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.

https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-analysis-the-lvo-40k-championship/
Is there any many question that Ironhands are the real issue here?
Also - Maybe Raptors should have an assigned chapter tactic...Special characters with custom traits should not be allowed. Every other chapter has to choose to have special characters or custom traits.

Look at these absurdly broken White scars Ultras and Salamanders with those OP doctrines and super doctrines not even giving them a 50% WR. Heck...Dark angels without Doctrines actually outperform Ultramarines which have them. With their new supplement I expect them to be pretty close to Iornhands level.

I will give you one thing Xenomancers, you are persistent.

Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP when in fact they are really just complaining about a few specific supplements. Marines that aren't Ironhands or RG successors spamming assault cents...are just about average in competitive which should be the goal.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I take it personal when people say all marines are OP

But....why?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.

You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-analysis-the-lvo-40k-championship/
Is there any many question that Ironhands are the real issue here?
Also - Maybe Raptors should have an assigned chapter tactic...Special characters with custom traits should not be allowed. Every other chapter has to choose to have special characters or custom traits.

Look at these absurdly broken White scars Ultras and Salamanders with those OP doctrines and super doctrines not even giving them a 50% WR. Heck...Dark angels without Doctrines actually outperform Ultramarines which have them. With their new supplement I expect them to be pretty close to Iornhands level.

Space Marines in general are the new meta bogeyman, it was Castellan & Caladius before them, it will be something else soon. Some chapters are stronger than others but as a whole they are "overtuned" to say the least, and a handful need total rewrites (Iron Hands, Raven Guard ect).

The good news however is GW is slowly waking up to this realization, and i expect nerfs.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.

You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Exactly. If LVO said no IH then it would have been smurfs filling the vacuum to the same result.

 deviantduck wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.

You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Exactly. If LVO said no IH then it would have been smurfs filling the vacuum to the same result.

How can you make this claim without data?

People shoved 40kstats in people's faces about marines in general, but when faced with this data you'll ignore it? This shows some marines don't perform as well. IH holding them down is a theory and not substantiated until IH no longer dominate.

Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?

The fact is that (disregarding possible exceptions, and without meaning any offence) most people know the money chapters are Iron Hands, Ravenguard and Imperial Fists.

If you wanted to do well in a tournament, and you could go IH or UM, and not unreasonably you thought IH were better, why would you go UM?

This will tend to mean (unkindly) you are getting less serious players doing UM, which is going to contribute to worse results.

I mean its sort of the inverse issue with the bottom performing factions. Grey Knights were generally considered the worst army in the game. Again without meaning offence, people bringing them are either doing the snowflake bit ("I want to be known as the world's best Grey Knight player") or have turned up for fun with the army they own. They have not (imo at least) gone "I want to win this tournament, and you know what? Grey Knights is the answer."

Now this skew is irrelevant if you think there is no skill in ITC - but thats just madness. If those players who finished top 8 were forced to play Grey Knights I don't think they would have ended up as the top 8 - but I also think they would have sharply upped the Grey Knight win percentage.

Basically this data doesn't tell you anything much about whether UM are overpowered or underpowered. If IH/RG were not there, the whole game would be different. The 18 players who were UM did worse than the 5 players who were Dark Angels. Is that a faction imbalance, or just the skill level of those specific players?

I know historically "oh, its just that the bad players pick faction X", was always weak, especially in 7th's tier system which was visible from space - but thats not really what I'm saying here. Its akin to separating out Alaitoc CWE and Saim Hann CWE and going "Saim Hann obviously suck". Which in this case may well be the case - but its exacerbated by the fact there is just about no reason to pick Saim Hann over Alaitoc. Being unkind (or at the danger of missing something) anyone doing so is probably not that good at the game, or is playing for fun. If a relatively tiny number of such players go to a tournament and don't do very well it doesn't really tell us anything except that yes, they are not as good as the other option.

Which we already knew.

IH/RG/probably IF need a hard nerf to their special rules, then see what happens. I suspect UM would be considered a very potent faction but probably not quite as egregiously overpowered.

Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.

You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Exactly. If LVO said no IH then it would have been smurfs filling the vacuum to the same result.

How can you make this claim without data?

People shoved 40kstats in people's faces about marines in general, but when faced with this data you'll ignore it? This shows some marines don't perform as well. IH holding them down is a theory and not substantiated until IH no longer dominate.

Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?

Presumably the assumption is that the majority of best players choose IH (and because they're the best players they tend to win more) and the majority of UM losses are against IH. Of course it is as assumption, so not fact, but this data shows us nothing we don't already know. IH dominate. We know this. IF dominate. We know this. Successors dominate. We also know this. We don't know if UM would dominate if these were brought down a peg but it certainly doesn't prove that they wouldn't as Xeno is so quick to claim.

Also - you know as well as I do that just because UM can't beat IH, it doesn't mean they can't beat Eldar (who in turn can beat IH). You know full well the meta is far more complex and nuanced than that.

My initial response in this thread is somewhat tongue in cheek, because Xeno is so.... patriotic(?) in his defence of UM he virtually encourages such a response.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?

A > B

A > C

Nothing about the relationship between B and C is implied by either of those two statements.

None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.

 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.

Complaints should probably be made to GW if a single sub faction is dominating ANY ruleset, regardless of how credible you believe it to be. What if a person only plays ITC? They should just suck it up and not make any statements to GW? Sounds daft, doesn't it?

 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.

Are we trying to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules or the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set?

Believe it or not some people care about the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set. Possibly even enough of them that they represent a market block GW could pay attention to.

 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.

Why?

The LVO doesn't use the official GW mission or terrain rules. It's not the same game, to put it bluntly. It's homebrew 40k.

This data means nothing because it cannot be used to determine the power of factions under the official GW designed missions.

Run the next LVO using the latest official missions and then we can discuss the game balance.

If you want more balance under ITC, simply homebrew the game some more to change faction or unit rules. It's not up to GW to balance a homebrew variant of the game.
The recent tournaments running the official missions from CA19 have generated far more balanced results across factions.

Ahh yeas the calssic "my marines are not OP" marine player logic.... Also knows as "the let me have some more cake so I can have it and eat it too nomomom".

Even at a casual level taking SM over any other faction means you don't have any bad units unless you choose to build with doctrines and traits that do not benefit you on purpose.

I mean is this so fegin hard to just say "yeah my faction probably needs some nerfing lets be honest"

Marines are strong, yes. But their performance under unofficial, 3rd party rules is meaningless for judging the real meta or power.

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines are strong, yes. But their performance under unofficial, 3rd party rules is meaningless for judging the real meta or power.

They’re not meaningless at all. Particularly when so many people prefer to play that way.

IH also do very well in ‘standard’ missions too.

Not as well. They failed to hit the top 4 at the most recent 100 player event held by GW.

Clearly the 3rd party mission and terrain rules are having a significant impact.

People are free to play using ITC missions, but they cannot complain about balance under a game system not designed by the creators of 40k.

 Ishagu wrote:
Not as well. They failed to hit the top 4 at the most recent 100 player event held by GW.

Clearly the 3rd party mission and terrain rules are having a significant impact.

People are free to play using ITC missions, but they cannot complain about balance under a game system not designed by the creators of 40k.

Out of curiosity how many top 10 finshers lists were SM lists?

There were 4 Astartes lists in the top 10 I believe.

Considering the faction popularity, it's not particularly unusual.

IH are strong, its why the best players in the world have gravitated to them.

With the rules with painting as it is now, marine players will just shift to the next best rules set. Doesnt mean GW shouldn't tone down IH and RG.

Richard Siegler stated he will go back to Tau. I am sure other top players will move to other armies too if IH and RG are not blatantly strong.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?

A > B

A > C

Nothing about the relationship between B and C is implied by either of those two statements.

This reading is incorrect:
A > B
A > C

The correct reading of Daedalus' post is:
A > B
A < C

That absolutely does say something about the relationship between B and C. Not claiming that the UM / IH / Eldar comparison is actually that simple (or anything about that comparison for that matter), just that you read the story problem incorrectly.

Well this will end predictably.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

My initial response in this thread is somewhat tongue in cheek, because Xeno is so.... patriotic(?) in his defense of UM he virtually encourages such a response.

I think the word you're looking for is dedicated. Or perhaps zealous. Maybe even deranged depending upon the post....

 Ishagu wrote:
There were 4 Astartes lists in the top 10 I believe.

Considering the faction popularity, it's not particularly unusual.

So when its SM being over represented in top 10, its popularity of the army... but when its ynari double activating stupidity or castellan knight soup its the rules OPness?
Right gotcha.

Ishagu's right.

Who cares what the results were on a heavily house-ruled sub-set of 40K. They're indicative of one thing: How IH functioned under that set of house rules.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Complaints should probably be made to GW if a single sub faction is dominating ANY ruleset, regardless of how credible you believe it to be.

Well, no, because GW is not responsible for someone's houserules.

What if a person only plays ITC?

Again, not GW's fault. They did not make the ITC rules. If a person chooses to use houserules, then they cannot complain to GW if those houserules cause problems.

They should just suck it up and not make any statements to GW?

Well, yes. They of course could complain to ITC. Or they could play using the official rules. If problem persists while using the official rules, then they could complain to GW.

Sounds daft, doesn't it?

No. What sounds utterly bonkers is that it would be GW's fault if my houserules break the game.