Switch Theme:

An end to Era, the death of the space marine boogieman.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Blackie wrote:


BA couldn't break a 39% WR because half the lists they went against were mirror matches against chapters that had better rules/combos. How many Boomboyz, Snakebites or Blood Axes lists will defeat top Deathskulls, Evil Sunz or Goffs lists? What WR would they have in the competitive scene? Definitely not something as high as 39%.


Er mah gerd.

First, no. Marines were not the same percent of the meta back then as they are now. According to BCP stats circuit they were 10% of the meta in 2019. They were 22% in 2020. This would greatly reduce the chance to face other marines.

Second, the concept of a mirror match isn't "if I play this army with the same general faction keyword it's a mirror". That isn't how it works. It's in the name - mirror. A sanguinary guard list facing UM dreadnought list is not a mirror match just as them facing DG dreadnoughts is not a mirror match. BA plays differently from mainline astartes who plays differently from SW who plays differently from DA. And even RG plays differently from WS and UM and so on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/10 23:59:13


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


BA couldn't break a 39% WR because half the lists they went against were mirror matches against chapters that had better rules/combos. How many Boomboyz, Snakebites or Blood Axes lists will defeat top Deathskulls, Evil Sunz or Goffs lists? What WR would they have in the competitive scene? Definitely not something as high as 39%.


Er mah gerd.

First, no. Marines were not the same percent of the meta back then as they are now. According to BCP stats circuit they were 10% of the meta in 2019. They were 22% in 2020. This would greatly reduce the chance to face other marines.

Second, the concept of a mirror match isn't "if I play this army with the same general faction keyword it's a mirror". That isn't how it works. It's in the name - mirror. A sanguinary guard list facing UM dreadnought list is not a mirror match just as them facing DG dreadnoughts is not a mirror match. BA plays differently from mainline astartes who plays differently from SW who plays differently from DA. And even RG plays differently from WS and UM and so on.



Purely from the perspective of a statistical average, however, each mirror match between the same faction does inevitably push the winrate towards 50%.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





the_scotsman wrote:
Purely from the perspective of a statistical average, however, each mirror match between the same faction does inevitably push the winrate towards 50%.


Yes, true. In this case though BA represents an even smaller cross section of that pie ( about 6% ).

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Purely from the perspective of a statistical average, however, each mirror match between the same faction does inevitably push the winrate towards 50%.


Yes, true. In this case though BA represents an even smaller cross section of that pie ( about 6% ).


if we're still considering BA as its own faction, rather than as Space marines as a whole, then it's not a mirror match anyway.

If we're considering Space Marines as a whole, as in all combined, then I HOPE they're not drastically higher than 50% winrate with that kind of play percentage. That would be an indicator of a real problem.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
isn't correct. In smaller tournaments there are always outliers and the random list that just completely confounds the other players (i've done this with my old Kommando Horde in 8th). But at major events where the attendees are measured in their hundreds rather than their dozens, its extremely unlikely you bluff your way onto the top tables. And in my opinion, if your army can get to the top 8...hell the top 12 or even 15 at LVO, your army has to be doing ok. It might only have one or two builds but it at least can compete.


You're killing me.

So out of one thousand two hundred and ninety seven games in 30 man ( or more ) tournaments that Blood Angels could not break a 39% WR because there wasn't enough super major tournaments to bring it back up?

I will agree they could be competitive in a very narrow setup. That doesn't make them "good" in the same sense that they are now.


I have yet to argue that Marines were OP in 8th or even "top tier". My only argument thus far is that the naysayers like xeno who constantly screamed that the world was ending for Marines pre-2.0 were wrong. Marines were able to field a couple of competitive lists that literally made it into the top 8 at LVO, and if you counted the SOUP lists that were dominating the meta, they were present in a fairly large amount of those. Conversely, I think Orkz were probably at their strongest in 8th edition but even then we weren't able to breach the top 8 even with previous LVO winners running Ork lists at LVO.

Basically, you have people like Xeno who were saying Marines were bottom tier in 8th until 2.0 and anytime I show them they are wrong via Tournament top placements a host of people than falsely assume that my argument is that they are/were top tier in 8th. On the contrary I have stated a number of times that in my opinion, based on their ability to place in Tournaments, Space Marines were mid tier competitively.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
Made in gb
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




UK

Yeah, Marines were never really bottom tier in 8th and still managed to post some strong results at the height of Castellan and Aeldari soup tyranny. By comparison you had Necrons and GK who were truly godawful and never really posted strong results at all throughout the edition until 2019 where points drops and PA (for GK) made some impact (along with the Necron builds naturally having some good counterplay to Marines)

Of course this is where I expect some ACKSHULLY person to come in and try to argue that since it was only Guilliman gunlines or RG lists it doesn't count somehow.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, Marines were never really bottom tier in 8th and still managed to post some strong results at the height of Castellan and Aeldari soup tyranny. By comparison you had Necrons and GK who were truly godawful and never really posted strong results at all throughout the edition until 2019 where points drops and PA (for GK) made some impact (along with the Necron builds naturally having some good counterplay to Marines)

Of course this is where I expect some ACKSHULLY person to come in and try to argue that since it was only Guilliman gunlines or RG lists it doesn't count somehow.


I will concede this point to you guys. This is clear and concise.

   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Problem with using the larger meta for any kind of discussion is that it's completely degenerate and is nothing but skew lists, so it warps the perception. A faction might do well but if it only does well with one single build that ignores 75% of the codex is that faction really doing well or is it just the outlier that's propping it up? I would argue that while in the context of an international discussion you can't rely on "well at my local store..." but you also can't use tournament data, which is always skewed by very specific types of armies, as an indicator either.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Wayniac wrote:
Problem with using the larger meta for any kind of discussion is that it's completely degenerate and is nothing but skew lists, so it warps the perception. A faction might do well but if it only does well with one single build that ignores 75% of the codex is that faction really doing well or is it just the outlier that's propping it up? I would argue that while in the context of an international discussion you can't rely on "well at my local store..." but you also can't use tournament data, which is always skewed by very specific types of armies, as an indicator either.


The lists recently contain much less skew and much more variety.

   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran






You think that DA RW AB spam isn't skew because they throw in a few other units?

Tournament lists generally are always skewed, even if they aren't repeats of exactly the same unit, the units do a similar function. A BA list that contained 90% jump pack units in some variety I would argue is skew, not on the extreme end but they are only using a tiny amount of the codex still.

My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You think that DA RW AB spam isn't skew because they throw in a few other units?

Tournament lists generally are always skewed, even if they aren't repeats of exactly the same unit, the units do a similar function. A BA list that contained 90% jump pack units in some variety I would argue is skew, not on the extreme end but they are only using a tiny amount of the codex still.
Exactly. Tournaments by their nature reward you for ignoring most of a book to focus on the "OP" parts. That alone ruins the perception because it's focusing on such a tiny portion of the entire game that, while a minority, is the loudest and most in-your-face aspect. So I'd argue it's not a good representation of anything, let alone a healthy game, if X faction is doing well at tournaments with some netlist since that means those units might be doing well, but the army as a whole might be garbage tier without them. Does that mean the faction is good? I don't think so.

There seems to be a fallacy I've seen both in 40k and AOS that people will say the game and meta are "healthy" if there's a faction variety, while ignoring that those factions ignore a vast majority of the options available to them. That, to me, says that neither the game nor the meta are healthy if armies have only one build that's any good and the rest is trash.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/11 11:51:58


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




To my mind a skew is when you show only one form of defensive profile to the enemy - such that all the weapons not designed to deal with it are very bad. So if you bring say a mech wall you are making your opponent's small arms irrelevant. If you bring 200+ bodies, you are making their melta, lascannons etc irrelevant. You are asking your opponent "can you deal with this?" and if the answer is "no" you should have a relatively easy game.

Some sneak through occasionally - but I don't think you'd say this is the norm of placing lists in 40k today.

Spending 400 points on attack bikes isn't really any more of a skew than spending 400-600 on a brick+friends of Terminators. Its just a very efficient unit for the points - possibly too efficient.

Ultimately its bad when a book has only one "competitive list" but its much preferable to having none.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Tyel wrote:
To my mind a skew is when you show only one form of defensive profile to the enemy - such that all the weapons not designed to deal with it are very bad. So if you bring say a mech wall you are making your opponent's small arms irrelevant. If you bring 200+ bodies, you are making their melta, lascannons etc irrelevant. You are asking your opponent "can you deal with this?" and if the answer is "no" you should have a relatively easy game.

Some sneak through occasionally - but I don't think you'd say this is the norm of placing lists in 40k today.

Spending 400 points on attack bikes isn't really any more of a skew than spending 400-600 on a brick+friends of Terminators. Its just a very efficient unit for the points - possibly too efficient.

Ultimately its bad when a book has only one "competitive list" but its much preferable to having none.
not by a lot though both show a distinct problem with the game's design

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You think that DA RW AB spam isn't skew because they throw in a few other units?

Tournament lists generally are always skewed, even if they aren't repeats of exactly the same unit, the units do a similar function. A BA list that contained 90% jump pack units in some variety I would argue is skew, not on the extreme end but they are only using a tiny amount of the codex still.


Let's look at some lists for a tournament happening right now with some big names. These are 3-0 going into day 2.

DE
Spoiler:
Drazhar
3x5Wracks
Venom

Archon
10 Trueborns
2x5 Kabs
5 Incubi
5 Mandrakes
6 Raiders

Succubus
Succubus
10 Brides
2x10 Wyches
5 Hellions

BT

Spoiler:
Bike Cap
Grimaldus
Bike Chap
3x5 Crusaders
Apoth
2x Redemptor
10 Assault Termies
5 VV
3 Erads

Orks

Spoiler:
KFF Mek
Bike Boss
12 Boyz
2x10 Boyz
3 KBBs
3 Scrapjets
3 Dragstas
Bonebreaka
2x Traktor Kannons
2x Burnabommers


Chaos (Lannigan)
Spoiler:
Bile
Word Bearers Sorc
10 Cultists

Typhus
2x20 Pox
10 Pox
Putrifier
2x5 BL
5 Shrouds
Blightspawn
Surgeon
Tallyman
2 PBCs

And for good measure two more that are WWL

DE
Spoiler:
Archon
Drazhar
10 Truborn
9 Incubi
5 Scourges
Ravager
3x Raider

Succubus
10 Brides
10 Hellions
9 Reavers

Haemonculus
10 Xtyes
5 Grots

Necrons
Spoiler:
CCB
Chrono
Skorpekh Lord
2x5 Immortals
20 Warriors
3 S.Destroyers
2x T.Stalkers
3 Wraiths
2x Doomstalker
5 Destroyers

Convergence


These lists are :

1) full of variety
2) not lists "seen" before
3) not spam
4) not skew
5) not dominated by a single faction

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/11 13:59:43


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Those all look like normal, reasonable lists youd see at a flgs and not bat an eye. Some of them are what youd probably see as "themed" like the ork one with tons of buggies, but condemning it as "degenerate" seems ridiculous.

Also, in terms of only taking the best 25% of a dex....theres only so much you can put in a 2k list.

When I look at the worst units in my codex - drukhari beasts for example - I go "welp, these fulfil the exact same role as the mandatory troops I have to take, but do the job worse, and take up space that could go to other fast attack choices that make my list less skewed and better at taking all comers." Is it "degenerate" to not give them a participation trophy for being a thing I can take in the codex?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/11 14:49:51


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

This really seems like a "my faction still has an 8th edition codex" problem. Just look at the lists Daedelus posted: all of them, bar the Orks list and a tiny WB patrol component in the Chaos list, are from factions with 9th edition codexes. All of the 9th edition codexes have gone a long way towards good internal balance and allowing for varying play styles. I just hope they can keep doing that.
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

Wayniac wrote:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Spoiler:
You think that DA RW AB spam isn't skew because they throw in a few other units?

Tournament lists generally are always skewed, even if they aren't repeats of exactly the same unit, the units do a similar function. A BA list that contained 90% jump pack units in some variety I would argue is skew, not on the extreme end but they are only using a tiny amount of the codex still.
Exactly. Tournaments by their nature reward you for ignoring most of a book to focus on the "OP" parts. That alone ruins the perception because it's focusing on such a tiny portion of the entire game that, while a minority, is the loudest and most in-your-face aspect. So I'd argue it's not a good representation of anything, let alone a healthy game, if X faction is doing well at tournaments with some netlist since that means those units might be doing well, but the army as a whole might be garbage tier without them. Does that mean the faction is good? I don't think so.


There seems to be a fallacy I've seen both in 40k and AOS that people will say the game and meta are "healthy" if there's a faction variety, while ignoring that those factions ignore a vast majority of the options available to them. That, to me, says that neither the game nor the meta are healthy if armies have only one build that's any good and the rest is trash.

For me this shows just how bad of an influence focusing on "Meta" is to the game.

If someone says "damn Harlis are OP" and everything that they can take in any slot is better than anyone else's(point-for-point), yes the faction is OP as feth.
But if in reality it is 1 or 2 units that are better and the list includes only those(+ tax) is that same faction OP?
For those without the "OP" units the faction is far from OP.

Before the words "this unit's OP" leave your mouth, the nerf gun can get whipped out or it become invalidated by the next "OP" codex

Insert any OP faction into the above question and see what it sounds like.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Racerguy180 wrote:
For me this shows just how bad of an influence focusing on "Meta" is to the game.

If someone says "damn Harlis are OP" and everything that they can take in any slot is better than anyone else's(point-for-point), yes the faction is OP as feth.
But if in reality it is 1 or 2 units that are better and the list includes only those(+ tax) is that same faction OP?
For those without the "OP" units the faction is far from OP.

Before the words "this unit's OP" leave your mouth, the nerf gun can get whipped out or it become invalidated by the next "OP" codex

Insert any OP faction into the above question and see what it sounds like.


Yeah, that's pretty much my point. Meta is bad to focus on because it's the wrong thing. It's a very narrow part of the game, yet has an abnormally large ripple effect because it's also the most visible. How many armies have gotten nerfed to hell because a handful of units were "meta" and OP? How many units that were abused with specific combos by the tournament crowd suffered nerfs and changes that made them worse for everything else? And so on. A faction is not OP if a handful of units are good in very specific (i.e. meta/comp) situations, and the rest of the faction is garbage.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/11 17:43:05


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

Gamers are free to game outside of the Meta. Put the force on the table that speaks to your heart regardless of effectiveness. You totally can.

But if we are going to talk about the Meta then we pretty much only have tourney results to go on. The available data from 9th Edition tourneys indicates that there is plenty of variety at the top tables. The trend of 9th Ed Codexes also seems to show a little more thought to balance than some of the 8th Edition ones.


All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Its very difficult to discuss balance between someone running say 30 Imperial Fist Assault Marines and idk, 30 Iyanden Rangers and Striking Scorpions. Both armies would seem bad - the reasons for taking them are unclear, their usage therefore likely less than optimal. The result therefore is hard to comprehend. You had a game, stuff happened.

I actually think GW is very slow to nerf armies for "tournament success" - see Knights/Eldar and then Marines 2.0. Its when they see something they deem toxic that they are suddenly off their chair to ban ban exterminate. The two most recent casualties were probably GSC (clearly... abberants were unfair - as would later handflamer spam) and Nurgle Daemons+Thousand Sons. I have to believe someone whinged to GW, they determined a "normal" list couldn't cope, so there might some sad faces in FLGS across the world. The fact they'd made Marines into a complete monster and then let them loose for 9 months or so (interrupted by Covid rather than than anything they did) was neither here nor there.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Wayniac wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
For me this shows just how bad of an influence focusing on "Meta" is to the game.

If someone says "damn Harlis are OP" and everything that they can take in any slot is better than anyone else's(point-for-point), yes the faction is OP as feth.
But if in reality it is 1 or 2 units that are better and the list includes only those(+ tax) is that same faction OP?
For those without the "OP" units the faction is far from OP.

Before the words "this unit's OP" leave your mouth, the nerf gun can get whipped out or it become invalidated by the next "OP" codex

Insert any OP faction into the above question and see what it sounds like.


Yeah, that's pretty much my point. Meta is bad to focus on because it's the wrong thing. It's a very narrow part of the game, yet has an abnormally large ripple effect because it's also the most visible. How many armies have gotten nerfed to hell because a handful of units were "meta" and OP? How many units that were abused with specific combos by the tournament crowd suffered nerfs and changes that made them worse for everything else? And so on. A faction is not OP if a handful of units are good in very specific (i.e. meta/comp) situations, and the rest of the faction is garbage.


-I'd say probably less than there used to be. GW has been fairly good in recent years about nerfing the elements of an army that actually are overpowered and leaving the rest alone. The only time a whole army truly suffers is when they make a blanket army-wide rule overpowered, which is why I particularly hated the execution of the Marine 2.0dex. It wasn't particular units within the army that were crazy, it was the fact that they dropped new redesigned chapter traits, AND +1 attack on the charge/when charged, AND doctrines, AND superdoctrines, AND 42 new psychic powers, AND 80something new stratagems, which could all. be used. by every. unit. in the whole army.

And they did it all at once, with zero recompense for any other army in the game at the time. There was absolutely 100% no way that was not going to cause massive balance problems, and also no way to walk any of it back without overly punishing the casual space marine players who finally for the first time in ages had a decently competitive army, because it wasn't a handful of broken units that they could bump the point costs of.

The 9th ed method of bumping the stats and abilities of individual units is way, way better. I just wish we didnt have the stupid albatross of needing to add yet another layer of army-wide rules on top, because we couldn't just have deleted doctrines and admitted 'whoops, we dun fethed up' - nope, now we need "necron imperatives" so every necron player can track 12 micro-buffs each turn of the game, and "drukhari blade artisans" so every drukhari player has to separate his wound rolls of 6 out and make their opponent make 2 different save rolls just to slow down the game a bit.

I'm sure we'll all love "ork waagh energies" where the player can get +1 strength on any melee attack roll if the player spins around waving his arms and saying "ooga-booga" and Tyranid 'microbe assault' where enemy units have a debuff dependent on the relative position of the sun as determined by a handy sextant GW will ship out with the codex.


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Noble Knight of the Realm






To me if they can fix the constant feeling that my best isn't as good as their weakest I think it would be better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/12 14:11:47


"Don't Feed the Troll" 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





I feel that Space Marines are still great in that they have an answer to everything. Show me any army, and Marines have the the toolbox and unit variety to build a "counter" list. And in that same vein, you can never be 100% good against marines, because they have such a huge variety that the armies they can build can have very different playstyles and focus.

Take Dark Angels. Green wing, raven wing and deathwing are like 3 different army styles already. And thats just one faction of space marines. Then you have the melee specialists blood angels and space wolves. And the vehicle or dreadnaught specialists Iron hands. And the melta flamer specialists salamanders. There is just such a huge variety out that you can never counter them all.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BlackoCatto wrote:
To me if they can fix the constant feeling that my best isn't as good as their weakest I think it would be better.


I mean....that sounds like an extreme exaggeration/example but yet again I want to point out that point for point a Space Marine intercessor will beat ork boyz in close combat if they get to swing first.

10 intercessors = 200pts, 25 boyz = 200pts

10 intercessors get 31 attacks for 20.66 hits, 10.33 wounds and against orkz that is 8.66 dead orkz, or likely 9.

The remaining 15 boyz get 45 attacks, 30 hits, 15 wounds and 5 dmg for 2 dead Primaris Marines and 1 wounded Marine, the Nob swings with 4 attacks, 2.66 hits 1.33 wounds and a .44 chance to wound 1 Marine, so likely he is fine.

orkz lose 72pts of boyz, Primaris lose 40pts, 50 if you count the half wound and 60pts if you are really unlucky and the Nob inflicts 1 dmg.

Keep in mind, that is assuming the intercessors didn't blast the orkz with their rifles before charging in. Assuming they did that, you can scratch 6-7 more boys off the list before they even get into CC.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Honestly even that doesn't bug me. Marines are meant to be shock troops, and for the longest thing the whole 'good in combat and good in shooting' thing was just a bad joke. Both a marine and an ork are anti-light infantry (S4 Ap- on both of their weaponry) and the ork is a light infantry unit, while the marine is not.

I'm only annoyed when you look at the comparison between, for example, the comparison between the prime example of "supposed to be really good at long range shooting/bad at melee" unit (Fire Warriors) or when you look at something like Genestealers/Howling Banshees which are supposed to be anti-elite troops that supposedly put none of their points into shooting, but somehow lose in melee to intercessors.

the orks also have an obvious way to win the exchange - get the charge. Or, use one of their units that's intended to be good at fighting marines, like Nobz/MANZ/Gitz etc. Boyz have always been kind of a blunt instrument, and the best counter to them has always been 'have good armor' - which obviously marines have.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, Marines were never really bottom tier in 8th and still managed to post some strong results at the height of Castellan and Aeldari soup tyranny. By comparison you had Necrons and GK who were truly godawful and never really posted strong results at all throughout the edition until 2019 where points drops and PA (for GK) made some impact (along with the Necron builds naturally having some good counterplay to Marines)

Of course this is where I expect some ACKSHULLY person to come in and try to argue that since it was only Guilliman gunlines or RG lists it doesn't count somehow.

This is what the data shows. You are just willfully ignorant about it. In fact. Even Gman themed armies were still quite low on the totem poll once armies you know...stopped playing out of the index. By comparison...the armies you list that were "truly bad" were incredibly low play rate to the point there is no reason to even mention it. UM will always have a high play rate because they are the poster army for the game. You are spewing a false narrative which Deadalus disproved with hard data. You have no interest in the data ofc - only your false narrative.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/12 16:31:49


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I'm confused? SM were never top 8 in the meta? What was that whole couple of months when Iron Hands vehicle lists were topping everything? Or when the triple BA Slam Captain with loyal 32 lists were everywhere. Did I just suddenly learn that I experienced a very different 8th than everyone else?
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Xenomancers wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, Marines were never really bottom tier in 8th and still managed to post some strong results at the height of Castellan and Aeldari soup tyranny. By comparison you had Necrons and GK who were truly godawful and never really posted strong results at all throughout the edition until 2019 where points drops and PA (for GK) made some impact (along with the Necron builds naturally having some good counterplay to Marines)

By comparison...the armies you list that were "truly bad" were incredibly low play rate to the point there is no reason to even mention it.


So when you have an army with, ohhhh say a 3% playrate but with a high winrate we should just ignore that as an outlier as well, right?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm confused? SM were never top 8 in the meta? What was that whole couple of months when Iron Hands vehicle lists were topping everything? Or when the triple BA Slam Captain with loyal 32 lists were everywhere. Did I just suddenly learn that I experienced a very different 8th than everyone else?

No doubt that for about a 6 month period marines were the top faction in 8th - we refer to this period as 8.5. What is interesting is this period as coincides with covid and those releases that came out after 8.5 marines are equally if not more broken than 8.5 marine armies and these rules are currently legal in 9th edition where space marines 8.5 was nerfed. They are also posting similar win rates...and have been since the data has been collected but...You don't really see a lot of ...."is this the end of the harlequin boogie man" posts here on dakka do you? Nor should you expect it. Most on Dakka hate marines.

pre 8.5 marines of every type were pretty much the worst armies or among the worst in the game. Sub 40% WR. It is an undeniable fact. To dispute this is to dispute statistical data.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, Marines were never really bottom tier in 8th and still managed to post some strong results at the height of Castellan and Aeldari soup tyranny. By comparison you had Necrons and GK who were truly godawful and never really posted strong results at all throughout the edition until 2019 where points drops and PA (for GK) made some impact (along with the Necron builds naturally having some good counterplay to Marines)

By comparison...the armies you list that were "truly bad" were incredibly low play rate to the point there is no reason to even mention it.


So when you have an army with, ohhhh say a 3% playrate but with a high winrate we should just ignore that as an outlier as well, right?

Low play rate and is losing...compared to low play rate and is winning major tournaments on the regular...There is a minor difference here right?

There is also a difference between low play rate - low win rate - never wins events.

and low win rate - high play rate - rarely wins events.

Not sure why this has to be explained so much...but here - I'll explain it to those that just don't seems to understand this fact. 40k is a game with a random outcome - determined by dice. You roll enough dice you will roll a really unlikely outcome every once in a while. It doesn't mean that outcome is to be expected normally. Meanwhile a bad army like 8.0 crons had so few entries and such low chance they literally never win events.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/12 17:36:59


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly even that doesn't bug me. Marines are meant to be shock troops, and for the longest thing the whole 'good in combat and good in shooting' thing was just a bad joke. Both a marine and an ork are anti-light infantry (S4 Ap- on both of their weaponry) and the ork is a light infantry unit, while the marine is not.

I'm only annoyed when you look at the comparison between, for example, the comparison between the prime example of "supposed to be really good at long range shooting/bad at melee" unit (Fire Warriors) or when you look at something like Genestealers/Howling Banshees which are supposed to be anti-elite troops that supposedly put none of their points into shooting, but somehow lose in melee to intercessors.

the orks also have an obvious way to win the exchange - get the charge. Or, use one of their units that's intended to be good at fighting marines, like Nobz/MANZ/Gitz etc. Boyz have always been kind of a blunt instrument, and the best counter to them has always been 'have good armor' - which obviously marines have.


Except Ork boyz are not anti-light, they are the de-facto anti-everything due to the Ork codex having a bit of a MASSIVE internal balance issue. Nobz are just not playable in a competitive environment. 17pts for what amounts to a Tactical Space marine with S5 and 1 extra attack but with none of the ridiculous rules or shooting ability and a 4+ save. The S5 doesn't make them any better vs Marines because for that price point you could take more than 2 boyz. So 4 attacks at S5 Vs 6 attacks at S4 = 0.59 wounds for the Nob and 0.66 wounds for the boyz. The biggest difference is the relative durability between the two units (boyz/nobz) with nobz having that 4+ save they are significantly more durable vs no AP 1dmg attacks, but at the moment the game is riddled with -AP weapons that do 2+dmg on average, which means that 4+ is borderline useless. Meganobz are better but still in my opinion not that great, and realistically, you don't want a unit of meganobz getting into CC with basic space marine troops, you want them going after vehicles and expensive shooting units, because a meganob is almost exactly as durable as a Gravis armored Space Marine.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is what the data shows. You are just willfully ignorant about it. In fact. Even Gman themed armies were still quite low on the totem poll once armies you know...stopped playing out of the index. By comparison...the armies you list that were "truly bad" were incredibly low play rate to the point there is no reason to even mention it. UM will always have a high play rate because they are the poster army for the game. You are spewing a false narrative which Deadalus disproved with hard data. You have no interest in the data ofc - only your false narrative.


yes, GMAN armies were very low on the totem poll...unless you looked at Top 4 placement. Its important to note here Xeno, when we are talking about "Power level" and tiers, we are talking strictly on the competitive scene, IE power lists. Space Marines did really well in 8th until the knights became broken good, and then they were still good, but only in a support role, usually the loyal 32 and a knight backed up by some smash captains, but again, you still had pure SM lists finishing in the top 8 at Major events with 100+ players in attendance. So yet again, the SM codex was still able to produce tournament winning lists, the difference was the casual gamer could no longer rely on broken units to make his gaming experience easy mode. And yes, SM had easy mode units for most of 8th. Aggressors who could shoot twice is a wonderful example

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: