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.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Yeah that's not an efficiency value though thats wounds per point.
.023x4= .092 points
.014x13=.182 points.
You have to take into account the value of those wounds your causing, Guard kills almost twice as many points of tacs in CC that is a problem.

Sorry, my mistake on miswording the values that, but the math you did there basically backs it into damage.

Look at it this way -

It takes 3.4 marine attacks to kill an IS.
An IS needs 18.2 attacks to kill a marine.

The marine pays 44 points to do its job. The IS pays 73 points.

No your missing the point
Thats 44 points to kill a 4 point wound so a 9% return rate

73 points to kill a 13 point marine is a 17% return rate

Infantry squads are more efficient at killing marines than marines are at killing guard.

No, I understand that. But in the broader context that is nearly two full squads of IS to do that job. It would take them *all game* to kill 5 marines. How often are 18 or so IS punching marines like that?

IS are efficient at what they do, but they're not effective. That takes CCs, Priests, and Harken.

This still doesn't change anything, because these are sort of silly scenarios. IS should be getting pulled off by (bike) bolters or c-beams and not super basic marine melee.

I play pure RK, just saying. While it doesn't have the support of other armies, I still think it's worth mentioning. There are some armies that just can't handle a 7 knight list.

Fair enough! If the Index/Codex/? alone is enough for a functional army, gratz for making it work.

Can't speak for many of them but Custodes get mostly an actual filled out roster through FW which rounds the army alot.
Power armor, frankly the profile is just not worth 13 pts anymore, especially on the chaos side through the loss of chainswords for 2 melee attacks.
Reeimplement that and lower price to 11 pts and you would get an profile that is worth it, ofcourse that would also mean that by assosciation you would need to lower the pts off all marine units by 2 pts. (incases of terminators maybee more, maybee less)

Nice to hear the custards can order deserts that aren't banana jetbike splits!

My biggest bugbear with a lot of 8th edition costing is the lack of awareness towards bloatware costings. I bet if you crunch the numbers and use the "formulae" that GW uses, then a Guardsman "should cost" 4ppm or so, but if you actually zoom out and look at the game as-played, then you realize there's a minimum floor for just having a wound and existing as a screen, and guardsmen fall way below that floor. Likewise, Tacticals are being billed for being 3.5/5 in a bunch of stuff but since list-building normally makes you specialize in one strategy for a unit, they should really only be billed for the "best" option. Necron HQs are another pain. Yes, the Overlord has pretty ace CC stats, but if his entire value is predicated on buffing a gunline that moves 5 inches a turn then who cares?

Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%

Thats kinda grim reading for Space Marine players.

Marines really *are* bottom tier for once.

That said, who's been arguing they're fine in this thread?

 Ratius wrote:

Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%

Thats kinda grim reading for Space Marine players.

Not really in my mind for the following reasons:

1) Data is pre-FAQ / Ynnari (which may not make anything better for marines, but we'll see)
2) Data does not distinguish in what capacity the army is used (e.g. Thousand Sons detachments are typically Ahriman & DPs)
3) Data does not analyze matchups
4) Data does not exclude fluff / less competitive players who may or may not skew towards power armor

It's nice meta data that gives an overall trend, but doesn't really help us identify issues. Take the ITC player data for example.

Jim Vesal is top ranged Thousand Sons player (and top overall IIRC). His most recent list? Note: I think ITC changed how they count these lists going forward, but there is no unified manner of codifying these disparities.

Pox Bringer
Bilepiper
3 Nurglings
2x30 PBs

Changecaster
DP
15 BL
25 Horrors
10 Brims

Ahriman
DP
DP
Sorcerer in TA
Contemptor

Sorry I meant loyalists. Chaos marines have been doing ok for a while now between tzeentch and nurgle builds.

Bharring wrote:
Marines really *are* bottom tier for once.

That said, who's been arguing they're fine in this thread?

I *think* they're fine. I do not KNOW that they are.

My thoughts are predicated on the wide range of changes that have occurred in the past couple of months (FAQ, Ynnari, CSM, Assassins).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:
Sorry I meant loyalists. Chaos marines have been doing ok for a while now between tzeentch and nurgle builds.

Yes - I'm with you - that list was just an example of how difficult it is to parse the data and come to a final conclusion. In reality a large majority of lists are "Soup", but we're not labeling them as such.

The site has matchup data too. BA primary was 11% vs old Ynarri. That's insane.


Yes, these armies are only ba primary , but that means they are 27% non-itc even with help.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%

Thats kinda grim reading for Space Marine players.

Not really in my mind for the following reasons:

1) Data is pre-FAQ / Ynnari (which may not make anything better for marines, but we'll see)
2) Data does not distinguish in what capacity the army is used (e.g. Thousand Sons detachments are typically Ahriman & DPs)
3) Data does not analyze matchups
4) Data does not exclude fluff / less competitive players who may or may not skew towards power armor

It's nice meta data that gives an overall trend, but doesn't really help us identify issues.

I'll preface my post by saying I'm going off the data I see on 40kstats.com

To your points:
1) I agree - most of the data we have is not from the current version of the game and a lot has changed. Beta Bolter is finalized and a lot of the top meta lists have received nerfs. We don't know how marines will slot into the new metagame.

2) You're correct that we don't see exactly what is taken or hows its used however we can see in the faction breakdown and subfaction breakdowns (along with top lists from BCP) for what is most commonly being taken in Space Marine lists. There are many units / subfactions that simply aren't viable according to the data or their lack of representation.

3) This is your only point I kind of disagree with - there is a faction vs faction tab on 40kstats.com so we have some sense of what is going on here. That being said it isn't specific data to show list archetype vs list archetype match ups like MTG or a video game could. Dual Repulsor Guilliman lists play have different match ups than a Salamanders MSU / Dreadnought list or a list centered around Raven Guard SFTS (rest in peace that stratagem).

4) Every faction has good and bad players but yes due to Space Marine popularity it could have an effect on win rate. People showing up with their entirely unviable Space Marine army because those are the models that came in their starter set could definitely be a factor. I don't however know if its even possible to calculate or represent this with data.

There are other contributing factors as well - no one talked about double C-Beam Contemptors before a top player used them to great success. Are people stuck in the old ways of playing marines? Reece Robbins had success at Nova 2018 with a Space Marine brigade list but you tend not to see Space Marine brigades in BCP or on forums/reddit for critique.

Additionally some factions have access to tools that players might be reluctant to acquire (the Custodes Orion gunship fills a niche in that army but is a rather expensive piece of resin for example). One of the most talked about Space Marine models in terms of competitiveness is the dual Storm Cannon Array Leviathan Dreadnought however to your 4th point - how many Space Marines players are contributing to the data we are looking at who might not consider investing in an expensive FW model like that? How many Space Marine players bought all 4 assassins to be able to tech on the fly? Definitely hard to say.

I can tell you that marines have been very poorly represented in the last 3 itc events i attended. People in my new play group consider astartes largely unplayable.

Old playgroup had marine holdouts. New group has me and a sw out of say 20ish. Most are vets.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
https://www.40kstats.com/

Ach! I can't access that data at work. Can anyone tell me, what exactly are the ends of the spectrum according to that data, without ITC that is?

This the result for primary factions for non-ITC:

Does this site define what make a faction the "Primary" one in a given list? Because many of the armies listed seem to be the ones that fall into the "Soup" catagory.

I think its plurality of points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No, I understand that. But in the broader context that is nearly two full squads of IS to do that job. It would take them *all game* to kill 5 marines. How often are 18 or so IS punching marines like that?

IS are efficient at what they do, but they're not effective. That takes CCs, Priests, and Harken.

This still doesn't change anything, because these are sort of silly scenarios. IS should be getting pulled off by (bike) bolters or c-beams and not super basic marine melee.

I feel this is sort of special pleading when we are comparing whether a unit is more or less efficient than another.
IS are generalists in that they are a no regret unit. I mean if you end up punching a rhino (4.8% return on your points unless catachan) then thats bad. But a Marine in that circumstance would get a 4% return and be even worse. Versus almost anything that isn't toughness 6 or higher with a good save they do fine. Marines don't.

This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.

What applies to tacticals goes through so much of the Marine list. Assault marines are garbage. Devestators as anything but mortal wound stratagem tacticals are a points pinata. The Predator is possibly the worst vehicle in the game although other Marine tanks are up there too.

Then, to do BA specifically, you get into the special stuff. Death Company are frankly bad. Either you keep them cheap - in which case you have a handful of S4 AP- D1 attacks resulting in a one dimensional unit (its basically an ork boy but paying several times as much for a 3+ save and possibly a jetpack) which can bully troops but still can't take any sustained shooting (or a proper charge). Or you start blinging them up with say hammers/fists so they can threaten a range of targets but their price goes through the roof and consequently survivability goes out the window.

Sanguinary Guard at least have 2 wounds and a 2+ save - but then they have pillows for weapons. Enjoy your 2 attacks for 32-39~ points. You don't kill chaff, you don't really wreck the vehicles or monsters (let alone knights) that get to the table. "I'd be good in a meta where people played expensive high points per wound marine units" - yeah, unsurprisingly they don't and since this is also countered by just about everything in the game odds are they never will.

As for the dreads and baal predator.... no. Just no.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Necrons: Give Reanimation Protocols something to do when the unitgets wiped (Beta Rule?) and the codex is fine

Could do with more work on that but albeit that's not doable with just small updates. Things like HQ's having weird synergy(destroyer lord is more of beatstick but boosts destroyers who don't want to go anywhere near enemy...And you can get waaaay superior boost by 1CP anyway).

RP is bit of issue. Can't have it just work on any unit even if wiped. Apart from practical issue of where to put unit that would mean basically impossible to kill units. You can't keep failing all 5+ rolls for 10 immortals so the unit would always come back so only way to get kill points would be going second. If necrons go second they will have all units with RP in table at the end...And having them give KP each time unit dies would make any scenario with kill points ridiculously hard then with constantly weak units popping back ready to be killed for extra KP.

Then maybe instead of making everything complicated give all basic necrons, like warriors a flat +2sv, and RP would be just a second inv like save, which would again scale. So a warrior would be ++6, while a destroyer would be ++5. Real resurection could be limited to wargear and character trai that could buff the RP. And if buffing was too powerful, then it could have limited range or the character doing it would have to do nothing on their phase. Or it could be made in to not psychic powers like orders.

tneva82 wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Necrons: Give Reanimation Protocols something to do when the unitgets wiped (Beta Rule?) and the codex is fine

Could do with more work on that but albeit that's not doable with just small updates. Things like HQ's having weird synergy(destroyer lord is more of beatstick but boosts destroyers who don't want to go anywhere near enemy...And you can get waaaay superior boost by 1CP anyway).

RP is bit of issue. Can't have it just work on any unit even if wiped. Apart from practical issue of where to put unit that would mean basically impossible to kill units. You can't keep failing all 5+ rolls for 10 immortals so the unit would always come back so only way to get kill points would be going second. If necrons go second they will have all units with RP in table at the end...And having them give KP each time unit dies would make any scenario with kill points ridiculously hard then with constantly weak units popping back ready to be killed for extra KP.

Make it a strat? Other codexes have those, so give them something along those lines, maybe cheaper? Something like this could work:

1CP Rebuild, Reanimate, Reconstruct
Use at the end of Movement Phase. Choose a unit with Reanimation Protocols that has been completely removed from play. Roll a dice for each model that has been slain from that unit, for each 5+ a model reanimates, set the unit back up with a number of models equal to the number that reanimated within 6" of another <DYNASTY> unit and more than 9" from enemy units.

Probably needs editing and the wording fixing, but I think it illustrates a concept of something that could help.

Seems rather cheap for 1CP. The fight second time, when you die stratagem costs a lot more, and the dude is dead after using it. It would be more like 2 or 3 CP. But who knows with GW, it could end up as 1 CP.

 helgrenze wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
https://www.40kstats.com/

Ach! I can't access that data at work. Can anyone tell me, what exactly are the ends of the spectrum according to that data, without ITC that is?

This the result for primary factions for non-ITC:

Does this site define what make a faction the "Primary" one in a given list? Because many of the armies listed seem to be the ones that fall into the "Soup" catagory.

I would assume its the old ITC rule which is most specific keyword of your most expensive detachment.
As this is 8th edition its a given that 90% of the lists will be soup of some variety.

Okey, but doesn't that skew the results. What if someone took 3 GM NDKS and draigo along side a catellan, and IG, and won a few games. One can hardly say that the wins are GK ones, but in the data they are going to be just that.

Tyel wrote:
The Predator is possibly the worst vehicle in the game although other Marine tanks are up there too.

Yea, I gotta push back on this point-the hammerhead wants a word with you.
Costs about the same, body aint too different, less than half the firepower.

Hammerhead does have fly though, so it kad to take a hit somewhere.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but doesn't that skew the results. What if someone took 3 GM NDKS and draigo along side a catellan, and IG, and won a few games. One can hardly say that the wins are GK ones, but in the data they are going to be just that.

Well the other option is what we will see in the upcoming ITC season where 50% of the lists are going to be "Imperium" which says even less about what the army is.

Karol wrote:
Seems rather cheap for 1CP. The fight second time, when you die stratagem costs a lot more, and the dude is dead after using it. It would be more like 2 or 3 CP. But who knows with GW, it could end up as 1 CP.

I don't know, I think 1CP is reasonable for a Make Your Army Actually Functional stratagem.

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
Seems rather cheap for 1CP. The fight second time, when you die stratagem costs a lot more, and the dude is dead after using it. It would be more like 2 or 3 CP. But who knows with GW, it could end up as 1 CP.

I don't know, I think 1CP is reasonable for a Make Your Army Actually Functional stratagem.

I think, for 1 CP, maybe something along the lines of: play this strategem when the last model of a unit with Reanimation Protocols would be removed from the board. Instead, immediately make a reanimation protocol test for each slain model in the unit.

The House Taranis stratagem is one of the most annoying stratagems in the game. Tide of Traitors at least brings on only a light infantry unit which possesses only moderate firepower.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Hammerhead does have fly though, so it kad to take a hit somewhere.

How does fly help it in any way though?

Sure, it lets it retreat from combat and keep shooting, yay?

But it really doesn't matter when your output is SO LOW that taking down a mere rhino in 3 turns is considered a high roll, because its about 20% under optimal conditions.
Do note, its about 20% for the full three turns, not each turn.

I think, for 1 CP, maybe something along the lines of: play this strategem when the last model of a unit with Reanimation Protocols would be removed from the board. Instead, immediately make a reanimation protocol test for each slain model in the unit.

That sounds perfectly fine. My one tweak is that WARRIORS and IMMORTALS should cost 1CP while other units (read: Destroyers) should cost 3CP, and the strat needs a once per unit game limit.
Also, the Destroyer Lord's reroll aura being flatly inferior to the basic Lord is insulting. Make it a flat wound reroll aura for DESTROYERS and reroll 1s for everyone else, jeez.

To go back to an earlier point, I think factions like the Necrons, the AdMech, the Custodes, etc. can all be fixed with new units or small additions. I have no idea what you do with the SM other than price Guilliman into irrelevance, throw away all of the old point metrics and start from scratch.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

Also, the Destroyer Lord's reroll aura being flatly inferior to the basic Lord is insulting. Make it a flat wound reroll aura for DESTROYERS and reroll 1s for everyone else, jeez.

So much this. Also, have it work in melee so that the Destroyer Lord can actually benefit from his own aura.

Tyel wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No, I understand that. But in the broader context that is nearly two full squads of IS to do that job. It would take them *all game* to kill 5 marines. How often are 18 or so IS punching marines like that?

IS are efficient at what they do, but they're not effective. That takes CCs, Priests, and Harken.

This still doesn't change anything, because these are sort of silly scenarios. IS should be getting pulled off by (bike) bolters or c-beams and not super basic marine melee.

I feel this is sort of special pleading when we are comparing whether a unit is more or less efficient than another.
IS are generalists in that they are a no regret unit. I mean if you end up punching a rhino (4.8% return on your points unless catachan) then thats bad. But a Marine in that circumstance would get a 4% return and be even worse. Versus almost anything that isn't toughness 6 or higher with a good save they do fine. Marines don't.

This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.

What applies to tacticals goes through so much of the Marine list. Assault marines are garbage. Devestators as anything but mortal wound stratagem tacticals are a points pinata. The Predator is possibly the worst vehicle in the game although other Marine tanks are up there too.

Then, to do BA specifically, you get into the special stuff. Death Company are frankly bad. Either you keep them cheap - in which case you have a handful of S4 AP- D1 attacks resulting in a one dimensional unit (its basically an ork boy but paying several times as much for a 3+ save and possibly a jetpack) which can bully troops but still can't take any sustained shooting (or a proper charge). Or you start blinging them up with say hammers/fists so they can threaten a range of targets but their price goes through the roof and consequently survivability goes out the window.

Sanguinary Guard at least have 2 wounds and a 2+ save - but then they have pillows for weapons. Enjoy your 2 attacks for 32-39~ points. You don't kill chaff, you don't really wreck the vehicles or monsters (let alone knights) that get to the table. "I'd be good in a meta where people played expensive high points per wound marine units" - yeah, unsurprisingly they don't and since this is also countered by just about everything in the game odds are they never will.

As for the dreads and baal predator.... no. Just no.

A marine that punches a kabalite earns more points than if it punched an IS at the same difficulty. The marine didn't do anything special to earn those extra points. Are kabalites bad?

Kabalite shoots MEQ:
1 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.111

IS shoots MEQ:
1 * .5 * .333 * .333 = 0.055

The kabalite is twice as good for less than half the points.

An IS with a CC is 5.5 points
2 * .5 * .333 * .333 = 0.111

We can see the IS caught up, but for fewer points. The Kabalites still move faster, have better leadership, and PfP.

That seems like pretty reasonable parity.

Something that is equally important to killing is...not dying. That's what people are talking about with IS bar the IS with tons of support. And that's also what marines can do well, too.

Killing isn't everything. Killing everything also isn't everything.

If marines want to kill GEQ it's 155 for redepmtor with OGC, HOGC, 2x SB, and a fist, which is pretty reasonable anti-GEQ - especially when carrying a captain & lt nearby - and they can still mix it up in CC.

Bikes are also fantastic and flexible.

Two or three hammers in a DC unit is all you need to throw a reasonable amount of hurt. The other guys exist to help clear GEQ and be ablative wounds.

But none of those units can do the job for an efficient price.

A marine biker at 21 ppm kills less than 5 points of guardsmen. I guess 25% return is pretty good for a marine unit at this point.

I hurts bad that T5 means nothing vs lasguns, though.

What percentage return do you think is appropriate ?