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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.

So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.

So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!

Or maybe he'd prefer sticking to his chosen faction instead of jumping on bandwagons for easy wins?

There are a few of us out there.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.

So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!

Or maybe he'd prefer sticking to his chosen faction instead of jumping on bandwagons for easy wins?

There are a few of us out there.

Pretty sure that was a joke on AAE's part.

Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).

Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off

The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful

Vilehydra wrote:
Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).

Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off

The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful

Well some of us don't want wombo-combos. If I wanted wombo-combos I'd play a fething ccg.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.

So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!

Or maybe he'd prefer sticking to his chosen faction instead of jumping on bandwagons for easy wins?

There are a few of us out there.

Yes - according to some. Players that make this choice aren't even trying to win and or can't possibly be good players- cause they coulda just played Ironahnds. So the results these armies get can just be ignored. They can't possibly be skilled players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).

Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off

The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful

Well some of us don't want wombo-combos. If I wanted wombo-combos I'd play a fething ccg.

Hey I am with you. Game feels so much like MTG right now I barely want to play competitive. Cause like in MTG - you can't win without taking the cheesiest stuff.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Argive wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

You need something in your list which can deploy outside your deployment zone to block this. I realise that Aeldari are short of choices in this regard but 80pts for a huge great Webway Gate of Nope for all those RG tricks could be points well spent. If their tricks are currently costing you more than 80pts in casualties then I'd say that is a good trade. At least it looks real pretty

Looks real pretty is all it's worth... 80pts for one? One wouldn't be enough half the time. In an already expensive army, 80-160 pts is huge... In a competitive setting would you really waste the pts if you take them in case you match up against RG? I understand taking things like night spinners as there is a lot primaris but they can kill other things. But the gate is just very acute tailoring.

If you can't spare 4% of your list to hold off Raven Guard, deepstriking Night Lords etc then it just can't be a problem for you. Clearly you don't think any of those things are enough of a problem to tool up against. Which is fine, in that case RG etc are clearly not OP because you see no need to counter them.

The gate is BIG. Yes it is a few more points than a barebones scout squad but it does their job in a codex that otherwise does not handle this particular risk very well - and most codexes have to pay more points to fill this role than just marines do.

But its not that simple though is it.. I would have to tailor turned up to 11... AND sacrifice 80pts AND sacrifice an entire detachment slot in an army where I struggle to fit enough things into dual battalion + spearhead pts wise AND composition wise and to get CP so that my army can function and also be decent. All just because marines exists as they do and invictor war suit exists.. Id happily take T1 DS and infiltrating optiosn for my army though and I wonder how quick the meta would cry about eldar being OP. Imagine putting a 10 man squad of wraith guard with a spirit seer 9" from your line before T1? lol...

Perhaps 80pts is not a lot in a marine list, and you can just get some troops that do this and also count as troops for CP... You don't really need CP apart from chapter master I guess, but for the my faction its the difference between having extra couple to star canons/reapers/LFR which will often clutch the game.

 flandarz wrote:
It does imply that SMs are far less reliant on their Stratagems, giving them more flexibility in Detachments (cuz they don't need to farm CP as much) and thus what they field.

My personal stance is that this game is WAY too killy, to the point where who gets first go practically decides the victor. Stratagems obviously exacerbate this problem.

SM are reliant on their auras. Choas is more reliant on spells. Their spells are better too though. In a game that is all about consistency that is also as killy as this one - auras blanket buffing most of your units is more reliable because no matter what your opponent kills you still have the strength to fight back. CSM much more bursty. Realistically in match up against each other the game is decided by who goes first. You deep strike 10 combi plasma terms and kill 500 points in thee shooting phase the same turn you just got 2-3 disco lords into combat...the game is over. Ignoring stuff like Ironhands which have an indestructible unit screening 3 chaplain dreads which will eat 3 disco lords for breakfast the next turn.

The game designers really need to examine the combos in each book with thought put behind every stratagem/ability that can mesh well with it. The probably need to come up with a new version of character protection (I honestly had no issue with characters being part of units - just get rid of LOS and it's not a problem) Vehicles regardless of wounds should not have character protection.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Giving every sub faction a seperate codex isn't needed to have varied playstyles, clearly.

The new Astartes codex and supplements have already created multiple varied playstyles. There's nothing inconsistent about what I've said - You guys should stop moving the goal posts. Psychic awakening has given other factions nearly the same volume of unique rules in some cases. Alpha Legion also have a set of relics, traits, strats, etc. As do Iron Warriors, Night Lords, etc. Not as much, but not far off.

Some of you guys are literally complaining that GW have given a faction a lot of rules. Once 9th drops - and it will as history repeats itself every few years, the cycle will start again and all the complainers will forget and move on to complain about something else. I suspect many of you have a complaint fetish lol. I know someone like that in person.

Yeah other factions got some stuff in pa but it pales in comparison to what loyalist marines have gotten.

We may have new warlord traits and relics but without strategems that allow taking multiples of each cheaply like loyalists got you still only ever see the best ones over and over. And without the kind of internal codex balance that c:sm had you still just see the same old units played on the table.

Basically pa comes down to a few new strategems per factions unless those factions are loyalist astartes.

No one denies that marines got the most. They were also at the worst starting place.
So here is the example I would go for.

Marines Were D- Tier and their supplements brought them up to between a B+ to A++ level.
Eldar were A- and their supplement brought them to an A+.
CSM were a C+ and they were brought to a B+.
Tyranids Were a D + Brought to a C-.(Probably the only army that has any right to complain from these supplements)
AM and Tau seem to be getting maybe a grade level or a 1/2 grade level increase.

The only problem is the A++ supplements which is as always - the one or 2 overpowered codex weve had all edition.

I mean, theres also the four factions you just forgot even got stuff, Drukhari GSC Ynnari and Tsons.

Whose rules were all so forgettable they basically got nothing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.

So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!

Or maybe he'd prefer sticking to his chosen faction instead of jumping on bandwagons for easy wins?

There are a few of us out there.

Pretty sure that was a joke on AAE's part.

Not my best work, apparently

Chapter master needs to go to 3CP, and/or be made a once per battle thing then go back down to 1's/ and or only effect one unit within 6". Or something..

Obviously not just SM, this should apply to all re-roll everything auras. The rerolls is what's absolutely makes the game suck the most IMO. Certainty should not be an element of a dice game.

Psychic is not on par with auras. You have to roll for those, potnetialy spend CP for re-rolls, and there are denies so it never a guarantee.

Somewhat back on topic - this entire thread is kinda ridiculous. We have certain Marine players (whose names may or may not begin with "Xeno" and end in "mancer") that are pre-emptively arguing against any potential nerfs to their precious units because their particular sub faction is just so *dang* balanced (according to a very limited data sample and/or in this case a singular article regarding a single event). Seemingly oblivious to the plight of other factions that are actually kinda fethed right now.

It [this thread] is like some sick mirror of the "Marines need to be buffed!!!11one" threads we've had throughout 8th until 6 months ago. It is like we've entered some weird meta commentary where 40k players are emulating their favoured Adeptus Astartes with, what I can only describe as; indoctrinated ramblings and zealous preaching. It's truly bizarre.

Perhaps efforts would be better spent looking at those factions that are truly struggling, rather than worrying about those that seem, for all intents and purposes, to be somewhere between 'fine' and 'OP'?

Is anyone REALLY struggling?

Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.

 Ishagu wrote:
Is anyone REALLY struggling?

Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.

Some are struggling a fair bit. The factions above 50% are pulling that from somewhere. There is also the factor of what lists will work - that isn't a problem for right now though.

 Ishagu wrote:
Is anyone REALLY struggling?

Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.

I think there's often a broader issue of "number-of-viable-builds". Marines at the moment have a ton of reasonably viable, high-mid-to-top-tier ways to be played right now. While it's often the case that other factions have maybe just a few, or only one build that sees decent results on competitive tables. Some armies can wind up being more restrained in terms of choice, even though their win percentage is decent. To me that's an issue.

 Ishagu wrote:
Is anyone REALLY struggling?

Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.

The meta is no more balanced using CA. I’d suggest that the fewer recorded games and more random nature of the missions lead the data on CA and it’s apparent ‘balance’ to be highly skewed. Not to mention the lack of chess clocks. Not that this is the thread to discuss that. For the hundredth time.

And to answer your question - yes. Clearly certain factions are struggling. Even if said faction has a ‘viable’ build, it is often a chore to play, incredibly one dimensional, easily countered or all three. That is not a good place for a faction to be.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).

Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off

The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful

Well some of us don't want wombo-combos. If I wanted wombo-combos I'd play a fething ccg.

I get that, I didn't necessarily say that it was a good thing.
On one hand armies need to have differing flavors, on the other too much flavor and your pushed into a certain direction.

I have a chaos friend who absolutely loves the wombo-combos. Is he wrong for wanting chaos to be like that? What other directions can be pushed specifically for chaos? Summoning, but summoning is one of those things that everyone is cautious about because it helped ruin 7th Ed

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other faction that relies on combos as hard as Chaos does, and for better or worse that is part of the flavor currently. Not wanting to use the flavor is like saying I don't want to rely on tau shooting, I can go for it but I'm going to have one rough time. Due to the nature of collecting models if you don't like the flavor of the army that you've spent years collecting, I offer my condolences because that's an awful feeling.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Is anyone REALLY struggling?

Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.

I think there's often a broader issue of "number-of-viable-builds". Marines at the moment have a ton of reasonably viable, high-mid-to-top-tier ways to be played right now. While it's often the case that other factions have maybe just a few, or only one build that sees decent results on competitive tables. Some armies can wind up being more restrained in terms of choice, even though their win percentage is decent. To me that's an issue.

Right. Most xenos factions have one or two builds that can compete with marines. Meanwhile chaos only works as soup, generally spamming ridiculous combos. Marines on the other hand have enough good strategems, psychic powers, warlord traits, and viable units to function effectively with multiple builds and strategies.

It's not an even playing field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vilehydra wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).

Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off

The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful

Well some of us don't want wombo-combos. If I wanted wombo-combos I'd play a fething ccg.

I get that, I didn't necessarily say that it was a good thing.
On one hand armies need to have differing flavors, on the other too much flavor and your pushed into a certain direction.

I have a chaos friend who absolutely loves the wombo-combos. Is he wrong for wanting chaos to be like that? What other directions can be pushed specifically for chaos? Summoning, but summoning is one of those things that everyone is cautious about because it helped ruin 7th Ed

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other faction that relies on combos as hard as Chaos does, and for better or worse that is part of the flavor currently. Not wanting to use the flavor is like saying I don't want to rely on tau shooting, I can go for it but I'm going to have one rough time. Due to the nature of collecting models if you don't like the flavor of the army that you've spent years collecting, I offer my condolences because that's an awful feeling.

Tau have pretty much always been about shooting. Combos are an 8th edition thing, as they're based primarily on strategems. For some baffling reason gw has decided that csm should be more reliant on them than most other armies. That sucks for us old heretics because it's not what we're used to or want. Or at least that's me.

It wasn't the freely summoned units that ruined the summoning mechanic. It's that it was piss easy to summon a lot. Make it harder (but still free) and you're good.

Vilehydra wrote:
Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).

Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off

The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful

Not true, not all criticals are allowed to be modified, cult leader for exemple for al.
It vastly depends on what.

 Ishagu wrote:
Is anyone REALLY struggling?

Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.

Win % is a really bad stat to see if anything is balanced. It works great to see if something is overpowered though. You cant get a very high win% unless you can beat all the other best armies most of the time which means that a high win % is broken for sure.

Those below 50% most likely didnt get their wins against good armies in good players hands but at the bottom tables against other bottom tier armies that may or may not be piloted by skilled players. If Tyranids, snowflake marines, dark eldar, custodes, mono chaos legions and absolute newbies play it all out against each other except for the first game in a tournament they are almost 50-50 in winrates. So they wont really drop low in winrate but they still might not have much of a chance at all when facing the top factions.

I saw some statistics a month ago for some of the factions. They had around 40-49% winrate overall but up against armies like the better marines or eldar subfactions it dropped down to 10-25%. The winrate% in of themselves should only be used to spot the outliers but then you need better data. If tournament pairings were random instead of swiss and the winrates stayed the same as now I would say it is fairly balanced but that isnt how pairings are done.