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.

Drager wrote:
What percentage return do you think is appropriate ?

Anything less than 100% over the course of the game is unacceptable.

Drager wrote:
What percentage return do you think is appropriate ?

That's an interesting question for sure.

Guardsmen have a 36% return in rapid fire range vs marines with no FRFSF. Less vs bikes or intercessors though.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
What percentage return do you think is appropriate ?

Anything less than 100% over the course of the game is unacceptable.

25% would be in the acceptable range then wouldn't it? I typically use venoms and Kabalites to clear GEQ. My return is 26.4%. That seems fine.

Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

Do you think that is the bench mark to aim for? Seems high. Some units have ideal targets they spike against. Ravager is one. Inceptors have a 46% return vs ravagers and 54% vs preds as well, mind you. Inceptors have >150% vs unbuffered gravis. OP?

Ravagers have a 29% return vs a RIS knight. Inceptors have 37%.

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:

Orks 58.48%
Deathwatch 55.29%
T'au Empire 55.20%
Ynnari 55.00%
Chaos Daemons 53.71%
Drukhari 53.65%
Imperial Knights 52.95%
Tyranids 51.93%
Asuryani 50.60%
Thousand Sons 50.13%
Adepta Sororitas 49.81%
Genestealer Cults 49.30%
Astra Militarum 48.52%
Harlequins 48.47%
Necrons 47.07%
Cult Mechanicus 46.42%
Chaos Space Marines 45.86%
Adeptus Custodes 44.53%
Death Guard 43.50%
Renegade Knights 41.19%
Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%

So, I assume that if you are going to argue Blood Angels are the worst faction based on this unbiased, objective data, then you are also going to adopt the view that astra militarum is the most middle of the road, balanced faction around?

the_scotsman 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:

Orks 58.48%
Deathwatch 55.29%
T'au Empire 55.20%
Ynnari 55.00%
Chaos Daemons 53.71%
Drukhari 53.65%
Imperial Knights 52.95%
Tyranids 51.93%
Asuryani 50.60%
Thousand Sons 50.13%
Adepta Sororitas 49.81%
Genestealer Cults 49.30%
Astra Militarum 48.52%
Harlequins 48.47%
Necrons 47.07%
Cult Mechanicus 46.42%
Chaos Space Marines 45.86%
Adeptus Custodes 44.53%
Death Guard 43.50%
Renegade Knights 41.19%
Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%

So, I assume that if you are going to argue Blood Angels are the worst faction based on this unbiased, objective data, then you are also going to adopt the view that astra militarum is the most middle of the road, balanced faction around?

Probably the biggest 2 factors here are play rate and win %. This one shows the win %. AM is by far the most played faction at tournament level. I'd really need to see both of those data side by side to really make a judgement. Also - I always wonder how accurate this data is anyways. ITC uses an ap that is at least somewhat certifying. What the heck are these non ITC tournaments doing to submit results?

Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

Do you think that is the bench mark to aim for? Seems high. Some units have ideal targets they spike against. Ravager is one. Inceptors have a 46% return vs ravagers and 54% vs preds as well, mind you. Inceptors have >150% vs unbuffered gravis. OP?

Ravagers have a 29% return vs a RIS knight. Inceptors have 37%.

Maybe bikes are adequate. I don't know. I haven't used one yet in 8th.

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

I don't know. How do you think it might work?

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.

Maybe bikes are as good as it gets for marines. Kinda depressing.

The tournament winrates can be somewhat informative, but I'd be careful about extrapolating from them too much, as they're not necessarily terribly representative of the game as a whole. In tournament setting it is important to be able to deal with the top meta choices, whilst that is not important in a casual setting. So an army could be a powerful in general, and better than 90% of other armies, but if it can't deal with that 10% that comprises the tournament cream of the crop, it is not gonna place well. Similarly it is possible that some factions have gimmicky builds that are particularly effective against the meta choices, whilst the faction in general is not particularly powerful.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know. How do you think it might work?

I think one way to explain it might be that someone started with a conclusion and found data to support it in an attempt to have the emotional security of having the numbers on their side. But the fact that they do not use those numbers do not modify their other preconceived conclusions would give the lie to their facade of objectivity.

So....is all this data an accurate indicator of faction strength? Or are we throwing it out?

Sure, throw it out. Don't care. You're too busy with personal attacks to consider an answer in good faith.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

T5 means a lot to everything else. It doesn't have to mean anything to lasguns. A bike that can stand off and keep IS at 2 shots while keeping full shots is pretty great.

That efficiency number means nothing. Here's why -

A 4 man is 104. Let them face down two squads and a CC - 110 points.

Deploy at 31" - can't be shot without MMM and even then 1 per IS
Bikes move to 19" - IS cannot move in range for 2 shots; bikes can still shoot full range - 5.9 IS die
IS move or don't - still only 2 shots; laspistols not in range and 6 are dead; 1.3 wounds are caused

At this point the bikes can perpetually maintain this distance or if the bikes wanted they can move to 5", unload, and charge.

Turn 1 6 IS die; bikes lose 1.3 wounds
Turn 2 6 IS die; bikes lose 0.7 wounds - one model down
Turn 3 bikes move to 5"; 5 IS die to shooting and 3 are left; bikes charges and finish the job

These bikes were clearly more than 25% efficient.

But even this is irrelevant, because it isn't a real scenario. A battlecannon would probably decide to take some shots at them, but with a 5+++ it might only be able to kill one.

There are a lot more layers than just "this unit maths out to xyz and isn't measuring the same as unit zzy so it's bad".

There is, but the stupid BA banner can't be everywhere.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.

I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.

That's still an 83% pts return.

Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.

I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.

I never said OP. That was my idea of a good return, that's all. Marines have lots of weapons that are fantastic at killing other marines. Killing the units they need to kill, not so much.

But is it a *reasonable* target return rate is the point.

Bharring wrote:
But is it a *reasonable* target return rate is the point.

I don't know. Does GW mean the game to be Castellans and Drukhari lethality or marine lethality? Ask them.

Wouldn't it be better to just check against how many targets a unit has returns, and if it also is resilient itself, then one could check if a unit is really OP or not.

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

Do you think that is the bench mark to aim for? Seems high. Some units have ideal targets they spike against. Ravager is one. Inceptors have a 46% return vs ravagers and 54% vs preds as well, mind you. Inceptors have >150% vs unbuffered gravis. OP?

Ravagers have a 29% return vs a RIS knight. Inceptors have 37%.

See this is the thing with return percentages
It has to be categorised into shooting classification and platform clarification.
Generalist weapons should probably be say 20-30%

Shooting at bad match ups should be 5-15%

Optimised targets should be 35-45%

Obviously the more fragile your platform is the more return rate you kinda need to make-up for the likelyness of being wiped off the table.

A unit having a spike vrs a single target isn't an issue aslong as it's balanced out against other weakness.

One of the many issues is Marines are up against it with a lot of under performing for their points cost options vrs a number of over performing options in other codex's.

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to just check against how many targets a unit has returns, and if it also is resilient itself, then one could check if a unit is really OP or not.

Whatever metric you come up with, it'll tell you the wrong thing.

By the metric you outline here, Termies destroy Shining Spears. But that's certainly not what happens on the tabletop.

Martel732 wrote:
Sure, throw it out. Don't care. You're too busy with personal attacks to consider an answer in good faith.

If disputing someone's conclusion based on a dataset by pointing out the conclusion they are not taking based on the same dataset is a personal attack I'm sorry. I don't dispute your right to feel that guard are the most op faction and BA the worst faction, you are allowed to feel that.

You just can't feel both those things at once and use that data to back it up.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.

I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.

That's still an 83% pts return.

Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.

I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.

What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.

Martel732 wrote:
I never said OP. That was my idea of a good return, that's all. Marines have lots of weapons that are fantastic at killing other marines. Killing the units they need to kill, not so much.

Do drukhari typically need to kill aggressors? If aggressors are an irrelevant target for marines are they relevant for drukhari?

Are knights a relevant target? Looks like las devs have about a 65% return against knight crusaders.

I don't think that's relevant personally. Evaluating damage return in a vacuum gets pretty meaningless pretty fast.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.

I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.

That's still an 83% pts return.

Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.

I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.

Plasma devs can deal legit damage. They do however only have 5 wounds and lack mobility. The ravager has 10 wounds an invun saves and massive mobility for about the same cost. It is pretty disgusting when you really think about it. The ravager could literally never lose to plasma devs because it will always strike first against them and on the return being and Elf allows on demand -1 to hit. so...Between the 5++ and a 1/3 chance to kill yourself shooting at it. It is pretty grim.

I don't take plasma in my armies Except on very few units these day...Like plasma interceptors who at least guarantee me that I will get to suicide on the unit I want.

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.

I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.

That's still an 83% pts return.

Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.

I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.

What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.

It at the very least makes you weirdly glass cannon for the way those models look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
....xeno, my point is not to argue that plasma devs are op.

I'm just demonstrating like I said in my post that using damage return numbers to see how Good or Bad a unit is leads you to weird ass places real fast.

Plasma devs aren't op. I would even say they're terrible. But if you just look at that one weird situation. ...

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.

I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.

That's still an 83% pts return.

Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.

I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.

What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.

It at the very least makes you weirdly glass cannon for the way those models look.

But can marines especially a unit with 18 inch range that needs to be stationary to maximise it's output afford to be that glass cannon?