Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Are you being serious right now?

You keep missing the point. People that are complaining about marines right now were the same complaining about Eldar when they were the boogeyman.
Its not about marines specifically being OP, its about any army being OP. It sucks to play a one-sided game.

If you really feel like your GK deserve to be "OP" because they sucked so much for a long time, then its a pretty dumb opinion honestly.

No army should be miles ahead of the others. Each army should have a roughly equal chance to win, no matter the matchup (were talking theoretically here, i doubt getting every army at a 50-50 winrate against all matchups is a possible thing).

You really need to play with other people than your playgroup, theyre filling your head with toxic viewpoints. You should really try out Table top simulator.

EDIT: I play eldar and i made a point in 8th of not playing the OP stuff. No shining spears, No flyer spam, no dark reapers. In fact, i played a wraith host for most of 8th, even before the PA actually made it viable. I still complained about basically one list being viable for the codex.

yes, I am serious. I tried doing something funny one time and it got removed, which kind of a goes along my real life expiriance.

Also my expiriance about people not liking marines is, that the most vocal are not those that play orcs or tyranids, because those armies were often gimmik builds driven or out right bad for a long time. The vocal ones are those played the boogyman eldar themselfs. I don't know if it is the fact that 8 editions of having armies better then the rest made eldar players think they are somehow entitled to be better. It sure does look like it.

Marines armies are different depending on the faction, and give for the first time since I started in 8th a chance to have fun games with the models their like. That is somehow bad? Because given option for majority or minority to have fun I pick the majority. And I already am playing at a different place, as my old store closed, there is practicaly no difference, aside for them using a lot of FW recasts, and it is a different town.


Ah and if you think that just because in 8th my army was bad, get a load of this, your army was OP since when 1st edition, OP in every edition there was, with casual lists beating up tournament lists of other armies? And you think there shouldn't not be a time where your army is not the best of the best? That balance is somehow eldar being better then other armies? And I am not smart, but that is a lot more stupid then me wanting marines, who don't even share much stuff with GK.

What is next, you think that there should be a ton of eldar exclusive models, more new rules (specialy those that punish marines) ? So we are suppose to go back to how stuff was for most 8th. Ah and if you think that playing a wraith army, then play GK termintors with early or mid 8th ed rules for a few months, then we can talk about what can be considered bad or casual.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Don't have marines ignoring core rules of the game. Nobody can have 2 warlord traits in a single character. Why can Marines? Nobody can deepstrike T1. Why can marines? Nobody can get reroll all hits as an aura. Why can marines?

At least 3 armies off the top of my head that aren't loyalist marines can reroll hits in an aura. As far as the warlord traits go a lot of armies in PA got strats to give out additional warlord traits to nonwarlord models or the ability to give units additional abilities that are similar to warlord traits, such as Harlequins pivotal role strat. So that isn't really unique to marines.

Drop pods can arrive on turn one but are more of a trade off. Yes you can arrive on turn 1 but the drop pod itself ranges from awful to a liability once it arrives. Drop pods breaking the normal reserve rules has been a thing for what a least a decade in GW games IIRC.

What armies can reroll all hits as an aura?

Sure but nobody can have two warlord traits on the same model.

Tyranids have awful drop pods too. Why can't they also drop T1? Also, bs. Drop pods were so stupid they even were able to completely block forward objectives when they lowered the doors and didn't allow enemies to contest them. Or they kept the doors closed and created LoS blocking terrain on demand. Just because they could do whatever the frack they wanted, as marines usually do. Also, tell me how "marines have been breaking core rules of the game for a decade now" is a comfort. In 8th everyone could drop T1. Then they saw how powerful it can be and they limited from everyone....except marines.

Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.

Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.


Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.

Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.

Karol wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Are you being serious right now?

You keep missing the point. People that are complaining about marines right now were the same complaining about Eldar when they were the boogeyman.
Its not about marines specifically being OP, its about any army being OP. It sucks to play a one-sided game.

If you really feel like your GK deserve to be "OP" because they sucked so much for a long time, then its a pretty dumb opinion honestly.

No army should be miles ahead of the others. Each army should have a roughly equal chance to win, no matter the matchup (were talking theoretically here, i doubt getting every army at a 50-50 winrate against all matchups is a possible thing).

You really need to play with other people than your playgroup, theyre filling your head with toxic viewpoints. You should really try out Table top simulator.

EDIT: I play eldar and i made a point in 8th of not playing the OP stuff. No shining spears, No flyer spam, no dark reapers. In fact, i played a wraith host for most of 8th, even before the PA actually made it viable. I still complained about basically one list being viable for the codex.

yes, I am serious. I tried doing something funny one time and it got removed, which kind of a goes along my real life expiriance.

Also my expiriance about people not liking marines is, that the most vocal are not those that play orcs or tyranids, because those armies were often gimmik builds driven or out right bad for a long time. The vocal ones are those played the boogyman eldar themselfs. I don't know if it is the fact that 8 editions of having armies better then the rest made eldar players think they are somehow entitled to be better. It sure does look like it.

Marines armies are different depending on the faction, and give for the first time since I started in 8th a chance to have fun games with the models their like. That is somehow bad? Because given option for majority or minority to have fun I pick the majority. And I already am playing at a different place, as my old store closed, there is practicaly no difference, aside for them using a lot of FW recasts, and it is a different town.


Ah and if you think that just because in 8th my army was bad, get a load of this, your army was OP since when 1st edition, OP in every edition there was, with casual lists beating up tournament lists of other armies? And you think there shouldn't not be a time where your army is not the best of the best? That balance is somehow eldar being better then other armies? And I am not smart, but that is a lot more stupid then me wanting marines, who don't even share much stuff with GK.

What is next, you think that there should be a ton of eldar exclusive models, more new rules (specialy those that punish marines) ? So we are suppose to go back to how stuff was for most 8th. Ah and if you think that playing a wraith army, then play GK termintors with early or mid 8th ed rules for a few months, then we can talk about what can be considered bad or casual.

Wow, good job completely missing my meaning.

Eldar is not my main army, its one i play on the side and i purposefully use the non top tier lists because i dislike playing "OP" stuff.
From what i see on this website at least (with the armies people have in their signatures), the complaints about marines come from every army.
GK isnt a marine army.
GK were op in past editions too.
Eldar or GK being OP is a problem just as much as marines being OP.
Do i think Eldar need new models? Absolutely, but not for the rules to be OP or for the army to get better, just because the army still uses metal sculpts for a big part of the army.

You keep focusing on the fact that i play eldar. I play CSM, Thousand sons, Admech, drukhari, harlequins, demons and knights and i can still say that a certain army is unfun to play as/against.

Audustum wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Audustum wrote:


But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.

Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).

Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.

It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.

Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.

Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.

The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).

Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.

52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.

The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.

They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.

As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.

Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.

I’m confused by what you’re trying to say here Audustum. Are you saying that marines being extremely prevalent and Salamanders being strong against marines is inflating the winrate of the (SALAMANDER) subfaction, or are you saying that Salamanders being strong vs marines and having an inflated winrate is somehow inflating “the overall marine winrate”. The first is a valid point, the second not so much.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.

Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.


Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.

Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.

When most other armies have T3 4+ models, being at the minimum T4 3+ is a defensive buff by itself already. Marines arent exactly a glass cannon army.

The strength of drop pods is that they come in turn one and take some space before your opponent can spread out of his deployment.

what aura gives +1 to invuln for demons? I dont seem to recall one.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.

Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.


Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.

Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.

When most other armies have T3 4+ models, being at the minimum T4 3+ is a defensive buff by itself already. Marines arent exactly a glass cannon army.

The strength of drop pods is that they come in turn one and take some space before your opponent can spread out of his deployment.

what aura gives +1 to invuln for demons? I dont seem to recall one.

Psychic ability. +1 invune save to all daemons in 6 inch aura. Forget its name.

True Marines can be quite tough if you bringing bad weapons with ap-0. They do pay extra points for their stats though. Which hurts even more if you have the right weapon and they die like chaff (see Riptide). I've recently started building Necrons and assembled some lists. I believe the Crons are going to murder marines at a pretty high rate with all these new buffed weapons profiles.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.

Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.


Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.

Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.

When most other armies have T3 4+ models, being at the minimum T4 3+ is a defensive buff by itself already. Marines arent exactly a glass cannon army.

The strength of drop pods is that they come in turn one and take some space before your opponent can spread out of his deployment.

what aura gives +1 to invuln for demons? I dont seem to recall one.

Psychic ability. +1 invune save to all daemons in 6 inch aura. Forget its name.

True Marines can be quite tough if you bringing bad weapons with ap-0. They do pay extra points for their stats though. Which hurts even more if you have the right weapon and they die like chaff (see Riptide). I've recently started building Necrons and assembled some lists. I believe the Crons are going to murder marines at a pretty high rate with all these new buffed weapons profiles.

Cursed earth? Thats a CSM spell that only affect <Legion> demons.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Black legion, Mars for admech, Space marines, Tau can do it once per game for a commaner.
Harliquens have reroll all wounds aura, Custodes have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura, DE have reroll 1's to hit and wound aura. Nearly all armies have reroll 1's to hit auras at the minimum. Theres probably a few armies I am missing with access to good auras.

Marines are really lacking in defensive auras. Only way to get a fnp aura is to take an apoth and spend 2 CP to give it a 3" 6+ FNP aura. Meanwhile much cheaper characters can do this in several armies.
No -1 to hit auras. Custodes (super balanced banner)
No -1 to wound auras. Quins shadowseer
No +1 to invune auras. Chaos daemons
No ability to increase the save of a unit in general (Ironhands and IF can I believe)
Really lacking in moves twice or shoot twice abilities as well. (rapid fire...20 bolter shots does not compare to oblits shooting twice) Eldar quicken compared to phobos move twice with no assault is not even close to comparable.


Drop pods do nothing but shoot a storm bolter and cant move and are in the 70 point range all last edition. When you can deep strike for 1 CP or shunt across the table with a psychic power or a relic...is not worth it - it might be worth it now but that is only because MM at 20 points for 2 shots is OP. Literally no one is denying this - it wont make it a month after codex release without ether an increase to 35 points or a nerf to 1 shot.

Marines strong - they have lots of weaknesses though. Mostly defensively.

When most other armies have T3 4+ models, being at the minimum T4 3+ is a defensive buff by itself already. Marines arent exactly a glass cannon army.

The strength of drop pods is that they come in turn one and take some space before your opponent can spread out of his deployment.

what aura gives +1 to invuln for demons? I dont seem to recall one.

Psychic ability. +1 invune save to all daemons in 6 inch aura. Forget its name.

True Marines can be quite tough if you bringing bad weapons with ap-0. They do pay extra points for their stats though. Which hurts even more if you have the right weapon and they die like chaff (see Riptide). I've recently started building Necrons and assembled some lists. I believe the Crons are going to murder marines at a pretty high rate with all these new buffed weapons profiles.

Cursed earth? Thats a CSM spell that only affect <Legion> demons.

Yeah true. I should have called it a CSM buff. It is amazing though - I use it with my black legion. Generally - defeisve buffs are better than offensive ones IMO.
Just look at all the armies that dominate.
Ironhands LVO winner - Indestructable Levi dread due to 3 different defensive abiltiies active at once.
Shinning spears. 3++ save with 5+ FNP with double move shenanigans
Immortal Castellan knight with 3++ save and 28 wounds.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yeah true. I should have called it a CSM buff. It is amazing though - I use it with my black legion. Generally - defeisve buffs are better than offensive ones IMO.
Just look at all the armies that dominate.
Ironhands LVO winner - Indestructable Levi dread due to 3 different defensive abiltiies active at once.
Shinning spears. 3++ save with 5+ FNP with double move shenanigans
Immortal Castellan knight with 3++ save and 28 wounds.

I think it scales with the base stats of the unit. Harlequin troupes getting a 3++ doesnt break anything. Its when you get things that are already hard to take down and give them extra survivability that it gets in a territory that isnt enjoyable.

The Loyalist levi is already hard to take down with his T8 and 4++, half damage + fnp on top and it gets ridiculous beause theres basically no weapon profile that manages to get through it.
Shining spears still die to bolter fire, even with the possible 2++ (theyre still super good but not the same level of survivability as the levi).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yeah true. I should have called it a CSM buff. It is amazing though - I use it with my black legion. Generally - defeisve buffs are better than offensive ones IMO.
Just look at all the armies that dominate.
Ironhands LVO winner - Indestructable Levi dread due to 3 different defensive abiltiies active at once.
Shinning spears. 3++ save with 5+ FNP with double move shenanigans
Immortal Castellan knight with 3++ save and 28 wounds.

I think it scales with the base stats of the unit. Harlequin troupes getting a 3++ doesnt break anything. Its when you get things that are already hard to take down and give them extra survivability that it gets in a territory that isnt enjoyable.

The Loyalist levi is already hard to take down with his T8 and 4++, half damage + fnp on top and it gets ridiculous beause theres basically no weapon profile that manages to get through it.
Shining spears still die to bolter fire, even with the possible 2++ (theyre still super good but not the same level of survivability as the levi).

Levi is good. No argument. They did nerf that stratagem to -1 damage instead of half though.
10 man rapid fire intercessors with reroll all hits deals less than 3 wounds to a 2++ save spreas unit with fortune. With a reroll of the save they wound even lose the 2++ statistically with a 3 wound exarch. Not particularly effective there.

No disagreement about the troops with a 3++. It is undeniable damage mitigation though. Where as even a Centurian with t5 and 4 wounds and a 2++ dies at the same rate as gaurdsmen to a DDA. Quin troopers though...pretty much indestructable to powerful weapons. Risk reward. Good defensive stats vs some weapons vs no defensive stats vs others.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


RAW today, the Nid pod can't even transport monsters. Ignoring that, with the smaller board size and changes to 9th... I think the Nid pod is one of the worst units in the game. Maybe at the end of 8th with the larger board and the point cuts, it was okay, but now it's just putrid. Meanwhile, the SM drop pod has always been good; it was too expensive for much of 8th and didn't have great payloads, but the point cuts and the turn 1 drop and the strong Sternguard options makes it great. I don't think there's a comparison here.

why couldnt it carry monsters?

RAW the Tyrannocyte disembarks models in the exact same way as disembarkation from a transport. 9th ed rules define disembark as *wholly within* 3''. Most monsters can't get their bases wholly within 3'' (i.e. every part of the base within 3''). So yeah, it's a stupid technicality, but it's also quite clear RAW. Not that I wouldn't bring monsters in Tyrannocytes against my buddies for that reason... I wouldn't bring monsters against Tyrannocytes against my buddies for several other reasons instead

Dudeface wrote:
Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?

What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?

Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.

Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even　releases would be nice. Marines get constant　release. Npc factions good if you get something　in decade


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.

Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.

Popey45696321 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Audustum wrote:


But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.

Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).

Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.

It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.

Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.

Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.

The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).

Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.

52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.

The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.

They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.

As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.

Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.

I’m confused by what you’re trying to say here Audustum. Are you saying that marines being extremely prevalent and Salamanders being strong against marines is inflating the winrate of the (SALAMANDER) subfaction, or are you saying that Salamanders being strong vs marines and having an inflated winrate is somehow inflating “the overall marine winrate”. The first is a valid point, the second not so much.

I'm saying both and they do make sense as long as we take into account that Marines aren't proportioned equally in representation.

When they calculated 'Space Marine' win rate, I believe they just took the percentages of every individual Space Marine faction and averaged them against the number of Space Marine factions. The problem with this is that it assumes all Space Marine factions were represented equally.

Let's assume there are 4 SM factions. SM 1, 2 and 3 make up 90% of the SM field. SM 4 is just 10%. SM 1, 2 and 3 each play 100 games against other SM. SM 4 plays just 9. The average winrate of SM 1-3 is 50% against each other. SM 4, because it is great at killing other SM has a 90% win rate. Thus, the average total winrate of SM 1-3 is ~49%.

If you just average the winrates then you do 49% + 49%% + 49% + 90% and then divided by 4, however. That over represents the Sallies and makes a winrate of ~59%. Sallies being great and treating all SM as equal skewed the result.

Can something like that happen with just raw win/loss numbers not separated by faction? Yeah, but only if we have the opposite: a SM chapter that is particularly good against other Imperium/Chaos/Xenos. If they got 'lucky' and hit a disproportionate amount of those they'd skew the wins too high.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?

What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?

Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.

Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even　releases would be nice. Marines get constant　release. Npc factions good if you get something　in decade


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.

Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.

The stats in the op literally show beating marines isn't "once in a blue moon" it's just less often than ideal.

I agree other races need more release windows, although every faction has had something in the last decade, just not enough.

Marines need to be brought down a little but I believe Gadzilla means rather than their bleeding edge efficiency lists getting buffed, other factions need their iffy choices brought up like marines.

I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.

Dudeface wrote:
I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.

*checks last new release*

Oh, a name generator?

*eyes to camera*

Catulle wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.

*checks last new release*

Oh, a name generator?

*eyes to camera*

Which faction?

VladimirHerzog wrote:I think it scales with the base stats of the unit. Harlequin troupes getting a 3++ doesnt break anything. Its when you get things that are already hard to take down and give them extra survivability that it gets in a territory that isnt enjoyable.

The Loyalist levi is already hard to take down with his T8 and 4++, half damage + fnp on top and it gets ridiculous beause theres basically no weapon profile that manages to get through it.
Shining spears still die to bolter fire, even with the possible 2++ (theyre still super good but not the same level of survivability as the levi).

Xenomancers wrote:Levi is good. No argument. They did nerf that stratagem to -1 damage instead of half though.
10 man rapid fire intercessors with reroll all hits deals less than 3 wounds to a 2++ save spreas unit with fortune. With a reroll of the save they wound even lose the 2++ statistically with a 3 wound exarch. Not particularly effective there.

No disagreement about the troops with a 3++. It is undeniable damage mitigation though. Where as even a Centurian with t5 and 4 wounds and a 2++ dies at the same rate as gaurdsmen to a DDA. Quin troopers though...pretty much indestructable to powerful weapons. Risk reward. Good defensive stats vs some weapons vs no defensive stats vs others.

I think you both recognize this, but to state it clearly, the important thing is that invulns really only provide protection against high-AP fire, so how useful an invuln is depends entirely on the unit's resilience to low-AP fire. Units that have otherwise weak defensive profiles but strong invulns (like Harlequins) remain vulnerable to the high-volume, low-strength firepower that was optimal against them to begin with, so the invuln is nice to have but doesn't make a huge difference. Units that are extremely tough and have invulns (like Leviathans) are able to strongly mitigate the weapons otherwise most effective against them and this dramatically impacts their survivability. That's the biggest difference between Harlequins and Leviathans as far as invulns.

Audustum wrote:

Popey45696321 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Audustum wrote:


But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.

Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).

Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.

It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.

Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.

Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.

The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).

Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.

52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.

The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.

They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.

As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.

Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.

I’m confused by what you’re trying to say here Audustum. Are you saying that marines being extremely prevalent and Salamanders being strong against marines is inflating the winrate of the (SALAMANDER) subfaction, or are you saying that Salamanders being strong vs marines and having an inflated winrate is somehow inflating “the overall marine winrate”. The first is a valid point, the second not so much.

I'm saying both and they do make sense as long as we take into account that Marines aren't proportioned equally in representation.

When they calculated 'Space Marine' win rate, I believe they just took the percentages of every individual Space Marine faction and averaged them against the number of Space Marine factions. The problem with this is that it assumes all Space Marine factions were represented equally.

Let's assume there are 4 SM factions. SM 1, 2 and 3 make up 90% of the SM field. SM 4 is just 10%. SM 1, 2 and 3 each play 100 games against other SM. SM 4 plays just 9. The average winrate of SM 1-3 is 50% against each other. SM 4, because it is great at killing other SM has a 90% win rate. Thus, the average total winrate of SM 1-3 is ~49%.

If you just average the winrates then you do 49% + 49%% + 49% + 90% and then divided by 4, however. That over represents the Sallies and makes a winrate of ~59%. Sallies being great and treating all SM as equal skewed the result.

Can something like that happen with just raw win/loss numbers not separated by faction? Yeah, but only if we have the opposite: a SM chapter that is particularly good against other Imperium/Chaos/Xenos. If they got 'lucky' and hit a disproportionate amount of those they'd skew the wins too high.

Edit: I notice you specify that subfaction 4 only played 9 games, which I missed. My bad haha.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?

What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?

Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.

Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even　releases would be nice. Marines get constant　release. Npc factions good if you get something　in decade


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.

Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.

The stats in the op literally show beating marines isn't "once in a blue moon" it's just less often than ideal.

I agree other races need more release windows, although every faction has had something in the last decade, just not enough.

Marines need to be brought down a little but I believe Gadzilla means rather than their bleeding edge efficiency lists getting buffed, other factions need their iffy choices brought up like marines.

I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up Dudeface.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?

What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?

Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.

Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even　releases would be nice. Marines get constant　release. Npc factions good if you get something　in decade


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.

Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.

The stats in the op literally show beating marines isn't "once in a blue moon" it's just less often than ideal.

I agree other races need more release windows, although every faction has had something in the last decade, just not enough.

Marines need to be brought down a little but I believe Gadzilla means rather than their bleeding edge efficiency lists getting buffed, other factions need their iffy choices brought up like marines.

I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.

Nerfing marines is simple. You just nerf the marine factions that are overperfoming. In most cases you could just reduce a single over performing stratagem or warlord trait. That and nerf the new eradicators (obviously undercosted).Does it make any sense to nerf Ultramarines when they have a 48 % WR? Retorical question ofc.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Genuine question: what will it take to get people happy with marines?

What will it take, honestly, for people not to have marine burnout or be banning them from shops or people quitting over them?

Looking at the state of these boards as they are, nothing short of knocking them to bottom half of the tier list and not having a release for a decade will be enough.

Balance? So it's not win once in a bluemoon if you face them. And more even　releases would be nice. Marines get constant　release. Npc factions good if you get something　in decade


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, loyalists don't just need to be brought down in power, everyone else needs to be brought up. Loyalists can run a fluffy list right now and still be good, a lot of other factions need to rely on janky tactics and wombo combos to function. It isn't alright that some factions can only compete with loyalists by using one good set of tactics and units. We need our new codexes.

Eh actually marines do need to be brought down. They are too killy and too extreme. Get everything to same level by going up game becomes even more extreme he who goes first wins.

The stats in the op literally show beating marines isn't "once in a blue moon" it's just less often than ideal.

I agree other races need more release windows, although every faction has had something in the last decade, just not enough.

Marines need to be brought down a little but I believe Gadzilla means rather than their bleeding edge efficiency lists getting buffed, other factions need their iffy choices brought up like marines.

I would ask the annoying NPC victim mentality would go away though. Have pride in your faction and your army rather than just pretending you're playing a punchbag.

Nerfing marines is simple. You just nerf the marine factions that are overperfoming. In most cases you could just reduce a single over performing stratagem or warlord trait. That and nerf the new eradicators (obviously undercosted).Does it make any sense to nerf Ultramarines when they have a 48 % WR? Retorical question ofc.

Depends on your side of the fence, there are plenty of posters on here who just consider them "marines" and the individual chapters etc. Don't count essentially. This means that if "marines" hit 50% they don't care that dark angels are 40% and salamanders 60% for example.

I would like to add that one Xenos army being top contender does not necessarily mean doom and gloom. People tend to forget that the amount of people playing each faction varies and the amount of people playing Harlequins(or any Aeldari really) is going to be so much smaller than the amount of Space Marine players. This is also why the Space Marine codex in its current form is so dangerous. Not only does it boost a majority faction, but makes the bandwagoners and others jump ship to join the Marine extravaganza, leaving less and less xenos players in the game potentially and making the overall scene very monotonous.

Because when Ynnari was OP it only meant that some bandwagoners jumped onto the new hot thing, but the overall change to the number of people playing Ynnari wasn't much and you didn't really encounter them repeatedly; unless you were a tourney player or one of those unlucky people to only have that one friend who only ever played Ynnari.

Popey45696321 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Popey45696321 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Audustum wrote:


But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.

Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).

Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.

It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.

Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.

Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.

The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).

Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.

52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.

The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.

They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.

As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.

Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.

I’m confused by what you’re trying to say here Audustum. Are you saying that marines being extremely prevalent and Salamanders being strong against marines is inflating the winrate of the (SALAMANDER) subfaction, or are you saying that Salamanders being strong vs marines and having an inflated winrate is somehow inflating “the overall marine winrate”. The first is a valid point, the second not so much.

I'm saying both and they do make sense as long as we take into account that Marines aren't proportioned equally in representation.

When they calculated 'Space Marine' win rate, I believe they just took the percentages of every individual Space Marine faction and averaged them against the number of Space Marine factions. The problem with this is that it assumes all Space Marine factions were represented equally.

Let's assume there are 4 SM factions. SM 1, 2 and 3 make up 90% of the SM field. SM 4 is just 10%. SM 1, 2 and 3 each play 100 games against other SM. SM 4 plays just 9. The average winrate of SM 1-3 is 50% against each other. SM 4, because it is great at killing other SM has a 90% win rate. Thus, the average total winrate of SM 1-3 is ~49%.

If you just average the winrates then you do 49% + 49%% + 49% + 90% and then divided by 4, however. That over represents the Sallies and makes a winrate of ~59%. Sallies being great and treating all SM as equal skewed the result.

Can something like that happen with just raw win/loss numbers not separated by faction? Yeah, but only if we have the opposite: a SM chapter that is particularly good against other Imperium/Chaos/Xenos. If they got 'lucky' and hit a disproportionate amount of those they'd skew the wins too high.

Edit: I notice you specify that subfaction 4 only played 9 games, which I missed. My bad haha.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I would like to add that one Xenos army being top contender does not necessarily mean doom and gloom. People tend to forget that the amount of people playing each faction varies and the amount of people playing Harlequins(or any Aeldari really) is going to be so much smaller than the amount of Space Marine players. This is also why the Space Marine codex in its current form is so dangerous. Not only does it boost a majority faction, but makes the bandwagoners and others jump ship to join the Marine extravaganza, leaving less and less xenos players in the game potentially and making the overall scene very monotonous.

Because when Ynnari was OP it only meant that some bandwagoners jumped onto the new hot thing, but the overall change to the number of people playing Ynnari wasn't much and you didn't really encounter them repeatedly; unless you were a tourney player or one of those unlucky people to only have that one friend who only ever played Ynnari.

We're going to 30K, boys! Conspiracy to eliminate xenos confirmed!

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I would like to add that one Xenos army being top contender does not necessarily mean doom and gloom. People tend to forget that the amount of people playing each faction varies and the amount of people playing Harlequins(or any Aeldari really) is going to be so much smaller than the amount of Space Marine players. This is also why the Space Marine codex in its current form is so dangerous. Not only does it boost a majority faction, but makes the bandwagoners and others jump ship to join the Marine extravaganza, leaving less and less xenos players in the game potentially and making the overall scene very monotonous.

Because when Ynnari was OP it only meant that some bandwagoners jumped onto the new hot thing, but the overall change to the number of people playing Ynnari wasn't much and you didn't really encounter them repeatedly; unless you were a tourney player or one of those unlucky people to only have that one friend who only ever played Ynnari.

We're going to 30K, boys! Conspiracy to eliminate xenos confirmed!

You flatter me mam, but no, I do not work at Games Workshop so I can't really confirm what direction GW is aiming for. I can only say that if you have something that is already a majority faction and boost it further you risk converting the non-Marines or alienating them.

 catbarf wrote:
I think you both recognize this, but to state it clearly, the important thing is that invulns really only provide protection against high-AP fire, so how useful an invuln is depends entirely on the unit's resilience to low-AP fire. Units that have otherwise weak defensive profiles but strong invulns (like Harlequins) remain vulnerable to the high-volume, low-strength firepower that was optimal against them to begin with, so the invuln is nice to have but doesn't make a huge difference. Units that are extremely tough and have invulns (like Leviathans) are able to strongly mitigate the weapons otherwise most effective against them and this dramatically impacts their survivability. That's the biggest difference between Harlequins and Leviathans as far as invulns.

If a Harlequin (7+/4++) gets a 3++ then it becomes 50% more durable against all attacks. If a Maulerfiend (3+/5++) gets a 4++ then it becomes 33% more durable against some attacks, let's say it is 70% of attacks pointed at it. On top of that your opponent might continue pointing their AP-0 and AP-1 attacks at the Maulerfiend but change the targets of their premium weapons to other targets, in the end your opponent might just kill the Maulerfiend without ever engaging with the increased invuln if they have enough S5 AP- weapons for example. The only way around the Harlequin invul buff would be mortal wounds or not killing it.

 vict0988 wrote:

If a Harlequin (7+/4++) gets a 3++ then it becomes 50% more durable against all attacks.

How in the world do you get a 50% increase in durability going from a 4++ to a 3++?

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If a Harlequin (7+/4++) gets a 3++ then it becomes 50% more durable against all attacks.

How in the world do you get a 50% increase in durability going from a 4++ to a 3++?

Normally you need 36 attacks to do 18 wounds to a unit with a 4++ (18*6/3), against a unit with a 3++ you need 18*6/2=54. 54/36=1,5. So to climb back to the 18 wounds caused you need 50% more attacks, ergo, the unit is 50% more durable.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics(8E)#Combat_101

 Eldarsif wrote:
I would like to add that one Xenos army being top contender does not necessarily mean doom and gloom. People tend to forget that the amount of people playing each faction varies and the amount of people playing Harlequins(or any Aeldari really) is going to be so much smaller than the amount of Space Marine players. This is also why the Space Marine codex in its current form is so dangerous. Not only does it boost a majority faction, but makes the bandwagoners and others jump ship to join the Marine extravaganza, leaving less and less xenos players in the game potentially and making the overall scene very monotonous.

Because when Ynnari was OP it only meant that some bandwagoners jumped onto the new hot thing, but the overall change to the number of people playing Ynnari wasn't much and you didn't really encounter them repeatedly; unless you were a tourney player or one of those unlucky people to only have that one friend who only ever played Ynnari.

Hell, even in tournaments you'd often be unlikely to come across Ynnari or even general Eldar soup.

There was a good long period of time when the meta was 60% Castellans and I personally had many tournaments where it was all 5 or 6 of my games versus some Imperium soup variant (and later on, 5 or 6 games versus Marines)

 vict0988 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If a Harlequin (7+/4++) gets a 3++ then it becomes 50% more durable against all attacks.

How in the world do you get a 50% increase in durability going from a 4++ to a 3++?

Normally you need 36 attacks to do 18 wounds to a unit with a 4++ (18*6/3), against a unit with a 3++ you need 18*6/2=54. 54/36=1,5. So to climb back to the 18 wounds caused you need 50% more attacks, ergo, the unit is 50% more durable.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics(8E)#Combat_101

To simplify further: 1/2 wounds make it through a 4++, so it takes 2 wounds on average to deal damage. 1/3 wounds make it through a 3++, so it averages 3 wounds to deal damage.

A 3++ takes 1 more wound to beat than a 4++ (3-2=1). 1 is 50% of 2. So going from a 4++ to a 3++ means it takes 50% more wounds to do the same damage. Ergo, a 3++ is a 50% increase in durability from a 4++.