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.

We can argue about the legitimacy of ITC in one of the other 4 topics in this forum discussing this topic. The facts as they stand now though are that GW does use ITC as a measure of balance and makes changes accordingly. So until such time as GW stops doing this ITC data is just as relevant as any other data.

The Salt Mine wrote:
We can argue about the legitimacy of ITC in one of the other 4 topics in this forum discussing this topic. The facts as they stand now though are that GW does use ITC as a measure of balance and makes changes accordingly. So until such time as GW stops doing this ITC data is just as relevant as any other data.

Yeah, which means that all the people who don't play IH and who have a Levi that they think is cool that they play with their friends are about to suffer because a tiny group of people using a set of house-rules found it to be broken.

Wonderful.

I don't disagree. I don't like that GW makes balance decisions based of multiple differnt data sets. I would much rather GW take a stance and say thou shalt use these missions for your events or we wont support them. However thats not the case and railing against it and chanting this data set does not matter isnt doing anyone any good.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Even regardless it doesn't even pass a smell test. How could UM rise to the level of IH without IH....when they can't even beat IH, but Eldar can?

A > B

A > C

Nothing about the relationship between B and C is implied by either of those two statements.

You've oversimplified it into a logic statement that doesn't convey the issue appropriately, but your premise highlights the other end of my argument as one can't directly know that UM would benefit from the absence of IH.

If I had access to the matchup data I could tell you how UM did versus other factions and where they faltered and then we might have a better picture.

 Ishagu wrote:
There were 4 Astartes lists in the top 10 I believe.

Considering the faction popularity, it's not particularly unusual.

For what it’s worth, 3 of those 4 were Iron Hands.

 Ishagu wrote:
The recent tournaments running the official missions from CA19 have generated far more balanced results across factions.

It's amazing what balance can be achieved just by simply not inviting more than two Space Marine players.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.

You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Uhh yes...I am using data to support my claim. That makes my claim strong. How long do the under 50% marines have to perform average for you to believe they are average.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

If you've only been playing since 8th i could understand that, but it's certainly not always been the case.

Space Marines were a joke for years until GW flipped the table on the meta, Iron Hands will be nerfed and then you can find something else to complain about.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ishagu's right.

Who cares what the results were on a heavily house-ruled sub-set of 40K. They're indicative of one thing: How IH functioned under that set of house rules.

Kinda hard to compare apples to apples if one of them is a turd.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ishagu's right.

Who cares what the results were on a heavily house-ruled sub-set of 40K. They're indicative of one thing: How IH functioned under that set of house rules.

Kinda hard to compare apples to apples if one of them is a turd.

ITC/ETC only exists because of Games Workshops incompetence/ ignorance in the competitive scene.

still doesn't make it ok!

Racerguy180 wrote:
still doesn't make it ok!

ITC data is a hell of a lot more accurate in terms of game balance than GWs invitational only "tournaments". Saying there is no point in discussing it because it's not "official" is ignorance pure and simple.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

If you've only been playing since 8th i could understand that, but it's certainly not always been the case.

Space Marines were a joke for years until GW flipped the table on the meta, Iron Hands will be nerfed and then you can find something else to complain about.

What? I believe the discussion is centred around the current meta (y’know, where marines are so dominant it’s called the ‘Marine Meta’) but feel free to discuss other editions in another thread.

Marines now are broken. The stats reflect this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.

You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Uhh yes...I am using data to support my claim. That makes my claim strong. How long do the under 50% marines have to perform average for you to believe they are average.

Except the data doesn’t support your claim at all because we all know that IH are too strong. What we don’t know is how broken good UM are without them. This data proves nothing insofar as the strength of UM except to say they do not compete particularly well in the IH meta (something we already knew).

I’ll wait until the meta settles after IH, IF and successors are nerfed until I take any stats regarding the other marine factions with credibility.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Marines now are broken. The stats reflect this.

You must be new to 40k.
Edit: Here's a clue - something is always broken, they don't test their products in a competitive enlivenment.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.

Are we trying to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules or the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set?

Believe it or not some people care about the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set. Possibly even enough of them that they represent a market block GW could pay attention to.

ITC is mostly US though. Is there more 40k players in US or europe though? Whom GW should cater? Should they try to balance over unofficial house rules mostly for US crowd and screw balance in the official format used in europe?

Since ITC is bunch of house rules fixing balance errors there is the work of those house rule creators. Not GW. ITC made the problem, ITC fix it rather than expect GW to fix it screwing balance for non-ITC players.

Bro, I get that Iron hands are the most broke of the broke. All marines are crazy strong compared to some armies, I'd say most armies. Now great players can make lemons out of lemonade but it is beside the point that Marines as they now stand are the benchmark for power. Saying how certain special marines are head and shoulders above them doesn't detract them all being pretty great.

All marines are capable of being titans, some are just the littlest titans.

If Iron hands are that bonkers, best answer is everyone start playing iron hands and sooner or later someone will do something as the game will kill itself off.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
still doesn't make it ok!

ITC data is a hell of a lot more accurate in terms of game balance than GWs invitational only "tournaments". Saying there is no point in discussing it because it's not "official" is ignorance pure and simple.

GW can't balance ITC. It has no control over it. I really doubt that the writers of the various CA coordinate with the ITC mission designers and make sure that the two are aligned.

GW can only balance GW missions, because they publish points and missions in the same book. Those points reflect (or should reflect) the value of the units when using THOSE missions.

That said, IH are above the curve even in CA tournaments, just not as much as ITC tournaments. They need some nerf (nothing big).

UM and other marine chapters have yet to be proven a problem. Until they do, we cannot make any OP claims on them.

We cannot even claim that CWE are somehow too good, they can be just good at countering the IH meta. Problems must be fixed one by one.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Marines now are broken. The stats reflect this.

You must be new to 40k.
Edit: Here's a clue - something is always broken, they don't test their products in a competitive enlivenment.

No gak. I've played since 2nd Ed. Again the TOPIC specifically concerns results from a particular tournament.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
still doesn't make it ok!

ITC data is a hell of a lot more accurate in terms of game balance than GWs invitational only "tournaments". Saying there is no point in discussing it because it's not "official" is ignorance pure and simple.

where did I say there is no point in discussing it?

People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

I think the issue ends up being that this real loose idea of what 40k is has some bad aspects to it. Namely being that some areas only 40k with ITC, so these issues really strike home with them.

If you don't have to be held down to house rules, that's one thing or if GW took a more active hand in saying " This is 40k " and that ITC isn't ever anything they will balance for that would help as well. Then it's a buyer beware type situation if you play with ITC rules.

It's typical GW lack of clarity and fear of taking firm stances. As if they did, all you'd need to say to these issues is " Not GWs fault, ITC needs to get its crap together. " However they endorse these events using house rules and give them a nod and that leads to people looking to them as enabling these problems that they just over look.

It's not GWs fault how house rules shake out with their game, but it is their fault they don't distance themselves from those house rules and say clearly we balance for our rules, buyer beware those other tournaments and focus then on making their experience the best they can.

They have some blame in this conversation, it's just in not speaking up and taking a stance. How their rules work for house rules is an ITC problem though.

GW don't force you to play a certain way, so don't force them to adjust the game based on your homebrew ruleset lol

It's pretty simple, really.

 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

This thread is about an ITC tournament so you don't need to keep mentioning this.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I think the issue ends up being that this real loose idea of what 40k is has some bad aspects to it. Namely being that some areas only 40k with ITC, so these issues really strike home with them.

If you don't have to be held down to house rules, that's one thing or if GW took a more active hand in saying " This is 40k " and that ITC isn't ever anything they will balance for that would help as well. Then it's a buyer beware type situation if you play with ITC rules.
.

Eh that's clear to even kindergarden aged kids without even saying...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ingtaer wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

This thread is about an ITC tournament so you don't need to keep mentioning this.

Problem is people are claiming gw should take responsibility and fix balance based on itc tournaments. So yes it needs to be mentione again.

ITC and it's data is an interesting place.

Going for it there is there is lots of ITC data, and it's detailed. There is also the matter of some balance changes GW have implemented.

On the other hand, there is the issue of it being a (pretty widely played) set of house rules, and that the data that is available strongly suggests that the emergent property of these house rules is that the balance of ITC is different to 'vanilla 40k'

Anyone thought that whilst GW has access to the ITC data, that any balance changes that are implemented on the basis of it aren't simply done based on the face value of the data, but that GW look at performance anomalies to figure out if these anomalies are due to the ‘vanilla’ rules set, or due to the ITC rules pack?

Given that some balance changes seem to take a while to come in, and that some balance issues that seem to be ITC centric/specific don’t materialise does seem to be consistent with GW not simply mining the ITC data and balancing around that.

Given that there seem to be balance issues with ITC that GW aren't fixing there would seem to be 2 choices: 1) Align (closer) with Vanilla 40k such that any balance issues with ITC will be the same as vanilla 40k, and thus addressed or 2) push further into house rules by issuing ITC specific FAQ & Errata and even points changes.

Now just imagine how much really useful data could be gathered if ITC used CA ’19 missions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-analysis-the-lvo-40k-championship/
Is there any many question that Ironhands are the real issue here?
Also - Maybe Raptors should have an assigned chapter tactic...Special characters with custom traits should not be allowed. Every other chapter has to choose to have special characters or custom traits.

Look at these absurdly broken White scars Ultras and Salamanders with those OP doctrines and super doctrines not even giving them a 50% WR. Heck...Dark angels without Doctrines actually outperform Ultramarines which have them. With their new supplement I expect them to be pretty close to Iornhands level.

At any point in time something will be around which is both at the top level of faction strength and which is very good at denying ITC secondaries in the list building phase. That will then dominate the ITC events.

We have seen it plenty of times before and we will see it again.

There is a fascinating graphic going around twitter right now about what has happened in AoS with Slaanesh faction. The faction results fell off a cliff after a nerf but if you look at the players who carried right on playing the faction their results are steady - with a slight improvement. What has happened is that some top players who faction-hop all the time have faction-hopped away. I suspect this is what has happened to less obviously competitive chapters like Ultramarines, Salamanders etc - it is so easy to faction-hop away to Raptors or Iron Hands that a bunch of the more uber-competitive players do exactly that.

MiguelFelstone wrote:
ITC data is a hell of a lot more accurate in terms of game balance than GWs invitational only "tournaments".

I'd argue against that, given that GW tournaments follow GW's rules and ITCs are a homebrew house-rule set that makes up its own rules.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ishagu's right.

Who cares what the results were on a heavily house-ruled sub-set of 40K. They're indicative of one thing: How IH functioned under that set of house rules.

Kinda hard to compare apples to apples if one of them is a turd.

ITC/ETC only exists because of Games Workshops incompetence/ ignorance in the competitive scene.

I would completely agree that during 7th edition and early 8th this was the case. It isn't anymore.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just putting forth the data man. I take it personal when people say all marines are OP.

You're not 'just putting forth the data' my man. You are clearly, obviously and unequivocally trying to use data to enforce your claim that your blue Marine's aren't OP, it's actually just certain subsets of Marines that are OP. Which is bull.

All Marines are OP. IH, Fists and successors just hide the other subfactions because they are simply better in the current meta.

Your argument is also pointless. I have never heard anyone claim 'Blood Axes are OP', it's always 'Orks are OP'. If that stands for one faction it stands for another.

Uhh yes...I am using data to support my claim. That makes my claim strong. How long do the under 50% marines have to perform average for you to believe they are average.

You have data from one event. I don't think one events worth of data is nearly enough to make these kinds of claims. You can go to the ITC web page and click players and it shows in what event they got those points for their ranking and the how people did in those events. The first 3 that I clicked on, Heretic Wargaming RTT I, Legion Redacted 40k RTT, and Pandemonium Games Warhammer 40k ITC Tournament all have their top 8 as at least 50% or more of Space Marines of various chapters not just Iron Hands(Yes your Ultramarines make an appearance even). And that was just a quick 10 minute look Id imagine you could spend a lot of time going through all of the events they have recorded right now to get a more accurate picture but I don't have that kind of time unfortunately.

 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

Removed - Rule #1 please

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.