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:
Guys, we don't need huge posts full of anecdotal evidence about 'my first few games with codex 2.0 marines against random people at my club'. I have provided links to actual evidence and statistics that show how OP codex 2.0 Marines are. These stats have been gathered over 6000 games or so.

Doritos, your post on testing is an interesting read but unfortunately I fear you have wasted your time because it is unreliable. You didn't use supplement rules I gather? You played against 3 or 4 people. Your games were 1-1.5k in size. You picked units seemingly at random. In effect you didn't reproduce the tournament/competitive environment at all and your sample size is minute. I mean you didn't even use the full ruleset for nu-Marines.

No you provided lists of a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game that skews tactics and strategy differently to the actual game and as such is irrelevant to any discussion of overall balance.(or should be at least)

Also unless you deliberately skew the statistics the marines have 57% win rate which is not that bad if you go back a few months to when elder were pulling a win rate in the high 60% mark or even further back to Knights and there high to mid 70% win rate.

Besides all 6000 games were technically not even 40k games so theres no way they can be used to balance the game, as I said you only have to look at the battle report sub forum when this circus started and it took me longer to find a IH game in which they won and that was ITC than the half dozen they lost. It maybe different now but I doubt it but honestly I don't care anymore there is nothing going to stop the whining until marines are nerfed bac into easy wins for the tournament players.

SeanDrake wrote:
a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game

This is literally the major tournament circuit

 Burnage wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
-I wanna make my own chapter. I wanna chose my chapter tactics. I want to use the most up-to-date rules and options. Do I need to buy the [insert chapter] Codex Supplement? Or just the Adeptus Astartes Codex?

If you want the most up-to-date rules and options, then yes, you need to pick a Founding Chapter and buy that Supplement. There's no such thing as a "generic" or "vanilla" Marine chapter currently.

There obviously is there's pages dedicated to them in the codex if you don't want to play a 1st founding or successor chapter then there is no need to but that's a choice not a requirement.

Yoyoyo wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game

This is literally the major tournament circuit

Yes, and them playing with their own houserules is certainly a problem as the results do not necessarily directly correlate to the proper 40K. Though a win boost this big certainly tells about something.

Yoyoyo wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game

This is literally the major tournament circuit

Who play a heavily house ruled game and still make up an insignificant percentage of the player base overall, now there a very very vocal minority but that doesn't change the fact.

If you're playing for fun, you usually balance the armies player-side.

Who are these madmen who DON'T balance 40k towards their own ends?

SeanDrake wrote:
... there is nothing going to stop the whining until marines are nerfed bac into easy wins for the tournament players.

You're not wrong.

An army that is 20% of the field and is very strong cant really have much more than a 55-60% winrate unless its completely broken. Since marines will play at the top tables more and face other marines mostly if they have good lists and good players playing them. So in the later rounds marines will get 50% winrate since they sre playing mostly marines.

IH pre nerf is the exception since they were extremely broken and IF/RG werent out yet.

Same way almost no army can get below 40% winrate since the bad armies are duking it out against each other at the bottom of the rankings getting 50% winrates against each other.

IH isnt getting their 60% winrate against DA/BA/GK etc. If they faced those list only it would probably be closer to a 90% winrate.

All the winrates pver 50% of such a popular army is a much larger problem than people seem to understand. They get that winrate despite getting lots of 50/50s against other marines. An army that is 5% of the field getting 58% is much weaker than an army that is closer to 25% of the field getting the same number.

After all. If everyone plays marines, marines will have 50% winrate in all matchups in tournaments and be balanced

Darsath wrote:
Again, anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much here. And as I've said, Space Marines having both a high play rate and a high win rate (exceeding the Ynarri non-sense earlier in the edition) is pretty concrete evidence to disprove your theory.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane.

These are 4 week periods of armies 51% or better from Feb to Aug from 40kstats.com (that's as far back as he goes).


And this is the latest 4 week period:


Here are some stand outs:

Old Ynnari: 59%
Tyranids: 66%
Harlequins: 62%
Daemons: 63%
Deathwatch: 60%
GSC: 57% (60% mono)
IK: 57%
DE: 57%
Sisters: 62%
Custodes: 57%
Thousand Sons: 57%

Compared to now:

Astartes 59% mono
Harlequins: 57%

Literally the ONLY marine faction doing better than all of these results is Iron Hands @ 65% - even IF are 56%. So attacking Astartes in general may be a bad idea.

And consider that this isn't even the height of Ynnari and Castellans.

I think you might have missed something. The play rates. You're comparing the late Knight meta, not the Ynarri meta from a year ago.

Darsath wrote:
I think you might have missed something. The play rates. You're comparing the late Knight meta, not the Ynarri meta from a year ago.

I just went and counted up the games for Ynnari players at LVO 2018.

120 games. 87 wins. 72%.

Klickor wrote:
An army that is 20% of the field and is very strong cant really have much more than a 55-60% winrate unless its completely broken. Since marines will play at the top tables more and face other marines mostly if they have good lists and good players playing them. So in the later rounds marines will get 50% winrate since they sre playing mostly marines.

IH pre nerf is the exception since they were extremely broken and IF/RG werent out yet.

Same way almost no army can get below 40% winrate since the bad armies are duking it out against each other at the bottom of the rankings getting 50% winrates against each other.

IH isnt getting their 60% winrate against DA/BA/GK etc. If they faced those list only it would probably be closer to a 90% winrate.

All the winrates pver 50% of such a popular army is a much larger problem than people seem to understand. They get that winrate despite getting lots of 50/50s against other marines. An army that is 5% of the field getting 58% is much weaker than an army that is closer to 25% of the field getting the same number.

After all. If everyone plays marines, marines will have 50% winrate in all matchups in tournaments and be balanced

This. 100 times this.

That's some interesting data.

Honestly, what I'm taking from this is that there will be some updates and something will be OP... for a short while.

GW might be selling a lot of SM tanks for a bit, and they'll adjust it. I might even laugh if it's already fixed in CA 2019.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Again, anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much here. And as I've said, Space Marines having both a high play rate and a high win rate (exceeding the Ynarri non-sense earlier in the edition) is pretty concrete evidence to disprove your theory.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane.

These are 4 week periods of armies 51% or better from Feb to Aug from 40kstats.com (that's as far back as he goes).

Spoiler:

And this is the latest 4 week period:

Spoiler:

Here are some stand outs:

Old Ynnari: 59%
Tyranids: 66%
Harlequins: 62%
Daemons: 63%
Deathwatch: 60%
GSC: 57% (60% mono)
IK: 57%
DE: 57%
Sisters: 62%
Custodes: 57%
Thousand Sons: 57%

Compared to now:

Astartes 59% mono
Harlequins: 57%

Literally the ONLY marine faction doing better than all of these results is Iron Hands @ 65% - even IF are 56%. So attacking Astartes in general may be a bad idea.

And consider that this isn't even the height of Ynnari and Castellans.

That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them

It’s a shame it’s not easier to remove the mirror matchup data on 40k stats. Because unless we’re comparing subfactions, the auto 50% win rate really confuses the data.

SeanDrake wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Guys, we don't need huge posts full of anecdotal evidence about 'my first few games with codex 2.0 marines against random people at my club'. I have provided links to actual evidence and statistics that show how OP codex 2.0 Marines are. These stats have been gathered over 6000 games or so.

Doritos, your post on testing is an interesting read but unfortunately I fear you have wasted your time because it is unreliable. You didn't use supplement rules I gather? You played against 3 or 4 people. Your games were 1-1.5k in size. You picked units seemingly at random. In effect you didn't reproduce the tournament/competitive environment at all and your sample size is minute. I mean you didn't even use the full ruleset for nu-Marines.

No you provided lists of a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game that skews tactics and strategy differently to the actual game and as such is irrelevant to any discussion of overall balance.(or should be at least)

Also unless you deliberately skew the statistics the marines have 57% win rate which is not that bad if you go back a few months to when elder were pulling a win rate in the high 60% mark or even further back to Knights and there high to mid 70% win rate.

Besides all 6000 games were technically not even 40k games so theres no way they can be used to balance the game, as I said you only have to look at the battle report sub forum when this circus started and it took me longer to find a IH game in which they won and that was ITC than the half dozen they lost. It maybe different now but I doubt it but honestly I don't care anymore there is nothing going to stop the whining until marines are nerfed bac into easy wins for the tournament players.

Wrong on so many levels.

1. The statistics I provided are for ITC, ETC and any other format a tournament would like to follow, including "standard" 40k.
2. Deliberately skew statistics? You mean show how different sub factions are performing? 57% is a broken win rate. There are other stats that confirm that the codex and supplements are broken good. TWiP. First loss. Points for and against. Neither IK nor Ynnari had a "high 60% or mid 70%" win rate. That is an entirely made up fantasy. Their win rates were both around 60% too.
3. Again. Those 6000 games are from all manner of tournaments using all manner of different rule sets. Your Battle Report sub-forum is not useful data.

I hope that helps?

SeanDrake wrote:


That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them

Well, be careful. There are a lot of factors to these issues. Marines are likely super strong, because they're easily accessible. Ynnari took some coordination to play and Castellans could be subject to bad rolls.

Marines need toning down, but it matters which pieces of it. It disturbs me quite a bit that people are talking about bolt rifle intercessors like they haven't been in their current state since January.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:


That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them

Well, be careful. There are a lot of factors to these issues. Marines are likely super strong, because they're easily accessible. Ynnari took some coordination to play and Castellans could be subject to bad rolls.

Marines need toning down, but it matters which pieces of it. It disturbs me quite a bit that people are talking about bolt rifle intercessors like they haven't been in their current state since January.

There was a guy on here that said people got too complacent with marines being an easy win. I genuinely think that theory holds water

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:


That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them

Well, be careful. There are a lot of factors to these issues. Marines are likely super strong, because they're easily accessible. Ynnari took some coordination to play and Castellans could be subject to bad rolls.

Marines need toning down, but it matters which pieces of it. It disturbs me quite a bit that people are talking about bolt rifle intercessors like they haven't been in their current state since January.

It's probably important to run discussions of Marines through a mental filter of "non-Marine players are probably going to make mistakes about the names of Primaris units" - without double checking I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a Bolt Rifle, Auto Bolt Rifle and Stalker Bolt Rifle. I think it's the Stalker version that's become quite a bit scarier recently thanks to Doctrines and some of the Chapter tactics.

 fraser1191 wrote:
There was a guy on here that said people got too complacent with marines being an easy win. I genuinely think that theory holds water

For years a lot of competitive tournament players have gloated about how easy it is for their army to crush space marines.

Suddenly it's not so easy and we're in a crisis.

This is, quite honestly, absolutely hilarious to me.

Who here can honestly say that their local scene where they regularely play got overtaken and destroyed by Marines? At least nobody caring enough to join the conversation so far has stated it. There is nobody saying "I'm a hardcore tournament player and Marines honestly killed the fun for me there" either.

The whole discussion wether Marines are OP and if so, how OP they are compared to OP armies in the past seems very academic to me. We can talk about percentages for another 7 pages, but if nobody is actually feeling these numbers on their day to day (game) life, why are we complaining about it in the first place?

I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.

If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.

All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Who here can honestly say that their local scene where they regularely play got overtaken and destroyed by Marines? At least nobody caring enough to join the conversation so far has stated it. There is nobody saying "I'm a hardcore tournament player and Marines honestly killed the fun for me there" either.

The whole discussion wether Marines are OP and if so, how OP they are compared to OP armies in the past seems very academic to me. We can talk about percentages for another 7 pages, but if nobody is actually feeling these numbers on their day to day (game) life, why are we complaining about it in the first place?

That is just blatant missrepresantaion of the points made


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tulun wrote:
I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.

If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.

All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.

This, you can feel some power discrepancies in casual,but only the extreme ones are realized in a laid back environment of the game.
Otoh i'd say ih have reached that Position as have raven guard against more charachter centric factions.

tulun wrote:
I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.

If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.

All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.

This is also true of many of the most broken factions Games Workshop have released in the past 10 years or so. Even a mess of game balance could still be balanced out in casual games. It's pick-up games where you'll see the biggest issues, and where balance issues feel the worst. Competitive players aren't actually the worst affected, since chasing the meta, and dealing with overpowered units/weps is expected there.

tulun wrote:
I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.

If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.

All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.

I think the issue is the opposite. It is easy for a casual player to be oppressive with marines, which drives the perception even more.

Tbf sm are also more of a point and Click faction then f.e. gsc.
Skillceilling and such.

 Burnage wrote:


It's probably important to run discussions of Marines through a mental filter of "non-Marine players are probably going to make mistakes about the names of Primaris units" - without double checking I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a Bolt Rifle, Auto Bolt Rifle and Stalker Bolt Rifle. I think it's the Stalker version that's become quite a bit scarier recently thanks to Doctrines and some of the Chapter tactics.

But then it makes it problematic for them to discuss what makes marines OP when they don't understand the units or the history.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
... there is nothing going to stop the whining until marines are nerfed bac into easy wins for the tournament players.

You're not wrong.

But literally no one is saying "nerf mehreens so the armies that never see releases always win!!!!1one"
People are just saying that mehrons should be balanced and not a broken pile of gak.

It really isn't that hard to understand, get this victim complex out of your psyche.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf sm are also more of a point and Click faction then f.e. gsc.
Skillceilling and such.

A problem of 8e's design, if everything's a glass cannon the cannon with the longest range and most glass always wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Wrong on so many levels.

1. The statistics I provided are for ITC, ETC and any other format a tournament would like to follow, including "standard" 40k.
2. Deliberately skew statistics? You mean show how different sub factions are performing? 57% is a broken win rate. There are other stats that confirm that the codex and supplements are broken good. TWiP. First loss. Points for and against. Neither IK nor Ynnari had a "high 60% or mid 70%" win rate. That is an entirely made up fantasy. Their win rates were both around 60% too.
3. Again. Those 6000 games are from all manner of tournaments using all manner of different rule sets. Your Battle Report sub-forum is not useful data.

I hope that helps?

Evidence and data wont work if people don't want to read evidence and data.

Meh, then tau would still have a field day .

The issue for gsc seems more with how they can get denied now.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
There was a guy on here that said people got too complacent with marines being an easy win. I genuinely think that theory holds water

For years a lot of competitive tournament players have gloated about how easy it is for their army to crush space marines.

Suddenly it's not so easy and we're in a crisis.

This is, quite honestly, absolutely hilarious to me.

I too find it funny, mostly because all the "how to fix marines" threads did a 180, not to mention all the well marines have X so we should have X, but that'll never go away