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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a shame GW aren't clued in to the fact that every player of a faction really identifies with their chosen subfaction and wants them to feel distinct on the battlefield.

It shouldn't just apply to Marines of both flavours - it needs to apply to every goddamn faction in the game.

Not true. I play Sisters, I got my own personal Order (the Order of the Ebon Lance), but it's really just a name and a paintjob. I would be very annoyed to be forced to be forced to play one of the main order, but beside that I don't really mind if there aren't subfaction traits. I mean, Sisters have always been one of the few very homogeneous organization on the Imperium.
Similarly, having Custodes subfactions is… weird as hell. And I doubt many Tyranid players have a strong attachment to their own hive fleet, given that I still see all tyranids as part of the same hive mind, but I guess YMMV.

 bullyboy wrote:
I don't understand the Ork issue at all. You got a Speed Freaks box plus several new vehicles, all which look cool as hell. Quit moaning.

I could say the same thing about the Blood of the Phoenix box.

Not that I'm moaning about the Orktober release of last year.

I'm talking about the releases THIS YEAR.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a shame GW aren't clued in to the fact that every player of a faction really identifies with their chosen subfaction and wants them to feel distinct on the battlefield.

It shouldn't just apply to Marines of both flavours - it needs to apply to every goddamn faction in the game.

Not true. I play Sisters, I got my own personal Order (the Order of the Ebon Lance), but it's really just a name and a paintjob. I would be very annoyed to be forced to be forced to play one of the main order, but beside that I don't really mind if there aren't subfaction traits. I mean, Sisters have always been one of the few very homogeneous organization on the Imperium.
Similarly, having Custodes subfactions is… weird as hell. And I doubt many Tyranid players have a strong attachment to their own hive fleet, given that I still see all tyranids as part of the same hive mind, but I guess YMMV.

OK not every player. 95% of them. Obviously if you play a "mono (sub) faction" like Custodes, Death Guard, Thousand Sons etc then this won't apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Considering more than 67% of the player base owns a Marine army that was likely collecting dust before this update?

Citation Needed

Not really. And tournaments ALWAYS chase the latest update. I can't think of a codex update that hasn't seen a spike of players, especially when that codex is a Marine based one and anyone's off-brand successor chapter can run it since it was painted specifically to let it hop books as often as possible.

There are the stats if you can be bothered to find them. I believe they are sub 20% of the players but still very high. I can't remember the exact figure, you'll have to dig it out yourself.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Considering more than 67% of the player base owns a Marine army that was likely collecting dust before this update?

Citation Needed

Not really. And tournaments ALWAYS chase the latest update. I can't think of a codex update that hasn't seen a spike of players, especially when that codex is a Marine based one and anyone's off-brand successor chapter can run it since it was painted specifically to let it hop books as often as possible.

There are the stats if you can be bothered to find them. I believe they are sub 20% of the players but still very high. I can't remember the exact figure, you'll have to dig it out yourself.

I can't give hard numbers (at least not without too much work on my side) but considering Marines make up a majority of the sales for 40k it's safe to say they make up a majority of active players too.

And stats for what exactly? For the number of people who army hop? The percentage of people who already owned a Marine army? The average jump in number of armies for a given faction upon new release?

And why would I spend all my time looking for any of that?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Obviously if you play a "mono (sub) faction" like Custodes, Death Guard, Thousand Sons etc then this won't apply.

Custodes aren't a subfaction. GW has been pushing subfactions into monofactions, in order to give every codex the same toolset.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Considering more than 67% of the player base owns a Marine army that was likely collecting dust before this update?

Citation Needed

Not really. And tournaments ALWAYS chase the latest update. I can't think of a codex update that hasn't seen a spike of players, especially when that codex is a Marine based one and anyone's off-brand successor chapter can run it since it was painted specifically to let it hop books as often as possible.

There are the stats if you can be bothered to find them. I believe they are sub 20% of the players but still very high. I can't remember the exact figure, you'll have to dig it out yourself.

I can't give hard numbers (at least not without too much work on my side) but considering Marines make up a majority of the sales for 40k it's safe to say they make up a majority of active players too.

And stats for what exactly? For the number of people who army hop? The percentage of people who already owned a Marine army? The average jump in number of armies for a given faction upon new release?

And why would I spend all my time looking for any of that?

Stats for exactly what you're disputing? Marine players at tournaments, despite your unfounded belief that a - everyone owns a marine army and b - everyone desperately wants to play their marine army, are less than 20% (I believe). They are a high proportion still, relatively, but they are nowhere near 67%.

Now can we stop trying to defend an OP faction with this circular, bogus logic? We all know it's stupid and the only real saving grace is that marines have been so weak and bland for most of the edition they kinda deserve their time. That does not excuse the relentless focus in terms of models but there we are.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Considering more than 67% of the player base owns a Marine army that was likely collecting dust before this update?

Citation Needed

Not really. And tournaments ALWAYS chase the latest update. I can't think of a codex update that hasn't seen a spike of players, especially when that codex is a Marine based one and anyone's off-brand successor chapter can run it since it was painted specifically to let it hop books as often as possible.

There are the stats if you can be bothered to find them. I believe they are sub 20% of the players but still very high. I can't remember the exact figure, you'll have to dig it out yourself.

I can't give hard numbers (at least not without too much work on my side) but considering Marines make up a majority of the sales for 40k it's safe to say they make up a majority of active players too.

And stats for what exactly? For the number of people who army hop? The percentage of people who already owned a Marine army? The average jump in number of armies for a given faction upon new release?

And why would I spend all my time looking for any of that?

Stats for exactly what you're disputing? Marine players at tournaments, despite your unfounded belief that a - everyone owns a marine army and b - everyone desperately wants to play their marine army, are less than 20% (I believe). They are a high proportion still, relatively, but they are nowhere near 67%.

Now can we stop trying to defend an OP faction with this circular, bogus logic? We all know it's stupid and the only real saving grace is that marines have been so weak and bland for most of the edition they kinda deserve their time. That does not excuse the relentless focus in terms of models but there we are.

You're the one whose trying to prove there is an issue with the number of Marine armies in the tournament scene right now, so the burden proof is on you. You provided non, so I need non to dismiss your claims. I was trying to at least use logic to dismiss them instead of laughing at you and blowing you off.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Obviously if you play a "mono (sub) faction" like Custodes, Death Guard, Thousand Sons etc then this won't apply.

Custodes aren't a subfaction. GW has been pushing subfactions into monofactions, in order to give every codex the same toolset.

Since when and for whom? Because so far only marines have this and it's a very recent thing.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Considering more than 67% of the player base owns a Marine army that was likely collecting dust before this update?

Citation Needed

Not really. And tournaments ALWAYS chase the latest update. I can't think of a codex update that hasn't seen a spike of players, especially when that codex is a Marine based one and anyone's off-brand successor chapter can run it since it was painted specifically to let it hop books as often as possible.

There are the stats if you can be bothered to find them. I believe they are sub 20% of the players but still very high. I can't remember the exact figure, you'll have to dig it out yourself.

I can't give hard numbers (at least not without too much work on my side) but considering Marines make up a majority of the sales for 40k it's safe to say they make up a majority of active players too.

And stats for what exactly? For the number of people who army hop? The percentage of people who already owned a Marine army? The average jump in number of armies for a given faction upon new release?

And why would I spend all my time looking for any of that?

Stats for exactly what you're disputing? Marine players at tournaments, despite your unfounded belief that a - everyone owns a marine army and b - everyone desperately wants to play their marine army, are less than 20% (I believe). They are a high proportion still, relatively, but they are nowhere near 67%.

Now can we stop trying to defend an OP faction with this circular, bogus logic? We all know it's stupid and the only real saving grace is that marines have been so weak and bland for most of the edition they kinda deserve their time. That does not excuse the relentless focus in terms of models but there we are.

Are they OP though? What's the rate that they show up compared to the number of times they end up in the Top 8? Clearly of 99% of people switched over to using them but they're not basically always Top 8, what's really overpowered here?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Considering more than 67% of the player base owns a Marine army that was likely collecting dust before this update?

Citation Needed

Not really. And tournaments ALWAYS chase the latest update. I can't think of a codex update that hasn't seen a spike of players, especially when that codex is a Marine based one and anyone's off-brand successor chapter can run it since it was painted specifically to let it hop books as often as possible.

There are the stats if you can be bothered to find them. I believe they are sub 20% of the players but still very high. I can't remember the exact figure, you'll have to dig it out yourself.

I can't give hard numbers (at least not without too much work on my side) but considering Marines make up a majority of the sales for 40k it's safe to say they make up a majority of active players too.

And stats for what exactly? For the number of people who army hop? The percentage of people who already owned a Marine army? The average jump in number of armies for a given faction upon new release?

And why would I spend all my time looking for any of that?

Stats for exactly what you're disputing? Marine players at tournaments, despite your unfounded belief that a - everyone owns a marine army and b - everyone desperately wants to play their marine army, are less than 20% (I believe). They are a high proportion still, relatively, but they are nowhere near 67%.

Now can we stop trying to defend an OP faction with this circular, bogus logic? We all know it's stupid and the only real saving grace is that marines have been so weak and bland for most of the edition they kinda deserve their time. That does not excuse the relentless focus in terms of models but there we are.

You're the one whose trying to prove there is an issue with the number of Marine armies in the tournament scene right now, so the burden proof is on you. You provided non, so I need non to dismiss your claims. I was trying to at least use logic to dismiss them instead of laughing at you and blowing you off.

You've clearly missed my point, despite me spelling it out real clear multiple times.

The reason I can safely say that (Codex) Marines are OP is because of a number of factors, the primary one being how often they finish in the top 4 of large tournaments (it's 55% as of last week's events, as you should be able to see from my previous post) compared to every other faction in the game.

E - I'm wasting my time here with you marine apologists. I've gone back and re-read your initial comment to me that started this discussion and you are clearly strawmanning. I can't be bothered. The long and short is pretty simple - Marines are 55% of the top 4 finishes but account for less than 20% of the total players at tournaments. That's not normal and needs to be addressed.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You've clearly missed my point, despite me spelling it out real clear multiple times.

The reason I can safely say that (Codex) Marines are OP is because of a number of factors, the primary one being how often they finish in the top 4 of large tournaments (it's 55% as of last week's events, as you should be able to see from my previous post) compared to every other faction in the game.

And yet you have yet to prove they aren't 55% of the armies played. Plus you insisted that people switching to the army is somehow a problem, but haven't proven that either.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You've clearly missed my point, despite me spelling it out real clear multiple times.

The reason I can safely say that (Codex) Marines are OP is because of a number of factors, the primary one being how often they finish in the top 4 of large tournaments (it's 55% as of last week's events, as you should be able to see from my previous post) compared to every other faction in the game.

And yet you have yet to prove they aren't 55% of the armies played. Plus you insisted that people switching to the army is somehow a problem, but haven't proven that either.

As I said, the stats are out there but I can't be bothered to find them (again). I've posted them before - look at my post history if you're really interested. Of course you won't bother looking, because you're not interested in an actual (English, heh) discussion, you just want to keep believing that marines are absolutely balanced compared to other factions while rolfstomping your opponents. Have fun with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are they OP though?

Yes.

What's the rate that they show up compared to the number of times they end up in the Top 8?

They're 55% of the top 4 at the moment and account for sub 20% of the players.

Clearly of 99% of people switched over to using them but they're not basically always Top 8, what's really overpowered here?

False.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You've clearly missed my point, despite me spelling it out real clear multiple times.

The reason I can safely say that (Codex) Marines are OP is because of a number of factors, the primary one being how often they finish in the top 4 of large tournaments (it's 55% as of last week's events, as you should be able to see from my previous post) compared to every other faction in the game.

And yet you have yet to prove they aren't 55% of the armies played. Plus you insisted that people switching to the army is somehow a problem, but haven't proven that either.

As I said, the stats are out there but I can't be bothered to find them (again). I've posted them before - look at my post history if you're really interested. Of course you won't bother looking, because you're not interested in an actual (English, heh) discussion, you just want to keep believing that marines are absolutely balanced compared to other factions while rolfstomping your opponents. Have fun with that.

You posted a win percentage in a vacuum and went on a tirade while ignoring to post the other data points involved. And I'd be more interested in a discussion if it wasn't on a website where most "discussions" result in an argument as people ignore data in favor for their feelings.

And roflstomping my opponent? With mono-Primaris IF? Not likely. My other army is Sisters and I'm more eager to get that update than the Marine one right now anyways.

Black templars are essentially what greenskinz were in AoS, rarely played, old army. Just do the same, either squat them as separate army or roll them into a bigger codex, where small factions belong.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Since when and for whom? Because so far only marines have this and it's a very recent thing.

Since 8th edition first codex and for, afaik, every faction with a codex and then some.
<Chapter>, <Legion>, <Craftworld>, <Klan>, <Tau planets>, <Kabal>, <Coven>, <Cult>, <Regiment>, <Order>, <Hive Fleet>, <Forge World>, <Masque> and so on and so forth. Which factions doesn't get those? IIRC Custodes don't have keyword but they have fluff about subfactions and reasons to use a different paint scheme.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You posted a win percentage in a vacuum

No, I didn't. Here's my post again. I'll highlight the point that you repeatedly (and presumably, on purpose, keep missing);

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Wow look at all that balance. They were only 67% of ALL TOP 4s?! So balanced. Now they're just 55%?! One faction. Accounting for 55% of ALL TOP 4 RESULTS. Awesome.

and went on a tirade while ignoring to post the other data points involved. And I'd be more interested in a discussion if it wasn't on a website where most "discussions" result in an argument as people ignore data in favor for their feelings.

And roflstomping my opponent? With mono-Primaris IF? Not likely. My other army is Sisters and I'm more eager to get that update than the Marine one right now anyways.

It's hard not to get frustrated when you're discussing something with someone who seems to lack even the most basic understanding of the points raised. I didn't post a win percentage. I posted THE PERCENTAGE OF MARINE LISTS THAT FINISHED IN THE TOP 4 OF ALL MAJOR TOURNAMENTS LAST WEEK. So of the 20 top 4 lists last week, 11 of them (55%) were Marines. For clarity, because you're so desperate to defend your broken boys in yellow - Marine lists account for around 12.5% of the total tournament lists last stats I have. 55% of the top 4 lists. 12.5% of all lists. Please tell me you understand my concerns now?

IF are super strong. Their damage output is insane, but let's not get into that 'discussion' now.

Cronch wrote:
Black templars are essentially what greenskinz were in AoS, rarely played, old army. Just do the same, either squat them as separate army or roll them into a bigger codex, where small factions belong.

Orks are essentially what greenskinz were in Aos, green mean killing machines that worship Gork and Mork. Change my mind.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You posted a win percentage in a vacuum

No, I didn't. Here's my post again. I'll highlight the point that you repeatedly (and presumably, on purpose, keep missing);

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Wow look at all that balance. They were only 67% of ALL TOP 4s?! So balanced. Now they're just 55%?! One faction. Accounting for 55% of ALL TOP 4 RESULTS. Awesome.

and went on a tirade while ignoring to post the other data points involved. And I'd be more interested in a discussion if it wasn't on a website where most "discussions" result in an argument as people ignore data in favor for their feelings.

And roflstomping my opponent? With mono-Primaris IF? Not likely. My other army is Sisters and I'm more eager to get that update than the Marine one right now anyways.

It's hard not to get frustrated when you're discussing something with someone who seems to lack even the most basic understanding of the points raised. I didn't post a win percentage. I posted THE PERCENTAGE OF MARINE LISTS THAT FINISHED IN THE TOP 4 OF ALL MAJOR TOURNAMENTS LAST WEEK. So of the 20 top 4 lists last week, 11 of them (55%) were Marines. For clarity, because you're so desperate to defend your broken boys in yellow - Marine lists account for around 12.5% of the total tournament lists last stats I have. 55% of the top 4 lists. 12.5% of all lists. Please tell me you understand my concerns now?

IF are super strong. Their damage output is insane, but let's not get into that 'discussion' now.

What was the percentage of Marine armies compared to all armies for all those tournies? Is it greater or less than the percentage in the top 4? That's the sign of there being a problem, not how many finished in the top 4 in a vacuum.

And your concerns seem to be more hyperbole back up by emotion than actual fact, so no. Especially since that "insane" damage output is 1-2 extra wounds on average.

Cronch wrote:
Black templars are essentially what greenskinz were in AoS, rarely played, old army. Just do the same, either squat them as separate army or roll them into a bigger codex, where small factions belong.

They're already rolled into Codex: Space Marines. Arguably that's why they don't see much play anymore.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
What was the percentage of Marine armies compared to all armies for all those tournies? Is it greater or less than the percentage in the top 4? That's the sign of there being a problem, not how many finished in the top 4 in a vacuum.

I literally told you in the post of mine that you quoted. 12.5% is the percentage of Marine players compared to all other armies at those tournies. Significantly less than their numbers in the top 4. Get it now?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
What was the percentage of Marine armies compared to all armies for all those tournies? Is it greater or less than the percentage in the top 4? That's the sign of there being a problem, not how many finished in the top 4 in a vacuum.

I literally told you in the post of mine that you quoted. 12.5% is the percentage of Marine players compared to all other armies at those tournies. Significantly less than their numbers in the top 4. Get it now?

Sorry, missed that because my eyes were glazing over reading past the salt you were too busy throwing around.

And you're right, it might be a problem. Seeing as there was a 12% drop from one week to the next though it could be a case that the meta is playing catch up right now. I think two weeks of data might not be enough to tell long term implications of the Marines.

EDIT: And before you start trying to insult me again, I actually have trouble playing armies that win too easily. I'd rather be fluffy over crunchy. I'll leave the game breaking stuff to the tournament players.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Since when and for whom? Because so far only marines have this and it's a very recent thing.

Since 8th edition first codex and for, afaik, every faction with a codex and then some.
<Chapter>, <Legion>, <Craftworld>, <Klan>, <Tau planets>, <Kabal>, <Coven>, <Cult>, <Regiment>, <Order>, <Hive Fleet>, <Forge World>, <Masque> and so on and so forth. Which factions doesn't get those? IIRC Custodes don't have keyword but they have fluff about subfactions and reasons to use a different paint scheme.

Did you miss my post, Actual?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
What was the percentage of Marine armies compared to all armies for all those tournies? Is it greater or less than the percentage in the top 4? That's the sign of there being a problem, not how many finished in the top 4 in a vacuum.

I literally told you in the post of mine that you quoted. 12.5% is the percentage of Marine players compared to all other armies at those tournies. Significantly less than their numbers in the top 4. Get it now?

Sorry, missed that because my eyes were glazing over reading past the salt you were too busy throwing around.

And you're right, it might be a problem. Seeing as there was a 12% drop from one week to the next though it could be a case that the meta is playing catch up right now. I think two weeks of data might not be enough to tell long term implications of the Marines.

You missed it because you're too busy desperately wracking your brain for yet more excuses as to why your toys aren't broken and this is all my imagination.

It is a problem. The 12% drop was certainly due to the fact that IH have had their comeuppance.

There is a lot more than 2 weeks of data to back all of this up. This has been the case since the UM and WS supplements dropped.

Anyway, we're done here. Your repeated ignorance and now snarky, desperate attempt to act like this data is bogus proves where you're at, I think.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
What was the percentage of Marine armies compared to all armies for all those tournies? Is it greater or less than the percentage in the top 4? That's the sign of there being a problem, not how many finished in the top 4 in a vacuum.

I literally told you in the post of mine that you quoted. 12.5% is the percentage of Marine players compared to all other armies at those tournies. Significantly less than their numbers in the top 4. Get it now?

Sorry, missed that because my eyes were glazing over reading past the salt you were too busy throwing around.

And you're right, it might be a problem. Seeing as there was a 12% drop from one week to the next though it could be a case that the meta is playing catch up right now. I think two weeks of data might not be enough to tell long term implications of the Marines.

You missed it because you're too busy desperately wracking your brain for yet more excuses as to why your toys aren't broken and this is all my imagination.

It is a problem. The 12% drop was certainly due to the fact that IH have had their comeuppance.

There is a lot more than 2 weeks of data to back all of this up. This has been the case since the UM and WS supplements dropped.

Anyway, we're done here. Your repeated ignorance and now snarky, desperate attempt to act like this data is bogus proves where you're at, I think.

Looks like you were too busy trying to insult me again to see my edit: I don't actually have fun playing with broken armies. I love me a good fluffy list, not some steam roller. The fact you're projecting that play style on me is rather insulting and shows a lack of good faith for anyone on the opposite side of you.

And then there's the fact you're ignoring my concession that there could be a problem, but since there was a downward trend here I'm not sure if it's a long term problem, instead of just a short term one.

Let's see what the 1.5 updates from PA and the updates from CA do the game before we decry the game as completely broken beyond repair.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Since when and for whom? Because so far only marines have this and it's a very recent thing.

Since 8th edition first codex and for, afaik, every faction with a codex and then some.
<Chapter>, <Legion>, <Craftworld>, <Klan>, <Tau planets>, <Kabal>, <Coven>, <Cult>, <Regiment>, <Order>, <Hive Fleet>, <Forge World>, <Masque> and so on and so forth. Which factions doesn't get those? IIRC Custodes don't have keyword but they have fluff about subfactions and reasons to use a different paint scheme.

Did you miss my post, Actual?

Yea I missed it.

These keywords are nowhere near the same thing as separate supplements that SM have which is what I thought you were referring to. What's your point?

AAE, take your neglected ork tantrum show or whatever this mess is somewhere else. It has completely derailed the discussion. Some of us keep clicking this thread in hopes of some Psychic Awakening news and rumours.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
What was the percentage of Marine armies compared to all armies for all those tournies? Is it greater or less than the percentage in the top 4? That's the sign of there being a problem, not how many finished in the top 4 in a vacuum.

I literally told you in the post of mine that you quoted. 12.5% is the percentage of Marine players compared to all other armies at those tournies. Significantly less than their numbers in the top 4. Get it now?

Sorry, missed that because my eyes were glazing over reading past the salt you were too busy throwing around.

And you're right, it might be a problem. Seeing as there was a 12% drop from one week to the next though it could be a case that the meta is playing catch up right now. I think two weeks of data might not be enough to tell long term implications of the Marines.

You missed it because you're too busy desperately wracking your brain for yet more excuses as to why your toys aren't broken and this is all my imagination.

It is a problem. The 12% drop was certainly due to the fact that IH have had their comeuppance.

There is a lot more than 2 weeks of data to back all of this up. This has been the case since the UM and WS supplements dropped.

Anyway, we're done here. Your repeated ignorance and now snarky, desperate attempt to act like this data is bogus proves where you're at, I think.

Looks like you were too busy trying to insult me again to see my edit: I don't actually have fun playing with broken armies. I love me a good fluffy list, not some steam roller. The fact you're projecting that play style on me is rather insulting and shows a lack of good faith for anyone on the opposite side of you.

And then there's the fact you're ignoring my concession that there could be a problem, but since there was a downward trend here I'm not sure if it's a long term problem, instead of just a short term one.

Let's see what the 1.5 updates from PA and the updates from CA do the game before we decry the game as completely broken beyond repair.

I believe that it was you who said something about salt and missing my point? Real classy, not insulting at all.

I'm not interested in your claims or your so called concession. You aren't arguing in good faith, you aren't reading my posts and you have continually strawmanned during this entire "conversation". You're literally not worth discussing with, I'm afraid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
AAE, take your neglected ork tantrum show or whatever this mess is somewhere else. It has completely derailed the discussion. Some of us keep clicking this thread in hopes of some Psychic Awakening news and rumours.

I have derailed the discussion? Read the thread Crimson.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I believe that it was you who said something about salt and missing my point? Real classy, not insulting at all.

I'm not interested in your claims or your so called concession. You aren't arguing in good faith, you aren't reading my posts and you have continually strawmanned during this entire "conversation". You're literally not worth discussing with, I'm afraid.

You were throwing insults long before I mentioned salt. It's because you were insulting me that I actually ended up missing the valid points you made which led to the salt comment.

And for someone claiming the moral high ground you've been far to quick to jump into the mud with name calling, projecting and generally acting poorly. Calling you out on any of that is hardly strawmanning, nor is it bad faith. It's calling your BS for what it is, and pointing out that the top 4 percentages alone aren't enough to make a point about if something is actually broken or not.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I believe that it was you who said something about salt and missing my point? Real classy, not insulting at all.

I'm not interested in your claims or your so called concession. You aren't arguing in good faith, you aren't reading my posts and you have continually strawmanned during this entire "conversation". You're literally not worth discussing with, I'm afraid.

You were throwing insults long before I mentioned salt. It's because you were insulting me that I actually ended up missing the valid points you made which led to the salt comment.

And for someone claiming the moral high ground you've been far to quick to jump into the mud with name calling, projecting and generally acting poorly. Calling you out on any of that is hardly strawmanning, nor is it bad faith. It's calling your BS for what it is, and pointing out that the top 4 percentages alone aren't enough to make a point about if something is actually broken or not.

The beauty about discussing something in a forum is that we can literally go back through my posts and see that I have not insulted you at all. If you feel that I have, however, you can always use the report function to notify a moderator of the offending post.

Let's end the discussion around whether Marines are OP or not now, I'm amazed you disagree and am genuinely a little baffled. Either way this isn't the thread. If you'd actually like more proper information PM me and I'll send you some stuff.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I believe that it was you who said something about salt and missing my point? Real classy, not insulting at all.

I'm not interested in your claims or your so called concession. You aren't arguing in good faith, you aren't reading my posts and you have continually strawmanned during this entire "conversation". You're literally not worth discussing with, I'm afraid.

You were throwing insults long before I mentioned salt. It's because you were insulting me that I actually ended up missing the valid points you made which led to the salt comment.

And for someone claiming the moral high ground you've been far to quick to jump into the mud with name calling, projecting and generally acting poorly. Calling you out on any of that is hardly strawmanning, nor is it bad faith. It's calling your BS for what it is, and pointing out that the top 4 percentages alone aren't enough to make a point about if something is actually broken or not.

The beauty about discussing something in a forum is that we can literally go back through my posts and see that I have not insulted you at all. If you feel that I have, however, you can always use the report function to notify a moderator of the offending post.

Let's end the discussion around whether Marines are OP or not now, I'm amazed you disagree and am genuinely a little baffled. Either way this isn't the thread. If you'd actually like more proper information PM me and I'll send you some stuff.

Sorry, perhaps "provoking language" would be the better term for going all caps like Angron's twitter, or the "For clarity, because you're so desperate to defend your broken boys in yellow" claim.

Clockwork never said Marines weren't OP (and actually explicitly pointed out that they well might be), just that your methodology is flawed. Which it is.