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.
2020/01/03 14:37:21
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
First with the all data. It is really surprising that Eldar since Nov have a higher win-rate than space marines. They were the 4rd most played (Just behind IK with 113) army as well with 111 lists with a 56.99% WR. Ad mech is also pretty impressive with 55.9% WR with 88 lists. Adept Astartes 56.47% with 324 lists. So I do find that REALLY interesting. Ofc there are lots of non quality space marine lists out there bringing down that average - so we take a look at the top 10 data.
For Adept Astartes we have 101 quality top 10 lists for 31.2% of all marine lists. 81.9% WR For Eldar we have 34 quality lists with 30.6% of all eldar lists. 80.2% WR For Ad mech its pretty disappointing with only 21 quality lists - 23% of all ad mech lists. with a 75% win rate. A player but maybe not really a top player.
Since chapter approved it also seems that space marines are roughly 22% of lists and 28% of the top of the feild with the 4th best win rate. To be fair though they have the most quality WR lists.
All this data includes all space marine factions. Including ironhands which have roughly a 10% higher winrate than all other space marine factions. Looking at the sub-faction results. I wish the system gave me the option to compare sub-factions against the whole feild but it ether doesn't or I am too dumb to figure it out.
From this limited data though. What conclusions can we draw? Obviously they are the most popular choice and they get a lot of top placing but in terms of win rate they are near the top in every category. However from Blood of kittens we can surmise that the majority of these top space marine lists are Ironhands. We also see the sub-faction winrate hovering around 10% higher than other space marine factions. Still it seems even with the Ironhand faction being so dominant other top armies are able to compete and win events. The reality is that space marines are by far the most popular army in the game and when they are strong people will place them excessively.
If you were GW...how would you handle this problem? These is a massive distaste for the state of competitive play right now due to the prevalence of marines.I would say from looking at the data that most of this distastes is not entirely grounded in fact but a fair amount is personal bias against marines - they are certainly top tier but they aren't invaliding the rest of the field. Plus with the spicy peice of data that Ironhands are a clear outlier in power I think the solution is easy. Nerf Iron-hands with an instant hotfix and watch the data for the next few months.
I'd probably just remove the ignore hit penalties bonus from the ironahnds super doctrine. The can do something more reasonable like...reroll 1's with heavy weapons in the dev doctrine...
I would appreciate everyone constructive thoughts here. Thanks
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 14:38:45
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 14:47:36
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Crimson wrote: Well, first there would need to be data that is not corrupted by ITC houserules.
You can exclude ITC from the results but most of this data is ITC. I'd rather look at the larger data set. From the quick data I looked at - marines actually perform better in ITC environment anyways so the data is still useful even if you don't like ITC rules.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 14:55:16
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I live on the north pole so ITC or any competitive format for that matter is never gonna happen for me, but I'm not concerned about Marines, my mobile Tau which has 0 Riptides do well against all those copypasta lists right now.
Eldar are much closer and I'm going like 50/50 give or take a few % against them.
Dark Eldar are actually stronger against me than CWE. But I can live with that, given my army is so different it's bound to have an off-the-grid weakness
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 14:56:30
2020/01/03 14:55:39
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There is. 40kstats collects data from a bunch of different rulesets, not just ITC.
Correct. They have 2198 total lists collected since nov 2. Of that 1658 are ITC. 75% of all lists are ITC. So the most meaningful data is going to be ITC data.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoftyS wrote: I live on the north pole so ITC or any competitive format for that matter is never gonna happen for me, but I'm not concerned about Marines, my mobile Tau which has 0 Riptides do well against all those copypasta lists right now.
Eldar are much closer and I'm going like 50/50 give or take a few % against them.
Dark Eldar are actually stronger against me than CWE.
There are a few DE players doing really ATM. They are great vs marines. ESP with flayed skull. I dabble in DE. I've never actually lost a game with them this edition but the sample size is small.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 14:57:49
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 15:03:06
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
The Eldar being OP is due basically one thing that GW refuses to fix, the Alaitoc trait. Hit penalty traits should just not exist, they feth up the maths so badly that balancing them is pretty impossible. If removing this makes Eldar too weak, they can receive other buffs that benefit all of their subfactions.
And yeah, IH are still best marine faction. Big surprise. With them the fix is less obvious, as their power is due combination of a ton of different rules. One moderate fix would change the Calculated Fury so that you don't get both boni at once. So ignore move penalties or roll ones if you remained stationary.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Perhaps remove the Iron Hands Calculated Fury ability from models with the Fly keyword?
That would fix some issues but not all. I just think ignore hit penalties on turn 1 is far too strong when you can stack around the -1 AP bonus from dev doctrine.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 15:06:29
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
40kstats has no data concerning CA format, at least it didn't the last time i checked it.
In any case you can join this result with the GT results and what you get is that:
1) Iron hands are dominating ITC
2) Imperial fists are dominating CA 3) Other marines are good but we suffered worse times in the castellan/ynnary era.
What is going to happen is that those 2 chapters will see some kind of adjustment. Imperial fists in particular since they had a too good showing in the GT and GW needs to show a reaction to the community.
Other chapters will be mostly untouched for a while and then the next FAQ round or CA2020 will increase the cost on the TFC.
2020/01/03 15:07:08
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Crimson wrote: The Eldar being OP is due basically one thing that GW refuses to fix, the Alaitoc trait. Hit penalty traits should just not exist, they feth up the maths so badly that balancing them is pretty impossible. If removing this makes Eldar too weak, they can receive other buffs that benefit all of their subfactions.
And yeah, IH are still best marine faction. Big surprise. With them the fix is less obvious, as their power is due combination of a ton of different rules. One moderate fix would change the Calculated Fury so that you don't get both boni at once. So ignore move penalties or roll ones if you remained stationary.
Marines have made aliotoc useless though that was true a while back but not anymore. The majority of eldar armies that place well are using custom traits. With expert crafters/ignore cover/-1 AP on shurikens/always counts in cover being the popular choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: 40kstats has no data concerning CA format, at least it didn't the last time i checked it.
In any case you can join this result with the GT results and what you get is that:
1) Iron hands are dominating ITC
2) Imperial fists are dominating CA 3) Other marines are good but we suffered worse times in the castellan/ynnary era.
What is going to happen is that those 2 chapters will see some kind of adjustment. Imperial fists in particular since they had a too good showing in the GT and GW needs to show a reaction to the community.
Other chapters will be mostly untouched for a while and then the next FAQ round or CA2020 will increase the cost on the TFC.
It is clear to me that IF are also too strong but from the data I am looking at Custom trait eldar actually have a higher win rate - it probably is true though that a lot of Ironhands players would just play IF and do nearly as well but I have no data to support nerfing them from ITC data. Just from experience though it is clear whoever wrote their rules had no idea how powerful the combination of offensive free upgrades would be for a marine army for IF.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/03 15:16:03
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 15:24:15
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
LoftyS wrote: I live on the north pole so ITC or any competitive format for that matter is never gonna happen for me, but I'm not concerned about Marines, my mobile Tau which has 0 Riptides do well against all those copypasta lists right now.
It wasn't clear from looking at the site, but does this data control for mirror matches? If SM are the most popular they will face each other more often and the result of any mirror match will always be a 50% win rate. If you don't control for that variable (or at least publish the data with it taken out of the equation) you won't get a fully accurate view of the power level of the armies. For example, SM could be hugely more powerful than everyone else but if they rarely play against anything but other SM their win % numbers aren't that meaningful.
2020/01/03 15:32:38
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 15:37:44
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
When you compare the All and Top lists it gets very interesting.
ITC DATA ONLY
First with the all data. It is really surprising that Eldar since Nov have a higher win-rate than space marines. They were the 4rd most played (Just behind IK with 113) army as well with 111 lists with a 56.99% WR. Ad mech is also pretty impressive with 55.9% WR with 88 lists. Adept Astartes 56.47% with 324 lists. So I do find that REALLY interesting. Ofc there are lots of non quality space marine lists out there bringing down that average - so we take a look at the top 10 data.
For Adept Astartes we have 101 quality top 10 lists for 31.2% of all marine lists. 81.9% WR For Eldar we have 34 quality lists with 30.6% of all eldar lists. 80.2% WR For Ad mech its pretty disappointing with only 21 quality lists - 23% of all ad mech lists. with a 75% win rate. A player but maybe not really a top player.
Since chapter approved it also seems that space marines are roughly 22% of lists and 28% of the top of the feild with the 4th best win rate. To be fair though they have the most quality WR lists.
All this data includes all space marine factions. Including ironhands which have roughly a 10% higher winrate than all other space marine factions. Looking at the sub-faction results. I wish the system gave me the option to compare sub-factions against the whole feild but it ether doesn't or I am too dumb to figure it out.
From this limited data though. What conclusions can we draw? Obviously they are the most popular choice and they get a lot of top placing but in terms of win rate they are near the top in every category. However from Blood of kittens we can surmise that the majority of these top space marine lists are Ironhands. We also see the sub-faction winrate hovering around 10% higher than other space marine factions. Still it seems even with the Ironhand faction being so dominant other top armies are able to compete and win events. The reality is that space marines are by far the most popular army in the game and when they are strong people will place them excessively.
If you were GW...how would you handle this problem? These is a massive distaste for the state of competitive play right now due to the prevalence of marines.I would say from looking at the data that most of this distastes is not entirely grounded in fact but a fair amount is personal bias against marines - they are certainly top tier but they aren't invaliding the rest of the field. Plus with the spicy peice of data that Ironhands are a clear outlier in power I think the solution is easy. Nerf Iron-hands with an instant hotfix and watch the data for the next few months.
I'd probably just remove the ignore hit penalties bonus from the ironahnds super doctrine. The can do something more reasonable like...reroll 1's with heavy weapons in the dev doctrine...
I would appreciate everyone constructive thoughts here. Thanks
The Ignore Penalties to Hit portion of the IH doctrine is not the problem, though removing it WOULD make them lose ground against Drukhari and Asuryani lists that spam those. However, most factions don't actually have a way to spam penalties to hit, only really the three eldar factions, and honestly, only really Asuryani with Alaitoc and Flyers.
Custom Craftworld Traits and Aspect Shrines definitely gave craftworlds a big competitive boost, and the tau countermeta list with riptides is doing quite well.
What we're seeing here is a meta defined by mono-marines using doctrines, and a field where every other army that is successful is successful because they have a good winrate against marines.
The solution is the same solution that existed when some 30-40% of lists were following the Castellan+soup formula: Nerf super-doctrines like House Raven Castellans were nerfed.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/01/03 15:48:24
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Brave thread Xeno, this will probably get drowned in anti-marine vitriol but you're making sound points about relevant topics. Ofc a larger sample would be nice as you say but it'll be interesting to see how much of the anti-marine attitude is justified over the next 2 months while CA settles in.
2020/01/03 15:48:24
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2020/01/03 15:51:41
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Like all things that get too popular in the competative scene, things will shift through.
1) Non marine players making counter marine lists.
2) New rules and units being particularly good at taking down marines. (More high AP 2 dmg weapons or more invul saves).
3) FAQ and CA marine nerfs.
Like others have said there's been periods of difficult times to play competitive 40k, like the era of the castellan or guard gunlines. In one way it's annoying that things shift so vastly but also keeps things fresh.
2020/01/03 15:56:46
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
When you compare the All and Top lists it gets very interesting.
ITC DATA ONLY
First with the all data. It is really surprising that Eldar since Nov have a higher win-rate than space marines. They were the 4rd most played (Just behind IK with 113) army as well with 111 lists with a 56.99% WR. Ad mech is also pretty impressive with 55.9% WR with 88 lists. Adept Astartes 56.47% with 324 lists. So I do find that REALLY interesting. Ofc there are lots of non quality space marine lists out there bringing down that average - so we take a look at the top 10 data.
For Adept Astartes we have 101 quality top 10 lists for 31.2% of all marine lists. 81.9% WR For Eldar we have 34 quality lists with 30.6% of all eldar lists. 80.2% WR For Ad mech its pretty disappointing with only 21 quality lists - 23% of all ad mech lists. with a 75% win rate. A player but maybe not really a top player.
Since chapter approved it also seems that space marines are roughly 22% of lists and 28% of the top of the feild with the 4th best win rate. To be fair though they have the most quality WR lists.
All this data includes all space marine factions. Including ironhands which have roughly a 10% higher winrate than all other space marine factions. Looking at the sub-faction results. I wish the system gave me the option to compare sub-factions against the whole feild but it ether doesn't or I am too dumb to figure it out.
From this limited data though. What conclusions can we draw? Obviously they are the most popular choice and they get a lot of top placing but in terms of win rate they are near the top in every category. However from Blood of kittens we can surmise that the majority of these top space marine lists are Ironhands. We also see the sub-faction winrate hovering around 10% higher than other space marine factions. Still it seems even with the Ironhand faction being so dominant other top armies are able to compete and win events. The reality is that space marines are by far the most popular army in the game and when they are strong people will place them excessively.
If you were GW...how would you handle this problem? These is a massive distaste for the state of competitive play right now due to the prevalence of marines.I would say from looking at the data that most of this distastes is not entirely grounded in fact but a fair amount is personal bias against marines - they are certainly top tier but they aren't invaliding the rest of the field. Plus with the spicy peice of data that Ironhands are a clear outlier in power I think the solution is easy. Nerf Iron-hands with an instant hotfix and watch the data for the next few months.
I'd probably just remove the ignore hit penalties bonus from the ironahnds super doctrine. The can do something more reasonable like...reroll 1's with heavy weapons in the dev doctrine...
I would appreciate everyone constructive thoughts here. Thanks
The Ignore Penalties to Hit portion of the IH doctrine is not the problem, though removing it WOULD make them lose ground against Drukhari and Asuryani lists that spam those. However, most factions don't actually have a way to spam penalties to hit, only really the three eldar factions, and honestly, only really Asuryani with Alaitoc and Flyers.
Custom Craftworld Traits and Aspect Shrines definitely gave craftworlds a big competitive boost, and the tau countermeta list with riptides is doing quite well.
What we're seeing here is a meta defined by mono-marines using doctrines, and a field where every other army that is successful is successful because they have a good winrate against marines.
The solution is the same solution that existed when some 30-40% of lists were following the Castellan+soup formula: Nerf super-doctrines like House Raven Castellans were nerfed.
My personal opinion is that the 100 point nerf of the Castellan had a much bigger effect than the raven stratagem. Tyranis Castellans were even better IMO or at least in my experience. Tau riptide build has always done well too because drones are just silly. Tau should actually be doing worse with TFC and eliminators being as strong as they are hiding drones doesn't really work. The reason tau are doing better is because they aren't running into -3 to hit flyers that they have no chance to destroy AND because they can go toe to toe with marines because they have so much ignore cover and flat 2 damage. It takes time for the meta to adjust but I'd say we are getting there.
In regards to iron-hands I would disagree entirely that their ignore hit penalties isn't the problem. It is absolutely the problem. Also there is a strong chance that they faith and fury supplement will make marines results even better in the next month. tech marines and apoths are stupid good now and arent represented in most of this data yet. +1 to hit techmarine aura combined with IF is going to be stupid good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: It wasn't clear from looking at the site, but does this data control for mirror matches? If SM are the most popular they will face each other more often and the result of any mirror match will always be a 50% win rate. If you don't control for that variable (or at least publish the data with it taken out of the equation) you won't get a fully accurate view of the power level of the armies. For example, SM could be hugely more powerful than everyone else but if they rarely play against anything but other SM their win % numbers aren't that meaningful.
As far as I know - there is no way to control for that. However. With the given data approximately 20% of your games will be against marines. I don't think that is a very big deal as most of the list are different. It is really only the mirrors of the exact same list that skew the data. Which that is likely pretty rare.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
small_gods wrote: Like all things that get too popular in the competative scene, things will shift through.
1) Non marine players making counter marine lists.
2) New rules and units being particularly good at taking down marines. (More high AP 2 dmg weapons or more invul saves).
3) FAQ and CA marine nerfs.
Like others have said there's been periods of difficult times to play competitive 40k, like the era of the castellan or guard gunlines. In one way it's annoying that things shift so vastly but also keeps things fresh.
Realistically this is what everyone was doing already. A lot of the best weapons are flat 2 and were already being spammed. Invune saves have always been a top desired stat (that most marine units actually lack). Plus still...marines are only 1/5 of the feild so you can expect to face them approximately 1 time in a tournament. You aren't wrong but you are basically saying that the meta will adapt by doing exactly what it always does. Spam invunes to make AP useless. Spam multi damage weapons because they are good against everything.
I don't think the data really supports a nerf for anything but ironhands. In fact Eldar outperform marines right now realistically though they are the same power level. Somewhere in-between ironhands and the rest of the marine factions. Plus several other faction do well with only about 28% of all top list being marines.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/03 16:07:44
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 16:07:55
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Crimson wrote: The Eldar being OP is due basically one thing that GW refuses to fix, the Alaitoc trait.
This is incorrect. Eldar players adapted to the marine meta and have been rolling Nightspinners and Expert Crafters / Children of Prophecy / Hail of Doom.
Crimson wrote: The Eldar being OP is due basically one thing that GW refuses to fix, the Alaitoc trait.
This is incorrect. Eldar players adapted to the marine meta and have been rolling Nightspinners and Expert Crafters / Children of Prophecy / Hail of Doom.
As far as I know - there is no way to control for that. However. With the given data approximately 20% of your games will be against marines.
I can control for it. I got a hold of the raw data and punched it into a database. Give me a few and i'll try and pop something out.
Thank you this should be interesting.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 16:23:32
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I agree that the reason IH are dominating in the current competitive meta is the ignore to-hit penalties rule. If you are just looking to reduce the number of competitive lists with this subfaction nerfing that rule is a good way to do it.
Where I think that's myopic is because the only reason that rule is so impactful in the first place is because of the massive overrepresentation of the few factions that can really spam those - to hits stacked up. Drukhari with flyers and venoms, asuryani with flyers and Alaitoc, Admech with Sygies VII, and to a lesser extent some Alpha Legion with Discolords. There are huge swathes of factions and units that don't have that -to hit spam mechanic that are already shut out of the meta because of those mechanics in the first place.
Gw has been mixing up the competitive meta by sending spiders to swallow flies for so long that at this point Iron Hands with their -to hit ignore are like, the horse sent in to swallow the dog. And maybe Valorous Heart with their "ignore -2AP basically army-wide" are the elephant sent to swallow the Doctrines horse.
First we had character spam. then characters got nerfed 60 times so we had BS4+ gunline spam. We countered that with -to hit spam making those basically useless. Now we've introduced "Ignore -to hit" with a bunch of free AP so the MEQs can table the huge hordes of GEQs. And then we have sisters introduced who ignore all the free AP.
But each time one of these counters is added in instead of just fixing the problem thing, all the other factions in the game not currently being updated get shat on. Tons of free AP getting ignored by sisters doesn't help Necrons whose gak now feels like paper.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/01/03 16:26:46
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
1. Kill master artisans and stealthy. Either make them take up 2 custom chapter slots (only get master artisans or stealthy) or chapter lock them to Salies/RG.
2. Super doc or regular docs. You either get the -1 to AP or you get your super doc.
3. Kill TFCs. Another number cruncher totaled all of the TFCs in marine lists and it is among the top 5 units in the marine meta. Up the cost on the reduce moving strat and raise the cost of the thing and that should help. Could also only apply the reduce movement strat to LOS targets (cannot be used on targets outside of LOS), would at least give some counter play.
4. Kill IH. Agree with the sentiment to either ignore movement penalties or re-roll 1's with heavies. I'd rather have them re-roll 1's as it seems more thematic (but less powerful). Could do a hybrid where they ignore movement penalties on vehicles and re-roll 1's with infantry?
5. Kill raven guard cents. Remove infantry key word from these guys and things get much more reasonable.
6. Kill siege breaker cohort. All those mortal wounds are just too much. Combined with the either/or super doctrine I'm hoping this brings IF/CF back down to reasonable levels.
Wouldn't take much to do these changes. The only data sheets that would need to be touched would be the the Cents and small price adjustment to the TFC. FAQ on the strats and doctrines and we should be in a more reasonable place. I'm pretty sure elims need a second look but I'm not quite sure what to do about them outside of a points hike (cost them at 100ish points?).
I feel like these are changes that should have been erratta'd onto the CA2019. Waiting for CA2020 or april is just too long.
Anecdotally I used to play in tournaments at least once a month. Since the marine supplements came out I haven't been to one because my armies (SW, DA, DW, BA) fell sooooo far behind the power curve it was painful to see other marines being twice as good as my guys for the same cost.
I also agree that the super libby/chap/tech traits are a whole 'nuther can of worms that haven't had a chance to play out in the meta and were a mistake by GW but maybe the high CP cost of those strats will keep them in check.
2020/01/03 16:31:16
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Crimson wrote: Well, first there would need to be data that is not corrupted by ITC houserules.
People need to stop pretending ITC skews results that much. Broken units and armies are obvious regardless of format. Balance isn't all the sudden better for Dark Angels just because you're not playing ITC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: 1. Kill master artisans and stealthy. Either make them take up 2 custom chapter slots (only get master artisans or stealthy) or chapter lock them to Salies/RG.
2. Super doc or regular docs. You either get the -1 to AP or you get your super doc.
3. Kill TFCs. Another number cruncher totaled all of the TFCs in marine lists and it is among the top 5 units in the marine meta. Up the cost on the reduce moving strat and raise the cost of the thing and that should help. Could also only apply the reduce movement strat to LOS targets (cannot be used on targets outside of LOS), would at least give some counter play.
4. Kill IH. Agree with the sentiment to either ignore movement penalties or re-roll 1's with heavies. I'd rather have them re-roll 1's as it seems more thematic (but less powerful). Could do a hybrid where they ignore movement penalties on vehicles and re-roll 1's with infantry?
5. Kill raven guard cents. Remove infantry key word from these guys and things get much more reasonable.
6. Kill siege breaker cohort. All those mortal wounds are just too much. Combined with the either/or super doctrine I'm hoping this brings IF/CF back down to reasonable levels.
Wouldn't take much to do these changes. The only data sheets that would need to be touched would be the the Cents and small price adjustment to the TFC. FAQ on the strats and doctrines and we should be in a more reasonable place. I'm pretty sure elims need a second look but I'm not quite sure what to do about them outside of a points hike (cost them at 100ish points?).
I feel like these are changes that should have been erratta'd onto the CA2019. Waiting for CA2020 or april is just too long.
Anecdotally I used to play in tournaments at least once a month. Since the marine supplements came out I haven't been to one because my armies (SW, DA, DW, BA) fell sooooo far behind the power curve it was painful to see other marines being twice as good as my guys for the same cost.
I also agree that the super libby/chap/tech traits are a whole 'nuther can of worms that haven't had a chance to play out in the meta and were a mistake by GW but maybe the high CP cost of those strats will keep them in check.
Honestly I stopped reading because you said to kill Master Artisans. It's a bad trait and didn't make Salamanders good for Codex 1.0 and it isn't breaking them in Codex 2.0. No I don't care you don't like seeing it a lot either. It ain't broken, period.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 16:38:18
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/01/03 16:47:24
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Crimson wrote: Well, first there would need to be data that is not corrupted by ITC houserules.
People need to stop pretending ITC skews results that much. Broken units and armies are obvious regardless of format. Balance isn't all the sudden better for Dark Angels just because you're not playing ITC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: 1. Kill master artisans and stealthy. Either make them take up 2 custom chapter slots (only get master artisans or stealthy) or chapter lock them to Salies/RG.
2. Super doc or regular docs. You either get the -1 to AP or you get your super doc.
3. Kill TFCs. Another number cruncher totaled all of the TFCs in marine lists and it is among the top 5 units in the marine meta. Up the cost on the reduce moving strat and raise the cost of the thing and that should help. Could also only apply the reduce movement strat to LOS targets (cannot be used on targets outside of LOS), would at least give some counter play.
4. Kill IH. Agree with the sentiment to either ignore movement penalties or re-roll 1's with heavies. I'd rather have them re-roll 1's as it seems more thematic (but less powerful). Could do a hybrid where they ignore movement penalties on vehicles and re-roll 1's with infantry?
5. Kill raven guard cents. Remove infantry key word from these guys and things get much more reasonable.
6. Kill siege breaker cohort. All those mortal wounds are just too much. Combined with the either/or super doctrine I'm hoping this brings IF/CF back down to reasonable levels.
Wouldn't take much to do these changes. The only data sheets that would need to be touched would be the the Cents and small price adjustment to the TFC. FAQ on the strats and doctrines and we should be in a more reasonable place. I'm pretty sure elims need a second look but I'm not quite sure what to do about them outside of a points hike (cost them at 100ish points?).
I feel like these are changes that should have been erratta'd onto the CA2019. Waiting for CA2020 or april is just too long.
Anecdotally I used to play in tournaments at least once a month. Since the marine supplements came out I haven't been to one because my armies (SW, DA, DW, BA) fell sooooo far behind the power curve it was painful to see other marines being twice as good as my guys for the same cost.
I also agree that the super libby/chap/tech traits are a whole 'nuther can of worms that haven't had a chance to play out in the meta and were a mistake by GW but maybe the high CP cost of those strats will keep them in check.
Honestly I stopped reading because you said to kill Master Artisans. It's a bad trait and didn't make Salamanders good for Codex 1.0 and it isn't breaking them in Codex 2.0. No I don't care you don't like seeing it a lot either. It ain't broken, period.
Well eldar and marines spam it with some frequency. IT is super good on marines because LT exist. You are basically getting a gman buff for free if you take units with low numbers of quality shots like dreads. Salamanders realistically was one of the better tactics in 1.0 but the whole codex was dumpsterfire so it's not a great argument. Look at the amount of free rules and buffs marines have gotten and they still have a lower WR than eldar. LOL. Ironhands are too much and that is clear but I think I have to disagree with you about MOA. It is probably too good if the 2 best armies are using the trait. FFS ironhands give up a tripple bonus trait to get it. I agree though - ITC format is not really skewing results to a great degree.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 16:49:02
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/03 16:51:02
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Sterling191 wrote: “We still can’t beat Eldar but have two builds that should be banned because they’re too good”.
Classic.
Cherrypicked data and cognitive bias, construct your own reality!
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2020/01/03 16:59:55
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
