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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Marines are players now - they need some fixes and they are gonna get them.

Hope you're right, currently it's bad enough I won't even put CSM on the table. SM needs some serious fixes and they appear to be ignoring their playtesters, so who knows what data they're using to make those decisions.

https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-update-october-results-and-the-socal-open/

Pre-IH fixes and post-IH fixes took them from an absurd 70%+ win percentage to a little over 60% and the average performance of almost half of the random jackholes who showed up with Marine lists was staggering.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Marines are players now - they need some fixes and they are gonna get them.

Hope you're right, currently it's bad enough I won't even put CSM on the table. SM needs some serious fixes and they appear to be ignoring their playtesters, so who knows what data they're using to make those decisions.

https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-update-october-results-and-the-socal-open/

Pre-IH fixes and post-IH fixes took them from an absurd 70%+ win percentage to a little over 60% and the average performance of almost half of the random jackholes who showed up with Marine lists was staggering.

I have heard that the new PA book is CSM/Sisters/And Guard. I think we are getting Fuilgrim too. CSM need a love bump. Like at the very least they need the +1 attack in the first round that all loyalist got. Then they also need something to be comparable to doctrines - perhaps with more of a CC focus. I think they will get custom traits at the very least.

They already got the extra attack, but that's a band-aid. Chaos's problem has never been damage output in melee.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So, yea, Twinpole. I'm going to wait for more tournaments.

Yes, apparently an endless number of them. Someday the data will support your cognitive bias!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Time to pick a lane, guys.

Keep cherrypicking Daed, don't look at the data trends, the complicated answer is clearly the right one! GW couldn't have screwed things up as bad as the data suggests!

Ah, yes, the age old ponderous analysis as opposed to opinions based on raw figures that don't consider mirror matches, lists, the sheer quantity of marines, or anything else. That's cherry picking alright. Maybe I should go find the DE list that took 9 Venoms, Kabs, and Wyches as an impeachment against nuMarines? Would that make you happy?

Those poor top 25 Eldar who only had a 83% win rate against unbeatable nuMarines. If Eldar are not broken what does that make nuMarines? Or does that make Eldar broken?

The #1 (T'au) went 4 for 4 against numarines with really WIDE margins (up to 23 points) - he even scored +18 against Nanavanti's IH. The T'au at #6 lost to the #3 list which was BA, DW, and some RG Successors - no Eliminators and 5 Cents (maybe, *gasp* turning overwatch off).

So, if:

T'au > nuMarines and
Eldar > nuMarines and
nuMarines > Chaos, Necrons, Orks, IG, Knights

That means nuMarines > everything! Case closed. By looking at one number for the percentage of wins for the whole field we can clearly see exactly why marines are doing so well. Let's just gnash our teeth and provide absolutely no in-depth feedback.

Then again I'm just a white knight and you're not a troll.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Marines are players now - they need some fixes and they are gonna get them.

Hope you're right, currently it's bad enough I won't even put CSM on the table. SM needs some serious fixes and they appear to be ignoring their playtesters, so who knows what data they're using to make those decisions.

https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-update-october-results-and-the-socal-open/

Pre-IH fixes and post-IH fixes took them from an absurd 70%+ win percentage to a little over 60% and the average performance of almost half of the random jackholes who showed up with Marine lists was staggering.

I have heard that the new PA book is CSM/Sisters/And Guard. I think we are getting Fuilgrim too. CSM need a love bump. Like at the very least they need the +1 attack in the first round that all loyalist got. Then they also need something to be comparable to doctrines - perhaps with more of a CC focus. I think they will get custom traits at the very least.

CSM already got their own version of SA in the errata. The next PA book has been announced to be BT vs CSM. With rules for six of the legions.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/02/new-reveals-chaos-sororitas-tanks-and-moregw-homepage-post-1/

Very nice.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I have heard that the new PA book is CSM/Sisters/And Guard. I think we are getting Fuilgrim too. CSM need a love bump. Like at the very least they need the +1 attack in the first round that all loyalist got. Then they also need something to be comparable to doctrines - perhaps with more of a CC focus. I think they will get custom traits at the very least.

Where did you hear Fulgrim? GW showed the sorcerer and hinted a BA character for PA3. No Fulgrim.

They stated "supplement-tier", but that doesn't necessarily mean doctrines. The supplements were a couple data sheets, strats, relics, traits, and spells. I'd be a little surprised if we got spells or doctrines. Custom legions would be in the "core" book, which we don't have so we probably won't see those, either.

Isn't Phoenix rising supposed to just be a glorified lore book?

Emperors children are mentioned in the above article. Fulgrim has been hinted all edition. Now is the time. We already know the new BA unit is mephy prime.

Yeah, no Fulgrim (or Angron) yet. Must admit I'm surprised about that, would have expected a Primarch every year.
Getting updates in Psychic awakening doesn't stop GW from putting out an EC or WE codex in 1 year or even less.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Emperors children are mentioned in the above article. Fulgrim has been hinted all edition. Now is the time. We already know the new BA unit is mephy prime.

Still just wishful thinking. I'd prep for disappointment on a number of areas with PA2.

EC need a whole bunch of new stuff and it just won't see the light of day yet. The Bezerker kit is really silly looking these days, too.

If GW releases a new primarch with PA at all it would be in the last book of the series.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
If GW releases a new primarch with PA at all it would be in the last book of the series.

Yea, good point, but then I imagine it'd be Angron with WE in that book. Do we know how many of these there are going to be?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yeah, no Fulgrim (or Angron) yet. Must admit I'm surprised about that, would have expected a Primarch every year.
Getting updates in Psychic awakening doesn't stop GW from putting out an EC or WE codex in 1 year or even less.

I’m betting that was the plan when Kirby was in charge, but I suspect Roundtree put the ix-nay on doing that, as I have also suspected he was the one who changed direction from Primaris being an outright replacement to a “supplement and if they take, eventually replace” outlook on marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Emperors children are mentioned in the above article. Fulgrim has been hinted all edition. Now is the time. We already know the new BA unit is mephy prime.

This isnt remotely going to happen, and Newphiston isnt coming until Book 3, which is BA vs. Nids.

For those playing at home, the "included in the article above" is a single mention in the list of Legions being given additional rules with PA2. Basing the appearance of Fulgrim on that is roughly equivalent to saying that Lorgar, Perturabo, Alpharius and Angron are also coming.

Hint: they aint.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ah, yes, the age old ponderous analysis as opposed to opinions based on raw figures that don't consider mirror matches, lists, the sheer quantity of marines, or anything else.

Yes, that is cherry picking data specifically to support your narrative. The data is out there and it's pretty damning. You're literally digging for ANY excuse to say that everything is fine.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then again I'm just a white knight and you're not a troll.

I do love my bridges, and you ride to GWs defense at every step, so perhaps you're on to something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Emperors children are mentioned in the above article. Fulgrim has been hinted all edition. Now is the time. We already know the new BA unit is mephy prime.

That's definitely not happening, also, it would create a horrible situation with EC either up to current marine standards and vastly superior to every other CSM possibility out there or it wouldn't and would utterly fail to move the needle in any meaningful way.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ah, yes, the age old ponderous analysis as opposed to opinions based on raw figures that don't consider mirror matches, lists, the sheer quantity of marines, or anything else.

Yes, that is cherry picking data specifically to support your narrative. The data is out there and it's pretty damning. You're literally digging for ANY excuse to say that everything is fine.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then again I'm just a white knight and you're not a troll.

I do love my bridges, and you ride to GWs defense at every step, so perhaps you're on to something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Emperors children are mentioned in the above article. Fulgrim has been hinted all edition. Now is the time. We already know the new BA unit is mephy prime.

That's definitely not happening, also, it would create a horrible situation with EC either up to current marine standards and vastly superior to every other CSM possibility out there or it wouldn't and would utterly fail to move the needle in any meaningful way.

Don't forget this is GW...We literally have no idea if 9th edition is going to drop any month now and internal balance is the last thing on their minds. It is entirely possible that all 6 of these chaos legions that are getting updated will be miles ahead of all other CSM armies. Fulgrim is just being wishful but this is the psychic awakening....I'd really expect some new psykers.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:


Yes, that is cherry picking data specifically to support your narrative. The data is out there and it's pretty damning. You're literally digging for ANY excuse to say that everything is fine.

Excellent. Since you're so certain that you have a clear picture could give me the win rates of IH against each other faction? Or do you have just that one number?

You know what they say about statistics.

I do love my bridges, and you ride to GWs defense at every step, so perhaps you're on to something.

You're so sadly wrong about that, but don't let me ruin your narrative. I guess i'll refrain from having an opinion and asking questions on a forum just so I don't offend your hate boner.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I have heard that the new PA book is CSM/Sisters/And Guard. I think we are getting Fuilgrim too. CSM need a love bump. Like at the very least they need the +1 attack in the first round that all loyalist got. Then they also need something to be comparable to doctrines - perhaps with more of a CC focus. I think they will get custom traits at the very least.

Oddly, despite what looked like a teaser with the fleur de lis in it, and being a book named Faith and Fury, their list of included factions did not include us. On the upside, since they did say we would get something out of PA, that implies that that something isn't "plastic models and a codex", which is good for us IMO.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Excellent. Since you're so certain that you have a clear picture could give me the win rates of IH against each other faction? Or do you have just that one number?

So you're saying as long as a single faction has a good win % against SM everything is fine? Is that the position you're staking out? Because you're specifically pointing out such a small sub-section of matches against such a specific set of opponents it is the very definition of cherry-picking. By the way, thanks for admitting you didn't actually read the analysis. There's a touch more than one number in there.

But you got me, I'm going to dig through BCP and do the spreadsheet work for you. After all, you're already on top of finding the matches that support what you want to believe, please continue the meticulous curation of your environment.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're so sadly wrong about that, but don't let me ruin your narrative. I guess i'll refrain from having an opinion and asking questions on a forum just so I don't offend your hate boner.

Daed, you've done nothing but defend GW in every thread on this board lately. It's ok to say they fethed up, the data support that conclusion, the anecdotal evidence supports that conclusion. It doesn't make you a bad person.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Excellent. Since you're so certain that you have a clear picture could give me the win rates of IH against each other faction? Or do you have just that one number?

So you're saying as long as a single faction has a good win % against SM everything is fine? Is that the position you're staking out? Because you're specifically pointing out such a small sub-section of matches against such a specific set of opponents it is the very definition of cherry-picking. By the way, thanks for admitting you didn't actually read the analysis. There's a touch more than one number in there.

But you got me, I'm going to dig through BCP and do the spreadsheet work for you. After all, you're already on top of finding the matches that support what you want to believe, please continue the meticulous curation of your environment.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're so sadly wrong about that, but don't let me ruin your narrative. I guess i'll refrain from having an opinion and asking questions on a forum just so I don't offend your hate boner.

Daed, you've done nothing but defend GW in every thread on this board lately. It's ok to say they fethed up, the data support that conclusion, the anecdotal evidence supports that conclusion. It doesn't make you a bad person.

Just because my criticisms are worded as a direct attacking against GW or do not focus on the same areas as you doesn't mean they aren't criticisms. And just because I ask questions doesn't mean I'm white knighting for GW.

I'll leave these here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/781804/10612110.page#10612110
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/781823/10611349.page#10611349
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/781736/10609910.page#10609910
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/781553/10608957.page#10608957
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/781553/10608776.page#10608776
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/781553/10607881.page#10607881
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/781553/10607414.page#10607414


Automatically Appended Next Post:

There's a touch more than one number in there.

There is nothing in that analysis other than directional data. AA are an easier army to play meaning even lower tables will win more. There are far more considerations to be made other than a high level analysis. Absolutely NONE of that data addresses the opponents of those armies.

You can call my research cherry picking, but I went down the line and looked at all the results for the players involved. I'm not going to bother with the guy in 80th place that took a terrible list.

Maybe its white knighting - but my view is that the Marine books have opened a lot of design space in the roster, and it will take time to settle down. Ignoring whether this is overpowered or not - its certainly "fun". My whinge about PA - imo anyway - is that this hasn't happened with all flavours of Eldar. The design space is all largely the same - I guess with the possible exception of the Ynnari characters floating into soup.

I'm not convinced at all by this "cents are great now omg" take that seems to be sweeping certain parts of the internet - because yeah, from a theoryhammer perspective, I think Eldar and Tau should have a reasonable shot at dealing with them - and Eldar and Tau are in a pretty good spot anyway. Maybe they are however the best Marine units for dealing with Eldar and Tau - although... I don't see it immediately.

At the same time yes, I am a bit concerned they are going to appear all over the tables of my FLGS and eat my unoptimised DE and CSM lists for breakfast. But such is life.

Tyel wrote:
- but my view is that the Marine books have opened a lot of design space in the roster,

Thank you for putting into words what has been in my head. I've had to read every inch of those books multiple times for the app and I kept thinking how much I enjoyed how things were set up.

There is a lot of opportunity to open up all the other armies if GW would only move on it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There is nothing in that analysis other than directional data. AA are an easier army to play meaning even lower tables will win more. There are far more considerations to be made other than a high level analysis. Absolutely NONE of that data addresses the opponents of those armies.

So toss the data that doesn't agree with your premise? Brilliant! As stated before, you've decided that if one faction can succeed all must be well, it's like you've designed your premise to be supported by cherry picked data.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can call my research cherry picking, but I went down the line and looked at all the results for the players involved. I'm not going to bother with the guy in 80th place that took a terrible list.

You literally pulled less than 5 examples out of THOUSANDS, it's like you just learned cherry picking and decided to use the Feynman technique to demonstrate mastery! Well done!

I agree with OP.

PA really only adds exarch abilities and fluff to matched play.

The make your own craftworld/Kabal/cult/coven are all broken in a bad way and in no way are on par with similar SM rules.

In SM rules you can do the make your own chapter you still can get access to stratagems, relics(cost cp), psychic powers, warlord traits, etc.

If you do the same as asuryani you get none of those. The traits themselves while interesting are not better enough than the codex traits to lose those options. Who is going to make up Kabal traits to lose out on black heart warlord/stratagem/relic. No one that is playing competitively.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
- but my view is that the Marine books have opened a lot of design space in the roster,

Thank you for putting into words what has been in my head. I've had to read every inch of those books multiple times for the app and I kept thinking how much I enjoyed how things were set up.

There is a lot of opportunity to open up all the other armies if GW would only move on it.

Well it would lead to a lot more customizability and variability, which would probably help some rather monotonus armies out.

Otoh if GW feths it up like they did with ih then i belive it would be worse in a way.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I have heard that the new PA book is CSM/Sisters/And Guard. I think we are getting Fuilgrim too. CSM need a love bump. Like at the very least they need the +1 attack in the first round that all loyalist got. Then they also need something to be comparable to doctrines - perhaps with more of a CC focus. I think they will get custom traits at the very least.

Oddly, despite what looked like a teaser with the fleur de lis in it, and being a book named Faith and Fury, their list of included factions did not include us. On the upside, since they did say we would get something out of PA, that implies that that something isn't "plastic models and a codex", which is good for us IMO.

would you really want to get something for sisters this early? anything sisters get in PA is proably content that was cut from the codex to toss in another book. if stuff like PA is "DLC" sisters content in PA2 would be day 1 DLC

How is that any different to Salamanders and White Scars who have literally just had a shiny new supplement book but now feature in PA2 apparently?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There is nothing in that analysis other than directional data. AA are an easier army to play meaning even lower tables will win more. There are far more considerations to be made other than a high level analysis. Absolutely NONE of that data addresses the opponents of those armies.

So toss the data that doesn't agree with your premise? Brilliant! As stated before, you've decided that if one faction can succeed all must be well, it's like you've designed your premise to be supported by cherry picked data.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can call my research cherry picking, but I went down the line and looked at all the results for the players involved. I'm not going to bother with the guy in 80th place that took a terrible list.

You literally pulled less than 5 examples out of THOUSANDS, it's like you just learned cherry picking and decided to use the Feynman technique to demonstrate mastery! Well done!

I hope you dont work with data...

Look at this info they presented:

For 1 or 2-loss SM armies (40 total)
48.5% of losses (19) came against other Marines
15% of losses (6) came against Tau
10% of losses (4) came against Knights (Imperial or Chaos)

First, this adds up to less than 75%. What's the other 25%?

How many game did they play versus T'au? If they lost 6 and played 12 that's 50%.

6 loses is a pretty small number. We know #1 beat them 4 times. #6 beat nuMarines once and lost to #3 who was 750 of RG plus DW and BA so that doesn't look to be part of their numbers.

The #24 tau with no drone spam lost once to nuMarines.
#40 tau won his one game.

7 games vs Tau. They lost 6. What does that make Tau with an 86% win rate vs nuMarines?

And saying these things is not the same as saying marines aren't strong, but asking questions and understanding the matchups helps us understand WHY they do well in some areas, but not others and derive a path that levels the tight things.

You want super docs to be once per doc? I'm all for it.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I have heard that the new PA book is CSM/Sisters/And Guard. I think we are getting Fuilgrim too. CSM need a love bump. Like at the very least they need the +1 attack in the first round that all loyalist got. Then they also need something to be comparable to doctrines - perhaps with more of a CC focus. I think they will get custom traits at the very least.

Oddly, despite what looked like a teaser with the fleur de lis in it, and being a book named Faith and Fury, their list of included factions did not include us. On the upside, since they did say we would get something out of PA, that implies that that something isn't "plastic models and a codex", which is good for us IMO.

would you really want to get something for sisters this early? anything sisters get in PA is proably content that was cut from the codex to toss in another book. if stuff like PA is "DLC" sisters content in PA2 would be day 1 DLC

It's not that anyone wanted PA content this early- the Fleur de Lis in the video teaser made us think that sisters would get something. Interestingly enough, the inclusion in the video implies that we might play a role in the fluff, even if we don't get rules. That, or GW just wanted to cross promote, or Easter egg the Sisters release.

As it turns out, we are getting bonus content in a round about way, and they may roll PA into the flavour. The Inquisition are getting their WD update this month, and as we are the chamber militant of the Hereticus, an update to them is an update to us. I'm hoping they get good rules integration into all Imperial factions, and I want synergy with chamber militant units.

To return to OP:

IMO, the first PA release did not go as far as it could have.The huge price tag and the selection of models displeased many- including ONLY the new units to shave the price down to something more reasonable would have gone a long way. I'm one of the lucky few who actually wanted and probably would have individually purchase all of the kits, so it will save me a pile of money. But I'm a real minority on this.

Having said that, I think all the new sculpts are great, and they were always some of my favourite units, so I was ecstatic. The Incubi and Banshees even have Kill Team rules, so they're perfect for me- I probably play more KT than 40k anyway. Also, I think the new rules content was a nice perk- it certainly wasn't a game changer, but the new units did get upgraded rules, and there were a few other useful things for armies as a whole.

Part of the hate comes from its proximity to the marine Codex + Supplement release which was far and away the superior upgrade. It isn't really fair to compare Phoenix Rising to the marine codex suite. Vigilus is a better comparison- especially if you only compare it to one of the books in the Vigilus Set. We don'y yet know how many PA books there will be, but I'm going to guess at least 4 and no more than 6. Comparing Phoenix Rising to the other PA books will be the fairest way to measure its success as a campaign supplement, and that we won't really be able to judge PA as a whole until we see how it ends.

and it's hard to judge Phoenix Rising without another book for comparison. If all of the factions in PA2 get relics, warlord traits, strats, etc. then it's safe to say it's going to have way more content. But maybe each faction only ends up with one of those things, or maybe some, but not all. We will know more once the next book drops.