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.

WhiteDog wrote:
AAE still doesn't get that SW had none of the new rules that permitted "Adeptus Astartes" to become top tier in competitive matches.

Well, the numbers don’t bear that out. Space Wolves have about a 36% win-rate. Far below all Xenos and Chaos factions. Every single one of them.

If you count them as Marines generally, then Marines generally need a major buff to even remotely compete with things like Necrons, Khorne Daemons, whatever.

It‘s kinda weird that the same people insisting that all Marines should be viewed as a single faction then still cherry pick the Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers to determine how good Marines allegedly are. If you wanna count Marines as a unified block, you got to average their strength and performance from all of them as well to determine how good they are relative to other factions. And that would make Marines still the weakest army in the game, despite the average being lifted a little by including Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers.

Hellebore wrote:
GW is not even hiding the marinewank anymore.

Again, Hanlon's Razor. It is unwise to think that they're doing that on purpose.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Your claim is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

Not really. And he stated why: Space Wolves have a Codex. Ork Clanz don't. He's not basing his views on naught but opinion, but the hard cold facts of what GW prints and doesn't print. I'm sorry that rubs you the wrong way, but given that your standard response to such viewpoint challenges is to scream "off topic!", report everyone to the mods, and then demand everyone respect your (false) authority, I'm in lock step with Musketeer here.

The fact that you always have to reply to get the last word in before going "But, back to the topic..." is just more proof of that. You are not the person to be "running" threads like this.

text removed.
Reds8n

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
GW is not even hiding the marinewank anymore.

Again, Hanlon's Razor. It is unwise to think that they're doing that on purpose.

Of course, the repeated amazing marine rules are just coincidences you guys! It’s pure luck who does well out of these PA books but whaddya know, so far Marines have done better than others. What an odd and utterly random coincidence!

what repeated amazing rules? the fact that the other loyalist chapters are getting doctrines? that's just a "well no gak" thing. perhaps you could tell us what amazing stuff dark angels and blood angels have gotten from their PA release. and no you don't get to include anything that's simply giving them acess to rules from codex space marines.

go on tell me how OP the Dark Angels are

BrianDavion wrote:
go on tell me how OP the Dark Angels are

Dark Angels can give +1S and +1A and leadership to Ragnar. Totally OP

Sunny Side Up wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
AAE still doesn't get that SW had none of the new rules that permitted "Adeptus Astartes" to become top tier in competitive matches.

Well, the numbers don’t bear that out. Space Wolves have about a 36% win-rate. Far below all Xenos and Chaos factions. Every single one of them.

If you count them as Marines generally, then Marines generally need a major buff to even remotely compete with things like Necrons, Khorne Daemons, whatever.

It‘s kinda weird that the same people insisting that all Marines should be viewed as a single faction then still cherry pick the Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers to determine how good Marines allegedly are. If you wanna count Marines as a unified block, you got to average their strength and performance from all of them as well to determine how good they are relative to other factions. And that would make Marines still the weakest army in the game, despite the average being lifted a little by including Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers.

Every single one of them?
Chaos factions?

You sure you want to state that

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
AAE still doesn't get that SW had none of the new rules that permitted "Adeptus Astartes" to become top tier in competitive matches.

Well, the numbers don’t bear that out. Space Wolves have about a 36% win-rate. Far below all Xenos and Chaos factions. Every single one of them.

If you count them as Marines generally, then Marines generally need a major buff to even remotely compete with things like Necrons, Khorne Daemons, whatever.

It‘s kinda weird that the same people insisting that all Marines should be viewed as a single faction then still cherry pick the Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers to determine how good Marines allegedly are. If you wanna count Marines as a unified block, you got to average their strength and performance from all of them as well to determine how good they are relative to other factions. And that would make Marines still the weakest army in the game, despite the average being lifted a little by including Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers.

Every single one of them?
Chaos factions?

You sure you want to state that

Poor renegades and heretics, hopefully they'll see some love or a codex soon though, have faith!

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
AAE still doesn't get that SW had none of the new rules that permitted "Adeptus Astartes" to become top tier in competitive matches.

Well, the numbers don’t bear that out. Space Wolves have about a 36% win-rate. Far below all Xenos and Chaos factions. Every single one of them.

If you count them as Marines generally, then Marines generally need a major buff to even remotely compete with things like Necrons, Khorne Daemons, whatever.

It‘s kinda weird that the same people insisting that all Marines should be viewed as a single faction then still cherry pick the Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers to determine how good Marines allegedly are. If you wanna count Marines as a unified block, you got to average their strength and performance from all of them as well to determine how good they are relative to other factions. And that would make Marines still the weakest army in the game, despite the average being lifted a little by including Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers.

Every single one of them?
Chaos factions?

You sure you want to state that

Codex factions.
there better?

Ragnar dealing 20 damage is all good, but he still can't kill Ghaz.

BrianDavion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
AAE still doesn't get that SW had none of the new rules that permitted "Adeptus Astartes" to become top tier in competitive matches.

Well, the numbers don’t bear that out. Space Wolves have about a 36% win-rate. Far below all Xenos and Chaos factions. Every single one of them.

If you count them as Marines generally, then Marines generally need a major buff to even remotely compete with things like Necrons, Khorne Daemons, whatever.

It‘s kinda weird that the same people insisting that all Marines should be viewed as a single faction then still cherry pick the Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers to determine how good Marines allegedly are. If you wanna count Marines as a unified block, you got to average their strength and performance from all of them as well to determine how good they are relative to other factions. And that would make Marines still the weakest army in the game, despite the average being lifted a little by including Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers.

Every single one of them?
Chaos factions?

You sure you want to state that

Codex factions.
there better?

Far below all Xenos and Chaos factions. Every single one of them.

even then, or do you see the exploreres? Or BSF win much more do you even see them show up?
Also underlined

BrianDavion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
AAE still doesn't get that SW had none of the new rules that permitted "Adeptus Astartes" to become top tier in competitive matches.

Well, the numbers don’t bear that out. Space Wolves have about a 36% win-rate. Far below all Xenos and Chaos factions. Every single one of them.

If you count them as Marines generally, then Marines generally need a major buff to even remotely compete with things like Necrons, Khorne Daemons, whatever.

It‘s kinda weird that the same people insisting that all Marines should be viewed as a single faction then still cherry pick the Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers to determine how good Marines allegedly are. If you wanna count Marines as a unified block, you got to average their strength and performance from all of them as well to determine how good they are relative to other factions. And that would make Marines still the weakest army in the game, despite the average being lifted a little by including Iron Hands and Raven Guard numbers.

Every single one of them?
Chaos factions?

You sure you want to state that

Codex factions.
there better?

I actually did the math out of curiosity, using the numbers on https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report with the "Total Lists" and "Actualy Win%" columns.
If you assume all colors of marines to be one faction, they would be in 213 lists and have 50,88% wins, which would place them somewhere below orks, tau and AM.

Are there even stats left for R&H.

checked it, Nope not even any stats at all.
i'd say i am shocked, if i hadn't played some 80 games in total in 8th with them.

 Jidmah wrote:


I actually did the math out of curiosity, using the numbers on https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report with the "Total Lists" and "Actualy Win%" columns.
If you assume all colors of marines to be one faction, they would be in 213 lists and have 50,88% wins, which would place them somewhere below orks, tau and AM.

But only because overperforming sub-factions Raven Guard, Iron Hands, etc.. are more numerous.

If you just calculate the average of the listed Marine-subfactions, it's 43.87%

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


I actually did the math out of curiosity, using the numbers on https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report with the "Total Lists" and "Actualy Win%" columns.
If you assume all colors of marines to be one faction, they would be in 213 lists and have 50,88% wins, which would place them somewhere below orks, tau and AM.

But only because overperforming sub-factions Raven Guard, Iron Hands, etc.. are more numerous.

If you just calculate the average of the listed Marine-subfactions, it's 43.87%

that is a bit iffy statistically speaking thou.

Regardless i'd say we should stop the tanget here.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
But only because overperforming sub-factions Raven Guard, Iron Hands, etc.. are more numerous.

If you just calculate the average of the listed Marine-subfactions, it's 43.87%

That's not how statistics work. Each percentage needs to be weighted against the number of players actually running the flavor of marines. A single guy failing with DW is irrelevant compared to dozens of people doing well with BA.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


I actually did the math out of curiosity, using the numbers on https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report with the "Total Lists" and "Actualy Win%" columns.
If you assume all colors of marines to be one faction, they would be in 213 lists and have 50,88% wins, which would place them somewhere below orks, tau and AM.

But only because overperforming sub-factions Raven Guard, Iron Hands, etc.. are more numerous.

If you just calculate the average of the listed Marine-subfactions, it's 43.87%

that is a bit iffy statistically speaking thou.

Regardless i'd say we should stop the tanget here.

Sure. But then again, it's statistically iffy that Space Wolves would be "better" just because there're 10 Iron Hands players for every Space Wolves player.

Depends what you're looking for.

If California had a poverty rate of 2% and Rhode Island had a poverty rate of 80%, there'd be no problem in the weighted average, simply because California is so much larger. But there'd still be a problem with Rhode Island and it wouldn't just disappear by people claiming "they are all America, just use the weighted averages". In that fictional scenario, somebody should still look into Rhode Island.

and yet the premise was all SM facions as one.

And you didn0t disagree with the premise, making your point about outliers actually irelevant.

You should've said so in the first place.

 Jidmah wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
But only because overperforming sub-factions Raven Guard, Iron Hands, etc.. are more numerous.

If you just calculate the average of the listed Marine-subfactions, it's 43.87%

That's not how statistics work. Each percentage needs to be weighted against the number of players actually running the flavor of marines. A single guy failing with DW is irrelevant compared to dozens of people doing well with BA.

No. It's not. If you claim they are all the same, you need to weigh DW equal to BA. The very point was that being "the same faction", they perform similar. If you don't account for people favouring the better performing sub-factions (especially in tournaments, where the data comes from), you're actively obscuring the very fact that they aren't performing remotely similar and thus statistically really shouldn't be considered "the same faction".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
and yet the premise was all SM facions as one.

And you didn0t disagree with the premise, making your point about outliers actually irelevant.

You should've said so in the first place.

I did disagree with it.

I literally pointed out how it was silly that people that did claim they were the same faction still base their assessment of that "faction" on only the best performing sub-faction of that faction.

That was the entire point.

If I assume all Xenos are one faction, and throw 100 Tau players that perform above 50% into the same pot as 1 Necron player that is doing 40% to obscure poor Necron win percentages, that'd be disingenuous (and poor statistics - if admittedly still marginally better than judging "all Xenos" only on the Tau performance). If I genuinely were to argue that Necrons = Tau and they should just be one faction, I would have to show that the win percentages don't change irrespective of what players pick, i.e. in an unweighted average.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ragnar dealing 20 damage is all good, but he still can't kill Ghaz.

Doesn't need to. He's already done it.

 Alpharius wrote:

 zend wrote:
Stratagems and CP need to go. They’ve done nothing but hurt the game, because rather than try to actually balance the factions of game properly GW can just release more broken stratagems as band aids. Nothing is broken or OP if everything is, right?

This feels like the right answer - but GW won't do it.

The busted 7th with all the goofy formations and whatnot, and now 8th is a mess of Stratagems and CP generators...

I'm sure 9th will be better (for a while), and that Ghaz will really be a monster there!

They don't need to remove stratagems and CP they just need to streamline them to give balance. For exemple, having more universal stratagem (vect should be universal), and less faction based stratagem, the same number of stratagem for everyone, etc.

Those comments about Ragnar are just absurd. Someone really needs to explain to me how a character that only does close combat but moves 6", cannot be deployed via a teleport or in forward position, is so great ? I need some insight from the great minds of dakka.

BaconCatBug wrote:

Ragnar dealing 20 damage is all good, but he still can't kill Ghaz.

Doesn't need to. He's already done it.

E got bettah.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
No. It's not. If you claim they are all the same, you need to weigh DW equal to BA. The very point was that being "the same faction", they perform similar. If you don't account for people favouring the better performing sub-factions (especially in tournaments, where the data comes from), you're actively obscuring the very fact that they aren't performing remotely similar and thus statistically really shouldn't be considered "the same faction".

Keep your pants on. I just fact-checked the claim that marines would be the weakest faction if they were considered to be one faction. Which means Space Wolves being the same as a Sept in the Tau book or a clan in the Ork book.
The numbers objectively show that claim to be wrong. I did this out of curiosity and didn't voice any opinion on this at all.

And no, I do not need to weight DW equal to BA if there are an unequal number of players playing. Because it's irrelevant to the thesis whether what chapter you are playing, just like it's irrelevant to the total Tau numbers which Sept you are playing.
What I did statistically is equivalent to replacing all chapters in that list with "Space Marine" and summed them up.
If there are four BA players and one DW player, the average win percentage for "Space Marine" is the sum of all five players' win percentage divided by five. Adding the win percentage of all BA to the win percentage of the DW player and dividing it by two is just incorrect math, no more, no less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WhiteDog wrote:
Those comments about Ragnar are just absurd. Someone really needs to explain to me how a character that only does close combat but moves 6", cannot be deployed via a teleport or in forward position, is so great ? I need some insight from the great minds of dakka.

Unless my mind is failing me, Space Wolves can deep strike infantry via stratagem.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Wolves, and blood angels for that matter really need a rule where they can either deep strike 6” away and charge, or disembark after a vehicle has moved and still charge or roll 1 dice for your charge roll and add 6, or roll 2 dice but always count a roll below 7 as being 7 or whatever. There could be loads of ways to do it but they need the help to get there.

LIke, just in general, the fact that a method of combat that requires you to

-leave cover
-cross the entire board OR wait until turn 2 to do anything
-get shot for free
-give your opponent a swing at you if you don't kill them
-be still out of cover and get shot to death if the enemy exercises their free fall back ability

only has a baseline chance of TWENTY EIGHT PERCENT of even working at all is ludicrous at this point.

Space Wolves and Blood Angels both have access to all the most reliable assault units in the game atm - scouts, invictus warsuits, etc. Blood Angels get a +1 to charge and a 3d6" charge ability, and the chaplain +2" charge power. They're the single most reliable assault out of deep strike army in the entire game. I'm guessing one of those 24 new stratagems space wolves get is going to be some kind of charge boost. Guess it sucks to be tyranids, daemons, GSC, Harlequins, Drukhari, whoever who get less than that.

If GW's going to design units around competitive two-turn 40k, they should just make charges automatic already. feth it. We've got reroll everything double tap at full range bonus AP six chapter tactic gunlines, why not.

 Jidmah wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
Those comments about Ragnar are just absurd. Someone really needs to explain to me how a character that only does close combat but moves 6", cannot be deployed via a teleport or in forward position, is so great ? I need some insight from the great minds of dakka.

Unless my mind is failing me, Space Wolves can deep strike infantry via stratagem.

Right, so 1cp gets Ragnar within 9, then you can deep strike some terminators or rievers for ablative wounds or use the same strategem again for a squad of something tougher like aggressors if you're really worried about him being deleted. But that's obviously not quite OP enough.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
Those comments about Ragnar are just absurd. Someone really needs to explain to me how a character that only does close combat but moves 6", cannot be deployed via a teleport or in forward position, is so great ? I need some insight from the great minds of dakka.

Unless my mind is failing me, Space Wolves can deep strike infantry via stratagem.

Right, so 1cp gets Ragnar within 9, then you can deep strike some terminators or rievers for ablative wounds or use the same strategem again for a squad of something tougher like aggressors if you're really worried about him being deleted. But that's obviously not quite OP enough.

Meh, there's also i dunno, the drop pod. for when you want to use CP more efficently.

We need another index culling!
Beginning of 8th after the first major nerf faq was pretty good balance back when space marines weren’t dominate but guard were.

gungo wrote:
We need another index culling!
Beginning of 8th after the first major nerf faq was pretty good balance back when space marines weren’t dominate but guard were.

and do you play guard by any chance?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
Those comments about Ragnar are just absurd. Someone really needs to explain to me how a character that only does close combat but moves 6", cannot be deployed via a teleport or in forward position, is so great ? I need some insight from the great minds of dakka.

Unless my mind is failing me, Space Wolves can deep strike infantry via stratagem.

Right, so 1cp gets Ragnar within 9, then you can deep strike some terminators or rievers for ablative wounds or use the same strategem again for a squad of something tougher like aggressors if you're really worried about him being deleted. But that's obviously not quite OP enough.

Meh, there's also i dunno, the drop pod. for when you want to use CP more efficently.

Terminators and rievers don't need cp to deep strike. Or are you talking about Ragnar? Remember, no primaris in drop pods.

 Jidmah wrote:

And no, I do not need to weight DW equal to BA if there are an unequal number of players playing. Because it's irrelevant to the thesis whether what chapter you are playing, just like it's irrelevant to the total Tau numbers which Sept you are playing.
What I did statistically is equivalent to replacing all chapters in that list with "Space Marine" and summed them up.
If there are four BA players and one DW player, the average win percentage for "Space Marine" is the sum of all five players' win percentage divided by five. Adding the win percentage of all BA to the win percentage of the DW player and dividing it by two is just incorrect math, no more, no less.

It's not irrelevant for the hypothesis. It is exactly the point. If we had separate stats for different Tau septs, with vastly different win percentages for them, using weighted averages favouring both the most popular and most successful Tau sept would greatly distort the statistics for an argument that "they all are equally good and can be judged by the same metric". For that argument to hold, I need to show that there aren't significant differences between Tau septs irrespective of player numbers.

Same with "Marines". To uphold the claim that they are all equal, they need to perform statistically similar irrespective of player count. Thus weighting them by numbers of players is an irrelevant number (or "statistic") for that test. If they perform dissimilar as sub-factions (irrespective of absolute numbers), treating them as a single faction is a fallacy.

Again, if I want to show that there is no difference in life expectancy between China and Lichtenstein, I cannot weight those numbers by population. If I did, I'd never be able to show that there might be a difference, because the weighting by population would overshadow any difference in life expectancy. To show that there is no difference in life expectancy, I'd need to show that life expectancy in both countries is statistically similar irrespective of their population difference.Inversely, if I find the life expectancy to be fairly different (irrespective of population numbers), I can no longer conclude that the population of Lichtenstein and China would be the same.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
Those comments about Ragnar are just absurd. Someone really needs to explain to me how a character that only does close combat but moves 6", cannot be deployed via a teleport or in forward position, is so great ? I need some insight from the great minds of dakka.

Unless my mind is failing me, Space Wolves can deep strike infantry via stratagem.

Right, so 1cp gets Ragnar within 9, then you can deep strike some terminators or rievers for ablative wounds or use the same strategem again for a squad of something tougher like aggressors if you're really worried about him being deleted. But that's obviously not quite OP enough.

Meh, there's also i dunno, the drop pod. for when you want to use CP more efficently.

Hilariously, Ragnar's new primaris keyword prevents him from using Drop Pods, the thing that was previously Ragnar's whole shtick.