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.
2020/01/08 18:39:56
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Daedalus81 wrote: These are the people and tournaments in December who were top 10 win rates and all their associated detachments.
All of these are ITC.
Spoiler:
The event with 0 marines and 2 eldar in the top 10 shouldnt count at all. From what I have heard several of the top players decided before the event to not run Adeptus Astartes to have a more fun event since it wouldnt affect their ratings anyway. It skews the result to look like eldar are better than they are and marines worse than they are.
2020/01/08 18:40:51
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Bharring wrote: If you think Eldar are OP because twenty some lists with "Custom Traits" did well - pushing up to nearly 70% win rate, you should be absolutely terrified of Cult Mechanicus. Lists with Cybernetica Cohort had an *80%* winrate. Clearly Cult Mechanicus needs a nerf and Eldar need a buff.
In statistics we call those outliers...
An outlier is something very different - a datapoint that seems to fall well outside the ranges data usually fall.
This case is "Not statistically significant". In this case, Cybernetica Cohort has exactly 5 datapoints. And each case has a 50/50 chance of being a 1 or 0. With only 5 data points, you can't make a meaningful conclusion. As such, an 80% winrate isn't exceptional; we'd expect to see it roughly 16% of the time (and we have far more than 6 individual lists, so not seeing it would be unlikely). While it does *suggest* that the subfaction *may* be stronger than average, the power of that suggestion is marginal. *That* is what people in statistics say about things like this.
we ignore the outliers and look at trends.
There are times when culling outliers before looking at trends is a good idea. When your measurement has a chance to provide a nonsensical value on rare occasions, outliers are unlikely to be useful. Or when there are irrelevant cases with heavily skewed results. But most of the time, you don't want to preemptively cull outliers. Doing so introduces bias to your numbers, and helps overfit the model to the data. Outliers might not be explained by the model, and your model might be fitted to "best fit for most data", but you don't just drop outliers whos results you don't like.
Besides, if we have a couple cases of 60-70% wins, a single case of 80% wins isn't much of an outlier.
Some people have actually won tournaments with Ultramarines who are sitting at around 45% WR as a faction in the same time period. It doesn't mean ultramarines are OP.
Of course. The volume of data is critical. That was the point of my post, a reducto ad absurdum. Obviously there's not enough data to dissect the dataset down to a single list that did well and then conclude that that faction is OP. The point was to question if dissecting the data down to just December reported results with ~20 CWE custom-faction lists that outperformed the dominant SM faction by ~4% is very significant. By demonstrating how being a little more specific yields junk results.
2020/01/08 18:42:37
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Looking at that list I see that Custom Craftworld eldar (great balancing work from GW...) and IH/IF/RG/WS (in that order) are pretty busted.
I also believe that the Fight Before Christmas had a gentleman's no space marine agreement but don't quote me on that.
Side note - Daedalus you're my hero for throwing together all of these numbers. Lies and statistics and all that but you are really bringing some meat for the discussion. Thanks!
2020/01/08 18:56:04
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Daedalus81 wrote: These are the people and tournaments in December who were top 10 win rates and all their associated detachments.
All of these are ITC.
Spoiler:
The event with 0 marines and 2 eldar in the top 10 shouldnt count at all. From what I have heard several of the top players decided before the event to not run Adeptus Astartes to have a more fun event since it wouldnt affect their ratings anyway. It skews the result to look like eldar are better than they are and marines worse than they are.
They had 1 event where they agreed not to run space marines between all the top players. Tau won with tripple surge...LOL.
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 18:58:17
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: It probably 100 points to expensive. It scales so hard with stratagems like moore dakka and freebootas that it's just the kind of unit that they couldn't fix if they tried...
at 650 it would be extremely OP.
(It can’t make use of More Dakka strat)
Xeno makes statements without knowledge all the time. He also defends all things Marine to the death. I’d take his posts as tongue in cheek, to be honest.
100 points is a big deal. You know the Castellan going from 600 to 700 made a huge difference. ITT I am arguing for a nerf to marines top factions...
It absolutely can use the strat. The only requirement is being an ORK unit. With Free boota up (which is super easy to trigger with another unit) you are hitting on 4's with 5's generating extra hits. It's really strong when you get the combo off. I've seen a stompa kill its points in a single turn actually. Which is why I find it hilarious it gets complained about so much. Yeah it's not amazing...kind of like how a space marine falchion is not amazing ether 1050 points and doesn't even have an invune. Super heavies that can tripple their damage output for 2 CP are REALLY hard to balance. It really is a factor of like 100-150 which determines useless to OP in this situation.
Listen I'm not going to dance this dance with you. You thought Boys were still 6ppm. You have said that the Squigbuggy of all things is the most OP shooting unit in the game. Simply put you don't really know what you're talking about because you're either a) so clouded by bias or b) don't understand what the facts/stats actually represent. The Stompa is not a good unit. Not with More Dakka. Not in Freebootas. Not with another 50 pt drop.
On topic, the stats show that Marines are OP. I have presented these before but there are critical numbers you are missing/ignoring.
Their first loss is way out of line with what is normal.
Their average points for and denied is strong.
Finally (and most obviously) - the percentage of Marine lists going 4-0 is way out of line with their number of players.
The strength of Eldar and question as to whether they are OP or not has absolutely no bearing on whether Marines are.
Hopefully GW correct this mistake (and it is a mistake) in the April FAQ.
Apart from that my sentiments echo Scotman's exactly. I can't state my points any better than he already has so I won't bother trying.
2020/01/08 18:58:18
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...
Funny, when I use your chosen method of statistical truthiness - https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report - Marines are tied with CWE (56.61%) just behind Cult Mechanicus (56.93%) at the top of the heap, for the time period you're talking about.
"Tied for second out of 30" is hard to call pass off as "unremarkable".
2020/01/08 19:05:07
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
bananathug wrote: Looking at that list I see that Custom Craftworld eldar (great balancing work from GW...) and IH/IF/RG/WS (in that order) are pretty busted.
I also believe that the Fight Before Christmas had a gentleman's no space marine agreement but don't quote me on that.
Side note - Daedalus you're my hero for throwing together all of these numbers. Lies and statistics and all that but you are really bringing some meat for the discussion. Thanks!
The thing that makes RG good is literally a WL trait.
Master of Ambush: At the start of the start of the battle if this character is on the battlefield you can choose a Raven Guard Infantry unit, remove them both from the battlefield and place them at least 9″ away from any enemy models. Like holy FCK. How dumb is this?
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...
Funny, when I use your chosen method of statistical truthiness - https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report - Marines are tied with CWE (56.61%) just behind Cult Mechanicus (56.93%) at the top of the heap, for the time period you're talking about.
"Tied for second out of 30" is hard to call pass off as "unremarkable".
Those stats include ironhands. Deadalus collected the data by chapter which is where the unremarkable data comes from.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/08 19:06:23
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 19:08:33
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Ishagu wrote: Iron Hands and Raven Guard have a high win rate against Tau. The Ultras don't.
That's the key point.
Marines are a faction that encompasses multiple Chapters. They are not all equal.
If anyone wants to say that Iron Hands and Centurions with the right chapter combination are too strong that would be perfectly reasonable. Blanket claims against the entire faction are not.
Off the bat, when a set of models has one hyper powerful way of playing, and one very strong but not as insane way of playing it that also has less flavor, you'll find that the best players with those models are just going to go towards the best option, dragging down the alternative throughout quality of playerbase. Ultramarines are still well and truly OP, just one of the least OP options in that dex so that is what it is.
Secondly, RG has a lower winrate than both Scars and Fists.
Thirdly, Thunderfire Cannon alone is better than anything you've mentioned yet, and is universal, and is the most played unit in competitive play at the moment.
Fourthly, where's these stats that show Ultramarines having a poor win rate vs Tau? is that sweeping claim based off anything other than you being unable to beat them?
Fifthly, and just to reinforce, arguing what's good in this game like it's a basketball point sheet and looking at nothing but win-rate statistics is so incredibly dense and I'm only doing it hopefully show you guys the folly of this and point out the holes in the claims you are making, because this is silly.
blaktoof wrote: Short of GW going back in time and removing all the marine supplements there is not much they can do. It's beyond simple nerfs to adjust SN balance down due to the layers of abilities they can get between codex/supplement/PA expansion.
They basically need to time travel or give every other faction the same extra free later of modifiers/wargear/traits/strats. And not just quantity but quality for low/free cost that SM received.
It's almost like you aren't paying attention. Only Ironhands are too strong.
*if you define too strong solely as "winning top-level competitive tournaments."
His statement falls apart under that definition too. In the very latest weekend of competitive play, John Lennon, a very recognizable name in the tournament scene, got first place at a GT using pure Imperial Fists, beating out both Raven Guard, and Iron Hands. The weekend before that saw Fists winning two GT level events, as well as two for Raven Guard.
Marines are busted in every single supplement. The more competitive players just play the more competitive chapters more.
I'm pretty sure I have been calling for nerf to IF super doctrine the entire thread. Also a few lists winning events does not make a point stronger. 1 event is not a trend. WR = trend.
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...I just don't know what to say. All marine supplements are OP because you say so I suppose. Seems reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: So half as much Aeldari as Space Marines? color me surprised!
I don't think anyone is saying Aeldari are fine right now, but the idea that SM are just another Aeldari is so far off base. They are so much much more.
They have between 3-4 times the play rate. Ofc they have more top lists if they are at a similar power level.
Hate to point it out again but that is the logic by which you make almost every declarative statement about game balance RE: other factions you don't play/like.
Kind of "pot calling the kettle black" to be complaining about people saying that supplement marines feel like gak to play against when you so commonly make declarative statements about other armies.
Why should any Eldar unit be nerfed, for example? Where are the OP competitive Biel-Tan, Ulthwe and Saim-Hann armies? If you can't prove every subfaction is OP, then you're not allowed to make any balance change that affects every subfaction.
Remove Master Crafters and suddenly 100% of competitive eldar lists will be Alaitoc, with a very slightly lower winrate.
Remove/nerf Alaitoc, and suddenly 100% of all competitive eldar lists will be Ulthwe (or something) with a slightly lower winrate.
Nerf Ulthwe, and it'll be Iyanden, Nerf Iyanden, it'll be Biel-Tan. Because the best players, who will actually meaningfully shift the army's winrate, will obviously be playing the best possible subfaction.
This is the assumption made for every single faction in the game exceeeeeeept for Codex Space Marines. There, it's "No, you can't nerf my double-firing movement-halving thunderfire cannons, I play Blood Ravens and we have a 0% playrate, WE aren't OP!"
"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!"
2020/01/08 19:21:13
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Ishagu wrote: Iron Hands and Raven Guard have a high win rate against Tau. The Ultras don't.
That's the key point.
Marines are a faction that encompasses multiple Chapters. They are not all equal.
If anyone wants to say that Iron Hands and Centurions with the right chapter combination are too strong that would be perfectly reasonable. Blanket claims against the entire faction are not.
Off the bat, when a set of models has one hyper powerful way of playing, and one very strong but not as insane way of playing it that also has less flavor, you'll find that the best players with those models are just going to go towards the best option, dragging down the alternative throughout quality of playerbase. Ultramarines are still well and truly OP, just one of the least OP options in that dex so that is what it is.
Secondly, RG has a lower winrate than both Scars and Fists.
Thirdly, Thunderfire Cannon alone is better than anything you've mentioned yet, and is universal, and is the most played unit in competitive play at the moment.
Fourthly, where's these stats that show Ultramarines having a poor win rate vs Tau? is that sweeping claim based off anything other than you being unable to beat them?
Fifthly, and just to reinforce, arguing what's good in this game like it's a basketball point sheet and looking at nothing but win-rate statistics is so incredibly dense and I'm only doing it hopefully show you guys the folly of this and point out the holes in the claims you are making, because this is silly.
blaktoof wrote: Short of GW going back in time and removing all the marine supplements there is not much they can do. It's beyond simple nerfs to adjust SN balance down due to the layers of abilities they can get between codex/supplement/PA expansion.
They basically need to time travel or give every other faction the same extra free later of modifiers/wargear/traits/strats. And not just quantity but quality for low/free cost that SM received.
It's almost like you aren't paying attention. Only Ironhands are too strong.
*if you define too strong solely as "winning top-level competitive tournaments."
His statement falls apart under that definition too. In the very latest weekend of competitive play, John Lennon, a very recognizable name in the tournament scene, got first place at a GT using pure Imperial Fists, beating out both Raven Guard, and Iron Hands. The weekend before that saw Fists winning two GT level events, as well as two for Raven Guard.
Marines are busted in every single supplement. The more competitive players just play the more competitive chapters more.
I'm pretty sure I have been calling for nerf to IF super doctrine the entire thread. Also a few lists winning events does not make a point stronger. 1 event is not a trend. WR = trend.
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...I just don't know what to say. All marine supplements are OP because you say so I suppose. Seems reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: So half as much Aeldari as Space Marines? color me surprised!
I don't think anyone is saying Aeldari are fine right now, but the idea that SM are just another Aeldari is so far off base. They are so much much more.
They have between 3-4 times the play rate. Ofc they have more top lists if they are at a similar power level.
Hate to point it out again but that is the logic by which you make almost every declarative statement about game balance RE: other factions you don't play/like.
Kind of "pot calling the kettle black" to be complaining about people saying that supplement marines feel like gak to play against when you so commonly make declarative statements about other armies.
Why should any Eldar unit be nerfed, for example? Where are the OP competitive Biel-Tan, Ulthwe and Saim-Hann armies? If you can't prove every subfaction is OP, then you're not allowed to make any balance change that affects every subfaction.
Remove Master Crafters and suddenly 100% of competitive eldar lists will be Alaitoc, with a very slightly lower winrate.
Remove/nerf Alaitoc, and suddenly 100% of all competitive eldar lists will be Ulthwe (or something) with a slightly lower winrate.
Nerf Ulthwe, and it'll be Iyanden, Nerf Iyanden, it'll be Biel-Tan. Because the best players, who will actually meaningfully shift the army's winrate, will obviously be playing the best possible subfaction.
This is the assumption made for every single faction in the game exceeeeeeept for Codex Space Marines. There, it's "No, you can't nerf my double-firing movement-halving thunderfire cannons, I play Blood Ravens and we have a 0% playrate, WE aren't OP!"
No...remove expert crafters and alitoc WR would stay roughly the same. Which has a significantly lower WR. What would you do to fix eldar? Would you just let them maintain the highest WR in the game?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/08 19:28:20
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 19:37:18
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Ishagu wrote: Iron Hands and Raven Guard have a high win rate against Tau. The Ultras don't.
That's the key point.
Marines are a faction that encompasses multiple Chapters. They are not all equal.
If anyone wants to say that Iron Hands and Centurions with the right chapter combination are too strong that would be perfectly reasonable. Blanket claims against the entire faction are not.
Off the bat, when a set of models has one hyper powerful way of playing, and one very strong but not as insane way of playing it that also has less flavor, you'll find that the best players with those models are just going to go towards the best option, dragging down the alternative throughout quality of playerbase. Ultramarines are still well and truly OP, just one of the least OP options in that dex so that is what it is.
Secondly, RG has a lower winrate than both Scars and Fists.
Thirdly, Thunderfire Cannon alone is better than anything you've mentioned yet, and is universal, and is the most played unit in competitive play at the moment.
Fourthly, where's these stats that show Ultramarines having a poor win rate vs Tau? is that sweeping claim based off anything other than you being unable to beat them?
Fifthly, and just to reinforce, arguing what's good in this game like it's a basketball point sheet and looking at nothing but win-rate statistics is so incredibly dense and I'm only doing it hopefully show you guys the folly of this and point out the holes in the claims you are making, because this is silly.
blaktoof wrote: Short of GW going back in time and removing all the marine supplements there is not much they can do. It's beyond simple nerfs to adjust SN balance down due to the layers of abilities they can get between codex/supplement/PA expansion.
They basically need to time travel or give every other faction the same extra free later of modifiers/wargear/traits/strats. And not just quantity but quality for low/free cost that SM received.
It's almost like you aren't paying attention. Only Ironhands are too strong.
*if you define too strong solely as "winning top-level competitive tournaments."
His statement falls apart under that definition too. In the very latest weekend of competitive play, John Lennon, a very recognizable name in the tournament scene, got first place at a GT using pure Imperial Fists, beating out both Raven Guard, and Iron Hands. The weekend before that saw Fists winning two GT level events, as well as two for Raven Guard.
Marines are busted in every single supplement. The more competitive players just play the more competitive chapters more.
I'm pretty sure I have been calling for nerf to IF super doctrine the entire thread. Also a few lists winning events does not make a point stronger. 1 event is not a trend. WR = trend.
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...I just don't know what to say. All marine supplements are OP because you say so I suppose. Seems reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: So half as much Aeldari as Space Marines? color me surprised!
I don't think anyone is saying Aeldari are fine right now, but the idea that SM are just another Aeldari is so far off base. They are so much much more.
They have between 3-4 times the play rate. Ofc they have more top lists if they are at a similar power level.
Hate to point it out again but that is the logic by which you make almost every declarative statement about game balance RE: other factions you don't play/like.
Kind of "pot calling the kettle black" to be complaining about people saying that supplement marines feel like gak to play against when you so commonly make declarative statements about other armies.
Why should any Eldar unit be nerfed, for example? Where are the OP competitive Biel-Tan, Ulthwe and Saim-Hann armies? If you can't prove every subfaction is OP, then you're not allowed to make any balance change that affects every subfaction.
Remove Master Crafters and suddenly 100% of competitive eldar lists will be Alaitoc, with a very slightly lower winrate.
Remove/nerf Alaitoc, and suddenly 100% of all competitive eldar lists will be Ulthwe (or something) with a slightly lower winrate.
Nerf Ulthwe, and it'll be Iyanden, Nerf Iyanden, it'll be Biel-Tan. Because the best players, who will actually meaningfully shift the army's winrate, will obviously be playing the best possible subfaction.
This is the assumption made for every single faction in the game exceeeeeeept for Codex Space Marines. There, it's "No, you can't nerf my double-firing movement-halving thunderfire cannons, I play Blood Ravens and we have a 0% playrate, WE aren't OP!"
No...remove expert crafters and alitoc WR would stay roughly the same. Which has a significantly lower WR. What would you do to fix eldar? Would you just let them maintain the highest WR in the game?
Push the stronger FOTM Eldar players from Custom Chapter to Alaitoc, and Alaitoc's winrate goes up to somewhere between current-Alaitoc and current-Custom.
Unless you're arguing that the player exerts no bias on the winrate, which seems silly - even if you pretend there's no skill at actually playing the game, they'd still crowd out the "See my twenty-year old Alaitoc pathfinder army!" subset.
Scotsman can correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not saying "Don't nerf Expert Crafters". He's calling out the double standard where "Eldar" must be nerfed because "Expert Crafters" are OP - screwing over Uthwe, but "Marines" shouldn't be nerfed because of "Iron Hands" - because that would screw over Ultramarines.
In other words, if Expert Crafters and Iron Hands are OP, but Uthwe and Ultramarines are not, then whether to nerf Eldar and Marines, or nerf Expert Crafters and Iron Hands specifically, should be consistent.
Demanding that all CWE be nerfed because Expert Crafters hurt your feelings, but demanding your Blue&Gold Iron Hands not be nerfed because other peoples' UltraMarines would be hurt is a double standard.
[...] What would you do to fix eldar? Would you just let them maintain the highest WR in the game?
Do you *really* think the *0*.77% difference between CWE and SM is statistically significant?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/08 19:40:07
2020/01/08 19:58:35
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Ishagu wrote: Iron Hands and Raven Guard have a high win rate against Tau. The Ultras don't.
That's the key point.
Marines are a faction that encompasses multiple Chapters. They are not all equal.
If anyone wants to say that Iron Hands and Centurions with the right chapter combination are too strong that would be perfectly reasonable. Blanket claims against the entire faction are not.
Off the bat, when a set of models has one hyper powerful way of playing, and one very strong but not as insane way of playing it that also has less flavor, you'll find that the best players with those models are just going to go towards the best option, dragging down the alternative throughout quality of playerbase. Ultramarines are still well and truly OP, just one of the least OP options in that dex so that is what it is.
Secondly, RG has a lower winrate than both Scars and Fists.
Thirdly, Thunderfire Cannon alone is better than anything you've mentioned yet, and is universal, and is the most played unit in competitive play at the moment.
Fourthly, where's these stats that show Ultramarines having a poor win rate vs Tau? is that sweeping claim based off anything other than you being unable to beat them?
Fifthly, and just to reinforce, arguing what's good in this game like it's a basketball point sheet and looking at nothing but win-rate statistics is so incredibly dense and I'm only doing it hopefully show you guys the folly of this and point out the holes in the claims you are making, because this is silly.
blaktoof wrote: Short of GW going back in time and removing all the marine supplements there is not much they can do. It's beyond simple nerfs to adjust SN balance down due to the layers of abilities they can get between codex/supplement/PA expansion.
They basically need to time travel or give every other faction the same extra free later of modifiers/wargear/traits/strats. And not just quantity but quality for low/free cost that SM received.
It's almost like you aren't paying attention. Only Ironhands are too strong.
*if you define too strong solely as "winning top-level competitive tournaments."
His statement falls apart under that definition too. In the very latest weekend of competitive play, John Lennon, a very recognizable name in the tournament scene, got first place at a GT using pure Imperial Fists, beating out both Raven Guard, and Iron Hands. The weekend before that saw Fists winning two GT level events, as well as two for Raven Guard.
Marines are busted in every single supplement. The more competitive players just play the more competitive chapters more.
I'm pretty sure I have been calling for nerf to IF super doctrine the entire thread. Also a few lists winning events does not make a point stronger. 1 event is not a trend. WR = trend.
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...I just don't know what to say. All marine supplements are OP because you say so I suppose. Seems reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: So half as much Aeldari as Space Marines? color me surprised!
I don't think anyone is saying Aeldari are fine right now, but the idea that SM are just another Aeldari is so far off base. They are so much much more.
They have between 3-4 times the play rate. Ofc they have more top lists if they are at a similar power level.
Hate to point it out again but that is the logic by which you make almost every declarative statement about game balance RE: other factions you don't play/like.
Kind of "pot calling the kettle black" to be complaining about people saying that supplement marines feel like gak to play against when you so commonly make declarative statements about other armies.
Why should any Eldar unit be nerfed, for example? Where are the OP competitive Biel-Tan, Ulthwe and Saim-Hann armies? If you can't prove every subfaction is OP, then you're not allowed to make any balance change that affects every subfaction.
Remove Master Crafters and suddenly 100% of competitive eldar lists will be Alaitoc, with a very slightly lower winrate.
Remove/nerf Alaitoc, and suddenly 100% of all competitive eldar lists will be Ulthwe (or something) with a slightly lower winrate.
Nerf Ulthwe, and it'll be Iyanden, Nerf Iyanden, it'll be Biel-Tan. Because the best players, who will actually meaningfully shift the army's winrate, will obviously be playing the best possible subfaction.
This is the assumption made for every single faction in the game exceeeeeeept for Codex Space Marines. There, it's "No, you can't nerf my double-firing movement-halving thunderfire cannons, I play Blood Ravens and we have a 0% playrate, WE aren't OP!"
No...remove expert crafters and alitoc WR would stay roughly the same. Which has a significantly lower WR. What would you do to fix eldar? Would you just let them maintain the highest WR in the game?
Push the stronger FOTM Eldar players from Custom Chapter to Alaitoc, and Alaitoc's winrate goes up to somewhere between current-Alaitoc and current-Custom.
Unless you're arguing that the player exerts no bias on the winrate, which seems silly - even if you pretend there's no skill at actually playing the game, they'd still crowd out the "See my twenty-year old Alaitoc pathfinder army!" subset.
Scotsman can correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not saying "Don't nerf Expert Crafters". He's calling out the double standard where "Eldar" must be nerfed because "Expert Crafters" are OP - screwing over Uthwe, but "Marines" shouldn't be nerfed because of "Iron Hands" - because that would screw over Ultramarines.
In other words, if Expert Crafters and Iron Hands are OP, but Uthwe and Ultramarines are not, then whether to nerf Eldar and Marines, or nerf Expert Crafters and Iron Hands specifically, should be consistent.
Demanding that all CWE be nerfed because Expert Crafters hurt your feelings, but demanding your Blue&Gold Iron Hands not be nerfed because other peoples' UltraMarines would be hurt is a double standard.
I've only suggested nerfing expert crafters. What double standard are we talking about exactly? Eldar have been a top army the entire edition. Where space marines of all types have been rock bottom. It actually looks like a double standard when marines get actually competitive rules and everyone calls for nerfs when eldar are at the very least as powerful as space marines. Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
The fact that eldar and space marines are that close in win rate means they are at a similar power level. Honestly if you nerfed Ironhands that space marine avg WR would drop probably around the 53-52% WR area.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/08 20:03:33
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 19:59:57
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
There is also a somewhat linear response of the % of the field to the number of players in the top 10. I don't doubt that if Asuryani was 30%+ of the field they would take 5 of the top 10 easily.
Spoiler:
Of course these are just VERY SMALL snippets of data focusing on an even narrower subset so don't go run away with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's both combined for % of field.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/08 20:07:50
2020/01/08 20:15:06
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
Xeno, that's because Eldar are nowhere near the same level of problem as Codex Marines right now.
Marines are not only the strongest faction in the game, they are also the most popular. It's why we see Marines are a quarter of all tournament lists. The peak of Ynarri popularity was 7 or 8% of tournament lists for comparison (if memory serves). Add to this gak mix that Codex Marines arrived literally at the point where the game was probably the most balanced it has ever been. The variety of factions able to compete and win events (though they perhaps had very few variable builds) was unprecedented. Finally, as Scotsman has already said, Marines simply have more options than every other faction as of right now. They are able to take a huge variety of units, employ a huge variety of tactics and suit a massive range of playstyles at the competitive level. This is unheard of for a single faction.
This is why you see such a push back to Codex Marines in particular. They are the most OP faction with the most players that arrived at the time where the game WAS the most balanced. Many people right now associate Marines with a drop in balance for the game and, as we can surely all agree, that is bad for the game overall. I still remember the dark times of 7th and earlier when the game was a complete mess. What I see now reminds me of those times, times I thought were dead and buried with this edition.
2020/01/08 20:16:23
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Ishagu wrote: Iron Hands and Raven Guard have a high win rate against Tau. The Ultras don't.
That's the key point.
Marines are a faction that encompasses multiple Chapters. They are not all equal.
If anyone wants to say that Iron Hands and Centurions with the right chapter combination are too strong that would be perfectly reasonable. Blanket claims against the entire faction are not.
Off the bat, when a set of models has one hyper powerful way of playing, and one very strong but not as insane way of playing it that also has less flavor, you'll find that the best players with those models are just going to go towards the best option, dragging down the alternative throughout quality of playerbase. Ultramarines are still well and truly OP, just one of the least OP options in that dex so that is what it is.
Secondly, RG has a lower winrate than both Scars and Fists.
Thirdly, Thunderfire Cannon alone is better than anything you've mentioned yet, and is universal, and is the most played unit in competitive play at the moment.
Fourthly, where's these stats that show Ultramarines having a poor win rate vs Tau? is that sweeping claim based off anything other than you being unable to beat them?
Fifthly, and just to reinforce, arguing what's good in this game like it's a basketball point sheet and looking at nothing but win-rate statistics is so incredibly dense and I'm only doing it hopefully show you guys the folly of this and point out the holes in the claims you are making, because this is silly.
blaktoof wrote: Short of GW going back in time and removing all the marine supplements there is not much they can do. It's beyond simple nerfs to adjust SN balance down due to the layers of abilities they can get between codex/supplement/PA expansion.
They basically need to time travel or give every other faction the same extra free later of modifiers/wargear/traits/strats. And not just quantity but quality for low/free cost that SM received.
It's almost like you aren't paying attention. Only Ironhands are too strong.
*if you define too strong solely as "winning top-level competitive tournaments."
His statement falls apart under that definition too. In the very latest weekend of competitive play, John Lennon, a very recognizable name in the tournament scene, got first place at a GT using pure Imperial Fists, beating out both Raven Guard, and Iron Hands. The weekend before that saw Fists winning two GT level events, as well as two for Raven Guard.
Marines are busted in every single supplement. The more competitive players just play the more competitive chapters more.
I'm pretty sure I have been calling for nerf to IF super doctrine the entire thread. Also a few lists winning events does not make a point stronger. 1 event is not a trend. WR = trend.
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...I just don't know what to say. All marine supplements are OP because you say so I suppose. Seems reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: So half as much Aeldari as Space Marines? color me surprised!
I don't think anyone is saying Aeldari are fine right now, but the idea that SM are just another Aeldari is so far off base. They are so much much more.
They have between 3-4 times the play rate. Ofc they have more top lists if they are at a similar power level.
Hate to point it out again but that is the logic by which you make almost every declarative statement about game balance RE: other factions you don't play/like.
Kind of "pot calling the kettle black" to be complaining about people saying that supplement marines feel like gak to play against when you so commonly make declarative statements about other armies.
Why should any Eldar unit be nerfed, for example? Where are the OP competitive Biel-Tan, Ulthwe and Saim-Hann armies? If you can't prove every subfaction is OP, then you're not allowed to make any balance change that affects every subfaction.
Remove Master Crafters and suddenly 100% of competitive eldar lists will be Alaitoc, with a very slightly lower winrate.
Remove/nerf Alaitoc, and suddenly 100% of all competitive eldar lists will be Ulthwe (or something) with a slightly lower winrate.
Nerf Ulthwe, and it'll be Iyanden, Nerf Iyanden, it'll be Biel-Tan. Because the best players, who will actually meaningfully shift the army's winrate, will obviously be playing the best possible subfaction.
This is the assumption made for every single faction in the game exceeeeeeept for Codex Space Marines. There, it's "No, you can't nerf my double-firing movement-halving thunderfire cannons, I play Blood Ravens and we have a 0% playrate, WE aren't OP!"
No...remove expert crafters and alitoc WR would stay roughly the same. Which has a significantly lower WR. What would you do to fix eldar? Would you just let them maintain the highest WR in the game?
Push the stronger FOTM Eldar players from Custom Chapter to Alaitoc, and Alaitoc's winrate goes up to somewhere between current-Alaitoc and current-Custom.
Unless you're arguing that the player exerts no bias on the winrate, which seems silly - even if you pretend there's no skill at actually playing the game, they'd still crowd out the "See my twenty-year old Alaitoc pathfinder army!" subset.
Scotsman can correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not saying "Don't nerf Expert Crafters". He's calling out the double standard where "Eldar" must be nerfed because "Expert Crafters" are OP - screwing over Uthwe, but "Marines" shouldn't be nerfed because of "Iron Hands" - because that would screw over Ultramarines.
In other words, if Expert Crafters and Iron Hands are OP, but Uthwe and Ultramarines are not, then whether to nerf Eldar and Marines, or nerf Expert Crafters and Iron Hands specifically, should be consistent.
Demanding that all CWE be nerfed because Expert Crafters hurt your feelings, but demanding your Blue&Gold Iron Hands not be nerfed because other peoples' UltraMarines would be hurt is a double standard.
I've only suggested nerfing expert crafters. What double standard are we talking about exactly? Eldar have been a top army the entire edition. Where space marines of all types have been rock bottom. It actually looks like a double standard when marines get actually competitive rules and everyone calls for nerfs when eldar are at the very least as powerful as space marines. Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
The fact that eldar and space marines are that close in win rate means they are at a similar power level. Honestly if you nerfed Ironhands that space marine avg WR would drop probably around the 53-52% WR area.
Expert crafters being an exclusive trait would be fine with me. I remain sincerely unconvinced that doing that would not make the winrate of Alaitoc "Mysteriously" jump.
I think the best nerf to Eldar would be a nerf to CHE, a nerf to Nightspinners, and possibly a nerf to both EC and Alaitoc because they do seem to be head and shoulders above the competition.
I absolutely think Shield Drones need a nerf. I'm not entirely convinced that Riptides do given a shield drone nerf, I suspect they may be as crazy as they are right now because they're playing into a primaris meta.
"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!"
2020/01/08 20:16:33
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
Xeno, that's because Eldar are nowhere near the same level of problem as Codex Marines right now.
Marines are not only the strongest faction in the game, they are also the most popular. It's why we see Marines are a quarter of all tournament lists. The peak of Ynarri popularity was 7 or 8% of tournament lists for comparison (if memory serves). Add to this gak mix that Codex Marines arrived literally at the point where the game was probably the most balanced it has ever been. The variety of factions able to compete and win events (though they perhaps had very few variable builds) was unprecedented. Finally, as Scotsman has already said, Marines simply have more options than every other faction as of right now. They are able to take a huge variety of units, employ a huge variety of tactics and suit a massive range of playstyles at the competitive level. This is unheard of for a single faction.
This is why you see such a push back to Codex Marines in particular. They are the most OP faction with the most players that arrived at the time where the game WAS the most balanced. Many people right now associate Marines with a drop in balance for the game and, as we can surely all agree, that is bad for the game overall. I still remember the dark times of 7th and earlier when the game was a complete mess. What I see now reminds me of those times, times I thought were dead and buried with this edition.
I think there's more to it. The player base didn't shift from from Eldar aside from perhaps the handful of top players that move around a lot. It was Imperium, CSM, and Knights (mostly) who took a hit in their rates of attendance. It seems like the vast majority of players stick to their lane or spray their existing marines grey.
December win rate for all Codex Astartes : 55%
December win rate for all Codex Astartes without IH : 50%
December win rate for IH only: 65%
December win rate for Asuryani : 57%
Nerf IH and things look a lot more rational on the marine end. That doesn't mean it is fun to play them or that they're implicitly balanced.
2020/01/08 20:27:22
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Ishagu wrote: Iron Hands and Raven Guard have a high win rate against Tau. The Ultras don't.
That's the key point.
Marines are a faction that encompasses multiple Chapters. They are not all equal.
If anyone wants to say that Iron Hands and Centurions with the right chapter combination are too strong that would be perfectly reasonable. Blanket claims against the entire faction are not.
Off the bat, when a set of models has one hyper powerful way of playing, and one very strong but not as insane way of playing it that also has less flavor, you'll find that the best players with those models are just going to go towards the best option, dragging down the alternative throughout quality of playerbase. Ultramarines are still well and truly OP, just one of the least OP options in that dex so that is what it is.
Secondly, RG has a lower winrate than both Scars and Fists.
Thirdly, Thunderfire Cannon alone is better than anything you've mentioned yet, and is universal, and is the most played unit in competitive play at the moment.
Fourthly, where's these stats that show Ultramarines having a poor win rate vs Tau? is that sweeping claim based off anything other than you being unable to beat them?
Fifthly, and just to reinforce, arguing what's good in this game like it's a basketball point sheet and looking at nothing but win-rate statistics is so incredibly dense and I'm only doing it hopefully show you guys the folly of this and point out the holes in the claims you are making, because this is silly.
blaktoof wrote: Short of GW going back in time and removing all the marine supplements there is not much they can do. It's beyond simple nerfs to adjust SN balance down due to the layers of abilities they can get between codex/supplement/PA expansion.
They basically need to time travel or give every other faction the same extra free later of modifiers/wargear/traits/strats. And not just quantity but quality for low/free cost that SM received.
It's almost like you aren't paying attention. Only Ironhands are too strong.
*if you define too strong solely as "winning top-level competitive tournaments."
His statement falls apart under that definition too. In the very latest weekend of competitive play, John Lennon, a very recognizable name in the tournament scene, got first place at a GT using pure Imperial Fists, beating out both Raven Guard, and Iron Hands. The weekend before that saw Fists winning two GT level events, as well as two for Raven Guard.
Marines are busted in every single supplement. The more competitive players just play the more competitive chapters more.
I'm pretty sure I have been calling for nerf to IF super doctrine the entire thread. Also a few lists winning events does not make a point stronger. 1 event is not a trend. WR = trend.
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...I just don't know what to say. All marine supplements are OP because you say so I suppose. Seems reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: So half as much Aeldari as Space Marines? color me surprised!
I don't think anyone is saying Aeldari are fine right now, but the idea that SM are just another Aeldari is so far off base. They are so much much more.
They have between 3-4 times the play rate. Ofc they have more top lists if they are at a similar power level.
Hate to point it out again but that is the logic by which you make almost every declarative statement about game balance RE: other factions you don't play/like.
Kind of "pot calling the kettle black" to be complaining about people saying that supplement marines feel like gak to play against when you so commonly make declarative statements about other armies.
Why should any Eldar unit be nerfed, for example? Where are the OP competitive Biel-Tan, Ulthwe and Saim-Hann armies? If you can't prove every subfaction is OP, then you're not allowed to make any balance change that affects every subfaction.
Remove Master Crafters and suddenly 100% of competitive eldar lists will be Alaitoc, with a very slightly lower winrate.
Remove/nerf Alaitoc, and suddenly 100% of all competitive eldar lists will be Ulthwe (or something) with a slightly lower winrate.
Nerf Ulthwe, and it'll be Iyanden, Nerf Iyanden, it'll be Biel-Tan. Because the best players, who will actually meaningfully shift the army's winrate, will obviously be playing the best possible subfaction.
This is the assumption made for every single faction in the game exceeeeeeept for Codex Space Marines. There, it's "No, you can't nerf my double-firing movement-halving thunderfire cannons, I play Blood Ravens and we have a 0% playrate, WE aren't OP!"
No...remove expert crafters and alitoc WR would stay roughly the same. Which has a significantly lower WR. What would you do to fix eldar? Would you just let them maintain the highest WR in the game?
Push the stronger FOTM Eldar players from Custom Chapter to Alaitoc, and Alaitoc's winrate goes up to somewhere between current-Alaitoc and current-Custom.
Unless you're arguing that the player exerts no bias on the winrate, which seems silly - even if you pretend there's no skill at actually playing the game, they'd still crowd out the "See my twenty-year old Alaitoc pathfinder army!" subset.
Scotsman can correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not saying "Don't nerf Expert Crafters". He's calling out the double standard where "Eldar" must be nerfed because "Expert Crafters" are OP - screwing over Uthwe, but "Marines" shouldn't be nerfed because of "Iron Hands" - because that would screw over Ultramarines.
In other words, if Expert Crafters and Iron Hands are OP, but Uthwe and Ultramarines are not, then whether to nerf Eldar and Marines, or nerf Expert Crafters and Iron Hands specifically, should be consistent.
Demanding that all CWE be nerfed because Expert Crafters hurt your feelings, but demanding your Blue&Gold Iron Hands not be nerfed because other peoples' UltraMarines would be hurt is a double standard.
I've only suggested nerfing expert crafters. What double standard are we talking about exactly?
When you argue that Marines are bad, because only a couple subfactions are good while the rest are bad, while also arguing that CWE are OP because a couple subfactions are good while the rest are bad - it certainly sounds like a double standard.
Eldar have been a top army the entire edition. Where space marines of all types have been rock bottom.
GK would like to have a word with you about what "rock bottom" really means. Marines have been really bad for much of the edition, but nowhere near the worst book, and they've had times at the top.
It actually looks like a double standard when marines get actually competitive rules and everyone calls for nerfs when eldar are at the very least as powerful as space marines. Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
I think you and I read very different DakkaDakkas. People have been screaming "Nerf Eldar" all edition. They still are. There's more of interest to discuss about nerfing Marines than Eldar right now, but because Marines have changed a lot more. Things that change tend to spark more contemporary discussion. There's still tons of desire on these boards to nerf Eldar, though.
The fact that eldar and space marines are that close in win rate means they are at a similar power level. Honestly if you nerfed Ironhands that space marine avg WR would drop probably around the 53-52% WR area.
How is that different from Eldar?
2020/01/08 20:29:37
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
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.
As for the win condition - that is in the missions. The CA19 missions are now really good and give a route to victory for some very diverse army builds. This is now the polar opposite of the ITC missions which are really showing their age and clearly narrow the meta to a dramatic degree. It is the easiest thing in the world to bolt onto a system after the fact, GW changes this every year as part of what balances the game. The problem is that large parts of the competitive scene totally ignore these changes.
First off, that article is a good read. So is the one on Game Stewardship that is linked within it. Nothing I didn't know, but well put none the less. The points it's making apply just as much to the "new hotness" problem within the context of all but the most cut-throat environments.
I'll admit I haven't read through the CA 19 missions, but I'd be very surprised if they added actual "achieve this game state -> victory, game over" checkmate conditions. All the CA missions up to this point have just been adding a layer to the calculation of whether you've lost too much material to have a path to victory. However, however, if I'm being intellectually honest that's what a proper checkmate condition is doing in the first place. The difference between deciding whether you can achieve a checkmate in Chess and a caster-kill in Warmahordes is how complicated the calculation is, not the fundamental nature of that calculation.
Mark it down in your calendars people, somebody just said "I've listened to your argument and you've changed my mind" on the internet.
So what is bringing 40k down at the competitive level? We've ruled out the lack of a checkmate condition, and Warmachine had a lot of the other issues we're complaining about but it still held up to a cut-throat tournament focus. (Specifically I'm thinking of inter- and intra-faction balance issues, rock-paper-scissors elements in list design, and lethality.) The thing that really stands out as different is threat range. The standard deployment zones were 30" apart and the average gun range was about 12". Very few things could get into shooting range turn 1, almost nothing could manage a turn 1 charge, and a majority of units didn't have ranged weapons at all. Maneuvering into position was critical, and I think that's my biggest complaint about 40k; the feeling that the really important decisions were made when we put our lists together instead of after those lists are on the table.
Ishagu wrote: Iron Hands and Raven Guard have a high win rate against Tau. The Ultras don't.
That's the key point.
Marines are a faction that encompasses multiple Chapters. They are not all equal.
If anyone wants to say that Iron Hands and Centurions with the right chapter combination are too strong that would be perfectly reasonable. Blanket claims against the entire faction are not.
Off the bat, when a set of models has one hyper powerful way of playing, and one very strong but not as insane way of playing it that also has less flavor, you'll find that the best players with those models are just going to go towards the best option, dragging down the alternative throughout quality of playerbase. Ultramarines are still well and truly OP, just one of the least OP options in that dex so that is what it is.
Secondly, RG has a lower winrate than both Scars and Fists.
Thirdly, Thunderfire Cannon alone is better than anything you've mentioned yet, and is universal, and is the most played unit in competitive play at the moment.
Fourthly, where's these stats that show Ultramarines having a poor win rate vs Tau? is that sweeping claim based off anything other than you being unable to beat them?
Fifthly, and just to reinforce, arguing what's good in this game like it's a basketball point sheet and looking at nothing but win-rate statistics is so incredibly dense and I'm only doing it hopefully show you guys the folly of this and point out the holes in the claims you are making, because this is silly.
blaktoof wrote: Short of GW going back in time and removing all the marine supplements there is not much they can do. It's beyond simple nerfs to adjust SN balance down due to the layers of abilities they can get between codex/supplement/PA expansion.
They basically need to time travel or give every other faction the same extra free later of modifiers/wargear/traits/strats. And not just quantity but quality for low/free cost that SM received.
It's almost like you aren't paying attention. Only Ironhands are too strong.
*if you define too strong solely as "winning top-level competitive tournaments."
His statement falls apart under that definition too. In the very latest weekend of competitive play, John Lennon, a very recognizable name in the tournament scene, got first place at a GT using pure Imperial Fists, beating out both Raven Guard, and Iron Hands. The weekend before that saw Fists winning two GT level events, as well as two for Raven Guard.
Marines are busted in every single supplement. The more competitive players just play the more competitive chapters more.
I'm pretty sure I have been calling for nerf to IF super doctrine the entire thread. Also a few lists winning events does not make a point stronger. 1 event is not a trend. WR = trend.
You straight up ignore statstics showing non ironhands/IF marines being totally unremarkable compared to other codex even before the CA update which buffed basically every army and did nothing for supplement marines...I just don't know what to say. All marine supplements are OP because you say so I suppose. Seems reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: So half as much Aeldari as Space Marines? color me surprised!
I don't think anyone is saying Aeldari are fine right now, but the idea that SM are just another Aeldari is so far off base. They are so much much more.
They have between 3-4 times the play rate. Ofc they have more top lists if they are at a similar power level.
Hate to point it out again but that is the logic by which you make almost every declarative statement about game balance RE: other factions you don't play/like.
Kind of "pot calling the kettle black" to be complaining about people saying that supplement marines feel like gak to play against when you so commonly make declarative statements about other armies.
Why should any Eldar unit be nerfed, for example? Where are the OP competitive Biel-Tan, Ulthwe and Saim-Hann armies? If you can't prove every subfaction is OP, then you're not allowed to make any balance change that affects every subfaction.
Remove Master Crafters and suddenly 100% of competitive eldar lists will be Alaitoc, with a very slightly lower winrate.
Remove/nerf Alaitoc, and suddenly 100% of all competitive eldar lists will be Ulthwe (or something) with a slightly lower winrate.
Nerf Ulthwe, and it'll be Iyanden, Nerf Iyanden, it'll be Biel-Tan. Because the best players, who will actually meaningfully shift the army's winrate, will obviously be playing the best possible subfaction.
This is the assumption made for every single faction in the game exceeeeeeept for Codex Space Marines. There, it's "No, you can't nerf my double-firing movement-halving thunderfire cannons, I play Blood Ravens and we have a 0% playrate, WE aren't OP!"
No...remove expert crafters and alitoc WR would stay roughly the same. Which has a significantly lower WR. What would you do to fix eldar? Would you just let them maintain the highest WR in the game?
Push the stronger FOTM Eldar players from Custom Chapter to Alaitoc, and Alaitoc's winrate goes up to somewhere between current-Alaitoc and current-Custom.
Unless you're arguing that the player exerts no bias on the winrate, which seems silly - even if you pretend there's no skill at actually playing the game, they'd still crowd out the "See my twenty-year old Alaitoc pathfinder army!" subset.
Scotsman can correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not saying "Don't nerf Expert Crafters". He's calling out the double standard where "Eldar" must be nerfed because "Expert Crafters" are OP - screwing over Uthwe, but "Marines" shouldn't be nerfed because of "Iron Hands" - because that would screw over Ultramarines.
In other words, if Expert Crafters and Iron Hands are OP, but Uthwe and Ultramarines are not, then whether to nerf Eldar and Marines, or nerf Expert Crafters and Iron Hands specifically, should be consistent.
Demanding that all CWE be nerfed because Expert Crafters hurt your feelings, but demanding your Blue&Gold Iron Hands not be nerfed because other peoples' UltraMarines would be hurt is a double standard.
I've only suggested nerfing expert crafters. What double standard are we talking about exactly? Eldar have been a top army the entire edition. Where space marines of all types have been rock bottom. It actually looks like a double standard when marines get actually competitive rules and everyone calls for nerfs when eldar are at the very least as powerful as space marines. Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
The fact that eldar and space marines are that close in win rate means they are at a similar power level. Honestly if you nerfed Ironhands that space marine avg WR would drop probably around the 53-52% WR area.
Expert crafters being an exclusive trait would be fine with me. I remain sincerely unconvinced that doing that would not make the winrate of Alaitoc "Mysteriously" jump.
I think the best nerf to Eldar would be a nerf to CHE, a nerf to Nightspinners, and possibly a nerf to both EC and Alaitoc because they do seem to be head and shoulders above the competition.
I absolutely think Shield Drones need a nerf. I'm not entirely convinced that Riptides do given a shield drone nerf, I suspect they may be as crazy as they are right now because they're playing into a primaris meta.
Seriously? Nerf nightspinners? They get dropped in CA basically every time. No one used them till now. You basically can't beat tau without them/Custom traits are likely the culprit. They did just nerf the CHE too.
Sheild drones should just be required to be in LOS in order to block shots.
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 20:31:48
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
Xeno, that's because Eldar are nowhere near the same level of problem as Codex Marines right now.
Marines are not only the strongest faction in the game, they are also the most popular. It's why we see Marines are a quarter of all tournament lists. The peak of Ynarri popularity was 7 or 8% of tournament lists for comparison (if memory serves). Add to this gak mix that Codex Marines arrived literally at the point where the game was probably the most balanced it has ever been. The variety of factions able to compete and win events (though they perhaps had very few variable builds) was unprecedented. Finally, as Scotsman has already said, Marines simply have more options than every other faction as of right now. They are able to take a huge variety of units, employ a huge variety of tactics and suit a massive range of playstyles at the competitive level. This is unheard of for a single faction.
This is why you see such a push back to Codex Marines in particular. They are the most OP faction with the most players that arrived at the time where the game WAS the most balanced. Many people right now associate Marines with a drop in balance for the game and, as we can surely all agree, that is bad for the game overall. I still remember the dark times of 7th and earlier when the game was a complete mess. What I see now reminds me of those times, times I thought were dead and buried with this edition.
I think there's more to it. The player base didn't shift from from Eldar aside from perhaps the handful of top players that move around a lot. It was Imperium, CSM, and Knights (mostly) who took a hit in their rates of attendance. It seems like the vast majority of players stick to their lane or spray their existing marines grey.
December win rate for all Codex Astartes : 55%
December win rate for all Codex Astartes without IH : 50%
December win rate for IH only: 65%
December win rate for Asuryani : 57%
Nerf IH and things look a lot more rational on the marine end. That doesn't mean it is fun to play them or that they're implicitly balanced.
An odd thought:
In some ways, you can expect most FOTM players to currently play Craftsmen or Iron Hands.
The numbers, as we have them, make it really easy to run the numbers without Crafstemen/Iron Hands.
We now have an interesting dataset that minimizes the skew caused by FOTM players in regards to all subfactions except those 2.
Now, that's a very limited dataset, but it's still interesting.
(Also, nothing wrong with being a FOTM player.)
2020/01/08 20:39:37
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Ultras don't have a higher win rate because they are not being played regularly at tournaments by any significant competitive players. At competitive events fluff lists from factions with powerful rules played by non competitive people tend to lose to less powerful factions with optimized unit selections played by competitive people.
The data has factors not accounted for, like player skill, unit composition, etc. More competitive players will have more competitive unit choices overall and play better- they will often go towards a few factions that have the most optimized rules for their play style. This skews data.
It would be similar to arguing CSM is grossly underpowered because of Brazen Beast performance which is a ridiculous stance.
Marine supplements for all marine factions added very efficient and powerful free rules that are direct upgrades to detachments and units, not side grade alternative take options. As no other faction received anything similar all Marines will be imbalanced compared to all non Marines.
Marines get Codex/Supplements/PA for rules
Everyone else gets Codex/PA
The worst part is that ontop of the supplements marine PA stuff are still direct upgrades adding more rule layers to units detachments whereas many of the non marine rules are not, requiring you to forgoe rules to get side grades aka pick your own cradtworld/Kabal/cult/coven
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/08 20:51:42
2020/01/08 20:49:23
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
Xeno, that's because Eldar are nowhere near the same level of problem as Codex Marines right now.
Marines are not only the strongest faction in the game, they are also the most popular. It's why we see Marines are a quarter of all tournament lists. The peak of Ynarri popularity was 7 or 8% of tournament lists for comparison (if memory serves). Add to this gak mix that Codex Marines arrived literally at the point where the game was probably the most balanced it has ever been. The variety of factions able to compete and win events (though they perhaps had very few variable builds) was unprecedented. Finally, as Scotsman has already said, Marines simply have more options than every other faction as of right now. They are able to take a huge variety of units, employ a huge variety of tactics and suit a massive range of playstyles at the competitive level. This is unheard of for a single faction.
This is why you see such a push back to Codex Marines in particular. They are the most OP faction with the most players that arrived at the time where the game WAS the most balanced. Many people right now associate Marines with a drop in balance for the game and, as we can surely all agree, that is bad for the game overall. I still remember the dark times of 7th and earlier when the game was a complete mess. What I see now reminds me of those times, times I thought were dead and buried with this edition.
I think there's more to it. The player base didn't shift from from Eldar aside from perhaps the handful of top players that move around a lot. It was Imperium, CSM, and Knights (mostly) who took a hit in their rates of attendance. It seems like the vast majority of players stick to their lane or spray their existing marines grey.
December win rate for all Codex Astartes : 55%
December win rate for all Codex Astartes without IH : 50%
December win rate for IH only: 65%
December win rate for Asuryani : 57%
Nerf IH and things look a lot more rational on the marine end. That doesn't mean it is fun to play them or that they're implicitly balanced.
An odd thought:
In some ways, you can expect most FOTM players to currently play Craftsmen or Iron Hands.
The numbers, as we have them, make it really easy to run the numbers without Crafstemen/Iron Hands.
We now have an interesting dataset that minimizes the skew caused by FOTM players in regards to all subfactions except those 2.
Now, that's a very limited dataset, but it's still interesting.
(Also, nothing wrong with being a FOTM player.)
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone playing Ultramarines armies and traveling to go to ITC events isn't trying their best to win/isn't a good player because they didn't choose to bring the obviously more powerful army? That might be true for some players but there are probably plenty of Ironhand players that are bad players too looking for free wins. It is a garbage argument IMO.
Maybe we should have a tournament where it's just IH/Custom eldar/Tau/ and choas soup. How do you think that would go?
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 20:52:09
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
blaktoof wrote: Ultras don't have a higher win rate because they are not being played regularly at tournaments by any significant competitive players. At competitive events fluff lists from factions with powerful rules played by non competitive people tend to lose to less powerful factions with optimized unit selections played by competitive people.
The data has factors not accounted for, like player skill, unit composition, etc. More competitive players will have more competitive unit choices overall and play better- they will often go towards a few factions that have the most optimized rules for their play style. This skews data.
It would be similar to arguing CSM is grossly underpowered because of Brazen Beast performance which is a ridiculous stance.
Marine supplements for all marine factions added very efficient and powerful free rules that are direct upgrades to detachments and units, not side grade alternative take options. As no other faction received anything similar all Marines will be imbalanced compared to all non Marines.
Marines get Codex/Supplements/PA for rules
Everyone else gets Codex/PA
The worst part is that ontop of the supplements marine PA stuff are still direct upgrades adding more rule layers to units detachments whereas many of the non marine rules are not, requiring you to forgoe rules to get side grades aka pick your own cradtworld/Kabal/cult/coven
Chicken and egg, right? If UM were stronger then better players would use them more often. As they don't then potentially they're not as strong.
Personally I would love to control the app that stores this data, because I'd be pulling for all those variables. There is, as you say, a lot more to it.
2020/01/08 20:56:20
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think there's more to it. The player base didn't shift from from Eldar aside from perhaps the handful of top players that move around a lot. It was Imperium, CSM, and Knights (mostly) who took a hit in their rates of attendance. It seems like the vast majority of players stick to their lane or spray their existing marines grey.
December win rate for all Codex Astartes : 55%
December win rate for all Codex Astartes without IH : 50%
December win rate for IH only: 65%
December win rate for Asuryani : 57%
Nerf IH and things look a lot more rational on the marine end. That doesn't mean it is fun to play them or that they're implicitly balanced.
I think there were more shifts than you make out, but I don't have the data on that at the moment. Either way my points were to illustrate why there is a negative sentiment around Marines particularly, not explain any strength and/or weakness of the faction on a subfaction level.
Regarding the stats above, why are we only looking at December which is probably the quietest month insofar as 40k tournaments go? Not to mention the fact that many "top" players use the period to practice for the end of the season LVO. It's probably the worst month to focus on in terms of balance discussions?
2020/01/08 20:58:49
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Post some well built competitive UM lists that went to a major event if you think otherwise.
There were two top three UM lists at the northwest open GT in November. Most of the UM lists I see at events aren't like that. There are lots of less competitive players playing In hanging around the mid tables with maybe not so optimized unit selections.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/08 21:03:15
2020/01/08 21:01:11
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Honestly the main reason marines get so much flak is because of how stupid the decisions were when giving them rules. And on top of that the balance isnt good as many others stated. Even if marines get nerfed where they get a perfect 50% winrate, the fact that they circumvent so many rules that other armies have to adhere to makes it meserable to play against them.
1. Why do marines get to keep their parent Warlord traits, Psychic powers, relics and stratagems when elves dont?
2. Why do marines get to be better at everything compared to other armies? (better deepstrike than GSC, better melee than chaos demons, better shooting than tau, better repairing than the mechanicus itself).
3. Why do marines get rules that ignore the core ruels of 8th edition that were put in to balance the game? Deepstrike on turn 1, disembark from a transport after moving it.
4. Why do marines' turns take so goddamn long because of all the cheap rerolling that they get.
Marines are just not fun, spending 2-3 hours looking at my opponent masturbate with dice sucks.
2020/01/08 21:15:36
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Honestly the main reason marines get so much flak is because of how stupid the decisions were when giving them rules. And on top of that the balance isnt good as many others stated. Even if marines get nerfed where they get a perfect 50% winrate, the fact that they circumvent so many rules that other armies have to adhere to makes it meserable to play against them.
1. Why do marines get to keep their parent Warlord traits, Psychic powers, relics and stratagems when elves dont?
2. Why do marines get to be better at everything compared to other armies? (better deepstrike than GSC, better melee than chaos demons, better shooting than tau, better repairing than the mechanicus itself).
3. Why do marines get rules that ignore the core ruels of 8th edition that were put in to balance the game? Deepstrike on turn 1, disembark from a transport after moving it.
4. Why do marines' turns take so goddamn long because of all the cheap rerolling that they get.
Marines are just not fun, spending 2-3 hours looking at my opponent masturbate with dice sucks.
Marines lose in game bonus for taking allies of any kind which limits them in the total number of books they can draw stratagems from. Knights can take additional warlords too. Most armies can take additional warlords from the vigilis books. Marines shoot really good ill give you that. Why though do very few marine units have the ability to move twice...or shoot twice...or have have invunerale saves. The impulsor is probably the best transport in the game but hardly sees use...you can't get out and charge...can't put aggressors in it. There is lots of give and take. I agree marines can be competitive in a lot of ways but that shouldn't be a reason to not like an army - that should be a reason to want to play an army. Marine turns are typically fast too. Units are small...rerolling 1's to wound is hardly adding any additional time to a game. Moving 20/30 man units that takes forever.
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 21:17:25
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Xenomancers wrote: Don't see a lot of people calling for nerfs of eldar...
Xeno, that's because Eldar are nowhere near the same level of problem as Codex Marines right now.
Marines are not only the strongest faction in the game, they are also the most popular. It's why we see Marines are a quarter of all tournament lists. The peak of Ynarri popularity was 7 or 8% of tournament lists for comparison (if memory serves). Add to this gak mix that Codex Marines arrived literally at the point where the game was probably the most balanced it has ever been. The variety of factions able to compete and win events (though they perhaps had very few variable builds) was unprecedented. Finally, as Scotsman has already said, Marines simply have more options than every other faction as of right now. They are able to take a huge variety of units, employ a huge variety of tactics and suit a massive range of playstyles at the competitive level. This is unheard of for a single faction.
This is why you see such a push back to Codex Marines in particular. They are the most OP faction with the most players that arrived at the time where the game WAS the most balanced. Many people right now associate Marines with a drop in balance for the game and, as we can surely all agree, that is bad for the game overall. I still remember the dark times of 7th and earlier when the game was a complete mess. What I see now reminds me of those times, times I thought were dead and buried with this edition.
I think there's more to it. The player base didn't shift from from Eldar aside from perhaps the handful of top players that move around a lot. It was Imperium, CSM, and Knights (mostly) who took a hit in their rates of attendance. It seems like the vast majority of players stick to their lane or spray their existing marines grey.
December win rate for all Codex Astartes : 55%
December win rate for all Codex Astartes without IH : 50%
December win rate for IH only: 65%
December win rate for Asuryani : 57%
Nerf IH and things look a lot more rational on the marine end. That doesn't mean it is fun to play them or that they're implicitly balanced.
An odd thought:
In some ways, you can expect most FOTM players to currently play Craftsmen or Iron Hands.
The numbers, as we have them, make it really easy to run the numbers without Crafstemen/Iron Hands.
We now have an interesting dataset that minimizes the skew caused by FOTM players in regards to all subfactions except those 2.
Now, that's a very limited dataset, but it's still interesting.
(Also, nothing wrong with being a FOTM player.)
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone playing Ultramarines armies and traveling to go to ITC events isn't trying their best to win/isn't a good player because they didn't choose to bring the obviously more powerful army?
Umm wut? The point was about 50 miles in the other direction....
First, the claim was about the trend of the numbers, and limiting the skew. When I said "minimize" or "most", I didn't mean "everyone". If you're reading "minimize" or "most" as absolutist qualifiers, I'd suggest rethinking your understanding of such topics.
Second, I would say many skilled UM players aren't "trying their best to win" by not picking IH in the same way (but to a less serious degree) that not using loaded dice "aren't trying their best to win". Many are likely "trying their best to win" within the boundaries of the hobby they enjoy. Those boundaries vary from person to person. Some want to play to win with their OldMarine demi-company UltraMarines. Others want to play to win with Marines of whatever subfaction is best. Others want to play to win fairly with any faction. Each of those is reasonable.
That might be true for some players but there are probably plenty of Ironhand players that are bad players too looking for free wins. It is a garbage argument IMO.
There are likely many players playing Iron Hands that aren't "Iron Hands" players - meaning players who wouldn't be IH if they weren't top dog. Look no further than your own infamous Blue&Gold Iron Hands, for example. That in itself doesn't make the player bad. Plenty of top players subfaction- (and even faction-) swap as appropriate. Daedalus even posted a graph suggesting widespread faction swaps to Marines from other IoM armies lately.
As for how many Iron Hands lists were "Iron Hands" players versus FOTM players, that's hard to say. But it's fairly easy to believe there aren't more "Iron Hands Players" than "Ultramarine Players". Considering that the stats show three times as many IH lists as UM lists, that strongly suggests the majority of Iron Hands lists were not "Iron Hands players".
Maybe we should have a tournament where it's just IH/Custom eldar/Tau/ and choas soup. How do you think that would go?
Why ask just about the only question the stats truly can answer with significant certainty?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Honestly the main reason marines get so much flak is because of how stupid the decisions were when giving them rules. And on top of that the balance isnt good as many others stated. Even if marines get nerfed where they get a perfect 50% winrate, the fact that they circumvent so many rules that other armies have to adhere to makes it meserable to play against them.
1. Why do marines get to keep their parent Warlord traits, Psychic powers, relics and stratagems when elves dont?
2. Why do marines get to be better at everything compared to other armies? (better deepstrike than GSC, better melee than chaos demons, better shooting than tau, better repairing than the mechanicus itself).
3. Why do marines get rules that ignore the core ruels of 8th edition that were put in to balance the game? Deepstrike on turn 1, disembark from a transport after moving it.
4. Why do marines' turns take so goddamn long because of all the cheap rerolling that they get.
Marines are just not fun, spending 2-3 hours looking at my opponent masturbate with dice sucks.
A couple other reasons why Marines get more flak:
1. The "Its stupid design" has nothing to do with balance. Some of us hate the Bloat for the Bloat God. It's not a "We Hate Marines" thing. It's not a "They're too strong/too weak" thing. its a "That's dumb. It's unfun. It just makes the game worse" thing.
2. Marines have always been GW's favorite. While second to CWE for most-often-OP-faction, they are second to none in terms of support. Rules, models, fluff, you name it. Nobody else comes close to getting the love Marines get.
3. It's new. We've already talked about what needs to change about CWE. It's not new events. It's not a new topic. Most of us don't want to post the same thing 30 times a day every day for a year.
Marines should be getting more flak than anyone else right now. For many good reasons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/08 21:23:09
2020/01/08 21:28:46
Subject: Re:Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Honestly the main reason marines get so much flak is because of how stupid the decisions were when giving them rules. And on top of that the balance isnt good as many others stated. Even if marines get nerfed where they get a perfect 50% winrate, the fact that they circumvent so many rules that other armies have to adhere to makes it meserable to play against them.
1. Why do marines get to keep their parent Warlord traits, Psychic powers, relics and stratagems when elves dont?
2. Why do marines get to be better at everything compared to other armies? (better deepstrike than GSC, better melee than chaos demons, better shooting than tau, better repairing than the mechanicus itself).
3. Why do marines get rules that ignore the core ruels of 8th edition that were put in to balance the game? Deepstrike on turn 1, disembark from a transport after moving it.
4. Why do marines' turns take so goddamn long because of all the cheap rerolling that they get.
Marines are just not fun, spending 2-3 hours looking at my opponent masturbate with dice sucks.
Marines lose in game bonus for taking allies of any kind which limits them in the total number of books they can draw stratagems from. Knights can take additional warlords too. Most armies can take additional warlords from the vigilis books. Marines shoot really good ill give you that. Why though do very few marine units have the ability to move twice...or shoot twice...or have have invunerale saves. The impulsor is probably the best transport in the game but hardly sees use...you can't get out and charge...can't put aggressors in it. There is lots of give and take. I agree marines can be competitive in a lot of ways but that shouldn't be a reason to not like an army - that should be a reason to want to play an army. Marine turns are typically fast too. Units are small...rerolling 1's to wound is hardly adding any additional time to a game. Moving 20/30 man units that takes forever.
No what i meant with warlord traits is why can your ultramarine sucessor take an ultramarine warlord trait + relic ans psychic while my custom kabal cant take an existing kabal's WT, relics or strats? Its the same core concept of build your own army but marines get more options. And a squad of centurion or aggressors firing is a snoozefest because it happens in every phase. An intercessor squad has 16 attacks on the charge, with rerolls if theyre staying castled up. Rolls are already all over the game just to artificially extend the duration.
Marines dont need the act twice stratagems because they already puch hard enough in a single activation. the +1 attack on the charge is almost a fight twice, bolter discipline is almost a shoot twice (this one is a stretch, im aware) and the mobility you get comes from either teleporting in my face with RG or having POTMS on all your tanks with IH (yes other armies get this, i know).
Most armies that depend from invulnerable saves are armies with otherwise fragile models, Elves without their invuln (the infantry, i mean), Orks or sisters of battle all have weaker stat lines when compared to Space marines and their invuln doesnt make them immune to what they would be weak to if you removed it (rate of fire).
Again i just want to make it clear, my personnal opinion is that even if marines received perfect balance, it would still suck to play against them just because of all the things they can do that are similar to what your army does but better.
Oh, and i forgot something in my original list, why can marines now have a better method of deploying in their opponents face that a whole army whose thing it is (gsc)? incursors, eliminators, the RG strat, the flamer dread that im blanking on the name. Most of the equivalent deployment were "patched" out of the game at the beginning of the edition because they made for unfun alpha strikes (clandestine infiltration & co.), but now marines are allowed to do it.
2020/01/08 21:53:04
Subject: Pretty interesting data when you take a look at 40k stats.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think there's more to it. The player base didn't shift from from Eldar aside from perhaps the handful of top players that move around a lot. It was Imperium, CSM, and Knights (mostly) who took a hit in their rates of attendance. It seems like the vast majority of players stick to their lane or spray their existing marines grey.
December win rate for all Codex Astartes : 55%
December win rate for all Codex Astartes without IH : 50%
December win rate for IH only: 65%
December win rate for Asuryani : 57%
Nerf IH and things look a lot more rational on the marine end. That doesn't mean it is fun to play them or that they're implicitly balanced.
I think there were more shifts than you make out, but I don't have the data on that at the moment. Either way my points were to illustrate why there is a negative sentiment around Marines particularly, not explain any strength and/or weakness of the faction on a subfaction level.
Regarding the stats above, why are we only looking at December which is probably the quietest month insofar as 40k tournaments go? Not to mention the fact that many "top" players use the period to practice for the end of the season LVO. It's probably the worst month to focus on in terms of balance discussions?
But it does show that IH have an out-sized impact and other marine factions may be worse (but they may also be getting smothered by IH). Asuryani otherwise seems robust.
It's the only set of data where the most recent changes converge enough (relatively). It certainly isn't perfect or absolute in what it covers. As mentioned before - nothing in CA will have applied to any of these games.
I did a quick spreadsheet to view transience between lists for players. They seem to be relatively static for those who show up often, but you can see the ones who jumped ship for Marines.
