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.
2020/01/06 17:08:47
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
It's even worse for ultras that I though. Does this include successors? I am assuming it does. Anyway to seperate the parent chapters from their successors?
Ultramarines are curiously low. There is no separation from Successors in the data.
Sort of makes you think that GW got it right except for some silly combinations with the easiest such ones available to IH. Then the mediocre update to Eldar who clearly have strong rules already.
Ah...ok...I think I understand this weird format a little better. Hang on.
It's hard to avoid the confirmation bias here for me but It really isn't surprising to see Ultras that far down. Actual Ultramarine are actually a nerf from their previous form which was about a 45% WR with Gman build...remember...the OP build?
Do you really think the ideal Codex-1.0 UM list would outperform the ideal Codex-2.0 UM list? All the points drops, new rules, etc were somehow a step down?
There were practically no points drops. Aggressors are now 3 wounds and cents now 4 wounds. Repulsors executioner actually increased in cost. Hard to say...It's certainly close. RR all wounds is significantly better than -1 AP. Would have to really test it out to be sure. Certainly more versatile for 2.0 codex but not a significant buff except against -1 to hits spam.
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
2020/01/06 18:47:15
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
I still maintain that the biggest problem with 40k is trying to play it competitively. It simply cannot be balanced and keep the fluff nature of the game. The game is most interesting when playing to a fun/cool mission with the eventual winner a nonissue or bragging right. I'm coming from a tournament judging standpoint as well. Judging 40k tournaments really shows how unfun the game can actually be.
2020/01/06 20:40:49
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Brotherjanus wrote: I still maintain that the biggest problem with 40k is trying to play it competitively. It simply cannot be balanced and keep the fluff nature of the game. The game is most interesting when playing to a fun/cool mission with the eventual winner a nonissue or bragging right. I'm coming from a tournament judging standpoint as well. Judging 40k tournaments really shows how unfun the game can actually be.
Even at a casual level the game is so grossly unbalanced, even if both are taking semi strong armies, the power difference between basic IH list and a basic Ork list is insane.
Xenomancers wrote: 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.
That's not entirely accurate. It compounds each round based on wins. I ran the numbers assuming a 100 man tournament, 20 marines players at a 66% win ratio for marines.
Round 1: 20% Chance to play against a marine player.
Round 2: 26%
Round 3: 40%
Round 4: 71%
Round 5 will have 8 players undefeated. 3 marine and 5 non marine. All 5 non marine players will have played a marine player by this point.
Grain of salt, statistically speaking, yadda, yadda.
That is a good point but from the general sense you should only be using the average marine winrate for 56ish to calculate that and not the ironhands winrate you are also assuming you are winning every game as well. That why I said approximately. Each round if you are winning your chances go up to face stronger lists but every loss you take decreases your chances. Marines are only 28% of the top 10 lists. So on a game per game basis your first game you have a 20% chance of playing against marines. On your last game you have a 28% chance. Every tournament will be different to with numbers of marines in there. I think it's safe to say you will play marines at least once in a GT but most of your games will not be against marines.
This was also without marines playing other marines. It was geared toward a worst case scenario. It was also based on winning. The moral of the story is if you go to a tournament you can't win it without facing marines at least once.
Which was fine for most people when marines were a free win now theres much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
2020/01/07 19:15:42
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: 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.
That's not entirely accurate. It compounds each round based on wins. I ran the numbers assuming a 100 man tournament, 20 marines players at a 66% win ratio for marines.
Round 1: 20% Chance to play against a marine player.
Round 2: 26%
Round 3: 40%
Round 4: 71%
Round 5 will have 8 players undefeated. 3 marine and 5 non marine. All 5 non marine players will have played a marine player by this point.
Grain of salt, statistically speaking, yadda, yadda.
That is a good point but from the general sense you should only be using the average marine winrate for 56ish to calculate that and not the ironhands winrate you are also assuming you are winning every game as well. That why I said approximately. Each round if you are winning your chances go up to face stronger lists but every loss you take decreases your chances. Marines are only 28% of the top 10 lists. So on a game per game basis your first game you have a 20% chance of playing against marines. On your last game you have a 28% chance. Every tournament will be different to with numbers of marines in there. I think it's safe to say you will play marines at least once in a GT but most of your games will not be against marines.
This was also without marines playing other marines. It was geared toward a worst case scenario. It was also based on winning. The moral of the story is if you go to a tournament you can't win it without facing marines at least once.
Which was fine for most people when marines were a free win now theres much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The moral of the story right now is that Optimized marines (ironhands) is roughly as powerful as optimized eldar (cumstom eldar) yet...No one is bitching about eldar lol. Anti marine bias is extreme in this game. Extremely extreme. Ofc Ironhands is too strong - that much is clear just by looking at the other marine armies minus imperial fists which are also drastically OP compared to other marines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/07 19:16:17
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
2020/01/07 19:21:22
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.
They CAN exist, but as an army wide bonus its pretty impossible to balance in a faction as broad as Eldar.
2020/01/07 19:30:58
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: The moral of the story right now is that Optimized marines (ironhands) is roughly as powerful as optimized eldar (cumstom eldar) yet...No one is bitching about eldar lol.
Even if this were true, I find a game against optimized Eldar to infinitely more interesting than a game against Iron Hands. Optimized Eldar are mobile and allow for some counterplay, and there's more opportunity for the Eldar player to screw up. Iron Hands sit in a corner, gunline, and win through attrition.
In a more casual context, Eldar remain mobile, while Space Marines are overwhelmingly static (or at least slow) killblobs that huddle around their auras and shoot things to death. They don't have much in the way of weaknesses or counterplay, they're generically good at everything, they're just boring to play against.
So yeah, even if it were true that optimized Eldar are just as powerful as Iron Hands (which they aren't), I'd still complain about Iron Hands more, because balance is not the sole thing that makes the game fun. Right now Iron Hands aren't just hideously imbalanced, they represent an un-fun playstyle too, and the two combine to make for bad games.
Xenomancers wrote: The moral of the story right now is that Optimized marines (ironhands) is roughly as powerful as optimized eldar (cumstom eldar) yet...No one is bitching about eldar lol.
Even if this were true, I find a game against optimized Eldar to infinitely more interesting than a game against Iron Hands. Optimized Eldar are mobile and allow for some counterplay, and there's more opportunity for the Eldar player to screw up. Iron Hands sit in a corner, gunline, and win through attrition.
In a more casual context, Eldar remain mobile, while Space Marines are overwhelmingly static (or at least slow) killblobs that huddle around their auras and shoot things to death. They don't have much in the way of weaknesses or counterplay, they're generically good at everything, they're just boring to play against.
So yeah, even if it were true that optimized Eldar are just as powerful as Iron Hands (which they aren't), I'd still complain about Iron Hands more, because balance is not the sole thing that makes the game fun. Right now Iron Hands aren't just hideously imbalanced, they represent an un-fun playstyle too, and the two combine to make for bad games.
Iron Hands may be static gunlines but other armies aren't. I mean if an ultramarines player isn't running and gunning he might as well not HAVE a super doctrine
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/01/07 19:35:41
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Brotherjanus wrote: I still maintain that the biggest problem with 40k is trying to play it competitively. It simply cannot be balanced and keep the fluff nature of the game. The game is most interesting when playing to a fun/cool mission with the eventual winner a nonissue or bragging right. I'm coming from a tournament judging standpoint as well. Judging 40k tournaments really shows how unfun the game can actually be.
People keep saying this, but is there a real reason beyond "GW sucks at balance" for why 40k can't be balanced? Seriously, every single time this comes up there is an entire legion of white knights ready to defend GW that could put Bretonnia to shame, and yet not a single one can give a reason why its impossible. It's this awful cycle of "GW sucks at balance so we don't expect 40k to be balanced" followed by "We don't expect 40k to be balanced, so GW has no incentive to get better."
2020/01/07 19:58:27
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
DominayTrix wrote: ...is there a real reason beyond "GW sucks at balance" for why 40k can't be balanced?...
Codex release cycle. Armies get overhauled entirely in an uneven manner, the emphasis on physical books means the lead time on actually fixing anything is years long, and the independent design teams mean there's no central communication or strategy with regards to balance.
Better-balanced games tend to have a smaller number of armies, release things in 'waves' of one thing each for a bunch of forces, and have a rules distribution model that doesn't involve a central repository of all units for one force, which means they have a more centralized plan for how the game's going to work, a better idea of how armies are supposed to compare to each other, no armies get "left behind" with no releases, and they have much more delicate/finer control over updating a few things at a time frequently rather than everything all at once infrequently.
Brotherjanus wrote: I still maintain that the biggest problem with 40k is trying to play it competitively. It simply cannot be balanced and keep the fluff nature of the game. The game is most interesting when playing to a fun/cool mission with the eventual winner a nonissue or bragging right. I'm coming from a tournament judging standpoint as well. Judging 40k tournaments really shows how unfun the game can actually be.
People keep saying this, but is there a real reason beyond "GW sucks at balance" for why 40k can't be balanced? Seriously, every single time this comes up there is an entire legion of white knights ready to defend GW that could put Bretonnia to shame, and yet not a single one can give a reason why its impossible. It's this awful cycle of "GW sucks at balance so we don't expect 40k to be balanced" followed by "We don't expect 40k to be balanced, so GW has no incentive to get better."
It also generally ignores when GWdoes manage to do a good job or improve balance over time. Summer of 2019 was, by most accounts, actually fairly balanced. You saw a lot more variety in lists and armies than ever before.
Then Space marines came in like a sledge hammer and ruined it...
Brotherjanus wrote: I still maintain that the biggest problem with 40k is trying to play it competitively. It simply cannot be balanced and keep the fluff nature of the game. The game is most interesting when playing to a fun/cool mission with the eventual winner a nonissue or bragging right. I'm coming from a tournament judging standpoint as well. Judging 40k tournaments really shows how unfun the game can actually be.
People keep saying this, but is there a real reason beyond "GW sucks at balance" for why 40k can't be balanced? Seriously, every single time this comes up there is an entire legion of white knights ready to defend GW that could put Bretonnia to shame, and yet not a single one can give a reason why its impossible. It's this awful cycle of "GW sucks at balance so we don't expect 40k to be balanced" followed by "We don't expect 40k to be balanced, so GW has no incentive to get better."
It also generally ignores when GWdoes manage to do a good job or improve balance over time. Summer of 2019 was, by most accounts, actually fairly balanced. You saw a lot more variety in lists and armies than ever before.
Then Space marines came in like a sledge hammer and ruined it...
Possibly because the model of independent Codex-writing teams means that they gets things right it's by accident rather than by design.
Xenomancers wrote: The moral of the story right now is that Optimized marines (ironhands) is roughly as powerful as optimized eldar (cumstom eldar) yet...No one is bitching about eldar lol.
Even if this were true, I find a game against optimized Eldar to infinitely more interesting than a game against Iron Hands. Optimized Eldar are mobile and allow for some counterplay, and there's more opportunity for the Eldar player to screw up. Iron Hands sit in a corner, gunline, and win through attrition.
In a more casual context, Eldar remain mobile, while Space Marines are overwhelmingly static (or at least slow) killblobs that huddle around their auras and shoot things to death. They don't have much in the way of weaknesses or counterplay, they're generically good at everything, they're just boring to play against.
So yeah, even if it were true that optimized Eldar are just as powerful as Iron Hands (which they aren't), I'd still complain about Iron Hands more, because balance is not the sole thing that makes the game fun. Right now Iron Hands aren't just hideously imbalanced, they represent an un-fun playstyle too, and the two combine to make for bad games.
In general. Ironhands do not need to or prefer to group up around auras. They don't need to. They get RR 1's with heavies and can move and shoot without penalty. Heck Ironhands can do literally any play-style they want. The statement I made that Ironahds and custom eldar is based in statistical fact. They are winning at about the same rate of 68-69%. So you can argue whatever you want about that. You can't argue with the statistics. Me personally - when I play marines I advance at the opponent every turn. People do complain about the stacking of auras....but what army isn't stacking auras? Or stacking stratagems? or something similar. Marines participate in every phase of the game - if your opponents aren't utilizing their abilities they are just bad generals of you are playing a game mode where they can win just by exploiting their ranged firepower advantage and win (I'm not sure what game mode that is actually because there are objectives in the middle of the table in basically every game mode).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/07 20:43:52
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
2020/01/07 20:40:55
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Brotherjanus wrote: I still maintain that the biggest problem with 40k is trying to play it competitively. It simply cannot be balanced and keep the fluff nature of the game. The game is most interesting when playing to a fun/cool mission with the eventual winner a nonissue or bragging right. I'm coming from a tournament judging standpoint as well. Judging 40k tournaments really shows how unfun the game can actually be.
People keep saying this, but is there a real reason beyond "GW sucks at balance" for why 40k can't be balanced? Seriously, every single time this comes up there is an entire legion of white knights ready to defend GW that could put Bretonnia to shame, and yet not a single one can give a reason why its impossible. It's this awful cycle of "GW sucks at balance so we don't expect 40k to be balanced" followed by "We don't expect 40k to be balanced, so GW has no incentive to get better."
No one says it is impossible. It just isn't very easy. Lots of people will say it is easy and I'll claim that it is not when you're rolling almost one codex per month. You can't test all of that. They could listen to the play testers better, so, here's hoping they felt the slap on their wrist for marines.
Here's win rates for any army with at least one detachment mentioned over the past year or so.
(includes mirror matches and all mission types)
Asuryani v AA You can see how AA and Asuryani are coming to parity. AA has far less flux than it did before and Eldar began to adapt after their PA. This also doesn't mean AA are pleasant to play with or against. The IGOUGO system exacerbates that issue.
Spoiler:
Asuryani v Orks
Orks are suffering a bit. Not sure what CA will do to them and their PA seems pretty far out.
Spoiler:
Asuryani v CSM CSM are in a bad way, but notice the uptick near the end there - fluke or not? I'll have to review the data.
Spoiler:
Asuryani v Nids
Nids are also in a bad way. Can CA and PA bring them up?
Spoiler:
Asuryani v T'au
T'au continues to hold its own, mostly. Does any of this mean anyone using T'au can take any list they want? No. They're really one dimensional and they need work.
Spoiler:
How will these trends continue into the future? I'll continue to facilitate views like this as I get more data and provide more granularity where possible. I'll get 2018 loaded as well and give the longest view of the state of the game as I can.
2020/01/07 20:44:07
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
BrianDavion wrote: the chaos uptick looks like it might confirm to Faith and Fury, a few of the decent legions got even better with that didn't they?
From the data we reviewed earlier a lot of alpha legion armies were doing really well (not a ton mind you) Alpha legion got a big buff.
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
2020/01/07 20:52:55
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
DominayTrix wrote: ...is there a real reason beyond "GW sucks at balance" for why 40k can't be balanced?...
Codex release cycle. Armies get overhauled entirely in an uneven manner, the emphasis on physical books means the lead time on actually fixing anything is years long, and the independent design teams mean there's no central communication or strategy with regards to balance.
Better-balanced games tend to have a smaller number of armies, release things in 'waves' of one thing each for a bunch of forces, and have a rules distribution model that doesn't involve a central repository of all units for one force, which means they have a more centralized plan for how the game's going to work, a better idea of how armies are supposed to compare to each other, no armies get "left behind" with no releases, and they have much more delicate/finer control over updating a few things at a time frequently rather than everything all at once infrequently.
This. The uneven release schedule just kills any hope of maintaining balance. The other thing that kills it for competitive play is that without a checkmate condition it's very hard to recover once you start losing the attrition fight, and that sort of thing needs to be baked into the core rules. It's really hard to bolt such a thing on onto a system after the fact.
BrianDavion wrote: the chaos uptick looks like it might confirm to Faith and Fury, a few of the decent legions got even better with that didn't they?
From the data we reviewed earlier a lot of alpha legion armies were doing really well (not a ton mind you) Alpha legion got a big buff.
This is the data from that period. Note that an army just has to have one of these detachments in it to be that army, so AL;IW;NL army with a 60% win rate would boost all three of those sub factions (and it could have other soup, too).
Alpha Legion 6 8 66.11%
Iron Warriors 1 1 60.00%
Night Lords 1 1 60.00%
Red Corsairs 1 1 60.00%
Renegade Chapters 1 1 60.00%
We have very few games post PA and none post CA. The coming months should be interesting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/07 21:22:26
2020/01/07 22:12:34
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Gosh I wonder why every other post is whining and crying that marines are underpowered when theyre underpowered, and every other post is whining and crying that theyre overpowered when theyre overpowered?
It cant be that every other player plays them, nearly all the games focus is on them and they are basically the protagonists of the game. It must be "anti marine bias."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also ir definitely cant be that when gw decided to feth with balance mid edition the first army that gets a huge boost catches a large amount of flack. I know in 7th nobody complained about decurions even after other factions got brought up to the necrons level.
It is a well established fact that if you play marines now your job is to pretend everything is fine and if anything is not fine everyone else is definitely gonna get their turn and the balance will come back so pretty please dont avoid playing marine players. Its basically a tradition at this point! Cmon, just let me play with my decurion, im sure orks will get one too! No formations, but thats not fair!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/07 22:18:04
"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!"
2020/01/07 22:33:46
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Marines encounter the mirror match extremely commonly which is going to inevitably pull towards a 50% win rate.
They are also the entry level army, and also the most popular, so they also have by far, the largest amount of bad players dragging down that average.
But again.
Stats mean sweet F.A.
If your only understanding of competitive play is the the statistical results of other players, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING COMPETITIVE PLAY. If you can't tell why Marines are the best army of the game you just don't understand the game on a competitive level, it's that flat out simple.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/07 22:36:13
2020/01/07 22:37:17
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
the_scotsman wrote: Gosh I wonder why every other post is whining and crying that marines are underpowered when theyre underpowered, and every other post is whining and crying that theyre overpowered when theyre overpowered?
It cant be that every other player plays them, nearly all the games focus is on them and they are basically the protagonists of the game. It must be "anti marine bias."
What he said..
But really both are gross. The main difference is that Eldar OPness can clearly be laid at the foot of one thing: CHE.
Post PR , the eldar planes are an even bigger crutch propping up the faction grossly skewing performance.. Eldar planes need to be reigned in.
Bs2+ with exarch power with traits on top? Its gross... Almost as gross as reroll everything and additional damage and AP all the time for free...
CHE should stop exiting and there should only be CH and Hemlocks. Gw really really loves selling those planes so watcha gunna do..?
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Marines encounter the mirror match extremely commonly which is going to inevitably pull towards a 50% win rate.
They are also the entry level army, and also the most popular, so they also have by far, the largest amount of bad players dragging down that average.
But again.
Stats mean sweet F.A.
If your only understanding of competitive play is the the statistical results of other players, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING COMPETITIVE PLAY. If you can't tell why Marines are the best army of the game you just don't understand the game on a competitive level, it's that flat out simple.
We are looking at adjusted data with mirror matches removed. Stats don't mean FA. Stats is pretty much everything. No one is saying marines aren't the best army in the game ether. They clearly are - they just have some company.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Gosh I wonder why every other post is whining and crying that marines are underpowered when theyre underpowered, and every other post is whining and crying that theyre overpowered when theyre overpowered?
It cant be that every other player plays them, nearly all the games focus is on them and they are basically the protagonists of the game. It must be "anti marine bias."
What he said..
But really both are gross. The main difference is that Eldar OPness can clearly be laid at the foot of one thing: CHE.
Post PR , the eldar planes are an even bigger crutch propping up the faction grossly skewing performance.. Eldar planes need to be reigned in.
Bs2+ with exarch power with traits on top? Its gross... Almost as gross as reroll everything and additional damage and AP all the time for free...
CHE should stop exiting and there should only be CH and Hemlocks. Gw really really loves selling those planes so watcha gunna do..?
Yeah...pretty much no. Eldar have a huge number of units to abuse the extremely busted expert crafters custom trait. Which is basically the same trait that almost every marine list abuses too - MOA.
Eldar flyers are really good but they got leveled down with the CHE going up in price and the flacon going down. Support weapons are just silly with EC.
The main difference between eldar OPness and space marine OPness is that they are different armies and play a lot differently.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/07 22:56:55
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
2020/01/07 23:05:37
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Marines encounter the mirror match extremely commonly which is going to inevitably pull towards a 50% win rate.
They are also the entry level army, and also the most popular, so they also have by far, the largest amount of bad players dragging down that average.
But again.
Stats mean sweet F.A.
If your only understanding of competitive play is the the statistical results of other players, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING COMPETITIVE PLAY. If you can't tell why Marines are the best army of the game you just don't understand the game on a competitive level, it's that flat out simple.
We are looking at adjusted data with mirror matches removed. Stats don't mean FA. Stats is pretty much everything. No one is saying marines aren't the best army in the game ether. They clearly are - they just have some company.
Stats mean actually nothing, but if you insist, for your sake heres an interesting stat. 27% of lists are marines, and (yet) 52% of the top 5 will be marines. Insane numbers. There is nobody accompanying that.
2020/01/07 23:06:46
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Oh look, a thread supposedly about balance from Xeno. The poster who brought us such gems as "the Stompa is overpowered" and "the Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy is probably the best shooting unit in the game, point for point".
I'll be taking the opinions within this thread and their objectivity with a hefty mountain of salt methinks.
2020/01/07 23:28:15
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Daedalus81 wrote: The whole support weapons dynamic is basically because they split after deploying granting them all a reroll hit and wound.
'Extremely busted' might be taking it too far though.
Plenty of units can be taken in singles with 2 quality shots. It practically doubles damage on an army straight up when you max it out. In practice it's pretty close to a reroll all hits and wounds buff for your whole army...and it only costs you 1 of 2 traits...LOL.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: Oh look, a thread supposedly about balance from Xeno. The poster who brought us such gems as "the Stompa is overpowered" and "the Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy is probably the best shooting unit in the game, point for point".
I'll be taking the opinions within this thread and their objectivity with a hefty mountain of salt methinks.
Never said stompa was overpowered so that is a straight lie. It is pretty clear that the stompa is actually very bad. Squig buggy on the other hand is an insane value at this time. There has not been nearly enough time to see the results from chapter approved I'm not even sure if CA tournaments have been recorded at this time. Plus you gotta give all the ork players time to build and paint all their buggies. Give it a month. If it turns out I am wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Orks are one of the few armies I don't play so I have to wait for others to exploit it.
Marines encounter the mirror match extremely commonly which is going to inevitably pull towards a 50% win rate.
They are also the entry level army, and also the most popular, so they also have by far, the largest amount of bad players dragging down that average.
But again.
Stats mean sweet F.A.
If your only understanding of competitive play is the the statistical results of other players, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING COMPETITIVE PLAY. If you can't tell why Marines are the best army of the game you just don't understand the game on a competitive level, it's that flat out simple.
We are looking at adjusted data with mirror matches removed. Stats don't mean FA. Stats is pretty much everything. No one is saying marines aren't the best army in the game ether. They clearly are - they just have some company.
Stats mean actually nothing, but if you insist, for your sake heres an interesting stat. 27% of lists are marines, and (yet) 52% of the top 5 will be marines. Insane numbers. There is nobody accompanying that.
Where are you getting that stat from exactly? 40k stats doesn't have a top 5 feature I can see. Only top 10. I broke that down in my OP. 22% of total lists and 28% of top lists since november. OFC stats can only give you an idea of what is happening and this tool isn't perfect. Deadalus has provided some excellent additional data though. Like the data that shows Custom eldar is performing at about the same rate as Ironhands.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/01/07 23:44:51
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
2020/01/08 00:25:39
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Oh look, a thread supposedly about balance from Xeno. The poster who brought us such gems as "the Stompa is overpowered" and "the Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy is probably the best shooting unit in the game, point for point".
I'll be taking the opinions within this thread and their objectivity with a hefty mountain of salt methinks.
wasn't the "Stompa is OP" thread a tongue in cheek thread about how now that it lost a whole 50 points (it's generally agreed to be a few HUNDRED over pointed) it's now "totally OP"? or was this another post I missed?
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/01/08 00:33:54
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Marines encounter the mirror match extremely commonly which is going to inevitably pull towards a 50% win rate.
They are also the entry level army, and also the most popular, so they also have by far, the largest amount of bad players dragging down that average.
But again.
Stats mean sweet F.A.
If your only understanding of competitive play is the the statistical results of other players, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING COMPETITIVE PLAY. If you can't tell why Marines are the best army of the game you just don't understand the game on a competitive level, it's that flat out simple.
We are looking at adjusted data with mirror matches removed. Stats don't mean FA. Stats is pretty much everything. No one is saying marines aren't the best army in the game ether. They clearly are - they just have some company. Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Gosh I wonder why every other post is whining and crying that marines are underpowered when theyre underpowered, and every other post is whining and crying that theyre overpowered when theyre overpowered?
It cant be that every other player plays them, nearly all the games focus is on them and they are basically the protagonists of the game. It must be "anti marine bias."
What he said.. But really both are gross. The main difference is that Eldar OPness can clearly be laid at the foot of one thing: CHE.
Post PR , the eldar planes are an even bigger crutch propping up the faction grossly skewing performance.. Eldar planes need to be reigned in. Bs2+ with exarch power with traits on top? Its gross... Almost as gross as reroll everything and additional damage and AP all the time for free...
CHE should stop exiting and there should only be CH and Hemlocks. Gw really really loves selling those planes so watcha gunna do..?
Yeah...pretty much no. Eldar have a huge number of units to abuse the extremely busted expert crafters custom trait. Which is basically the same trait that almost every marine list abuses too - MOA. Eldar flyers are really good but they got leveled down with the CHE going up in price and the flacon going down. Support weapons are just silly with EC.
The main difference between eldar OPness and space marine OPness is that they are different armies and play a lot differently.
15 pts increase where everything else went down whilst receiving a massive offencive boost is levelling in your eyes ? Jeezus… Abuse a trait that's a copy and paste of Slamanders Hand-me-down trait? Clearly only OP if eldar have it. SM have the same trait and SM suck...
Are you're actually complaining that all units benefit from a trait? hats kind of the point... The custom traits mean that you lists that don't use planes have a chance of going toe to toe.. But as soon as you optimise with fliers it gets obnoxious. I mean if you cant see that I don't know what to tell you. I've been banging on this drum for god knows how long but whatever.
This is a post outlining the top lists from CWE forum - The ONLY top 5 list that did not contain fliers was a soup list.
Spoiler:
wuestenfux wrote: The Aeldari meta has shifted slightly (better significantly if complared with 7th ed). Have a look into the recent winner (places 1-4) armies at 40kstats.com. Here are the lists: [spoiler] Alex Ramsay – Maelstrom Massacre (4th place)
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
Eldar- 4436 pts
