions don't produce the same outcomes. The current version provides no incentives around clumping or not clumping models. In fact what it actually does is incentivize specific squad sizes because of how the "Blast-Hit-Number-Stepping" mechanics work.
Proposal:
- I fire my frag missile at target
- I place the blast marker and count the models touched
- I roll to hit that many times
I expect no response because I presume your mind is so totally blown at the fact that templates could be used with different mechanics than "old".
Insectum7 wrote: I feel like I just read the forum post version of a late night infomercial. Did you write the Old version in black and white, with poorly acted trembling and frustrated hands?
And why "Old" version anyways, since it's been established that we're not specifically asking for "old"? We're just asking for templates. Also, the two versions don't produce the same outcomes. The current version provides no incentives around clumping or not clumping models. In fact what it actually does is incentivize specific squad sizes because of how the "Blast-Hit-Number-Stepping" mechanics work.
Proposal:
- I fire my frag missile at target
- I place the blast marker and count the models touched
- I roll to hit that many times
I expect no response because I presume your mind is so totally blown at the fact that templates could be used with different mechanics than "old".
Not really, you've gone back to the "old" problem immediately, but there is a proposed rules topic for it - take it there.
Insectum7 wrote: The "old problem" being you can't count models under a template? Is that what we're doing here?
To help with your counting I've suggested you take it to the other thread 3 times now.
Let's see. . . your problem couldn't be actual under-template-counting, because you've actually said that Flamer Templates could still have a place. Similarly, I presume you don't have an issue with measuring movement distances, ranges, CC engagement distances, Auras abilities and the like, because it's assumed in 40K that some ability to use a tape measure is part of the basic mechanical vocabulary. And what is a blast marker really, if not a tape measure that measures in 2 dimensions instead of one?
Perhaps it's the "model-spacing" problem issue again? Maximizing distances between models in the movement phase to minimize incoming fire potential? But again you said that flamer templates could have a place, so that doesn't add up either.
So rather than taking it to Proposed Rules I'm happy to declare here that your position looks pretty silly right here!
And on topic, I'll make a prediction! I predict that GW wont implement templates again for 40K because the designers have been co-opted by focus on tournaments and churn-and-burn. So there!
Given the amount of measuring distances from models in modern 40K, I don't see the need for templates. If you have to have non-random Blast rules, use a simple measuring rule.
Blast: Select a model in the target unit that is visible to the attacking model. If the selected model is Infantry or has a Wound Characteristic of 3 or less, make one attack for the selected model and one additional attack for each model within 2" of the selected model. If any of these models are in different units, resolve those attacks as an attack against that model's unit. If the selected model is Infantry or has a Wound Characteristic of 3 or less, make 1 attack for every 3 Wounds (rounded up) on the model profile of the selected model.
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players.
Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.
How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?
Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?
Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules
I could have been a littler more clear, the context is not putting blame on players for bad rules writing, but players for the shift to more competitive elitism which has happend across near every hobby I enjoyed the past 25 years. In the context of templates and scatter dice I never found any issues of angle-shooting meta chasers arguing over 1 extra hit, but then again, the groups I play with tend to not sweat the little things. I no longer can go to a shop and do a pick up game of any of my hobbies now without some netdeck/netlist. The internet broke any game that has a puzzle/build aspect to it and that's undeniable, unfortunetly.
After watching several pages of people trying to bring templates back, and people trying to call them "rules bloat" not too long after watching people kick and scream at the idea of their Chaos Marines going to the Single Codex Multiple Supplement model - when many of them were pushing for just that for loyalist space marines I've come to one conclusion.
We're lucky GW isn't even worse at this than they are.
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players.
Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.
How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?
Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?
Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules
I could have been a littler more clear, the context is not putting blame on players for bad rules writing, but players for the shift to more competitive elitism which has happend across near every hobby I enjoyed the past 25 years. In the context of templates and scatter dice I never found any issues of angle-shooting meta chasers arguing over 1 extra hit, but then again, the groups I play with tend to not sweat the little things. I no longer can go to a shop and do a pick up game of any of my hobbies now without some netdeck/netlist. The internet broke any game that has a puzzle/build aspect to it and that's undeniable, unfortunetly.
I think this is a good follow up, and a good point.
Bad players can suck the fun out, bad winners, bad losers, and everything in between.
I tend to read more, and look at more net lists in games like 40k.
Did I miss a weird querk in a unit, or is it just bad.
Is there a 12 step guide to make this unit OP that without won’t even function to a level worth taking.
This also comes when “Casual” players suddenly have a lot to say when the new Eldar book comes out and scatter bikes could be Super OP.
No one was playing bikes in the numbers or using all scatter lasers, but they where some of the most nasty comments locally. All from “casual” players.
Players I most enjoy playing with are playing other games, that don’t have these issues. Or foster community’s that are better maintained to work though them.
Rules that feel good to play, reflect the story and narrative that is so important.
GW just sucks at this, but have a position that even huge mistakes for other companies can be brushed aside and won’t even hurt them.
Apple fox wrote: This also comes when “Casual” players suddenly have a lot to say when the new Eldar book comes out and scatter bikes could be Super OP.
No one was playing bikes in the numbers or using all scatter lasers, but they where some of the most nasty comments locally. All from “casual” players.
Its pretty common.
I mean we saw it recently with say Voidweavers at 90 points. It was clearly broken rules wise.
But... did anyone in a casual setting ever people run 9 of them? Probably not. If you were on the quasi-professional 40k tournament circuit it was probably a rough 5~ weekends - but otherwise it had almost no impact at all. Few casual players play Harlequins. Almost none will have had 9 Voidweavers waiting to go. Maybe you played it once in that month - not exactly the end of the world.
I think the issue with Eldar in 7th - and indeed I'd argue wider 40k from about 5th to 7th - was that the meta was relatively stable. If something was good, it likely stayed good (even if it was perhaps no longer best). So if you played Eldar (often viewed as top faction even before their 7th codex), then in mid-2015 perhaps you didn't have the models to take advantage of scatter bikes being good. Maybe you didn't own a Wraith Knight etc.
But since these things would stay top tier for the following 2 years until 8th edition, you had plenty of opportunity to buy them and boost the power of your army. Buying say a couple of boxes of the new Jetbikes wasn't a major hardship. And therefore this got down to relatively casual players.
But sometimes its silly. I mean does anyone remember Malefic Lords in early 8th edition? Cheap Forgeworld chaos HQ, could cast smite, had a 4++, not sure it ever had an official model. I used to enter threads on here and elsewhere about how busted they were. And in Tournaments you did start to see people running 10~ of them etc. (Alongside lots of other weird early 8th edition stuff, as people quickly looked for holes in the ruleset.) In practice though, I suspect your average FLGS saw almost none. Similar story for people screening whole armies with Culexus Assassins. Or armies of Tau Commanders.
I don't think getting 10 Malefic Lords would be very hard, you could use tonnes of different miniatures for it. That doesn't change that it's GW's fault if lists with 10 Malefic Lords are legal and overpowered and GW haven't told people that their game has garbage balance and needs to be played as such in environments where you don't optimize your list. GW still doesn't tell people that, not even for their broken PL format.
Blaming a player for bringing 10 Malefic Lords is wrong. If you don't want to play against it you're free not to and if you try to pass of your list as anything other than degenerate tournament garbage then you would be scum but 40k does not need to have terrible casual lists and degenerate tournament lists that basically cannot be used against each other and when the game has that, it's GW's fault and any people that have a bad experience with the game aren't at fault.
Drukhari needed a lot of effort to not build broken lists when their codex was updated for 9th, without being sure I'd guess Tau and Custodes were the same. I know AdMech had some real duds and building their strongest lists required some wonky units that weren't legal in the previous version of the codex, so there your argument that "you won't see it in the wild" holds water. But just like the OP lists there are UP lists and GW created that minefield for players to navigate and it's not the players' fault if they despite giving an acceptable effort stumble and have a few terrible games.
vict0988 wrote: but 40k does not need to have terrible casual lists and degenerate tournament lists that basically cannot be used against each other and when the game has that, it's GW's fault and any people that have a bad experience with the game aren't at fault.
I guess my argument here is that do any games stop this from happening?
Unfortunately its very hard to balance a game between someone who takes a game seriously, has a degenerate tournament list backed with the knowledge to use it - and someone who perhaps doesn't really care and plays once every 6-12 months with a list drawn from the random bag of minis they bought because they looked cool at some point over the last ten years.
Its bad when one or two codexes are clearly head and shoulders above the rest. DE were not a hammer in a meta full of nails - any more than Custodes were a club in a meta full of seals. They were just busted. This was clearly GW's fault.
But looking at the game today - this seems harder to justify. Last weekend you had 13 different books come out on top of tournaments. Most factions have now had an AoO tournament win (Thousand Sons looking sad.) So if you get stomped, its probably that they were a better/more experienced player than you - and/or you made mistakes.
Tyel wrote: ...looking at the game today - this seems harder to justify.
I agree 100%, to me the external balance of the game seems top notch. I think that's more happenstance than good decision-making that led to this point. I don't think anything has changed in the past couple of years in terms of trying to balance the game, so how have we had both terrible and great external balance? But if we're talking 7th edition, then it absolutely isn't Timmy's fault when his Nobs in Gorkanauts army got smashed by Eric's Wraithknight and scatBike army in 7th, nor did Eric have a responsibility to do anything other than say "I've been winning a lot with this list, beware" if he had been winning a lot or "this is basically a tournament netlist" if he hadn't picked the units by chance. There are games which are balanced out of the box, usually, they're symmetrical, Starcraft is an exception, but it only has 3 factions. I get it 40k is hard to balance, but so often GW doesn't even try. Like at the start of 9th with the idiotic pts-increase algorithms or free wargear in 9th and the lack of points updates and rules support for armies for 5-10 years in previous editions.
I think you can bring the "meta player with a broken list and tons of knowledge" closer to the "player with 1 game every 6-12 months" by making rules knowledge and army knowledge less relevant to gameplay.
For example, in Chain of Command, things function pretty much as you might expect. Tanks are tanks, infantry are infantry, LMGs and SMGs are distinct, etc.
This means that a player doesn't have to know the detailed intricacies of the mosin-nagant rifle buffed by a Platoon Leader's orders and the Steel-Cored Bullets stratagem. They just have to know tactics.
An example is a recent demo game I did for a player. He was attacking into a well armed and fortified platoon with his own infantry platoon, but had some support points to choose.
He asked me every step of the way what I would do, and I walked him through making an attack - setting up a base of fire, utilizing covering fire, smoke and smoke grenades, etc. And I didn't have to *teach*, mostly just make him think.
"How do you think soldiers in World War 2 advanced against an enemy position?"
"Well, they sent forward scouts to reveal enemy positions, then would lay covering fire on those and suspected positions"
"Okay, so far so good. Do you think they had other tools, too?"
"Smoke pots, maybe"
"Yeah, smoke grenades!"
Etc...
Basically, the player had to think about the situation as a lieutenant in the setting might, rather than think about the situation from a rules perspective (e.g. "smoke templates are 2" but the enemy has the Smoke-B-Gone stratagem so I had better get my Bodyguard unit up front to take the hits for the leader...")
The big issue with that is that warfare in 40k is ironically not that well thought out and is pretty much up to the author.
I mean how the Imperial Guard wages war? sometimes they do it as if they were a WW1, sometimes not even that and throw endless waves of infantry to be butchered (and make someone look good), sometimes they deploy massive armored and artillery assaults and 0.0001% of the time the author actually has some military knowledge so they do something somewhat realistic.
Space Marines have the inherent issue of the lore struggling to justify how a hundred of them can conquer a planet and at the same time still occasionally die to massed infantry fire and artillery.
And at least those get some focus, with Xenos is 99% of the time the author forgets about or ignores their capabilities (usually to make Space Marines look cool).
Tyran wrote: The big issue with that is that warfare in 40k is ironically not that well thought out and is pretty much up to the author.
I mean how the Imperial Guard wages war? sometimes they do it as if they were a WW1, sometimes not even that and throw endless waves of infantry to be butchered (and make someone look good), sometimes they deploy massive armored and artillery assaults and 0.0001% of the time the author actually has some military knowledge so they do something somewhat realistic.
Space Marines have the inherent issue of the lore struggling to justify how a hundred of them can conquer a planet and at the same time still occasionally die to massed infantry fire and artillery.
And at least those get some focus, with Xenos is 99% of the time the author forgets about or ignores their capabilities (usually to make Space Marines look cool).
You don't need WWI, to see waves of soldiers charging in and causing the opposit side to retreate, because of ammo use up. Was done in WWII, was done in Korea, Vietnam against the French and in later conflicts too.
The rest, like why marines are good, is impossible to represent on the table top. How to represent under a d6 system, dudes that move at super speed comparing to regular humans, don't sleep for weeks, get info by eating their opponents, spit acide and practicaly immune to pain comparing to regular humans and can function with damage on level regular humans can only consider god like. On top of that they do rapid deployments and move at exeptionaly fast speed. In any climate, enviroment etc I mean how do we represent the fact that some marine chapters have small fleets of servo skulls feeding them with extra ammo, extra data or support them being gun platforms, without breaking the game. Or how to represent the mass infections with mini tyranid organisms happening durning large scale invasions ? That emotions can cause warp rifts to suddenly open etc.
Blaming a player for bringing 10 Malefic Lords is wrong. If you don't want to play against it you're free not to and if you try to pass of your list as anything other than degenerate tournament garbage then you would be scum but 40k does not need to have terrible casual lists and degenerate tournament lists that basically cannot be used against each other and when the game has that, it's GW's fault and any people that have a bad experience with the game aren't at fault.
Plus GW clearly wants the sesons to have an impact on investments people do. +1 limit on things that are 0-1 and 6 elite slots, combined with no need for troops are going to cause shifts for armies that like or want to use a lot elites. On the flip side, if an army doesn't have good elites and the seson is elite focused then good luck to that faction players. From how some armies are handled in sesons, I think that GW even plans some armies to be good at some point. They hype up all factions, but the rules, in a void aren't equal for new books. But you can make a seson that take bad or terrible necrons and make them very good. Or give super efficient secondaries to GSC and suddenly they are king. And you don't even have to get in to rules writing or heavy point changes to achive that. A end of edition sm change to rules, or the need for AoC are examples of fail design and the need to save the flagship faction, and it seems to not be very balanced or good. Good marines goot even better, but IF didn't suddenly become great or even good just because they can be in devastator doctrine all game. But if they got GSC or pre omen seson necron secondaries, they would be up their with GSC and DA at the top.
I mean, part of the "old" 40k nostalgia was that it was a saner setting, too. There was no need to have Marines outrunning attack helicopters - power armor was to flak armor what plate armor was to chainmail, as far as protective power. Sure it augmented the user's strength, but not to the point that they could roundhouse kick a Toyota Hilux across the room. I don't recall a time when "100 marines can take a planet" was ever taken seriously until like, 6th or 7th edition.
Nowadays I agree, it is impossible to replicate the lore on the tabletop... and that's because the lore doesn't make sense. How can a Guardsman stand up in combat against a Guardian if a Guardian is faster than a 9th edition Space Marine? Ignore the tabletop - how does that even make sense in the lore?
40k has become memified and flanderized so hard that it's no wonder GW thinks that there is a meaningful difference between a Fragstorm Ironbolt Launcher and an Ironstorm Fragbolt Projector, or that being able to utilize Smoke Launchers is a tactical act of such gravity that it can only be done once per phase.
Dysartes wrote: So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.
Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.
I read some old BL books and old marine codex. And marine in those are ripping out metal hatches while wearing power armour, some lift Land Raiders, Termintors get stepped on by warlord titants and stand up from it.
w40k lore in general the newer it is the more less it makes sense. IMO it is better to just not think about it. Even if no new lore was created or the lore was frozen, as long as the game is fun to play, people will keep playing. The best lore in the world is not going to make someone want to play with their 27% win rate army, if the wait to fix it can be years or even entire editions. And that is assuming one just cares about faction and not some specific build or unit use.
I don't know what someone would have to tell a Lamenter 3ed company player to make him happy about the future of w40k and his army.
And while I understand that GW would want people to play multiple armies and multiple games, and in the end it worked for me. But I don't think many people stay with a bad or unfun army long enough to make the jump to something else. People sooner just quit, then decide to spend +900$ on a Lumineth Lord army and have actual fun, instead of being stuck with their bad IW army.
Karol wrote: The best lore in the world is not going to make someone want to play with their 27% win rate army, if the wait to fix it can be years or even entire editions.
That's what it was like for YEARS, even up to a decade for some armies
Multiple editions with the same codex, no updates, no idea if there will be any FAQ/erattas once per edition.
This is why you play the army you love, regardless or how bad the rules might be. If it's the army that makes you happy, then that's all that matters.
Karol wrote: The best lore in the world is not going to make someone want to play with their 27% win rate army, if the wait to fix it can be years or even entire editions.
That's what it was like for YEARS, even up to a decade for some armies
Multiple editions with the same codex, no updates, no idea if there will be any FAQ/erattas once per edition.
This is why you play the army you love, regardless or how bad the rules might be. If it's the army that makes you happy, then that's all that matters.
Agree on playing what you love.
Another important point? Whatever dismal tourney win % is demoralizing you? Snap out of it. Realize that those people's failures are not yours.
They do not neccecarily accurately reflect what happens in YOUR games.
The most you should read into those #s is that some armies might be more difficult to play. Or at least certain builds of that army.
Dysartes wrote: So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.
Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.
Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean, part of the "old" 40k nostalgia was that it was a saner setting, too. There was no need to have Marines outrunning attack helicopters - power armor was to flak armor what plate armor was to chainmail, as far as protective power. Sure it augmented the user's strength, but not to the point that they could roundhouse kick a Toyota Hilux across the room. I don't recall a time when "100 marines can take a planet" was ever taken seriously until like, 6th or 7th edition.
Nowadays I agree, it is impossible to replicate the lore on the tabletop... and that's because the lore doesn't make sense. How can a Guardsman stand up in combat against a Guardian if a Guardian is faster than a 9th edition Space Marine? Ignore the tabletop - how does that even make sense in the lore?
40k has become memified and flanderized so hard that it's no wonder GW thinks that there is a meaningful difference between a Fragstorm Ironbolt Launcher and an Ironstorm Fragbolt Projector, or that being able to utilize Smoke Launchers is a tactical act of such gravity that it can only be done once per phase.
Yeah . . . Older lore is at once crazier in its concepts, but saner in it execution. Like the setting is wierder, but played more straight.
this comparison isn't particularly accurate.
marines have always been the most popular faction. eldar not so much. if an unpopular faction is suddenly surging in popularity after a new rules update, then that's likely a red flag all on it's own.
however the new hotness will always attract the metachasers who have to make up for their short comings by having the best toys in the game, who have memorized every rule and interaction, which itself will skew the results as well.
Your average Ork, Eldar, Nidz, DE player is also a much more seasoned veteran on average compared to your average Marine player. That isn't a knock against Marines mind you, its just a statement that generally, Marines are everyone's first army and then some of us get bored of SPEESE MEHREENS! and venture off to join another faction. Now that statement is very much anecdotal from my own experiences in the game, but from reading these forums for years it seems to be the general rule. Marines, even at their most utterly broken (8th edition Marines 2.0) were still not winning absurd amounts of games because the newer Marine players tended to drag that number down heavily. They were running away on the tournament scene as far as top 4 placement, but the win rates for Marines as a whole still tended to be lower than another factions would be.
johnpjones1775 wrote: the question i guess to me is, can you claim marines are overpowered when there are so many other factions out stripping their population of players for tournament wins and top 5s?
if GSC is 5% of the player base but winning 15-20% of tournaments, meanwhile marines are 30% of the player base winning 35-40% of tournaments i'd say the marines are not the problem on the scene.
Two things can be true at the same time. Marines can be over powered and top tier, and so can Genestealers and Eldar
8 top 4 placings including winning 2 events out of 8 Events. But ready for this? I can happily admit that GSC are just as big of a problem as Marines.
Marines are currently over powered, but so are GSC, both need a small nerf to keep them more closely inline and for Marines I'll happily admit that only the top 3-4 chapters need that nerf (DA, BA, IH and maybe Templars)
this comparison isn't particularly accurate.
marines have always been the most popular faction. eldar not so much. if an unpopular faction is suddenly surging in popularity after a new rules update, then that's likely a red flag all on it's own.
however the new hotness will always attract the metachasers who have to make up for their short comings by having the best toys in the game, who have memorized every rule and interaction, which itself will skew the results as well.
Your average Ork, Eldar, Nidz, DE player is also a much more seasoned veteran on average compared to your average Marine player. That isn't a knock against Marines mind you, its just a statement that generally, Marines are everyone's first army and then some of us get bored of SPEESE MEHREENS! and venture off to join another faction. Now that statement is very much anecdotal from my own experiences in the game, but from reading these forums for years it seems to be the general rule. Marines, even at their most utterly broken (8th edition Marines 2.0) were still not winning absurd amounts of games because the newer Marine players tended to drag that number down heavily. They were running away on the tournament scene as far as top 4 placement, but the win rates for Marines as a whole still tended to be lower than another factions would be.
johnpjones1775 wrote: the question i guess to me is, can you claim marines are overpowered when there are so many other factions out stripping their population of players for tournament wins and top 5s?
if GSC is 5% of the player base but winning 15-20% of tournaments, meanwhile marines are 30% of the player base winning 35-40% of tournaments i'd say the marines are not the problem on the scene.
Two things can be true at the same time. Marines can be over powered and top tier, and so can Genestealers and Eldar
8 top 4 placings including winning 2 events out of 8 Events. But ready for this? I can happily admit that GSC are just as big of a problem as Marines.
Marines are currently over powered, but so are GSC, both need a small nerf to keep them more closely inline and for Marines I'll happily admit that only the top 3-4 chapters need that nerf (DA, BA, IH and maybe Templars)
As a GSC player, GSC aren't nearly as good as you seem to think they are. They're winning right now because the current meta really favors them, and as an army you generally see (not including myself in this statment) very high skill players play them, or you get filtered out quick. As per the meta favoring us, it's because GSC as an army plays like a dream into pre-AoC Marines. Marines are a Low Model Count (relatively), MEQ statline, Relatively limited mobility army, which is precisely what GSC as a faction loves. GSC were solid, but not broken. Just that the currently broken/meta faction to play is exactly our best match up. The meta changed around us to favor us. Throw us into Eldar or Custodes and we'll crumple like wet tissue paper unless you're a stellar player. The ony thing the recent buff did for GSC is make Webbers halfway worth considering and save about... 10pts-20pts or so off the average Neophyte Squad (depends on how many Special weapons you were running and if you took webbers which were 10pts each instead of 5). Heavy Weapons all still cost the same (besides the Stubber that no one uses) and the only thing that change on acolytes was Bringing the Rock Saw down 5pts.
Is 25% top 4s and 25% top 1s statistically significant for a 20% play rate faction across 8 events? I'm doing a course on this and if people are interested in statistical significances I can try and figure it out, but it seems to me that it isn't worth mentioning.
Dysartes wrote: So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.
Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.
Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?
Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.
Dysartes wrote: So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.
Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.
Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?
Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.
This is common knowledge they don't benefit, how did nobody catch this?
Dysartes wrote: So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.
Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.
Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?
Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.
This is common knowledge they don't benefit, how did nobody catch this?
From the multiple people chiming in on reddit with 'It happened to me' he had a lucky draw of noob opponents, because apparently nobody:
- knew he was wrong
- was suspicious enough to look it up
- called a judge or TO to verify/clarify
Dysartes wrote: So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.
Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.
Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?
Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.
This is common knowledge they don't benefit, how did nobody catch this?
Apparently not as "common knowledge" as you think it is. According to people that attended both, it was happening at LVO on some tables, too.
@Tsagualsa: It's called "social contract", not wasting time, and most people in the Southern US(where Clutch City happens) are considerate enough to take someone's word on something if they're not a jerk about it. Not every player is the WAAC thinks they know everything about every rule in every army kind of player, it's quite common for people to miss these mistakes.
Dysartes wrote: So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.
Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.
Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?
Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.
This is common knowledge they don't benefit, how did nobody catch this?
Apparently not as "common knowledge" as you think it is. According to people that attended both, it was happening at LVO on some tables, too.
@Tsagualsa: It's called "social contract", not wasting time, and most people in the Southern US(where Clutch City happens) are considerate enough to take someone's word on something if they're not a jerk about it. Not every player is the WAAC thinks they know everything about every rule in every army kind of player, it's quite common for people to miss these mistakes.
I was operating under the assumption that it is indeed 'common knowledge'. If it is not, then you are obviously right: he got by by exploiting peoples tendency to believe the facts as they are presented, and not to kick up a fuzz.
From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:
can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it. I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.
This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.
Edit: I think it's also important that what we in the online communities think is "Common Knowledge" is so because we interact with said internet communities and to remember that the vast majority of 40K players, even ones going to tournaments, aren't interacting with those online communities. My friend came in 10th at Clutch and occasionally posting on r/Metawatch is the closest he gets to the online 40K communities.
GSC themselves are not super OP, I don't think that anyone can look at their units and think that they need to be hit with the nerf bat. As stated above, they are just so perfect for the current meta that it makes it super easy to score VPs.The army has a high skill ceiling because it is unlike most armies in that you are not looking to out punch or out survive your enemy, chances are you are going to lose a good portion more of your army than your opponent. What they do excel at is having good secondaries and great board control.
It is hard to deny GSCVPs, Sabotage Critical Locations is super easy with just some minimum sized Jackal squads, Broodswarm is very match up dependant but if I am playing agaist Marines I know that I have at least 10+ VPs easily, the only one that I have some issues with is Ambush because it requires me killing things which is far from guaranteed in the later rounds.
There are so many factors when it comes to why factions are winning, GSC would be hard to nerf in a way that would prevent them from winning without making them dumpster tier.
Platuan4th wrote: From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:
can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.
This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.
Platuan4th wrote: From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:
can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.
This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.
They're not niche, they always pop up in lists.
Even if they are 'niche', if someone brings 1800 points of a niche unit and proceeds to table your army by exploiting a specific interaction with them, asking to have a quick look-up of that rule is not 'WAAC' or bad sportsmanship in my opinion.
Platuan4th wrote: From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:
can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.
This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.
They're not niche, they always pop up in lists.
They're not the most common army and a lot of people won't want to use FW units or have access to them to that degree. It's understandable a fair few people wouldn't have run into it to find out.
Platuan4th wrote: From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:
can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.
This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.
They're not niche, they always pop up in lists.
Even if they are 'niche', if someone brings 1800 points of a niche unit and proceeds to table your army by exploiting a specific interaction with them, asking to have a quick look-up of that rule is not 'WAAC' or bad sportsmanship in my opinion.
Ya, definitely not bad sportsmanship to do some double-checking.
But also I'm sorta shocked that a list like that could get so far without more scrutiny. If he's just copying from other players who are already using the interaction at a big event like LVO, that means there's been some exposure.
Also, ffs, if your whole strategy is going to rely on something, double-triple-quadruple check that s***.
Going back to Unit's argument, it'd be a lot easier to catch if there was any reason why the ka’tah only applied to auric weapons, why would the superhuman marksmanship of Custodes only apply to certain weapons? If it was an auric weapon relic or if the name had something to do with auricness there'd be some connection. Arbitrary rules are probably harder to learn.
Can't say I'd have called this. I don't play Custodes and frankly didn't even realise "auric weapons" were a thing.
On GSC being busted, I'm not sure on the argument they are hard to nerf without making them dumpster tier. If the secondaries are too easy to score (and evidence based on results suggests they are) the solution is clearly to make them a bit harder to score.
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players.
Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.
How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?
Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?
Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules
I could have been a littler more clear, the context is not putting blame on players for bad rules writing, but players for the shift to more competitive elitism which has happend across near every hobby I enjoyed the past 25 years. In the context of templates and scatter dice I never found any issues of angle-shooting meta chasers arguing over 1 extra hit, but then again, the groups I play with tend to not sweat the little things. I no longer can go to a shop and do a pick up game of any of my hobbies now without some netdeck/netlist. The internet broke any game that has a puzzle/build aspect to it and that's undeniable, unfortunetly.
I apologize for not understanding you weren't really blaming the players.
Tyel wrote: Can't say I'd have called this. I don't play Custodes and frankly didn't even realise "auric weapons" were a thing.
On GSC being busted, I'm not sure on the argument they are hard to nerf without making them dumpster tier. If the secondaries are too easy to score (and evidence based on results suggests they are) the solution is clearly to make them a bit harder to score.
See, the thing is that is how they score points much at all. They’re like Eldar but without the innate movement buffs or incredibly hard hitting weaponry. Pretty much everything but abberants and Characters die to a stiff breeze, so while they can play the objective game holding it past the initial ambush is difficult. Hence why you have to play the Secondary game to make up the difference in VP.
Tyel wrote: Can't say I'd have called this. I don't play Custodes and frankly didn't even realise "auric weapons" were a thing.
On GSC being busted, I'm not sure on the argument they are hard to nerf without making them dumpster tier. If the secondaries are too easy to score (and evidence based on results suggests they are) the solution is clearly to make them a bit harder to score.
Okay, go take a look at the GSC secondaries. Tell me then, what do you make harder without making it worthless? GSC at this point seem to be a very all or nothing army. You either win big or lose big and without many people playing them one person doing very well drastically changes the win rate, as opposed to say Marines which have more players that most every other army combined so your good and bad players kind of balance each other out.
vict0988 wrote: Going back to Unit's argument, it'd be a lot easier to catch if there was any reason why the ka’tah only applied to auric weapons, why would the superhuman marksmanship of Custodes only apply to certain weapons? If it was an auric weapon relic or if the name had something to do with auricness there'd be some connection. Arbitrary rules are probably harder to learn.
Right. 40k right now is more like a sport than a wargame, in that the rules are totally arbitrary and divorced from anything real.
"Take this fore-arm sized petard to the enemy castle wall and attach it" is extremely different from "American football" even if the objective of "carry small thing that needs to be protected to a specific place" is the same concept.
It's why people say 40k is a war-themed game and not a wargame. The rules make no sense when looked at from a "trying to simulate war" perspective.
It's just the minis and the names of the rules that make it tangentially related to warfare; if you gave the minis megaphones and changed the rule names to different propaganda styles and types you could easily theme it as two political groups shouting each other until the other guy leaves the protest lol
Having never played in a tournament, it's hard to guess, but honestly, if you flat up said to me, this is my Purple Space Marine list, and they have a strat that lets them shoot twice on death, I wouldn't even question it these days. It's not worth the time to question every stupid rule. Plus I lean heavily on "would GW really make that a thing"? and for that I answer The new Super Primaris Rocket Launcher units. So yeah, I don't even bother asking to "see the rule" anymore. I just choose to play my army and not assume my opponent is a prick.
Karol wrote: The best lore in the world is not going to make someone want to play with their 27% win rate army, if the wait to fix it can be years or even entire editions.
That's what it was like for YEARS, even up to a decade for some armies
Multiple editions with the same codex, no updates, no idea if there will be any FAQ/erattas once per edition.
This is why you play the army you love, regardless or how bad the rules might be. If it's the army that makes you happy, then that's all that matters.
It may have been like that in places where people didn't care much for investment in to an army. Buying and paints 3-4 squads a vehicle and 1-2 heroes is not the same you have to do today to get even an elite army to the table. Plus the life time of armies, thanks to rules changes, is a slipery thing. One day something can be nice and fun to play, and the next day it is not worth bringing to the table. The reverse can happen too, vide necron or GSC , but the number of times factions get hard nerfed and what faction it hits the most affects more people. To end game tournament players it is a meh, but their goal is always to play with the best of the best, so they will adapt. But for a new player the way w40k is run has the same effect as big changes in video games. If someone spends 6-12 months building and painting an army "their own way", and when they finish it they suddenly realise it was bad build and is now unfunto play they just quit. Same way a dude who plays PoE on the weekends and finds out he builds his character wrong and now he has to invest a ton of time , he probably doesn't have, to relevel a new one. So what does the new player do? He checks the forums, the tournament results, he checks the win rates, and he picks the army and units accordingly to his budget. Now can there exist people who don't care, and can just buy 1000$+ armies every two months? Sure, but I am not sure if they are the core audiance that buys GW models.
Love is conditional and if a thing doesn't make you happy, you need some extra conditions to stay playing. And all of them are ones outside of gaming or having fun with playing the game. And all of the things I just wrote about get exponentially stronger any place the avarge salary is not that of UK or US. Because I can tell you that. When you live in a place where the avarge salary of an adult is half what an avarge army for w40k costs, people very much keep track of what they buy and how efficient it is.
Right. 40k right now is more like a sport than a wargame, in that the rules are totally arbitrary and divorced from anything real.
"Take this fore-arm sized petard to the enemy castle wall and attach it" is extremely different from "American football" even if the objective of "carry small thing that needs to be protected to a specific place" is the same concept.
It's why people say 40k is a war-themed game and not a wargame. The rules make no sense when looked at from a "trying to simulate war" perspective.
It's just the minis and the names of the rules that make it tangentially related to warfare; if you gave the minis megaphones and changed the rule names to different propaganda styles and types you could easily theme it as two political groups shouting each other until the other guy leaves the protest lol
If w40k was to simulate how w40k functions in its lore. Then 50 marines should be facing around 10000 guardsman. 30 custodes terminators should be able to crush a 300 elite csm warband. GK should melt demons by the sole virtue of being on the battlefield. and the Eldar avatar would have to be given a special rule that it explodes, if it ever comes in to base to base contact with a character belonging of the opposit player.
The job of w40k is not to simulate game or lore. Its job is to be a game, which has a predictible outcome, clear rules that people can learn and understand, and mechanics that weren't created in order for people to change armies, change games, buy more stuff and find it doesn't work next seson etc.
Same way wrestling isn't there to simulate a life a death unarmed combat. Football isn't war. And stuff like foil or kendo are not actual fencing in combat situations.
So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days? Used to be:
- 50 Marines would pull of a heroic last stand against 10,000 guardsmen (Well, GEQ) in a highly contrived situation; not routinely defeat them. A GK force was once defeated by an army of about 10,000 with medieval weapons in a novel.
- Custodes never fought and weren't a tabletop army, so their power wasn't ever really measurable. They talked a good game, but one was never sure if they were living on past glories like the rest of the imperium, with their actual capabilities being a pale shadow of a glorious past, like the rest of the imperium.
- GK didn't melt daemons just by being on the same planet. Their capabilities levelled the playing field between hapless mortals and Daemons. The First Armageddon War ended in defeat of Chaos only at extreme cost to the Imperium and the GK.
- The Avatar did pretty much used to do that. It was a joke in the game as badly as it was in the lore.
2) What is the point in playing 40k if not to simulate battles in the 41st (or 42nd) Millennium? If all you want from a game is predictability, rules that can be learned and understood, and mechanics that weren't created for sales purposes, there are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR (etc.) better rules out there for it.
I daresay Chess, for example, meets all those criteria. Or Chutes and Ladders. Or Simon Says.
40k has never been particularly good at simulating real warfare. Weapon ranges are too short and the interactions between melee and ranged warfare always have been very gamey.
I would rather say that 40k used to try to mislead the player into making them think that it was simulating a battle, but in truth it was always above all else a game.
It isn't particularly different from say videogames. Do you believe that FPS like CoD of Halo or RTS like AoE or StarCraft are actually simulations of warfare? They aren't, they are games above all else. But they tricked the player into making them believe they were simulations.
The difference with 9th Ed is that it doesn't even try to trick the player about it, it is very blatantly gamey.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
Tyran wrote: 40k has never been particularly good at simulating real warfare. Weapon ranges are too short and the interactions between melee and ranged warfare always have been very gamey.
I would rather say that 40k used to try to mislead the player into making them think that it was simulating a battle, but in truth it was always above all else a game.
It isn't particularly different from say videogames. Do you believe that FPS like CoD of Halo or RTS like AoE or StarCraft are actually simulations of warfare? They aren't, they are games above all else. But they tricked the player into making them believe they were simulations.
The difference with 9th Ed is that it doesn't even try to trick the player about it, it is very blatantly gamey.
All games have abstraction and compromise. Saying "abstractions exist, therefore it's not even worth trying" is a bit silly (and insults the actual professional wargamers that use wargames as genuine military analysis).
All games have abstraction and compromise. Saying "abstractions exist, therefore it's not even worth trying" is a bit silly (and insults the actual professional wargamers that use wargames as genuine military analysis).
Actual military wargaming is a different beast altogether. I wouldn't compare it with 40k, regardless of edition.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
The problem is that the lore, or interpretation of it, can have an effect on the game. It warps the experience. "Bolter porn brain rot."
We've got a thread asking about how to pump a Space Marine Captain up above 9 wounds . . .
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
The problem is that the lore, or interpretation of it, can have an effect on the game. It warps the experience. "Bolter porn brain rot."
We've got a thread asking about how to pump a Space Marine Captain up above 9 wounds . . .
I see that as more pushing the game to its limits rather than anything else. I was intrigued by the thread for that alone, and how a size stat would've made more sense for core rules.
All games have abstraction and compromise. Saying "abstractions exist, therefore it's not even worth trying" is a bit silly (and insults the actual professional wargamers that use wargames as genuine military analysis).
Actual military wargaming is a different beast altogether. I wouldn't compare it with 40k, regardless of edition.
That doesn't really address my point - because I am not comparing it to an edition exactly.
I am saying "past editions were better, this one is worse" and you are saying "well because those editions didn't do a great job, that doesn't matter."
Which isn't a sound argument, because the implication is "it is impossible to do better" which is countered by with "nations around the world disagree"
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
The problem is that the lore, or interpretation of it, can have an effect on the game. It warps the experience. "Bolter porn brain rot."
We've got a thread asking about how to pump a Space Marine Captain up above 9 wounds . . .
I see that as more pushing the game to its limits rather than anything else. I was intrigued by the thread for that alone, and how a size stat would've made more sense for core rules.
Limits of what? Stupidity? Sure, a Space Marine just straight up tanking a Lascannon even after passing through his force field. Hey, no problem!
Tyran wrote: 40k has never been particularly good at simulating real warfare. Weapon ranges are too short and the interactions between melee and ranged warfare always have been very gamey.
I would rather say that 40k used to try to mislead the player into making them think that it was simulating a battle, but in truth it was always above all else a game.
It isn't particularly different from say videogames. Do you believe that FPS like CoD of Halo or RTS like AoE or StarCraft are actually simulations of warfare? They aren't, they are games above all else. But they tricked the player into making them believe they were simulations.
The difference with 9th Ed is that it doesn't even try to trick the player about it, it is very blatantly gamey.
40K isn't trying to simulate real warfare, but it is trying to convey a stylized over-the-top setting as defined by decades of lore and art and games and other artistic works. It doesn't need to be realistic to be learnable, it just needs to match the background, be reasonably intuitive to someone with a modicum of wargame experience, and work consistently across factions.
3rd Ed made melee a decisive gameplay element, where breaking units in melee was more devastating than just shooting them. That might not have been realistic in a future with energy weapons and spaceships, but it was a pretty straightforward part of the game. You knew that failing a morale check in melee was Very Bad, and any army could exploit this as a force-multiplier to either to do lots of damage with melee specialists or allow generalists to punch above their weight.
Meanwhile in 9th Ed, catching the enemy in a crossfire is something that only one faction benefits from, and virtually all of the force-multipliers are army-specific special trap card abilities that take new players quite a while to memorize for their own army, let alone anyone else's. You can look at a unit and have no idea what its capabilities are because they aren't based on its wargear, appearance, or even description; they're buried in rules that aren't even on the datasheet.
It's not about whether it's 'realistic' or not. It's that even being intimately familiar with the background to 40K in no way informs you as to which units have access to fight-twice abilities and which ones don't. The fluff doesn't tell you that Marines get bonus armor penetration for a rotating roster of weapons as the battle goes on, that Guardsmen can outrun jet aircraft if an officer yells at them loudly enough, or that charging the enemy from outside the range of their weapons prevents them from shooting as you close in. These are things you just have to learn.
Since you mentioned Halo, that's actually a good comparison: One of the criticisms of the original Halo was that the pistol behaved like a rifle, and the rifle behaved like a submachine gun. This was unintuitive and didn't fit the background, so for the sequels the developers redesigned the pistol into a pistol, the rifle into a rifle, and added a submachine gun. They recognized that the way the guns worked in the game didn't match what people expected or the background they had written, so they changed it. Someone could say 'but Halo isn't a simulation, it doesn't have to be realistic' and it's both true and missing the point.
Being a game first and foremost rather than a simulation isn't a bad thing. But the more disconnected a game's rules are from the background knowledge and preconceptions a player comes in with, the more one-off exceptions and arbitrary capabilities they need to learn and memorize, the harder it is to play and the more it rewards game knowledge memorization over generalized tactics.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
The problem is that the lore, or interpretation of it, can have an effect on the game. It warps the experience. "Bolter porn brain rot."
We've got a thread asking about how to pump a Space Marine Captain up above 9 wounds . . .
I see that as more pushing the game to its limits rather than anything else. I was intrigued by the thread for that alone, and how a size stat would've made more sense for core rules.
Limits of what? Stupidity? Sure, a Space Marine just straight up tanking a Lascannon even after passing through his force field. Hey, no problem!
Which would match up with the bolter por......I mean "lore" that many people want represented on the table. Personally, I preferred it when the lore took inspiration from the game, instead of vice versa.
vict0988 wrote: Is 25% top 4s and 25% top 1s statistically significant for a 20% play rate faction across 8 events? I'm doing a course on this and if people are interested in statistical significances I can try and figure it out, but it seems to me that it isn't worth mentioning.
Yes, it is in fact statistically significant because again you tend to have newer (Crappier) players showing up to these events running Marine factions and even then you still have them with a very good win rate regardless of the newer players pulling them down, as well as making a rather large appearance in the top half of the event. I grabbed some stats on the Dicehammer Open, 75 players, I believe 17 were Marines (Including Grey Knights). Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 20th, 29th, 33rd, 37th, 40th, 43rd, 57th, 61st, 71st and 73rd.
On one end of the spectrum you had the first place Marine player go undefeated and 4 others only have 1 loss , on the other end of the spectrum you had the bottom 5 players pulling in a grand total of 5 wins Combine the two and you have a W/L Ratio of 54.16% (One Marine player dropped after day 1). So on paper it looks good, 54% ratio is just about perfect, but once you dive in a little bit further you realize its the newbies pulling down the W/L ratio and if you remove the bottom 5 players, 3 of which won 1 game and 1 lost all 5, the W/L ratio for Marines is 67.5%
I haven't analyzed any other events like this yet but I wouldn't be surprised if that is the norm or close to it rather than the exception but i'll happily admit I haven't done the analytical leg work yet.
40k Lore is dumb, whattttt? You mean when Lorgar fought Ghaz, literally gets decapitated, and survives? Or that time The Emperor smacked Mortarion so hard he sent him back into Nurgle's garden, thru Bobby G's body? Yeah, GW lore is summed up in one saying.
vict0988 wrote: Is 25% top 4s and 25% top 1s statistically significant for a 20% play rate faction across 8 events? I'm doing a course on this and if people are interested in statistical significances I can try and figure it out, but it seems to me that it isn't worth mentioning.
Spoiler:
Yes, it is in fact statistically significant because again you tend to have newer (Crappier) players showing up to these events running Marine factions and even then you still have them with a very good win rate regardless of the newer players pulling them down, as well as making a rather large appearance in the top half of the event. I grabbed some stats on the Dicehammer Open, 75 players, I believe 17 were Marines (Including Grey Knights). Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 20th, 29th, 33rd, 37th, 40th, 43rd, 57th, 61st, 71st and 73rd.
On one end of the spectrum you had the first place Marine player go undefeated and 4 others only have 1 loss , on the other end of the spectrum you had the bottom 5 players pulling in a grand total of 5 wins Combine the two and you have a W/L Ratio of 54.16% (One Marine player dropped after day 1). So on paper it looks good, 54% ratio is just about perfect, but once you dive in a little bit further you realize its the newbies pulling down the W/L ratio and if you remove the bottom 5 players, 3 of which won 1 game and 1 lost all 5, the W/L ratio for Marines is 67.5%
I haven't analyzed any other events like this yet but I wouldn't be surprised if that is the norm or close to it rather than the exception but i'll happily admit I haven't done the analytical leg work yet.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
+ + +
I count 8 new events on the Goonhammer top 4 page - I'll start taking a look at them this evening. Will see if I can get through the smaller events before I start work tomorrow, then the larger two (Southampton GT & FLG Rocky Mountain Open) after that.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
In the case of Marines in particular it's not necessarily an unviable take. Anecdotally speaking I've seen a lot of s*** Marine players.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
In the case of Marines in particular it's not necessarily an unviable take. Anecdotally speaking I've seen a lot of s*** Marine players.
But it was proven that GW didn't interpret their own data correctly. Newer Marine players didn't show up enough compared to repeat Marine players to really affect the results.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
In the case of Marines in particular it's not necessarily an unviable take. Anecdotally speaking I've seen a lot of s*** Marine players.
Nope. Selectively dropping data that doesn't agree with your analysis makes the resulting analysis worthless. Not unless you do the same for all armies.
So a Top Half Win Rate for Marines (including the irrelevant Grey Knight data) is 67.5% versus overall 54.16%. Now run the same numbers, Top Half placing vs All Participating win rates, for the rest of the codexes and we will have something interesting to look at. Until then, we have a garbage statistic.
Plus the game of wins and loses among fist time GT marine players and people who played in multiple was one of the 3 smallest among all armies played. The other two being eldar and GK. So either all marines are bad, but then it doesn't explain how noob BA could get good results and noob IF got bad results. Or just by picking eldar, you become a god of table top.
Or the third option, the impact of skill on playing marine armies is a lot smaller, then rules the armies have. Give marines uninteractive secondaries the way SoB/necron had or ones that GSC have and they will be kings. Or wait DA are actualy doing that right now, and the supposed IH boogy man, who was suppose to blow everyone off the table with their win rates aren't even in top3 armies win rate wise.
Tyran wrote: 40k has never been particularly good at simulating real warfare. Weapon ranges are too short and the interactions between melee and ranged warfare always have been very gamey.
I would rather say that 40k used to try to mislead the player into making them think that it was simulating a battle, but in truth it was always above all else a game.
It isn't particularly different from say videogames. Do you believe that FPS like CoD of Halo or RTS like AoE or StarCraft are actually simulations of warfare? They aren't, they are games above all else. But they tricked the player into making them believe they were simulations.
The difference with 9th Ed is that it doesn't even try to trick the player about it, it is very blatantly gamey.
All games have abstraction and compromise. Saying "abstractions exist, therefore it's not even worth trying" is a bit silly (and insults the actual professional wargamers that use wargames as genuine military analysis).
A company of space marines can subjegate a planet. Most games right now see some marine player field a demi company of models in 2000pts game. If we were to simulate any type of games under the rules and points we have right now, they would be really unfun for non marine players. And something like marine+ armies would be even worse. A group of them should be cleansing marine armies. No idea what they would do to anything lesser.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
+ + +
I count 8 new events on the Goonhammer top 4 page - I'll start taking a look at them this evening. Will see if I can get through the smaller events before I start work tomorrow, then the larger two (Southampton GT & FLG Rocky Mountain Open) after that.
If only I had given the entire range of information and explained my analysis and reasons for doing so while still providing the context and information which was omitted from the 2nd number given...oh wait....I did.
On one end of the spectrum you had the first place Marine player go undefeated and 4 others only have 1 loss , on the other end of the spectrum you had the bottom 5 players pulling in a grand total of 5 wins Combine the two and you have a W/L Ratio of 54.16% (One Marine player dropped after day 1). So on paper it looks good, 54% ratio is just about perfect, but once you dive in a little bit further you realize its the newbies pulling down the W/L ratio and if you remove the bottom 5 players, 3 of which won 1 game and 1 lost all 5, the W/L ratio for Marines is 67.5%
I can never tell if people just want to be rude or just can't read a statement without trying to turn it into a "GOTCHA!" moment.
Also, I ran the number crunch on IG for that same tournament (They had 11 players, grouped them top 5 and bottom 6) they finished 4th, 28th, 30th, 36th, 41st, 44th, 48th, 54th, 59th 63rd and 67th. The top 5 players had a W/L ratio of 56%, the bottom 6 finished with 34%. Compared to the Marine top 5 at 67.5% and the bottom 5 who had a W/L ratio of 21.7%.
Tau had 4 players they finished 2nd, 31st, 52nd and 55th. The top 2 Tau had a W/L ratio of 70% The bottom 2 Tau players had a 50% W/L Ratio, combined it was 61.1%, granted its a very low turnout for them and the 55th Tau player dropped after losing his 3rd game (Ironically to the Tau player who finished 2nd)
Semper I think the point was if you simply choose to omit the bottom 5 marines because you want to, it will skew the data. There's nothing honest or surprising about showing that if you discredit the worst performing players, the rest comparatively perform better.
The point I was making is that NEWBIES are dragging down the Marine number. Which is why I even dived into players.
The top 5 Marine Players who won at Dicehammer.
1st Place: Kevin Roach, 804th place worldwide: 1st recorded GT of 2023 3rd Place Stephen Corrales: Ranked 2nd In the world. 5th Place: Mike McTyre: 228th 6th Place: Dan Reddehase: 28th 12th Place: matt Green: 419th worldwide.
Bottom 5 Marine Players:
43rd: Kevin Rockhold: 1548th worldwide 57th: Michael Price: 4631th 61st: Tim Gooding: 5029th place 71st: Juan Vasquez: 5697th Place 73rd: Michael Shalometh-Molina: 3586th Place.
With the exception of the Top Marine player, all other Marine players this wasn't their first GT of the year (for the top 5) With the exception of the worst Marine player, all other Marine player this WAS their first GT of the year (for the bottom 5). So my original comment that generally speaking its newer players pulling that number down, or just really fluffy or bad players....there it is.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
In the case of Marines in particular it's not necessarily an unviable take. Anecdotally speaking I've seen a lot of s*** Marine players.
Nope. Selectively dropping data that doesn't agree with your analysis makes the resulting analysis worthless. Not unless you do the same for all armies.
So a Top Half Win Rate for Marines (including the irrelevant Grey Knight data) is 67.5% versus overall 54.16%. Now run the same numbers, Top Half placing vs All Participating win rates, for the rest of the codexes and we will have something interesting to look at. Until then, we have a garbage statistic.
Note that I didn't say Sempers data is correct, but what I am saying is that the data being skewed because of noobish SM players is a definite possibility.
What's also true is that different armies could also have quite varying learning curves as well. It's quite possible that some armies can weather a tournament setting in poor hands better than other armies. If I were really going to analyze the results I'd be looking at a whole host of factors.
Tyran wrote: At the very least we need to see the "experience" that the average players of different factions has.
SM being noob heavy sounds likely, but I don't think I have ever seen data to actually back that hypothesis.
Agree. Importantly, Semper appears to have some data around "first GTof the year", which is pretty different than "first GT". Obviously there can be some holes there.
SemperMortis wrote: The point I was making is that NEWBIES are dragging down the Marine number. Which is why I even dived into players.
The top 5 Marine Players who won at Dicehammer.
1st Place: Kevin Roach, 804th place worldwide: 1st recorded GT of 2023
3rd Place Stephen Corrales: Ranked 2nd In the world.
5th Place: Mike McTyre: 228th
6th Place: Dan Reddehase: 28th
12th Place: matt Green: 419th worldwide.
Bottom 5 Marine Players:
43rd: Kevin Rockhold: 1548th worldwide
57th: Michael Price: 4631th
61st: Tim Gooding: 5029th place
71st: Juan Vasquez: 5697th Place
73rd: Michael Shalometh-Molina: 3586th Place.
With the exception of the Top Marine player, all other Marine players this wasn't their first GT of the year (for the top 5)
With the exception of the worst Marine player, all other Marine player this WAS their first GT of the year (for the bottom 5).
So my original comment that generally speaking its newer players pulling that number down, or just really fluffy or bad players....there it is.
This is excellent data that seems to indicate that the top players in the game are gravitating towards playing Marine and are therefore winning.
It also seems to indicate that MSM (73rd place) has no clue how to play Marines in a competitive setting to end up behind 3 higher ranked players
alextroy wrote: This is excellent data that seems to indicate that the top players in the game are gravitating towards playing Marine and are therefore winning.
It also seems to indicate that MSM (73rd place) has no clue how to play Marines in a competitive setting to end up behind 3 higher ranked players
I'm not sure it shows any of that really, it shows good players place higher and bad players place lower. The only notable number for any of the players involved is that 2nd in the world, but arguably this early in the season it counts for very little as all you need to do is hit more events than everyone else to get your total for the season higher. We're (due to LVO) largely only really in the first true month in the season after a lot of people taking a break. This dataset is selected because it conveniently has a lot of high placing marines as well. We're seeing plenty of events with no marines in the top 4 etc.
GW's going to be attempting to reinvent the wheel come June/July with 10th, so does any of this even matter now?
Largely, but never the less it's something to talk about and if we're honest, none if it ever really mattered in the first place. It is nice to know if GW has managed to create a healthy and diverse meta though, which it seems to indicate they have largely.
Ideally, you should target the top X% of every tournament. So whether that is the top 10%, 15%, or 20% isn't super important as long as you are relatively consistent.
I would suggest for around Top 12.5% of the field:
Top 4: 32 or less
Top 8: 33 - 64
Top 12: 65 - 96
Top 16: 97 - 128
etc.
If you are trying to remove the newbie skew, could you filter by rank? In a post above those were listed. Not sure if it would be possible to mesh the databases.
So you’d end up with something like “of tournaments played last week, this is how people ranked 2000 or better placed”. It would mess up your data if a new unranked player did well.
Just trying to think of options that treat the data pool fairly. Dropping outliers is not inherently bad, but does skew things. Look at the mean results, not average? Not sure.
Nevelon wrote: If you are trying to remove the newbie skew, could you filter by rank? In a post above those were listed. Not sure if it would be possible to mesh the databases.
So you’d end up with something like “of tournaments played last week, this is how people ranked 2000 or better placed”. It would mess up your data if a new unranked player did well.
Just trying to think of options that treat the data pool fairly. Dropping outliers is not inherently bad, but does skew things. Look at the mean results, not average? Not sure.
Or you look at the complete picture, and don't filter anyone out for any army.
Heck, even the data provided by Semper earlier doesn't prove anyone is a so-called "Newbie" - at worst, it shows some people haven't been as active in the GT scene this year. But if the ITC season reset in March (as I think someone said - might have the wrong date there) it could just be that people were keeping their powder dry for the season to reset.
As for whether any of the players are actual "newbies", I'll note that even Semper didn't try to claim that these were new players, or even new to the tournament scene - just that they hadn't been that active in 2023.
As previously noted, Semper should be in politics.
GW's going to be attempting to reinvent the wheel come June/July with 10th, so does any of this even matter now?
Maybe. That's what gets me most. I tend to stop playing as much when there might be big changes on the horizon.
At this point some marines are probably a bit too good, which means it isn't upgrades that are the problem. As with GSC secondaries are helping some people do well. Despite all the chaos we're seeing lots of different armies place and lots of representation, which all things considered is an ok place to be.
Nevelon wrote: If you are trying to remove the newbie skew, could you filter by rank? In a post above those were listed. Not sure if it would be possible to mesh the databases.
So you’d end up with something like “of tournaments played last week, this is how people ranked 2000 or better placed”. It would mess up your data if a new unranked player did well.
Just trying to think of options that treat the data pool fairly. Dropping outliers is not inherently bad, but does skew things. Look at the mean results, not average? Not sure.
Mean is a criminally underused statistic. You would need to track tournament results at a player level Win/Loss Ratio, but then you could find the Mean Win/Loss percentage to see just how good the "average" player of the faction is doing without the outliers messing up the number.
Daedalus81 wrote: Maybe. That's what gets me most. I tend to stop playing as much when there might be big changes on the horizon.
I'm still happy to play - but its certainly put me off buying new stuff.
There's quite a lot of factions where I'd be interested in starting or expanding a force - but having no idea if they'll interest me in a few months is an issue.
ccs wrote: That's terrible. You cant do anything about those changes. So play games in the here & now and worry about what's to come when it gets here.
I don't quite know what the term for it is. It's certainly this weird mental compulsion. I just wind up doing more painting in the meantime usually.
Key:
Dropped after 1 round - Dropped after 2 rounds - Dropped after 3 rounds - Dropped after 4 rounds - Dropped after 5 rounds - Dropped after 6 rounds
Looking at top 16 for events with over 129 players The Southampton GT - Southampton, ENG - (197, 5 rounds of Swiss, followed by top 4 cut)
Participation % (by Codex) (197 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 2.54%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.11%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.03%
Aeldari - 3.05%
Chaos Daemons - 7.11%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.05%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.08%
Dark Eldar - 3.55%
Death Guard - 0.51%
Genestealer Cult - 3.05%
Grey Knights - 1.02%
Harlequins - 0.51%
Imperial Guard - 6.60%
Imperial Knights - 3.05%
Knights Renegades - 3.55%
Leagues of Votann - 4.57%
Necrons - 1.02%
Orks - 4.06%
Space Marines - 23.35%
Tau Empire - 7.11%
Thousand Sons - 1.52%
Tyranids - 1.02%
Tzeentch - 0.51%
World Eaters - 3.05%
Ynnari - 1.02%
No faction - 1.02%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Craftworld Eldar x1
Imperial Guard x2
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
9-16 (each slot now worth 6.25%)
Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Dark Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x2
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
There was something odd going on with round 1 here, which is why we have two entries under "No faction", and several people tying for 193rd on the leaderboard.
If we look at the top 8, both Imperial Guard and Space Marines are overperforming compared tot heir participation %, both by roughly 1 top 8 spot.
If we look at the top 16, Space Marines revert to performing about as expected (23.35% of the field vs. 25% of the top 16), while Craftworld Eldar, Genestealer Cult and Imperial Guard are all overperforming, with at least twice as many top 16 spots as expected.
The only faction I'd say ends up underperforming in the top 16 compared to its participation % is Tau Empire - with 7.11% of the field, you'd expect 1 top 16 spot, and they ended up with none.
FLG Rocky Mountain Open 2023 - Brighton, Colorado, USA - (144, 6 rounds)
Participation % (by Codex) (144 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 4.86%
Adeptus Custodes - 4.86%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.78%
Aeldari - 0.69%
Chaos - 0.69%
Chaos Daemons - 0.69%
Chaos Space Marines - 8.33%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.08%
Dark Eldar - 2.08%
Death Guard - 4.86%
Genestealer Cult - 2.78%
Grey Knights - 0.69%
Imperial Guard - 8.33%
Imperial Knights - 5.56%
Knights Renegades - 4.86%
Leagues of Votann - 7.64%
Necrons - 2.08%
Orks - 6.94%
Space Marines - 19.44%
Tau Empire - 4.17%
Thousand Sons - 0.69%
Tyranids - 2.78%
Tzeentch - 0.69%
World Eaters - 1.39%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x2
Tau Empire x1
Tzeentch x1
9-16 (each slot now worth 6.25%)
Adeptus Mechanicus x1
Chaos Space Marines x1
Death Guard x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
If we look at this event in terms of a top 8, I don't think Space Marines are overperforming - 19.4% is over the tipping point between 1 and 2 top 8 slots, by a hair. I do wonder where Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard & Leagues of Votann are in the top 8, though.
If we pivot to the top 16, I still question where the Imperial Guard, Leagues of Votann and Imperial Knights are. However, Space Marines do now reach the point of overperforming - their participation % would put them at ~3 top 16 places, not 5. Orks are also overperforming at top 16, with 12.5% top 16 vs. 6.94% participation.
Anyone else find it amusing that the one Night Lords player ran away before the end of the event? Not to mention an Emperor's Children player ending up at 138, given that's 2x69.
For events between 33 and 128 players, looking at the top 8 Ordo Fanaticus Presents: Rosehammer - Portland, Oregon, USA - (95, 6 rounds)
Spoiler:
95 entrants, 0 show no results, 14 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - ||| (5, 20, 89*)
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| | (4, 23, 38, 42, 51, 53)
Aeldari - || (56*, 79*)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (17, 25, 30)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - || (18, 90*)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - || (8, 24)
Chaos Space Marines (Iron Warriors) - | (87*)
Craftworld Eldar - | (83)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (76)
Dark Eldar - ||| (47, 62, 80)
Death Guard - | (48)
Genestealer Cult - ||| (3, 13, 93)
Grey Knights - ||||| (34, 39, 46, 65, 82)
Imperial Guard - ||||| ||| (7, 10, 16, 19, 28, 33, 69, 77*)
Imperial Knights - |||| (11, 45, 72*, 92*)
Knights Renegades - ||||| || (31, 58, 66, 71, 81, 86*, 95*)
Leagues of Votann - ||| (29, 32, 70)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (49)
Necrons - || (85, 94)
Orks - || (26, 35)
Orks (Deathskulls) - | (64)
Orks (Goffs) - || (1, 75*)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - |||| (44, 61, 73, 88*)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||| (15, 63, 67)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - | (57)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Ravenwing)) - | (44)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (43, 91*)
Space Marines (Minotaurs) - | (52)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - ||| (9, 22, 55)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - || (2, 37)
Tau Empire - |||| (14, 55, 68, 78*)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - || (27, 74)
World Eaters - ||||| ||| (6, 12, 36, 40, 41, 50, 60, 84)
Ynnari - | (21)
Participation % (by Codex) (95 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 3.16%
Adeptus Custodes - 6.32%
Aeldari - 2.11%
Chaos Daemons - 5.26%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.16%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.11%
Dark Eldar - 3.16%
Death Guard - 1.05%
Genestealer Cult - 3.16%
Grey Knights - 5.26%
Imperial Guard - 8.42%
Imperial Knights - 4.21%
Knights Renegades - 7.37%
Leagues of Votann - 4.21%
Necrons - 2.11%
Orks - 5.26%
Space Marines - 17.89%
Tau Empire - 6.32%
World Eaters - 8.42%
Ynnari - 1.05%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adepta Sororitas x1
Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Space Marines x1
Genestealer Cult x1
Imperial Guard x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x1
World Eaters x1
Given the proportion of entrants, there's an argument to be made that Knights Renegades and Tau Empire underperformed here. With a wide spread of slots in the top 8, Idon't think anyone really overperformed.
Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play Event - Nottingham, ENG - (81, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
81 entrants, 0 show no results, 1 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - |||| (20, 22, 48, 49)
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| | (6, 8, 23, 25, 26, 65*)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (78)
Aeldari - ||| (33, 37, 74)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (17, 32, 50)
Chaos Daemons (Khorne) - | (55)
Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh) - | (57)
Chaos Space Marines - || (21, 27)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - || (28, 45)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - || (15, 71)
Chaos Space Marines (Iron Warriors) - | (77)
Craftworld Eldar - | (69)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - || (35, 59)
Dark Eldar - || (13, 80)
Death Guard - ||| (40, 44, 68)
Genestealer Cult - ||||| (4, 18, 30, 54, 72)
Grey Knights - || (31, 48)
Harlequins - || (1, 67)
Imperial Guard - || (39, 58)
Imperial Knights - ||||| (41, 53, 56, 73, 75)
Knights Renegades - ||||| (10, 24, 29, 51, 61)
Leagues of Votann (Greater Thurian League) - | (52)
Orks - | (19)
Orks (Goffs) - || (3, 14)
Space Marines - |||| (2, 7, 9, 66)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (63)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (47, 60)
Space Marines (Crimson Fists) - | (36)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (11)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - | (43)
Space Marines (Imperial Fists) - | (64)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (16, 42)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (5)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (70)
Tau Empire - | (76)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - || (38, 62)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - | (34)
Thousand Sons - | (79)
Tyranids (Gorgon) - | (81)
World Eaters - | (12)
Participation % (by Codex) (81 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 4.94%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.40%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 1.23%
Aeldari - 3.70%
Chaos Daemons - 6.17%
Chaos Space Marines - 8.64%
Craftworld Eldar - 3.70%
Dark Eldar - 2.47%
Death Guard - 3.70%
Genestealer Cult - 6.17%
Grey Knights - 2.47%
Harlequins - 2.47%
Imperial Guard - 2.47%
Imperial Knights - 6.17%
Knights Renegades - 6.17%
Leagues of Votann - 1.23%
Orks - 3.70%
Space Marines - 16.04%
Tau Empire - 4.94%
Thousand Sons - 1.23%
Tyranids - 1.23%
World Eaters - 1.23%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x2
Genestealer Cult x1
Harlequins x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x3
With three of the top 8 placces, Space Marines definitely overperformed relative to their participation % (16.04% vs. 37.5%). Adeptus Custodes also heavily overperformed (7.4% vs. 25%), arguably by a greater degree. Chaos Space Marines are probably the Codex which was closest to being able to be described as underperforming at this event.
Also (1/81)*100 is a fun calculation to do.
Mighty Meeple 40kGT #2 - Concord, North Carolina, USA - (35, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
41 entrants, 6 show no results, 7 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - || (14, 32*)
Adeptus Custodes - |||| (4, 7, 23, 34*)
Aeldari - | (15)
Chaos Daemons - || (1, 25*)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (11)
Chaos Space Marines - | (31*)
Craftworld Eldar - | (26*)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (20)
Dark Eldar - || (16, 19)
Imperial Guard - || (2, 3)
Imperial Knights - | (18)
Khorne - | (10)
Knights Renegades - | (5)
Leagues of Votann - | (13)
Necrons - | (9)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - | (28)
Orks (Goffs) - | (17)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (24*, 29)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (8, 27)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (21)
Tau Empire - | (35*)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (30)
Thousand Sons - | (33)
Tyranids - | (22)
World Eaters - | (6)
Ynnari - | (12)
Participation % (by Codex) (35 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 5.71%
Adeptus Custodes - 11.43%
Aeldari - 2.86%
Chaos Daemons - 8.57%
Chaos Space Marines - 2.86%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.71%
Dark Eldar - 5.71%
Imperial Guard - 5.71%
Imperial Knights - 2.86%
Khorne - 2.86%
Knights Renegades - 2.86%
Leagues of Votann - 2.86%
Necrons - 5.71%
Orks - 2.86%
Space Marines - 14.28%
Tau Empire - 5.71%
Thousand Sons - 2.86%
Tyranids - 2.86%
World Eaters - 2.86%
Ynnari - 2.86%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x2
Chaos Daemons x1
Imperial Guard x2
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
World Eaters x1
Both Adeptus Custodes and Imperial Guard substantially overperformed compared to their participation percentages (25% of the top 8 each, compared to 11.43% and 5.71% of the field, respectively). Space Marines slightly underperformed, but it is close enough that I'd call it a wash in that regard.
In line with last time, for events with 32 or fewer entrants I'll look at top 4, rather than top 8 WH40k Level Up Grimdark Grand Tournament - Pensacola, Florida, USA - (32, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
34 entrants, 2 show no results, 2 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - | (15)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (26)
Chaos Daemons - | (8)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (28*)
Grey Knights - || (11, 27)
Harlequins - | (30)
Imperial Guard - |||| (4, 6, 7, 24*)
Imperial Guard (Catachan Jungle Fighters) - | (14)
Imperial Guard (Militarum Tempestus) - | (32)
Leagues of Votann - || (10, 22)
Necrons - | (16)
Orks - || (20, 29)
Orks (Goffs) - | (17)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (3)
Space Marines (Charcharodons) - | (23)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (2)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - | (18)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (21)
Tau Empire - | (31*)
Thousand Sons - | (19)
Tyranids (Behemoth) - | (13)
Tyranids (Gorgon) - | (1)
Tyranids (Leviathan) - | (9)
World Eaters - ||| (5, 12, 25)
Participation % (by Codex) (32 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 3.125%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 3.125%
Chaos Daemons - 3.125%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.125%
Grey Knights - 6.25%
Harlequins - 3.125%
Imperial Guard - 18.75%
Leagues of Votann - 6.25%
Necrons - 3.125%
Orks - 9.375%
Space Marines - 15.625%
Tau Empire - 3.125%
Thousand Sons - 3.125%
Tyranids - 9.375%
World Eaters - 9.375%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Imperial Guard x1
Space Marines x2
Tyranids x1
Compared to participation, Space Marines definitely overperformed here. Can't really say any of the factions underperformed compared to their participation, though.
BFS - 2 Day Competitive Warhammer 40000 Tournament - Colchester, ENG - (30, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
30 entrants, 0 show no results, 0 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - | (20)
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| ||| (4, 8, 12, 15, 22, 24, 25, 29)
Aeldari - | (18)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (2, 9, 26)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (14)
Chaos Space Marines (Iron Warriors) - | (19)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (23)
Dark Eldar - | (28)
Death Guard - | (17)
Genestealer Cult - | (1)
Grey Knights - || (16, 21)
Imperial Guard - | (7)
Imperial Knights - | (30)
Leagues of Votann - | (5)
Necrons - | (11)
Orks - | (6)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (10)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (27)
World Eaters - | (3)
Ynnari - | (13)
Participation % (by Codex) (30 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 3.33%
Adeptus Custodes - 26.67%
Aeldari - 3.33%
Chaos Daemons - 10%
Chaos Space Marines - 6.67%
Craftworld Eldar - 3.33%
Dark Eldar - 3.33%
Death Guard - 3.33%
Genestealer Cult - 3.33%
Grey Knights - 6.67%
Imperial Guard - 3.33%
Imperial Knights - 3.33%
Leagues of Votann - 3.33%
Necrons - 3.33%
Orks - 3.33%
Space Marines - 6.67%
World Eaters - 3.33%
Ynnari - 3.33%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Genestealer Cult x1
World Eaters x1
Don't think anyone can really be said to have overperformed or underperformed here. I'm am surprised by the Adeptus Custodes and Space Marine participation rates, though.
'Ere We Go Again Ladz 40k Store Championship - Oviedo, Florida, USA - (28, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
28 entrants, 0 show no results, 3 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - |||| (2, 4, 9, 16)
Aeldari - | (11)
Chaos Daemons - | (8)
Craftworld Eldar - | (17)
Grey Knights - | (28*)
Leagues of Votann - | (1)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (26*)
Necrons - | (24)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - | (25)
Nurgle - | (3)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (23)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (18)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (14, 21)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - || (7, 20)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - ||| (6, 13, 22)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (27*)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (15)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (5)
Tyranids - | (12)
World Eaters - | (19)
Ynnari - | (10)
Participation % (by Codex) (28 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 14.29%
Aeldari - 3.57%
Chaos Daemons - 3.57%
Craftworld Eldar - 3.57%
Grey Knights - 3.57%
Leagues of Votann - 7.14%
Necrons - 7.14%
Nurgle - 3.57%
Space Marines - 39.29%
Tau Empire - 3.57%
Tyranids - 3.57%
World Eaters - 3.57%
Ynnari - 3.57%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Adeptus Custodes x2
Leagues of Votann x1
Nurgle x1
Safe to say that Space Marines underperformed at this event - nearly 40% of the field, and no-one in the top 4? In contrast, Adeptus Custodes heavily overperformed walking away with 50% of the top 4 slots while only making up 14.29% of the field.
Top 16 slots (32 available)
Adeptus Custodes - || - 6.25% - On target
Adeptus Mechanicus - | - 3.125% - On target
Chaos - | - 3.125% - Overperformed
Chaos Daemons - | - 3.125% - Underperformed
Chaos Space Marines - | - 3.125% - Underperformed
Craftworld Eldar - ||| - 9.375% - Overperformed
Dark Eldar - | - 3.125% - On target
Death Guard - | - 3.125% - On target
Genestealer Cult - || - 6.25% - Overperformed
Imperial Guard - || - 6.25% - Underperformed
Knights Renegades - | - 3.125% - On target
Leagues of Votann - | - 3.125% - Underperformed
Orks - || - 6.25% - On target
Space Marines - ||||| |||| - 28.125% - Overperformed
Tau Empire - | - 3.125% - Underperformed
Tzeentch - | - 3.125% - Overperformed
World Eaters - || - 6.25% - Overperformed
The above ratings are based on whether factions were within one percentile point either way of their participation %. As you can see, a number of factions overperformed here, including Space Marines (who probably had two too many top 16 spots). Largest overperformer here was probably Chaos, given there was only one person using that "Codex", so 0.29% participation vs. 3.125% of the top 16 - that's over ten times as well as expected.
Participation vs. top 8 slots for the 3 events with 33 to 128 entrants
Top 8 slots (3 events, so 24 in total - 4.17% each)
Adepta Sororitas - | - 4.17%
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| - 20.83%
Chaos Daemons - | - 4.17%
Chaos Space Marines - | - 4.17%
Genestealer Cult - || - 8.33%
Harlequins - | - 4.17%
Imperial Guard - ||| - 12.5%
Knights Renegades - | - 4.17%
Orks - || - 8.33%
Space Marines - ||||| - 20.83%
World Eaters - || - 8.33%
Comparing participation to top 8 slots, I'd say Adeptus Custodes are heavily over-performing (should have ~2 top 8 slots), Space Marines are overperforming (should be on ~4 top 8 slots), Imperial Guard are heavily overperforming (should be on ~1 top 8 slot), Genestealer Cult are heavily overperforming (should be on ~1 top 8 slot), Orks are heavily overperforming (should be on ~1 top 8 slot), and World Eaters are heavily overperforming (should be on ~1 top 8 slot).
It doesn't look like anyone who made the top 8 is underperforming, however. Of those who didn't net a top 8 slot, Imperial Knights and Tau Empire are underperforming.
Participation vs. top 4 slots for the 3 events with 32 or fewer entrants
Looking at these numbers, I'd say Adeptus Custodes overperformed at these events, Space Marines were about on track, and after that it is hard to offer an opinion on whether any of the other factions did anything other than... perform.
SM Win Records
Spoiler:
SM Win Records (6 Swiss Rounds, W/L/Blue) (2 events) 6-0-0 - ||
5-1-0 - ||||
4-1-1 - |
4-2-0 - ||||| |||
3-3-0 - ||||| ||||| |
2-3-1 - |
2-4-0 - ||||| |||||
1-4-1 - |
1-2-0 - |
1-3-0 - |
1-5-0 - |||
0-6-0 - |
Total games played - 259
Total games won - 127
% of games won during events with 6 Swiss rounds - 127/259 = 49.03%
That's a lot of data crunching.
I guess it just comes down to this argument of what data you would expect to see in a balanced game.
On paper mapping participation to "placings" (however defined) seems reasonable. If 20% of the field play Space Marines, you'd expect them to get 20% of the top-4 spots. But equally - you'd sort of expect players to gravitate towards the more powerful factions. So even if this aligned, it wouldn't necesarilly mean the game was balanced. What is a "fair" breakdown of all the factions? Arguably you could say the fact Marines are only at 20% is a good sign. We know when they've been the most busted faction, tournament participation has risen to 30%, even 40% in some outliers.
Arguably a balanced game is one where a "top player" can take any faction, and consistently place in a tournament. As opposed to say an imbalanced game, where really your odds drop off dramatically if you aren't running 1-3 factions regardless of skill level. (Odd lists inevitably got through from time to time even in the most horrendously broken metas, but if its not reliably repeated, it was probably just good luck in those games.)
So for example, the data shouts to me that Necrons and Thousand Sons are currently underpowered and need help. This is not only due to the poor win% - but also the clear fact players are abandoning these factions. But as said - its the question. What percentage of the field should be Necron or Thousand Son - as opposed to Marine, Custodes, Guard etc.
GW's going to be attempting to reinvent the wheel come June/July with 10th, so does any of this even matter now?
Allegedly reinventing the wheel. Rumors are not always accurate, and GW rarely does any reinventing the wheel anyway- mostly the slap a new coat of paint, rarely they put a new rim inside the tire, but its always more or less the same wheel.
Tyel wrote: So for example, the data shouts to me that Necrons and Thousand Sons are currently underpowered and need help. This is not only due to the poor win% - but also the clear fact players are abandoning these factions. But as said - its the question. What percentage of the field should be Necron or Thousand Son - as opposed to Marine, Custodes, Guard etc.
I'd argue there are probably four, maybe five "core Codex" factions that need looking at, based on participation:
Grey Knights end up being the "maybe" book there, as they got OK participation numbers in the Top 8 and Top 4 events, but were nowhere to be seen in the two big Top 16 events. It's also worth noting that these five factions scored a grand total of one Top n place across eight events.
In the case of Ynnari, as has been said since their introduction, GW need to figure out what they're doing with the faction, as they're more of an appendix at the moment than a proper force.
I feel Ynnari are just CWE with a few extra bits - I don't think we should expect them to represented as their own thing. If they are a good way to run Eldar they appear. If they aren't, they won't. (This is my same feeling on why we don't need to concern ourselves with "Imperial Fist" representation if IH/DA/whoever are stomping on everyone.)
The Southampton GT - Southampton, ENG - (197, 5 rounds of Swiss, followed by top 4 cut)
There was something odd going on with round 1 here, which is why we have two entries under "No faction", and several people tying for 193rd on the leaderboard.
If we look at the top 8, both Imperial Guard and Space Marines are overperforming compared tot heir participation %, both by roughly 1 top 8 spot.
If we look at the top 16, Space Marines revert to performing about as expected (23.35% of the field vs. 25% of the top 16), while Craftworld Eldar, Genestealer Cult and Imperial Guard are all overperforming, with at least twice as many top 16 spots as expected.
The only faction I'd say ends up underperforming in the top 16 compared to its participation % is Tau Empire - with 7.11% of the field, you'd expect 1 top 16 spot, and they ended up with none.
And Marines controlled 37.5% of the top 8 spots.
Dysartes wrote: FLG Rocky Mountain Open 2023 - Brighton, Colorado, USA - (144, 6 rounds)
151 entrants, 7 show no results, 12 dropped during the event
If we look at this event in terms of a top 8, I don't think Space Marines are overperforming - 19.4% is over the tipping point between 1 and 2 top 8 slots, by a hair. I do wonder where Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard & Leagues of Votann are in the top 8, though.
If we pivot to the top 16, I still question where the Imperial Guard, Leagues of Votann and Imperial Knights are. However, Space Marines do now reach the point of overperforming - their participation % would put them at ~3 top 16 places, not 5. Orks are also overperforming at top 16, with 12.5% top 16 vs. 6.94% participation.
Anyone else find it amusing that the one Night Lords player ran away before the end of the event? Not to mention an Emperor's Children player ending up at 138, given that's 2x69.
Marines took 25% of the top 8, roughly where they should be if participation was the only metric that mattered. Top 16 though.... They ran away with again more than 50% higher rate than their participation number.
Dysartes wrote: For events between 33 and 128 players, looking at the top 8 Ordo Fanaticus Presents: Rosehammer - Portland, Oregon, USA - (95, 6 rounds)
95 entrants, 0 show no results, 14 dropped during the event
Given the proportion of entrants, there's an argument to be made that Knights Renegades and Tau Empire underperformed here. With a wide spread of slots in the top 8, Idon't think anyone really overperformed.
Top 8 Marines didn't over perform. I am surprised that Salamanders finally did well.
Dysartes wrote: Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play Event - Nottingham, ENG - (81, 5 rounds)
81 entrants, 0 show no results, 1 dropped during the event
With three of the top 8 placces, Space Marines definitely overperformed relative to their participation % (16.04% vs. 37.5%). Adeptus Custodes also heavily overperformed (7.4% vs. 25%), arguably by a greater degree. Chaos Space Marines are probably the Codex which was closest to being able to be described as underperforming at this event.
Worth noting that while the metric he used means only counting the top 8, Marines had 6 players in the top 16. The highest amount so far by any faction.
Dysartes wrote: Mighty Meeple 40kGT #2 - Concord, North Carolina, USA - (35, 5 rounds)
41 entrants, 6 show no results, 7 dropped during the event
Both Adeptus Custodes and Imperial Guard substantially overperformed compared to their participation percentages (25% of the top 8 each, compared to 11.43% and 5.71% of the field, respectively). Space Marines slightly underperformed, but it is close enough that I'd call it a wash in that regard.
Fair enough.
Dysartes wrote: In line with last time, for events with 32 or fewer entrants I'll look at top 4, rather than top 8 WH40k Level Up Grimdark Grand Tournament - Pensacola, Florida, USA - (32, 5 rounds)
Compared to participation, Space Marines definitely overperformed here. Can't really say any of the factions underperformed compared to their participation, though.
Marines had 1/2 of the top 4...so yep over performed by a lot.
Dysartes wrote: BFS - 2 Day Competitive Warhammer 40000 Tournament - Colchester, ENG - (30, 5 rounds)
Don't think anyone can really be said to have overperformed or underperformed here. I'm am surprised by the Adeptus Custodes and Space Marine participation rates, though.
Marines had 2 players, highest placing was 10th place.
Dysartes wrote: 'Ere We Go Again Ladz 40k Store Championship - Oviedo, Florida, USA - (28, 5 rounds)
Safe to say that Space Marines underperformed at this event - nearly 40% of the field, and no-one in the top 4? In contrast, Adeptus Custodes heavily overperformed walking away with 50% of the top 4 slots while only making up 14.29% of the field.
Marines had ranks 6 and 7 and more importantly, the #6 Marine player was playing for 1st place but lost to the tournament winner in the last game. So it was literally a 49 to 43 decision that separated Space Marines from winning another tournament. And 7th place Marine lost his final game to the guy who finished 4th. So they were in the running for 50% of the top spots but barely lost.
In smaller events the data is a bit screwier since a single loss one way or the other can drastically shift the numbers, same for the mid sized events while the bigger events tend to give a clearer picture. Point I made originally in this thread is still standing though, Marines are top tier right now.
Dudeface wrote: Marines are both simultaneously top and bottom tier.
Depends upon what narrative you want to tell.
I believe this is what we call a High Ceiling, Low Floor faction. Good players can craft strong list and do very well, but it is very easy to build a bad list or pilot a list badly to a bad result.
For kicks, I ran some additional stats on The Southampton GT.
Dysartes wrote:The Southampton GT - Southampton, ENG - (197, 5 rounds of Swiss, followed by top 4 cut)
Participation % (by Codex) (197 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 2.54%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.11%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.03%
Aeldari - 3.05%
Chaos Daemons - 7.11%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.05%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.08%
Dark Eldar - 3.55%
Death Guard - 0.51%
Genestealer Cult - 3.05%
Grey Knights - 1.02%
Harlequins - 0.51%
Imperial Guard - 6.60%
Imperial Knights - 3.05%
Knights Renegades - 3.55%
Leagues of Votann - 4.57%
Necrons - 1.02%
Orks - 4.06%
Space Marines - 23.35%
Tau Empire - 7.11%
Thousand Sons - 1.52%
Tyranids - 1.02%
Tzeentch - 0.51%
World Eaters - 3.05%
Ynnari - 1.02%
No faction - 1.02%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Craftworld Eldar x1
Imperial Guard x2
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
9-16 (each slot now worth 6.25%)
Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Dark Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x2
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
There was something odd going on with round 1 here, which is why we have two entries under "No faction", and several people tying for 193rd on the leaderboard.
If we look at the top 8, both Imperial Guard and Space Marines are overperforming compared tot heir participation %, both by roughly 1 top 8 spot.
If we look at the top 16, Space Marines revert to performing about as expected (23.35% of the field vs. 25% of the top 16), while Craftworld Eldar, Genestealer Cult and Imperial Guard are all overperforming, with at least twice as many top 16 spots as expected.
The only faction I'd say ends up underperforming in the top 16 compared to its participation % is Tau Empire - with 7.11% of the field, you'd expect 1 top 16 spot, and they ended up with none.
Of the 46 Space Marines players, the average placing was 94.146 and the median placing was 96. This tells us that Space Marines were pretty well distributed from top to bottom of the rankings, even given the large number of 193rd placings in the event.
So this event very much shows High Ceiling, Low Floor for Space Marines.
Dudeface wrote: Marines are both simultaneously top and bottom tier.
Depends upon what narrative you want to tell.
I believe this is what we call a High Ceiling, Low Floor faction. Good players can craft strong list and do very well, but it is very easy to build a bad list or pilot a list badly to a bad result.
For kicks, I ran some additional stats on The Southampton GT.
Dysartes wrote:The Southampton GT - Southampton, ENG - (197, 5 rounds of Swiss, followed by top 4 cut)
Participation % (by Codex) (197 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 2.54%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.11%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.03%
Aeldari - 3.05%
Chaos Daemons - 7.11%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.05%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.08%
Dark Eldar - 3.55%
Death Guard - 0.51%
Genestealer Cult - 3.05%
Grey Knights - 1.02%
Harlequins - 0.51%
Imperial Guard - 6.60%
Imperial Knights - 3.05%
Knights Renegades - 3.55%
Leagues of Votann - 4.57%
Necrons - 1.02%
Orks - 4.06%
Space Marines - 23.35%
Tau Empire - 7.11%
Thousand Sons - 1.52%
Tyranids - 1.02%
Tzeentch - 0.51%
World Eaters - 3.05%
Ynnari - 1.02%
No faction - 1.02%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Craftworld Eldar x1
Imperial Guard x2
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
9-16 (each slot now worth 6.25%)
Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Dark Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x2
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
There was something odd going on with round 1 here, which is why we have two entries under "No faction", and several people tying for 193rd on the leaderboard.
If we look at the top 8, both Imperial Guard and Space Marines are overperforming compared tot heir participation %, both by roughly 1 top 8 spot.
If we look at the top 16, Space Marines revert to performing about as expected (23.35% of the field vs. 25% of the top 16), while Craftworld Eldar, Genestealer Cult and Imperial Guard are all overperforming, with at least twice as many top 16 spots as expected.
The only faction I'd say ends up underperforming in the top 16 compared to its participation % is Tau Empire - with 7.11% of the field, you'd expect 1 top 16 spot, and they ended up with none.
Of the 46 Space Marines players, the average placing was 94.146 and the median placing was 96. This tells us that Space Marines were pretty well distributed from top to bottom of the rankings, even given the large number of 193rd placings in the event.
So this event very much shows High Ceiling, Low Floor for Space Marines.
Sums it up I think, but we go back to: are marines needing to be correctly identified by chapter rather than as an amalgamation? I think this is the simplest one to address and it is a resounding yes. It's not a fair statement to say "marines are top of the meta" when they're both the highest and lowest win rate as well iirc based purely on sub-faction. In which case do we move onto "Dark Angels are top of the meta" rather than the general statement of "marines"
Dudeface wrote: Sums it up I think, but we go back to: are marines needing to be correctly identified by chapter rather than as an amalgamation? I think this is the simplest one to address and it is a resounding yes. It's not a fair statement to say "marines are top of the meta" when they're both the highest and lowest win rate as well iirc based purely on sub-faction. In which case do we move onto "Dark Angels are top of the meta" rather than the general statement of "marines"
I don't think so, because nothing is stopping you switching.
No other faction (I think people tried but the lack of players made it sort of meaningless) gets this exception. If a faction has a standard best sub-faction, people run it.
Maybe you love Rogal Dorn (with a moustache you cowards). Maybe you got into 40k circa 3rd edition when White Dwarf was showing off the new Imperial Fists studio army. Maybe you just love yellow. But I'm sorry - if you take IF to a major tournament, you are not taking it seriously. So how can we take the outcome seriously?
Their rules suck. Take I think any army you can build from the SM codex, and run it as something else. Should GW buff IF? Probably. But them being bad doesn't tell us anything about the balance state of Marines when used by top players who want to win who could run anything else in the game.
There also just aren't enough people playing these subfactions to give them useful data by win%. You have people who don't really care, do badly and skew the rate down. You then have people who really do care and do very well - which skews it up. (For example the one person who ran White Scars last weekend, went 4-1, and so got the whole subfaction an 80% win rate.)
There also just aren't enough people playing these subfactions to give them useful data by win%. You have people who don't really care, do badly and skew the rate down. You then have people who really do care and do very well - which skews it up. (For example the one person who ran White Scars last weekend, went 4-1, and so got the whole subfaction an 80% win rate.)
That is false... somewhat.
It is true for the bottom of the barrel chapters (White Scars, Raven Guard, IF, Crimson Fists).
But Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Black Templars, Space Wolves? they have respectable player populations. I mean, there are almost as many Space Wolves players as there are GSC players.
There is an argument for separating out the major Space Marine factions of Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Deathwatch (honorable mention to Black Templars). They have have a significant count of non-Unique units that separate them from the other chapters. Outside of those, we are dealing with the same "this sub-faction is better than the rest" syndrome we have in every codex.
For the purposes of nerfing a sub faction (Chapter) yes you can subdivide and gently (emphasis on gently) bring that sub-faction down a bit. Others you can give a minor buff to. IH, DA, BA are likely in line for a minor nerf, while WS, Ravens and IF could use a buff.
What I don't want to see is the hamfisted reaction that GW did to Orkz. In other words I don't want Dark Angel players going from Top tier to bottom tier overnight thanks to their only builds being destroyed.
It is true for the bottom of the barrel chapters (White Scars, Raven Guard, IF, Crimson Fists).
But Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Black Templars, Space Wolves? they have respectable player populations. I mean, there are almost as many Space Wolves players as there are GSC players.
This is what I meant. There aren't enough WS, RG, IF, Crimson Fist etc players to make a reasonable judgement whether these are "bottom tier" or not.
If we take the not unreasonable view that they are bad, we are left with the view that the people playing them are likely not as serious about winning.
We don't know how say IF would perform if we forced the best Marine players to play them in the current meta. We can theorise they'd do worse than they'd do with other marine subfactions - or other factions entirely. But its difficult to know how bad, because it hasn't happened, and probably won't.
I mean how good or bad are Orks? Well Goffs seem to be doing reasonably okay. Or at least we see them pop up enough to believe its not a fluke (The ork player base not exactly being huge as a total %.) How many Bad Moons to we see? In round figures... zero? Now this isn't so surprising - because Goffs do a lot to boost the units which are worth taking - and Bad Moons do almost nothing for anything. But unless we said "all Ork Players in the next 10 tournaments can only run Bad Moons" - its hard to make a judgement based on evidence as to how bad Bad Moons are. Because we don't have any.
SemperMortis wrote: For the purposes of nerfing a sub faction (Chapter) yes you can subdivide and gently (emphasis on gently) bring that sub-faction down a bit. Others you can give a minor buff to. IH, DA, BA are likely in line for a minor nerf, while WS, Ravens and IF could use a buff.
What I don't want to see is the hamfisted reaction that GW did to Orkz. In other words I don't want Dark Angel players going from Top tier to bottom tier overnight thanks to their only builds being destroyed.
The problem with Dark Angels and Iron Hands comes from rules on top of rules (Deathwing and the Devastator doctrine). With Blood Angels, it's the terribly efficient units that just they get access to. If White Scars had Sanguinary Guard they'd 100% use them.
This is what I meant. There aren't enough WS, RG, IF, Crimson Fist etc players to make a reasonable judgement whether these are "bottom tier" or not.
If we take the not unreasonable view that they are bad, we are left with the view that the people playing them are likely not as serious about winning.
We don't know how say IF would perform if we forced the best Marine players to play them in the current meta. We can theorise they'd do worse than they'd do with other marine subfactions - or other factions entirely. But its difficult to know how bad, because it hasn't happened, and probably won't.
.
If we talk about big GT, then the number of players who are willing to bring a bad army, of any kind, will always be very low. The fact that NO top player picks something like IF speaks volume about the army. In the past we had examples of Ad mecha, being considered bad. And they were bad for majority of people playing the faction. Top players could win GTs or place high with the army. So GW nerfed them, and then even the top players changed armies to something else.
The main problem stems from the fact, that a bad or new player of good factions has pre build armies to go in to. An eldar, or GSC player knows what to pick. Same with DAs. The armies, through a combination of rules and the data that can be easily found online, are easy or easier to pilot. What is a IF player suppose to do, when the tournament data is showing him 20-30% something win rates? Pick what he likes, try to copy the good marine armies? Well neither is going to work, because the secondaries, special rules and sometimes entire core army units will not be something he can copy.
And the worse the army, the harder it will be come up with anything on their own, especialy as the way to "learn the faction" is going to end with them losing over and over again, often very one sided games. And I don't think there are many people that like that.
This isn't even some special marines thing. Were all the GSC players noobs, up until the last seson came out and suddenly, they stopped being noobs and their win rates exploded? No it was a rules change that, just like in prior sesons favoured necron and sob, now favours them.
If in 10th GW is going to make the game about faction terrain, and IF get a ++3 sv or a ++4 with re-rolls, and this will be linked to how games are won in 10th, IF will suddenly a power house, and the quality of the players both in GT and outside of them won't matter.
In the end marines are inefficient point wise, and rules creeped through every edition. The only factions of marines that do well are those that GW, intentionaly or not, leaves with marine+ rules, special units other marines don't have or unexpected rules interaction between things that GW thought would be "cool" and the communities willingness to run something in 3x5 or 3x10 etc.
Those are thing that will never changed, because are rooted in how GW updates their rules for all faction, how GW writes rules and how GW thinks people should buy and build their armies. Now GW could probably fix it, by employing a team of people who would be looking, on a weekly basis, on performace on lists world wide, and then adjust the rules sets on a bi weekly or monthly schedul. But that would require paying money, and a living rule systems, that could impact sells negativly. So it as probable as world peace and taxes going down.
Nah, the only analytical stance now is whether it's specific subfactions which we know it is.
Overall consensus is likely that marines as a whole occupy the full spectrum of result places, can be top or bottom tier depending on subfaction. Of those DA and IH are king, deathwatch are the whipping boys.
It's also probably reasonable to say this is the most balanced it's been in a long time overall as per usual right before the end.
It's like they try to show us they're quietly capable right when it doesn't matter any more.
10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
even if they couid, trying to turn a tabletop game into a sport is a bad joke.
Tournaments aren't just going to stop once 10th is announced. In fact we know that GW is still going to release a balance dataslate next month so they are definitely not stopping.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
There definitely seems to have been a failure in terms of predicting how much stock is required to satisfy the market, given even people who actually go to tournaments haven't been able to get hold of the tournament packs the last couple of times.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
There definitely seems to have been a failure in terms of predicting how much stock is required to satisfy the market, given even people who actually go to tournaments haven't been able to get hold of the tournament packs the last couple of times.
Has that actually mattered though? Have any great # of would-be tourney players been turned away for not having the physical book? Have any?
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
even if they couid, trying to turn a tabletop game into a sport is a bad joke.
Chess is a sport.
If there's a winner and loser, there will be competition, and people WILL make sport of it. That you can't comprehend that doesn't mean it was a failure. If anything, it would've been brilliant if GW only got an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters to blast out the rules instead of the current trash doing it.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
There definitely seems to have been a failure in terms of predicting how much stock is required to satisfy the market, given even people who actually go to tournaments haven't been able to get hold of the tournament packs the last couple of times.
Has that actually mattered though? Have any great # of would-be tourney players been turned away for not having the physical book? Have any?
Maybe not some local tournies, but bigger tournaments require the purchased rules.
And given the number of editions of these tournament packs they've released across 9th, you'd think they'd be able to get closer to the right amount to print by now, if only to the point of "not sold out on day of pre-order, with no reprint in sight".
Not expecting them to get it bob on, but maybe so copies actually appear on the shelf for a week, y'know?
"GW have failed miserably" I cried, as revenue and profits hit record levels, and they sell out of almost everything they release...
To my mind GW have realised there are essentially two markets. The first is people who play the game every other weekend - be that at tournaments (tournament players, boo) or FLGS/Stores/Garages all over the world - and so need rules churn if they aren't to get bored. These players might be kind of targeted for "buy the new hotness that's hot for about 3 weeks" - but they represent such a small share of sales that I don't think that's really the case
And then you have the second group made up of people who frankly almost never play the actual game. But while they are potentially put off by a level of rules churn/complexity they can't hope to follow, they aren't actually impacted by it. If GW keep make good models backed by cool fluff, they'll keep buying.
I'd expect 10th to be relatively clean. It will be targeted - like 8th - at easily getting new people into the hobby and expanding the potential customer base. Balance will likely be all over the place, but that won't matter so much in those early simple days, as people (especially new people) won't be running around with optimised comps. But it won't last.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
I think it succeeded quite well. More iterations for them to figure things out, because it is evident they don't have a ton of institutional knowledge on these things as it was always seat of the pants in the past. In the future I can only hope they have less to fix and changes are just point tweaks. That's probably a bit pie in the sky though.
Mission shakeups are what would really help the game from becoming stale. Yearly would be preferable in the future.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
even if they couid, trying to turn a tabletop game into a sport is a bad joke.
Chess is a sport.
If there's a winner and loser, there will be competition, and people WILL make sport of it. That you can't comprehend that doesn't mean it was a failure. If anything, it would've been brilliant if GW only got an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters to blast out the rules instead of the current trash doing it.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
There definitely seems to have been a failure in terms of predicting how much stock is required to satisfy the market, given even people who actually go to tournaments haven't been able to get hold of the tournament packs the last couple of times.
Has that actually mattered though? Have any great # of would-be tourney players been turned away for not having the physical book? Have any?
Maybe not some local tournies, but bigger tournaments require the purchased rules.
I didn't ask what the requirement is (I know that).
I asked how many, if any, people have actually been affected by it.
Tyel wrote: "GW have failed miserably" I cried, as revenue and profits hit record levels, and they sell out of almost everything they release...
To my mind GW have realised there are essentially two markets. The first is people who play the game every other weekend - be that at tournaments (tournament players, boo) or FLGS/Stores/Garages all over the world - and so need rules churn if they aren't to get bored. These players might be kind of targeted for "buy the new hotness that's hot for about 3 weeks" - but they represent such a small share of sales that I don't think that's really the case
And then you have the second group made up of people who frankly almost never play the actual game. But while they are potentially put off by a level of rules churn/complexity they can't hope to follow, they aren't actually impacted by it. If GW keep make good models backed by cool fluff, they'll keep buying.
I'd expect 10th to be relatively clean. It will be targeted - like 8th - at easily getting new people into the hobby and expanding the potential customer base. Balance will likely be all over the place, but that won't matter so much in those early simple days, as people (especially new people) won't be running around with optimised comps. But it won't last.
I actually think tournament players are the most frugal of the bunch. And the people at the top spent so much time collecting prizes that their collections are huge. I've seen people who don't play at all with collections ten times mine.
GW's win is having a very public presence of gamers convincing others to join in. People playing in their garage don't influence passers by.
And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
Wayniac wrote: And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
Wayniac wrote: And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
And why is that a problem?
Because it puts the wrong narrative that tournament play should be the focus of the game.
Wayniac wrote: And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
And why is that a problem?
Because it puts the wrong narrative that tournament play should be the focus of the game.
Why not? It might mean we'll eventually not get trash rules instead of you defending something like if GW made Cultists 10 points a model.
Wayniac wrote: And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
And why is that a problem?
Because it puts the wrong narrative that tournament play should be the focus of the game.
Well, then there is a perfect opportunity for someone to make quality content that is narrative focused.
Wayniac wrote: And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
And why is that a problem?
Because it puts the wrong narrative that tournament play should be the focus of the game.
It should be the focus of balance discussions. How are you going to verify and why would you care about my experience in casual games vs SM?
Alrighty, then... and another event cropped up while I was working through things, which was odd.
Key:
Dropped after 1 round - Dropped after 2 rounds - Dropped after 3 rounds - Dropped after 4 rounds - Dropped after 5 rounds - Dropped after 6 rounds
Iberian Open Talavera - Toledo, Spain - 5 rounds (followed by a cut), 84 players
Spoiler:
91 entrants, 6 show no results, 2 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - ||||| | (20, 22, 31, 52, 58, 75)
Aeldari - || (10, 11)
Chaos Daemons - |||| (40, 53, 69, 71)
Chaos Daemons (Khorne) - | (76)
Chaos Daemons (Nurgle) - | (56)
Chaos Space Marines - || (61, 62)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (74)
Craftworld Eldar - | (79)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (60)
Dark Eldar - || (21, 44)
Death Guard - | (73)
Genestealer Cult - ||||| (18, 43, 46, 54, 55)
Grey Knights - ||| (41, 68, 77)
Harlequins - | (59)
Imperial Guard - ||||| | (1, 2, 9, 15, 36, 85*)
Imperial Knights - ||||| (27, 30, 57, 64, 66)
Knights Renegades - ||||| ||| (8, 25, 39, 45, 65, 81, 82, 83*)
Leagues of Votann - ||| (12, 29, 51)
Necrons - ||| (32, 35, 49)
Orks - | (14)
Orks (Deathskulls) - | (13, 63)
Space Marines - | (78)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (23)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - ||| (6, 33, 70)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||||| (4, 5, 7, 19, 34)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - ||| (16, 26, 37)
Space Marines (Raven Guard) - | (72)
Tau Empire - | (42)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (17)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - | (84)
Tyranids - ||| (28, 50, 80)
Tzeentch - || (1, 24)
World Eaters - || (47, 48)
Ynnari - || (38, 67)
Participation % (by Codex) (85 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 7.06%
Aeldari - 2.35%
Chaos Daemons - 7.06%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.53%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.35%
Dark Eldar - 2.35%
Death Guard - 1.18%
Genestealer Cult - 5.88%
Grey Knights - 3.53%
Harlequins - 1.18%
Imperial Guard - 7.06%
Imperial Knights - 5.88%
Knights Renegades - 9.41%
Leagues of Votann - 3.53%
Necrons - 3.53%
Orks - 3.53%
Space Marines - 16.47%
Tau Empire - 3.53%
Tyranids - 3.53%
Tzeentch - 2.35%
World Eaters - 2.35%
Ynnari - 2.35%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Imperial Guard - ||
Knights Renegades - |
Space Marines - ||||
Tzeentch - |
Yup, Space Marines definitely overperformed here - 16.47% of the field shouldn't capture 50% of the top 8. Imperial Guard also overperformed, getting 25% of the top 8 from 7.06% of the field.
The Great Game GT - Westminster, Maryland, USA - 6 rounds, 51 players
Spoiler:
52 entrants, 1 show no results, 12 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - | (6)
Adeptus Custodes - || (9, 24)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (42*)
Chaos Daemons - || (7, 51*)
Chaos Daemons (Khorne) - | (33)
Chaos Daemons (Nurgle) - | (30)
Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh) - | (12)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - || (1, 45)
Chaos Space Marines - || (28, 34)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (49)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - ||| (2, 13, 27)
Death Guard - | (38*)
Grey Knights - | (43*)
Harlequins - || (32, 41*)
Imperial Guard - || (10, 16)
Knights Renegades - ||||| (11, 35, 36*, 46*, 47*)
Leagues of Votann - || (4, 19)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (14)
Necrons - | (15)
Orks (Goffs) - || (26, 40)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||| (8, 17, 23)
Space Marines (Flesh Tearers) - | (39*)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - |||| (3, 20, 21, 25*)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - || (22, 48)
World Eaters - ||||| || (5, 18, 29*, 31, 37, 44, 50*)
Participation % (by Codex) (51 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 1.96%
Adeptus Custodes - 3.92%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 1.96%
Chaos Daemons - 11.48%
Chaos Space Marines - 5.88%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.88%
Death Guard - 1.96%
Grey Knights - 1.96%
Harlequins - 3.92%
Imperial Guard - 3.92%
Knights Renegades - 8.20%
Leagues of Votann - 5.88%
Necrons - 1.96%
Orks - 3.92%
Space Marines - 13.11%
Tau Empire - 3.92%
World Eaters - 11.48%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adepta Sororitas - |
Chaos Daemons - ||
Craftworld Eldar - |
Leagues of Votann - |
Space Marines - ||
World Eaters - |
Both Space Marines and Chaos Daemons overperforming here - you'd expect one top 8 slot each, based on entrants. I don't think anyone really underperformed, unless you want to make an argument for Knights Renegades. Quite a high drop rate at this event, too.
Planet arKCanite At Comicon - Kansas City, Missouri, USA - 6 rounds, 40 players
Spoiler:
40 entrants, 0 show no results, 3 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - | (26)
Adeptus Custodes - |||[/color[ (14, 22, 38*)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (13)
Chaos Daemons - || (17, 35)
Chaos Space Marines - | (31)
Genestealer Cult - | (27)
Grey Knights - || (37, 32)
Imperial Guard - |||| (2, 18, 21, 36)
Knights Renegades - || (19, 33)
Necrons - ||| (1, 9, 23)
Orks - | (6)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - || (10, 16)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (11)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (7)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - | (4)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - ||| (5, 8, 15)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (28)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (12)
Tau Empire - |[color=orange]| (25, 39*)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (24)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - | (30)
Tyranids - | (20)
Tyranids (Jormungandr) - | (34)
World Eaters - || (3, 29)
Ynnari - | (40*)
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Imperial Guard - |
Necrons - |
Orks - |
Space Marines - ||||
World Eaters - |
Might just be me, but if your "team" is hosting an event, maybe it isn't a good idea to have five of your team enter, four of them take spots in the top 8, and the lowest placed member of the team take 10th. Certainly made me go "Hmm..." when I noticed it.
And Space Marines overperformed here, scoring twice the places in the top 8 we might expect from their participation.
...why is Kansas City not in Kansas?
Major Mayhem - Valdosta, Georgia, USA - 5 rounds, 58 players
Spoiler:
58 entrants, 0 show no results, 13 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - ||||| | (2, 24, 42*, 47, 48*, 54)
Aeldari - | (13)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (7, 10, 35)
Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh) - | (1)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (39)
Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) - | (45)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (16)
Death Guard - |||| (4, 31, 38, 53)
Grey Knights - | (40*)
Imperial Guard - ||| (11, 20, 27)
Imperial Knights - ||| (30, 37, 44)
Knights Renegades - || (15, 36)
Leagues of Votann (Greater Thurian League) - || (9, 18)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - || (14, 50*)
Necrons - || (6, 58*)
Orks (Deathskulls) - || (23*, 33)
Orks (Evil Sunz) - | (26)
Orks (Goffs) - ||| (32, 34, 49*)
Space Marines (Blank Templars) - ||| (3, 12, 28*)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (29)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (8)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - | (43*)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - || (46, 52*)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (56*)
Space Marines (White Scars) - | (51)
Tau Empire - | (57*)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (41)
World Eaters - |||| (5, 19, 21, 22)
Ynnari - ||| (17, 25, 55*)
Participation % (by Codex) (58 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 10.34%
Aeldari - 1.72%
Chaos Daemons - 8.62%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.45%
Death Guard - 6.90%
Grey Knights - 1.72%
Imperial Guard - 5.17%
Imperial Knights - 5.17%
Knights Renegades - 3.45%
Leagues of Votann - 6.90%
Necrons - 3.45%
Orks - 10.34%
Space Marines - 17.24%
Tau Empire - 3.45%
World Eaters - 6.90%
Ynnari - 5.17%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes - |
Chaos Daemons - ||
Death Guard - |
Necrons - |
Space Marines - ||
World Eaters - |
I'm surprised by how high the drop rate is at this event - while all 58 players had at least one result recorded, 22.41% of the field had dropped out before the end of the event.
In terms of performance, Space Marines slightly overperformed, but only marginally (comfortably over the % for one top 8 spot, but not quite at the tipping point between one and two slots). Chaos Daemons overperformed in a much more aggressive manner, getting 25% of the top 8 from 8.62% of the field.
Orks are the only faction I'd consider to be underperforming, based on their participation %.
The March Madness Grant Tournament - Jacksonville, Arkansas, USA - 5 rounds, 48 players
Spoiler:
50 entrants, 2 show no results, 1 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - ||| (7, 9, 15)
Adeptus Custodes - ||| (6, 21, 38)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (35)
Chaos Daemons - || (1, 24)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (39)
Death Guard - | (41)
Genestealer Cult - ||| (4, 27, 33)
Harlequins - || (26, 30)
Imperial Guard - |||| (16, 31, 40, 45)
Imperial Knights - | (8)
Knights Renegades - || (10, 14)
Leagues of Votann - ||| (12, 22, 36)
Necrons - || (43, 44)
Orks - | (17)
Orks (Deathskulls) - || (28, 29)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (25, 48)
Space Marines (Charcharodons) - | (23)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||| (5, 13, 18)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - | (2)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - ||| (19, 20, 46)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - ||| (32, 34, 47*)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - ||| (3, 37, 42)
World Eaters - | (11)
Participation % (by Codex) (46 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 6.52%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 4.35%
Aeldari - 2.17%
Chaos Daemons - 6.52%
Chaos Space Marines - 4.35%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.17%
Dark Eldar - 4.35%
Grey Knights - 2.17%
Imperial Guard - 8.70%
Imperial Knights - 2.17%
Knights Renegades - 4.35%
Leagues of Votann - 2.17%
Necrons - 4.35%
Orks - 8.70%
Space Marines - 19.56%
Tau Empire - 6.52%
Thousand Sons - 2.17%
Tyranids - 2.17%
World Eaters - 2.17%
Ynnari - 4.35%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes - |
Chaos Daemons - |
Imperial Guard - ||
Necrons - |
Space Marines - ||
Tyranids - |
At 19.56% of the field, I would say that Space Marines were not overperforming at this event, as they were past the tipping point between one top 8 spot and two top 8 spots. Imperial Guard, on the other hand, clearly over-performed, with 25% of the top 8 from 8.7% of the field.
Free State GT 2023 - Holton, Kansas, USA - 5 rounds, 43 players
Spoiler:
46 entrants, 3 show no results, 4 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - || (29, 39*)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (17)
Aeldari - | (37)
Chaos - | (42)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - | (2)
Chaos Space Marines (Night Lords) - | (38)
Dark Eldar - | (41*)
Death Guard - | (27)
Genestealer Cult - || (3, 13)
Grey Knights - || (6, 22)
Imperial Guard - ||| (7, 32, 34)
Imperial Knights - || (8, 36)
Knights Renegades - ||| (5, 16, 20)
Necrons - || (4, 23)
Orks - | (24)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (26)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (21)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||| (1, 15, 18)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - ||||| || (9, 12, 14, 28, 35, 40*, 43)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (11)
Tau Empire - | (10)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - | (33*)
Tyranids - | (31)
Tyranids (Gorgon) - | (30)
World Eaters - || (19, 25)
Nice wide spread of factions across the top 8. Given they had a hair over 30% of the field, we can say that Space Marines definitely underperformed here.
Dropzone Games Central Island Open - Nanaimo, British Columbia, CAN - 5 rounds, 39 players
Spoiler:
39 entrants, 0 show no results, 1 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - || (2, 16)
Adeptus Custodes - ||| (4, 7, 11)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (17)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (18, 28, 35)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - || (32, 33)
Chaos Space Marines - || (10, 14)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (25)
Dark Eldar - || (29, 31)
Genestealer Cult - ||| (21, 22, 38*)
Grey Knights - | (9)
Imperial Guard - ||| (13, 23, 30)
Imperial Knights - || (19, 26)
Knights Renegades - | (24)
Necrons - | (12)
Orks (Snakebites) - | (39)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (5)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (1)
Space Marines (Imperial Fists) - | (15)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - | (3)
Space Marines (Raven Guard) - | (8)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (37)
Tau Empire - || (6, 36)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (27)
Tyranids (Behemoth) - || (20, 34)
Participation % (by Codex) (39 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 5.13%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.69%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.56%
Chaos Daemons - 12.82%
Chaos Space Marines - 7.69%
Dark Eldar - 5.13%
Genestealer Cult - 7.69%
Grey Knights - 2.56%
Imperial Guard - 7.69%
Imperial Knights - 5.13%
Knights Renegades - 2.56%
Necrons - 2.56%
Orks - 2.56%
Space Marines - 15.38%
Tau Empire - 7.69%
Tyranids - 5.13%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adepta Sororitas - |
Adeptus Custodes - ||
Space Marines - ||||
Tau Empire - |
Space Marines definitely overperformed by a distance here, as did Adeptus Custodes. Chaos Daemons were the only faction I'd say definitely underperformed.
OP's 1st GT Smash - Santa Rosa, California, USA - 5 rounds, 38 players
Spoiler:
38 entrants, 0 show no results, 4 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - ||| (4, 31, 33)
Chaos Daemons - | (6)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - || (30, 38)
Craftworld Eldar - || (21, 27)
Dark Eldar - || (34, 36)
Death Guard - || (2, 35)
Genestealer Cult - | (8)
Imperial Guard - || (13, 16)
Imperial Knights - || (7, 15)
Knights Renegades - | (25)
Necrons - | (5)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - | (10)
Orks - | (9)
Orks (Goffs) - ||| (19, 23, 28)
Space Marines - | (22)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (14)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (11, 17)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - | (1)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (3)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (29)
Tau Empire - | (20)
Thousand Sons - || (24, 37*)
Tyranids (Behemoth) - | (26)
World Eaters - ||| (12, 18, 32)
Participation % (by Codex) (38 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 7.89%
Chaos Daemons - 2.63%
Chaos Space Marines - 5.26%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.26%
Dark Eldar - 5.26%
Death Guard - 5.26%
Genestealer Cult - 2.63%
Imperial Guard - 5.26%
Imperial Knights - 5.26%
Knights Renegades - 2.63%
Necrons - 5.26%
Orks - 10.53%
Space Marines - 18.42%
Tau Empire - 2.63%
Thousand Sons - 5.26%
Tyranids - 2.63%
World Eaters - 7.89%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes - |
Chaos Daemons - |
Death Guard - |
Genestealer Cult - |
Imperial Knights - |
Necrons - |
Space Marines - ||
I don't think anyone here is overperforming - Space Marines are within 0.35% of the tipping point between one and two top 8 spots, so I'm not going to quibble. I'd argue that Orks underperformed, given they had over 10% of the field and no top 8 spots.
War of the Roses 2023 - Stockport, ENG - 5 rounds, 34 players
Spoiler:
34 entrants, 0 show no results, 4 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - ||| (11, 13, 19)
Adeptus Custodes - || (3, 8)
Chaos Daemons - | (10)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (4)
Death Guard - | (25)
Genestealer Cult - | (31*)
Grey Knights - ||| (18, 22, 23)
Harlequins - | (28)
Imperial Guard - |||| (6, 9, 15, 29)
Imperial Knights - | (12)
Leagues of Votann - | (26)
Orks - | (14)
Orks (Goffs) - | (17)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (27)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (1, 31*)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing) - | (16)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - | (20)
Tau Empire - | (24)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (30)
World Eaters - ||||| (2, 5, 7, 21, 31*)
Ynnari - | (31*)
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes - ||
Chaos Daemons - |
Imperial Guard - |
Space Marines - |
World Eaters - |||
Space Marines look to have performed about as expected, given their participation, as have Imperial Guard. Adeptus Custodes and World Eaters, on the other hand, have definitely overperformed. It is arguable that the Adepta Sororitas and Grey Knights underperformed, given their participation %.
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Chaos Daemons - |
Chaos Space Marines - |
Imperial Guard - |
Space Marines - |||
World Eaters - ||
Space Marines overperformed here, netting around double the number of top 8 spots you'd expect from their participation (17.65% putting them almost at the tipping point between one and two top 8 slots). World Eaters overperformed to a larger degree, achieving over four times what you'd expect from their 5.88% participation.
As event is only 32 players, will be looking at the top 4 only. Carnage - Season 1, Round 1 - Leeds, ENG - 5 rounds, 32 players
Spoiler:
32 entrants, 0 show no results, 4 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - ||||| (16, 20, 21, 24*, 28*)
Aeldari - | (9)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (1, 7, 31*)
Chaos Space Marines - | (6)
Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) - | (15)
Dark Eldar - | (25)
Death Guard - | (13)
Grey Knights - | (22)
Imperial Guard - || (11, 17)
Knights Renegades - | (12)
Leagues of Votann - | (29)
Space Marines - | (30)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (3)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - | (4)
Space Marines (Raven Guard) - | (26)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (14)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - || (8, 10)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (23)
Tau Empire - ||| (2, 5, 32*)
Tyranids - | (19)
Tyranids (Behemoth) - | (18)
Ynnari - | (27)
Participation % (by Codex) (32 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 15.625%
Aeldari - 3.125%
Chaos Daemons - 9.375%
Chaos Space Marines - 6.25%
Dark Eldar - 3.125%
Death Guard - 3.125%
Grey Knights - 3.125%
Imperial Guard - 6.25%
Knights Renegades - 3.125%
Leagues of Votann - 3.125%
Space Marines - 25%
Tau Empire - 9.375%
Tyranids - 6.25%
Ynnari - 3.125%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Chaos Daemons x1
Space Marines x2
Tau Empire x1
Compared to their participation, Space Marines overperformed - you'd expect 1 top 4 spot, not two. On the other hand, Adeptus Custodes arguably underperformed here - second largest faction, and no top 4 spots.
Codex: Space Marines Sub-Factions (12 events) Top n spot
Free state GT: Marines under-performed in the top 8, they also had 9th, 11th, 12th and 15th as well IE they missed top 8 spots by one game. #9 lost 2 games, both with a score of 78. He lost by 16pts in the 1st game vs the #4 placing list and by 8pts in his last game to the guy who placed 2nd. #11 lost 2 games with 76 and 73 #12 with 76 and 66 and #15th with 69 and 69. Again, they missed out on taking 4 more top 8 spots by mere inches.
OPs GT: Marines over performed but only by a little bit, but even still #11 was a DA player who lost 2 games, 1st game vs the #2 player, and the 2nd game Vs the guy who finished 3rd. But the game vs #3 he lost by 1pt! and had he won he would have catapulted himself to 3rd place.
So basically every single GT listed Marines either met or over performed vs their participation rate which is still a terrible metric since it yet again doesn't take into account the borderline horde of bad players or newbies who show up as Marines. But lets also run this to ground with Top 4 placings. Marines had 16 top 4 placings out of a possible 40 including 4 1st place finishes out of 10. Realistically you can see that the problem children are the DA and IH but you still had Raven guard, Ultramarines, Space wolves and salamanders showing up.
Put another way, Marine factions took 40% of top 4 placings while also winning 40% of the tournaments outright. If you don't think that is over performing and TOP TIER than there is nothing anyone can ever do to convince you.
Semper, you really need to stop doing this - you're continuing to make yourself look foolish, and/or driven by your initial narrative and/or biased. You're not looking at the data and listening to what it is telling you - you're reaching to try to force it to fit in the box you set up at the start of the thread.
It's the same problem I've run into with managers at work - they come to ask for data to show "narrative X", and I have to tell them I'm not going to do that. If we can look at a question of "what does the data about Y tell us?", that's a much healthier position to look at it from.
And before you try to say I'm trying to defend Space Marines, I'm not - I'm trying to provide a neutral look at the dataset, with a focus on the question "How are Space Marines (and their sub-factions) performing compared to their event participation this week?". I'm going in with no pre-conceptions, no axe to grind - I'm just listening to the data.
Now, if you've got criticisms of my methods, I'm happy to listen to them, and answer questions on them. I will say that I'm not going to exclude anyone's participation in an event just because they happen to get a poor record with Space Marines that day. Trying to exclude people because you think they're "bad players" or "newbies" is too subjective for that, and if we're going to listen to the data, we should be as objective as possible.
I am curious why you only appear to have looked at ten out of the twelve listed events when trying to talk about top 4 - did the other two not fit with the story you are trying to tell?
And I'll agree that Space Marines had a stronger week this week than they did last week - I think they were four percentile points higher in terms of games won, off the top of my head (though I'd also argue that 54-55% isn't excessive for one week, but certainly something to monitor over a longer period). In terms of top 8 placement (across the 11 events where that was examined), they performed 50% better than their participation would expect - but if that's the point you cry wolf, other factions met that benchmark too. Chaos Daemons and World Eaters being the prime examples, with Custodes, Guard and Sisters not far off that mark either.
Dysartes wrote: Semper, you really need to stop doing this - you're continuing to make yourself look foolish, and/or driven by your initial narrative and/or biased. You're not looking at the data and listening to what it is telling you - you're reaching to try to force it to fit in the box you set up at the start of the thread.
It's the same problem I've run into with managers at work - they come to ask for data to show "narrative X", and I have to tell them I'm not going to do that. If we can look at a question of "what does the data about Y tell us?", that's a much healthier position to look at it from.
And before you try to say I'm trying to defend Space Marines, I'm not - I'm trying to provide a neutral look at the dataset, with a focus on the question "How are Space Marines (and their sub-factions) performing compared to their event participation this week?". I'm going in with no pre-conceptions, no axe to grind - I'm just listening to the data.
Now, if you've got criticisms of my methods, I'm happy to listen to them, and answer questions on them. I will say that I'm not going to exclude anyone's participation in an event just because they happen to get a poor record with Space Marines that day. Trying to exclude people because you think they're "bad players" or "newbies" is too subjective for that, and if we're going to listen to the data, we should be as objective as possible.
I am curious why you only appear to have looked at ten out of the twelve listed events when trying to talk about top 4 - did the other two not fit with the story you are trying to tell?
And I'll agree that Space Marines had a stronger week this week than they did last week - I think they were four percentile points higher in terms of games won, off the top of my head (though I'd also argue that 54-55% isn't excessive for one week, but certainly something to monitor over a longer period). In terms of top 8 placement (across the 11 events where that was examined), they performed 50% better than their participation would expect - but if that's the point you cry wolf, other factions met that benchmark too. Chaos Daemons and World Eaters being the prime examples, with Custodes, Guard and Sisters not far off that mark either.
or you could actually read my posts without your preconceived notions The 10 instead of 12 was 1 i miscounted 1 event (happily admit I made a mistake) and 2 I hadn't included the event they said started on the 16th instead of the 17th because I had my blinders on searching for events on the 17th. So it changes the numbers from 16 in 40 to 16 in 48. or 33% which is still far too much.
As far as analysis, I dug into the events a bit and found that a lot of the time the Marines missed top 8 placings by a few points which hints that they are on the cusp of even more placings. The DA player who lost by 1pt and went from 3rd place to 11th is a great example of this. So not only are they over performing as is, but they have a host of players who didn't place who were figuratively a dice roll away from winning. And the analysis of "bad players or noobs" is important since it shows that bad players are dragging Marines W/L ratio down which is also why i think W/L ratio is a garbage metric on its own because nobody seems to account for this. In my opinion the best metric for how powerful a faction is at the highest levels is how many top placings they have, and in that category Marines are doing VERY well for themselves by your own data, and even better when you take into account the outlier lists who barely missed placing.
And finally, the other factions doing absurdly good? Realistically from last week the only faction which appeared to be oppressive besides Marines was Demons, World Eaters and IG. I don't know how you can say Custodes and SoB were "not far off that mark" when they each had 1 top 4 placing in 12 events. and 11 total placings in the top 8 over those same events (excluding the top 4 event for smaller attendance). And of those top 8 placings, most were Custodes. But even given that, the initial premise was
Based on the new updates I honestly predict SM to start running away with tournaments
not that there wouldn't be other top contenders. I'll happily state that Demons, IG and maybe even Custards need a slight nerf, but that doesn't change my premise nor does it prove it incorrect that Marines are in fact running away with the tournament scene. Not as ridiculous as DE and Ad-mech were to start this edition, but definitely they are the top dog right now.
As far as analysis, I dug into the events a bit and found that a lot of the time the Marines missed top 8 placings by a few points which hints that they are on the cusp of even more placings. The DA player who lost by 1pt and went from 3rd place to 11th is a great example of this. So not only are they over performing as is, but they have a host of players who didn't place who were figuratively a dice roll away from winning. And the analysis of "bad players or noobs" is important since it shows that bad players are dragging Marines W/L ratio down which is also why i think W/L ratio is a garbage metric on its own because nobody seems to account for this. In my opinion the best metric for how powerful a faction is at the highest levels is how many top placings they have, and in that category Marines are doing VERY well for themselves by your own data, and even better when you take into account the outlier lists who barely missed placing.
The problem is, the impression you're giving off is that you're only doing this sort of analysis for SM. It also feels like you're only doing the "let's not consider the worst players" approach only for SM. Any faction's winrate will improve if you remove the worst performers, but doing so doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the faction as a whole. Just taking placings into account doesn't account for the number of players of a given faction. If the game is perfectly balanced, but half the players play one faction, you would expect to see the top placings dominated by that faction. There's no one data point that will provide all the information you need to show a faction is broken, but tournament winrate and placings are a decent barometer of how good the best lists in a given faction are. So far the results seem to be pretty balanced, with maybe a slight tendency towards certain SM builds doing well. It's nowhere near the domination we saw with Nids and Harlequins.
The problem is, the impression you're giving off is that you're only doing this sort of analysis for SM. It also feels like you're only doing the "let's not consider the worst players" approach only for SM. Any faction's winrate will improve if you remove the worst performers, but doing so doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the faction as a whole. Just taking placings into account doesn't account for the number of players of a given faction. If the game is perfectly balanced, but half the players play one faction, you would expect to see the top placings dominated by that faction. There's no one data point that will provide all the information you need to show a faction is broken, but tournament winrate and placings are a decent barometer of how good the best lists in a given faction are. So far the results seem to be pretty balanced, with maybe a slight tendency towards certain SM builds doing well. It's nowhere near the domination we saw with Nids and Harlequins.
Well, since the entire point of this thread was me speculating that Marines would be broken with the new balance update its kind of Marine-centric by its nature. And I've broken down other factions before, in another thread about Orkz I compared Marines vs Ork player experience in a tournament, basically, you had 3/4ths of the Marine players having only played 2 or fewer GTs in the last 2 years while the majority of Ork GT players were experienced, having played significantly more GTs. Its anecdotally true for most people, borderline common sense, that the least experienced players are usually Marine players since GW does their best to bring in new players by utilizing Marines factions. When was the last time a "starter box" featured anything besides Marine Vs. Other faction? This edition was Marines vs. Necrons, 8th edition was Marines vs. Deathguard, I can't remember if Dark Vengeance was 6th or 7th edition but it was Marines vs. Spiky Marines. Point being that they generally have a plethora of newer players. But because i'm bored atm i'll run down the last 3 GTs and compare them against Imperial Guard and my Orkz.
Newbies = 2 or fewer GTs as that faction in 2 years
Newer = 3 GTs as that faction in 2 years
Experienced = 4+ GTs as that faction in 2 years
"The Great Game GT":
Spoiler:
MARINES:
Brandon Truslow: 2 GT's in 2 years as Marines.
Jason Houser: 1 GT in 2 years as Marines.
JC Watts: 5 GTs in 2 years,
John Harrison: 2 GTS in 2 years as Marines.
Joseph Scanlon: 3 GTs in 2 years.
Justin Cox: 5 GTs in 2 years.
Ken Knox: 3 GTs in 2 years.
Mark Hertel: Experienced
Steven Bourque: 4 GTs as Marines in 2 years
3 Newbies to GTs Entirely (2 or less)
2 Newer Player (3 GTs in 2 years)
4 Experienced
IMPERIAL GUARD:
Tristan Godbold: 3 GTs as IG in last 2 years.
Jesse Melvin: 7 GTs as IG in last 2 Years
2 players, 1 newer and 1 experienced.
ORKZ:
Greg Lomb: 5 GTS in 2 years as Orkz.
Shaun Powers: 3 GTS in 2 years as Orkz
2 Players, 1 newer and 1 experienced.
Team arKCanite Presents: Planet arKCanite At Comicon 2023:
Spoiler:
Marines:
Aaron Rider: 1st GT in 2 years
Anthony Joyce-Rivera: 1st GT in 2 years
Brendan McManus: 2 GTs in 2 years
Chris Taggart: 5 GTs in 2 years.
Daniel Newland: 3 GTs in 2 years.
Graham Hennig: 2 GTs in 2 years.
Jacob Meyer: 5 GTs in 2 years (IH and GK)
Jeremy Capko: Experienced SM Player.
Joshua Palmer: 1 GT in 2 years
Joshua Shirley: Experienced BT player.
Kedryn Whittington: 2 GTs in 2 years.
Stephen McBee: 2 GTs in 2 years.
7 Newbies
1 Newer
4 Experienced Players
IMPERIAL GUARD:
Simeon Boda: Experienced IG Player.
Braiden Warren: 2 GTs in 2 years.
Dillon Richmond: 1 GT in 2 years as Guard.
James Willet: 4 GTs in 2 Years.
2 newbies
2 Experienced Players
ORKZ:
Thomas Eddy: 6 GTs as Orkz
Only 1 player, but experienced.
Battle Ready Wargaming's Major Mayhem 40k Event: ***NOTE*** (This one hasn't been counted on ITC yet, so i added 1 game for everyone)
Spoiler:
MARINES:
Adam Camilleri: Experienced
Chris Frost: 1 GT as Marines
Craig Sniffen: experienced
Daniel Hesters: 1st GT as Marines in 2 years.
Dustin Brown: 1st GT as Marines in 2 years.
Jaxsen Mcdonald-Hoffman: 2nd GT as Marines in 2 years.
Jessie Hicks: 3rd GT as Marines
Jon Sweet: Experienced
Nathan McFarland: 1st GT as Marines in 2 Years
Owen McFarland: Experienced
Robert Hawkins: 2nd GT as Marines in 2 years
Seth Piper: Experienced
6 Newbies
1 Newer
5 Experienced
IMPERIAL GUARD:
Patrick Weber: 1st GT as Guard in 2 years
Gabriel Rocheleau: 4th GT as Guard in 2 years
Evan O'Brian: 2nd GT as Guard in 2 years.
2 newbies
1 Experienced.
ORKZ:
Jason Langer: Experienced
Nicholas Petrosky: Experienced
Mark Wilkens: 1 GT as Orkz in 2 Years.
Seth (Mad Dok) Oster: Experienced
Ryan Brown: 1st GT as Orkz in 2 years.
Adepticon: (Top 16) 238 players
1: IG 2: Dwarves
3: GSC 4: IG 5: Black Templars
6: Nurgle Demons
7: Necrons
8: Iron Hands
9: Knights Renegade
10: Minotaurs
11: Black Templars
12: IG 13: Space Wolves
14: Tau
15: Tau
16: Nidz.
5 of 16 lists were Space Marines, IG definitely over performed with 3 players in the top 16. Side Note to that is of the next top 16 players who didn't make it to the finals, 7 were Space Marines, 2 were IG. So in the top 32 players 12 were Marines and IG pulled in 5. I think its safe to say that both factions need to be tuned down a bit.
Münsterland GT 2: 28 players (top 4)
1: Tau
2: iron Hands
3: orkz
4: Dark Angels.
Courage And Honour VIII: 33 Players
1: IG 2: Custards
3: Tau
4: Iron Hands.
FactoruM GT Mar 2023: 40 Players
1: Dark Angels
2: Knights Renegade
3: Knights Renegade
4: Ad Mech
III GT Coliseum Murciano: 72 Players (Top 8) (why are european games so different?)
1: DE 2: Iron Hands
3: Custards
4: Orkz
5: Demons
6: Demons
7: DE 8: Blood Angels
Absolute Supremacy 40k Spring GT: 30 players
1: Iron Hands
2: Sisters
3: GSC 4: World Eaters
The Deck Box Masters 40K: 28 Players
1: Dark Angels
2: IG 3: World Eaters
4: Demons
All is Dust GT40k: 60 players
1: World Eaters
2: IG 3: Harlies
4: Blood Angels
5: Dark Angels
6: World Eaters
7: GSC 8: World Eaters
The Manchester 40k Super-Major: 258 Players
1: Dark Angels
2: Space Wolves
3: Space Marines
4: Iron Hands
5: Dark Angels
6: Eldar
7: Tau
8: Dwarves
9: Iron hands
10: Knights Renegade
11: Necrons
12: IG 13: Demons
14: Necrons
15: IG 16: Demons.
Holy crap, Marines swept the top 5 spots.
Grand Onslaught 5: 44 Players
1: Dwarves
2: Eldar
3: demons
4: Dark Angels
Iron Cage: Bedford Beatdown: 52 Players
1: IG 2: Dwarves
3: GSC 4: Ad Mech
It seems GW has agreed with me to an extent and nerfed Space Marines in general and Dark Angels specifically (rather harshly in my opinion). GSC got hit a bit as did Custards, somehow World Eaters and demons didn't really catch much but IG got hit rather hard with very specific nerfs.
Overall, I think its fair to say that World Eaters and Demons will now be top dog, but Marines aren't in a horrific spot, with several chapters walking away without any specific nerfs to them at all.
SemperMortis wrote: It seems GW has agreed with me to an extent and nerfed Space Marines in general and Dark Angels specifically (rather harshly in my opinion).
Nah, permanent Transhuman shouldn't be a thing. Good riddance.
And without it they are not worth running, they could at least left them with the mini transhuman, the +3 other armies get. But I guess having fun playing terminators is not fun. So we will see waves of RW instead, and maybe 1 brick of termis.
In general, the changes are unimportant so close to an edition change.
I did have a hearty laugh though, when a studio designers went on a "Do you guys know that vs armies like GK/1ksons opponents can double dip on kill secondaries?" as if it took them an entire edition to notice.
Karol wrote: And without it they are not worth running, they could at least left them with the mini transhuman, the +3 other armies get. But I guess having fun playing terminators is not fun. So we will see waves of RW instead, and maybe 1 brick of termis.
There's several issues with Terminators, and tacking on such a rule for a subfaction of a subfaction was lazy and not well thought out, fluff or crunch wise.
SemperMortis wrote: It seems GW has agreed with me to an extent and nerfed Space Marines in general and Dark Angels specifically (rather harshly in my opinion). GSC got hit a bit as did Custards, somehow World Eaters and demons didn't really catch much but IG got hit rather hard with very specific nerfs.
Overall, I think its fair to say that World Eaters and Demons will now be top dog, but Marines aren't in a horrific spot, with several chapters walking away without any specific nerfs to them at all.
IG didn't really get hit hard. Their relic is still an auto include, and the part that is the problem part was not removed from it. And while it is nice that units of Kasarkin won't be deleting 2-3 units per turn, but now rather 1-2, when considering the unit price it is still to oppresive. IG are single handly responsible for stuff like big dreadnoughts, big knights etc being not worth buying or running in an army.
Custodes change nerfs their warden brick, which means custodes will be back to playing msu. Again, and a short time span where wardens were an actualy fun unit worth taking is now gone.
And most marine chapters didn't require nerfs, because they were already doing not that good or bad. No nerfs needed after AoC removal to BAs, and DW or IF don't need reigning in. What should have been looked in to was how the IH function over all, just taking away a character dread is probably not enough to bring them down under 50% win rates.
Karol wrote: So we will see waves of RW instead, and maybe 1 brick of termis.
I was already thinking Ravenwing were being underutilized/under fielded. DW was a 0 second no-brainer, which is probably why nobody spent the 5 seconds to think about Ravenwing.
Wayniac wrote: And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
And why is that a problem?
Because it puts the wrong narrative that tournament play should be the focus of the game.
Why is this the "wrong" narrative? What does wrong narrative even mean here?
On another poster's point about tournament players being a small volume of sales ...can you elaborate? What is a "tournament player"? Where are you pulling your sales data?
And for OP...I think you draw some interesting conclusions from your results reporting. Do you have access to (sub)faction attendance data, and also dates as correlated to these events? (or, i suppose, which balance update they are within)
bored1 wrote: And for OP...I think you draw some interesting conclusions from your results reporting. Do you have access to (sub)faction attendance data, and also dates as correlated to these events? (or, i suppose, which balance update they are within)
Semper hasn't been gathering/publishing such data - aside from the latest batch of events, though, you can find some of that data in my posts in this thread.
bored1 wrote: And for OP...I think you draw some interesting conclusions from your results reporting. Do you have access to (sub)faction attendance data, and also dates as correlated to these events? (or, i suppose, which balance update they are within)
Semper hasn't been gathering/publishing such data - aside from the latest batch of events, though, you can find some of that data in my posts in this thread.
There's not much point to it now either, seeing as we're getting a new edition in a few months likely.
Eh, if someone is interested in how things are looking towards the end of the edition, then it's worth someone doing - I just need to revise my methodology to make it more efficient before I do any more.
Personally I'd be interested to see how the final update to 9th pans out, and it would give a nice initial point of comparison to see how big a shakeup the new edition is when those results come through down the line.
In addition, having the data for the end of the edition allows us to tie 9th edition up in a neat bow and it becomes possible to compare one edition with another across its whole life cycle.
What I really want to see someone do is compare how 9th edition started with how quickly it began to bloat and spiral out of control. Just as proof whenever someone comes up about GW trying better it can be pointed to the show how quickly they ruin a good thing
would I consider attaching an 
