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.

SeanDrake wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, Marines weren't THAT bad before.

The win % went up from like 45-50 to 55-60% I think. You'll have to listen to stats centre to get the exact numbers. I can't remember them off hand.

So basicly the win rate going up most likely simply reflects that as per the other statistics there were more marine armies in the tournament, as for Reece it's not like he has not got form for talking bollocks if he thinks it will advantage him in anyway.

Yep, tactically he's evidently a very high level player. However the crap he was talking pre 8th and early 8th about the meta were quite unfounded.

ITC does not = all of 40k. What works there will not necessarily translate to all game formats.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, Marines weren't THAT bad before.

The win % went up from like 45-50 to 55-60% I think. You'll have to listen to stats centre to get the exact numbers. I can't remember them off hand.

So basicly the win rate going up most likely simply reflects that as per the other statistics there were more marine armies in the tournament, as for Reece it's not like he has not got form for talking bollocks if he thinks it will advantage him in anyway.

Yep, tactically he's evidently a very high level player. However the crap he was talking pre 8th and early 8th about the meta were quite unfounded.

ITC does not = all of 40k. What works there will not necessarily translate to all game formats.

Yeah not only that but I'm pretty sure I remember at least one occasion he fanned the hyperbole about some unbeatable setup and the proceeded to piss himself laughing as he destroyed every mug who believed him and used it at the following tournament.

Plus ITC is a terrible yardstick for balance or pretty much anything else given it's terrible over reliance on kills over actual objectives among other issues.

Wasnt Reece the "Stompa will be op!" guy every ork player complaibed about?
Has become his word valid again? Or hes still a gw salesman in disguise?

SeanDrake wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, Marines weren't THAT bad before.

The win % went up from like 45-50 to 55-60% I think. You'll have to listen to stats centre to get the exact numbers. I can't remember them off hand.

So basicly the win rate going up most likely simply reflects that as per the other statistics there were more marine armies in the tournament

No. The win rate went up significantly and it has nothing to do with the numbers of players. If the codex were weaker we would have seen a higher proportion of losses. The "first loss" (TWIP) also went up significantly. Both statistics now sit at a higher level than average, the TWIP in particular is moving towards pre-nerf Knight Castellan levels and this is without IH.

I don't really get all the beef on Reece, he's done more for the game than literally this entire forum and all of us in it. He's an ambassador of the hobby and it's clearly his passion.

E - it doesn't really matter if you're playing ITC or ETC - if you can't shift a unit from objectives without wasting a ton of resources you lose the game. This is what IH bring.

It sounds like GW designed the supplements for their own game rather than someone else's version of it.

The nerve of them.

The only thing Reece has done is bring out the worst in players.

Stop trying to make 40k a different game.

You know, if GW were really smart(only mildly in reality)they'd bring out a dedicated tourney ruleset.

According to 40kstats when filtering for only games since the 17th of August Codex: Space Marines has a win rate of 51.83%. Still behind Genestealer Cults, Eldar of both types and, interestingly enough, Custodes. A 51.83% win rate (1.83% ahead of Orks who are at exactly 50%) is not OP, and it's nowhere near the 60%+ win rates Eldar or Knights had when they were in their prime.

Doing the same with their TWiP places them at 1.77, just behind Adepta Sororitas at 1.80. Using this as a metric, Orks at 2.12 are clearly overpowered and have to be nerfed as soon as possible.

Or, funnily enough, there's not enough data to draw any conclusions one way or another yet. Like I said.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
According to 40kstats when filtering for only games since the 17th of August Codex: Space Marines has a win rate of 51.83%. Still behind Genestealer Cults, Eldar of both types and, interestingly enough, Custodes. A 51.83% win rate (1.83% ahead of Orks who are at exactly 50%) is not OP, and it's nowhere near the 60%+ win rates Eldar or Knights had when they were in their prime.

Doing the same with their TWiP places them at 1.77, just behind Adepta Sororitas at 1.80. Using this as a metric, Orks at 2.12 are clearly overpowered and have to be nerfed as soon as possible.

Or, funnily enough, there's not enough data to draw any conclusions one way or another yet. Like I said.

Don't forget the large amounts of Marines turning up as well, or was that already calculated?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
According to 40kstats when filtering for only games since the 17th of August Codex: Space Marines has a win rate of 51.83%. Still behind Genestealer Cults, Eldar of both types and, interestingly enough, Custodes. A 51.83% win rate (1.83% ahead of Orks who are at exactly 50%) is not OP, and it's nowhere near the 60%+ win rates Eldar or Knights had when they were in their prime.

Doing the same with their TWiP places them at 1.77, just behind Adepta Sororitas at 1.80. Using this as a metric, Orks at 2.12 are clearly overpowered and have to be nerfed as soon as possible.

Or, funnily enough, there's not enough data to draw any conclusions one way or another yet. Like I said.

Don't forget the large amounts of Marines turning up as well, or was that already calculated?

Yeah going by the figures given here the play rate went up from 5% to 25% and win rate went up 10%ish so I don't see any issue there tbh.
I think from what I have heard is that IH is a hard counter to elder flying circus so there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Also I think IH flyers are a pretty good counter to any of the -1 to hit chapter tactics in general so that ain't going to upset most tournament players no no no

SeanDrake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
According to 40kstats when filtering for only games since the 17th of August Codex: Space Marines has a win rate of 51.83%. Still behind Genestealer Cults, Eldar of both types and, interestingly enough, Custodes. A 51.83% win rate (1.83% ahead of Orks who are at exactly 50%) is not OP, and it's nowhere near the 60%+ win rates Eldar or Knights had when they were in their prime.

Doing the same with their TWiP places them at 1.77, just behind Adepta Sororitas at 1.80. Using this as a metric, Orks at 2.12 are clearly overpowered and have to be nerfed as soon as possible.

Or, funnily enough, there's not enough data to draw any conclusions one way or another yet. Like I said.

Don't forget the large amounts of Marines turning up as well, or was that already calculated?

Yeah going by the figures given here the play rate went up from 5% to 25% and win rate went up 10%ish so I don't see any issue there tbh.
I think from what I have heard is that IH is a hard counter to elder flying circus so there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Also I think IH flyers are a pretty good counter to any of the -1 to hit chapter tactics in general so that ain't going to upset most tournament players no no no

true whenever a new codex comes out, even if it's balanced or even slightly underpowered you definatly see a lot of complaining if it happens to have the potential to hard counter a popular tourny meta. I'm not even saying Iron Hands might not have their issues, but there is very much a trend of people seeing broken for stuff that will force them to ADAPT.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
According to 40kstats when filtering for only games since the 17th of August Codex: Space Marines has a win rate of 51.83%. Still behind Genestealer Cults, Eldar of both types and, interestingly enough, Custodes. A 51.83% win rate (1.83% ahead of Orks who are at exactly 50%) is not OP, and it's nowhere near the 60%+ win rates Eldar or Knights had when they were in their prime.

Doing the same with their TWiP places them at 1.77, just behind Adepta Sororitas at 1.80. Using this as a metric, Orks at 2.12 are clearly overpowered and have to be nerfed as soon as possible.

Or, funnily enough, there's not enough data to draw any conclusions one way or another yet. Like I said.

Your stats are wrong either because they are not up to date or simply because they are wrong. I know that their TWiP is over 2 now.

The latest stats centre goes into detail on this and Marines are shooting up.

I think you'd be hard pressed or simply ignorant not to see the writing on the wall as far as the new meta is going to be concerned. Ironhands will be a problem unless GW do something quickly. If the playtesters are saying it (who've played many more games with nu marines than us), the numbers back this up (unkillable Levis, ridiculous flyers) and anecdotally people are already getting destroyed by them, I think it's hard to suggest otherwise.

E - the Iron hands flyer list is a counter to EVERYTHING apart from the Ironhands flyer list. It is broken.

E - it doesn't make a difference if the number of players went up from 5% to 25%, this doesn't mean we'd expect to see a 10% increase in wins unless something was very strong/borderline op.

Neither agree nor disagree, but maybe you should provide a link to the source of your data Englishman?

Right, here's the stats -

5.5% of players up to 12.85% of players (my 25% totally off). Knights dropped to make this up primarily but consistent loss of 1%ish across all factions. For comparison Guard + Castellan had about 12-13% representation at it's peak.


Win rate of 52% now which is roughly the same as Tau and Drukhari. Previous win rate was something like 45% but Ultramarines had a 50% win rate pre codex v2.

Mono faction win rate is 53%. 91% of ALL Marine lists are mono now.

Marines getting 2 more VP per game and giving up 1 VP less per game in ITC set up. Only Tau and Harlequins compete in this regard (but Harlies aren't taken as a primary very often).

Win rates increased across the board since codex releaase but struggle against Necrons (27% win rate in 30 games), Custodes (38%) and Death Guard (40%) currently.

SM currently dominating Orks (65% win rate), Daemons (69%) and CSM (64%).

During the last 13 events SM account for more than 20% of all lists in a winning position in final rounds, TWiP is 2.12 which is high.

2 massive tournaments were not included in stats (Battlefield Birmingham and a GW event) where SM performed very well.

Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONVtUmQQ1A4&list=PL_L3UDWb0qu5xDJATUJzYfEzmWl40J6fx

Thanks for the link


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and another question - how do they differentiate between daemons, CSM, chaos knights, TS and DG? Almost all of those lists are just chaos soup.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Right, here's the stats -

5.5% of players up to 12.85% of players (my 25% totally off). Knights dropped to make this up primarily but consistent loss of 1%ish across all factions. For comparison Guard + Castellan had about 12-13% representation at it's peak.


Win rate of 52% now which is roughly the same as Tau and Drukhari. Previous win rate was something like 45% but Ultramarines had a 50% win rate pre codex v2.

Mono faction win rate is 53%. 91% of ALL Marine lists are mono now.

Marines getting 2 more VP per game and giving up 1 VP less per game in ITC set up. Only Tau and Harlequins compete in this regard (but Harlies aren't taken as a primary very often).

Win rates increased across the board since codex releaase but struggle against Necrons (27% win rate in 30 games), Custodes (38%) and Death Guard (40%) currently.

SM currently dominating Orks (65% win rate), Daemons (69%) and CSM (64%).

During the last 13 events SM account for more than 20% of all lists in a winning position in final rounds, TWiP is 2.12 which is high.

2 massive tournaments were not included in stats (Battlefield Birmingham and a GW event) where SM performed very well.

Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONVtUmQQ1A4&list=PL_L3UDWb0qu5xDJATUJzYfEzmWl40J6fx

In the age of soup how do they detirmine what an army is? I ask because it's rare as hell to see full knight armies,and if it's based around say... warlord trait, or points percentage I could see Knights being displaced as Marine players drop castellans etc from their lists for the super doctrine.

 Jidmah wrote:
Thanks for the link


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and another question - how do they differentiate between daemons, CSM, chaos knights, TS and DG? Almost all of those lists are just chaos soup.

I think it's by primary faction but you'd have to ask the guys who run the stats I'm afraid.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Thanks for the link


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and another question - how do they differentiate between daemons, CSM, chaos knights, TS and DG? Almost all of those lists are just chaos soup.

I think it's by primary faction but you'd have to ask the guys who run the stats I'm afraid.

So, prersumably based around percentage of the list. so yeah, part of this likely is space marine lists dropping expensive lords of war etc from their lists to take advantage of the super doctrine. part of it is people wanting to test out new ideas with the codex (I'm sure there's a jump in army rep everytime a new codex comes out.) and yeah part of it is people chasing the meta because yes Marines are VERY powerful right now. It suprises me that they do so well vs Orks. not regularly playing agaisnt Orks myself whats changed? (presumably Orks did alright prior to this 'dex) a lotta the biggest changes to Marines I would think would have minimal impact on Orks.

Well lootas became pretty much useless vs ih. Ssag took hit as well. Charging into ih costs lot more and orks have little tools agains tripple repulsors. Shooting not efficient, ds charge self harming and even in face charge you lose over third squad, unlikely to kill and then it flies away.

Necrons have pretty much no tool either. Infantry vs infantry gun duel loss, vehicle vs vehicle even worse.

So even going with Frontline over 40kstats Marines aren't actually over performing, and they explicitly say we need more data in regards to the vs. faction lineup.

It's possible that the Iron Hands will break the meta, and it's possible they won't. We don't know.

SeanDrake wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, Marines weren't THAT bad before.

The win % went up from like 45-50 to 55-60% I think. You'll have to listen to stats centre to get the exact numbers. I can't remember them off hand.

So basicly the win rate going up most likely simply reflects that as per the other statistics there were more marine armies in the tournament, as for Reece it's not like he has not got form for talking bollocks if he thinks it will advantage him in anyway.

Yep, tactically he's evidently a very high level player. However the crap he was talking pre 8th and early 8th about the meta were quite unfounded.

ITC does not = all of 40k. What works there will not necessarily translate to all game formats.

Yeah not only that but I'm pretty sure I remember at least one occasion he fanned the hyperbole about some unbeatable setup and the proceeded to piss himself laughing as he destroyed every mug who believed him and used it at the following tournament.

Plus ITC is a terrible yardstick for balance or pretty much anything else given it's terrible over reliance on kills over actual objectives among other issues.

Is that true? I'd argue strongly that is a display of sociopathic tendencies... What if people spent a lot of money on this list, and it was their budget for the hobby for the year? Where is the empathy for that situation? (Whether they should listen to him or not is another matter).

Not really representative and upstanding conduct from a 'leader' within the community, which whether he wants to be or not he is, there's people in here vouching for him.

If it is true, it's a direct slight against him, he is automatically unreliable with any information he now contributes to the community as it would not be able to be trusted.

Anyway, I'll move on from that now. I think you'll find that IH won't be as dominating as people think. It may cause an interesting shift though with people preparing for anti-flier and actually bringing dedicated anti flier units. Hilariously, an Iron hands stalker/hunter build may counter it quite well, and they will have tech marines and the iron father close by to repair them.