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.

Audustum wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Audustum wrote:


But he's not saying all re-roll auras are the same, he's saying they aren't unique because that was the original claim. That's been disproven. This is a kind of different discussion.

Also, just based on what I'm seeing on this page, people realize Marines are actually rarely the dominant faction? At least for the last few years. Guilliman castles in the Index era and the Supplement era. That's about it. They were getting crushed in 7th (top armies were Eldar and Renegades & Heretics) and post-Index 8th (which aside from Eldar dominance was fairly balanced until the supplements dropped).

Even now, Space Marines aren't monolithic. Dark Eldar are proving quite strong as are Harlequins. AdMech is considered a top army. Custodes are out performing Marines.

It needs some work, but we're not at supplement levels and if folks are playing some of these factions and getting discouraged by Marines the issue is probably in list building or piloting. We're basically entering into the age old debate of whether balance changes should be based on the top level or all levels.

Yeah we know its not unique, were just poiting out how trivial it is for marines to access it compared to other armies.
Doesn`t matter if theyre rarely dominant, they are right now and people live in the present.

Dark Eldar are fine with a singular build.
Harlequins are basically a new army so not many people are used to playing against them also, their meta presence is abyssmal and they do really well against the intercessor big bolters (4 -2 2).
Agreed that admech and custodes are strong.

The problem isnt in list or piloting. They just get so many more stats for free over other armies that its never on an even playing field. They have close to 60% winrate in current tournaments (including mirror matches).

Marines are strong at any level, thats the problem. If they were only OP in tournaments then it wouldnt be as bad. Right now, even in ultra casual games with cool looking models, they overperform. Meanwhile, drukhari has to forego 2/3 of their codex to be on the same powerlevel.

52% isn't close to 60%. They're not that strong. 3 Space Marine factions have an over 50% win rate. All other Space Marine factions are BELOW 50%. They're losing more than they're winning.

The kit is fine I think. There's some faction uniques out of whack.

They're losing to other marines. The actual marine rate is apparently like 58% after deleting the mirrored matches.

As far as I know, no one has actually calculated that and it's all conjecture. The 58% or 56% came from not factoring in Dark Angels and Deathwatch, who are both in the 30%'s.

Remember, mirror matches can also make win rates HIGHER. If Salamanders are disproportionately good at killing other Marines and 1/3 of the Marines are Salamanders, as an example, that 1/3 is gonna get a boost which is then factored into the overall Marine win rate.

Um....no. No, by definition every single mirror match reaults in 1 win and 1 loss for marines, moving them back towards 50% because thats how that gak works bud.

If SM play against SM 28% of the time and they have an overall 52% win-rate then the win-rate against other factions would have to be 53%. (100*52-28*50)/72.

As Audustum previously pointed out, that only applies if the average winrate of (SPACE MARINES) is taken as an average of the wins and losses of all games played by (SPACE MARINES). If the average marine winrate is created by averaging the winrates of all the marine subfactions (and weighting each subfaction as the same even though some subfactions are played less) then a couple can skew the results.

Example:

Let us say Ultramarines play 100 games. 90 of these games are against Xenos, and they win 45 of these (I know it would be higher using the tourny stats but hey this is example).
Then they play 10 games against Salamanders and win 0.
The Salamander player has only played 10 games, all of which are against Ultras. They win all 10.

Ignoring marine vs marine winrate, marine vs xenos gives 50% winrate, however treating subfactions equally will actually allow marine vs marine to skew results above 50%.

Ultra winrate: 45/100= 45%.
Salamander winrate: 10/10= 100%

Average marine winrate: (45+100)/2= 72.5%. Far higher than it would be if you ignored marine vs marine.


Now I don’t think this is actually happening- I expect marine vs xenos winrate to be much higher than average marine winrate total-, but it is possible.

Popey45696321 wrote:
As Audustum previously pointed out, that only applies if the average winrate of (SPACE MARINES) is taken as an average of the wins and losses of all games played by (SPACE MARINES). If the average marine winrate is created by averaging the winrates of all the marine subfactions (and weighting each subfaction as the same even though some subfactions are played less) then a couple can skew the results.

Example:

Let us say Ultramarines play 100 games. 90 of these games are against Xenos, and they win 45 of these (I know it would be higher using the tourny stats but hey this is example).
Then they play 10 games against Salamanders and win 0.
The Salamander player has only played 10 games, all of which are against Ultras. They win all 10.

Ignoring marine vs marine winrate, marine vs xenos gives 50% winrate, however treating subfactions equally will actually allow marine vs marine to skew results above 50%.

Ultra winrate: 45/100= 45%.
Salamander winrate: 10/10= 100%

Average marine winrate: (45+100)/2= 72.5%. Far higher than it would be if you ignored marine vs marine.


Now I don’t think this is actually happening- I expect marine vs xenos winrate to be much higher than average marine winrate total-, but it is possible.

Nowhere in the article does it say they did that, so Marines are a little better than the 52% the article says. 52% is nothing to whine about, even if it was 54% it would be perfectly fair.

 vict0988 wrote:

Popey45696321 wrote:
As Audustum previously pointed out, that only applies if the average winrate of (SPACE MARINES) is taken as an average of the wins and losses of all games played by (SPACE MARINES). If the average marine winrate is created by averaging the winrates of all the marine subfactions (and weighting each subfaction as the same even though some subfactions are played less) then a couple can skew the results.

Example:

Let us say Ultramarines play 100 games. 90 of these games are against Xenos, and they win 45 of these (I know it would be higher using the tourny stats but hey this is example).
Then they play 10 games against Salamanders and win 0.
The Salamander player has only played 10 games, all of which are against Ultras. They win all 10.

Ignoring marine vs marine winrate, marine vs xenos gives 50% winrate, however treating subfactions equally will actually allow marine vs marine to skew results above 50%.

Ultra winrate: 45/100= 45%.
Salamander winrate: 10/10= 100%

Average marine winrate: (45+100)/2= 72.5%. Far higher than it would be if you ignored marine vs marine.


Now I don’t think this is actually happening- I expect marine vs xenos winrate to be much higher than average marine winrate total-, but it is possible.

Nowhere in the article does it say they did that, so Marines are a little better than the 52% the article says. 52% is nothing to whine about, even if it was 54% it would be perfectly fair.

And yet people do whinge, because they refuse to consider marines as anything other than a catch all term.

The win rate in the Goonhammer statistics is created by Marines playing 421 games and winning 221 of them, for a 52% win rate (technically 42.49% and rounding down).

We know 12 Salamander lists played X games, and got a 71% win rate between them in those games. We know 4 Iron Hands lists played Y games and got a 69% win rate down to 1 Death Watch list playing K games and winning 33% of them. (You'd guess 3.)

We know that X+Y+Z etc would eventually get you to 421 games.

From there though I don't think you can go much further. On average each list played 4.52 games, so tournaments being 3-4 with mirrors making up the difference seems logical. The games played per list is weirdly high for Custodes (5.22) which I want to say is explained by mirrors - but Marines should have the highest mirrored games - and the highest games in general - unless mirrors are counting as only 1 game for some reason.
From there I'm not sure you can work anything else out.

As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups. I was simply pointing out that it is mathematically possible for mirrors to inflate winrates above 50% if statistics are used carelessly, in response to the_scotsman saying it isn’t.

However we dance around with the available statistics, Harlequins do have the toolkit to deal with Space Marines. I just played with Deathwing Terminators against Harlequins - my opponent had won all previous eight games with his list including three at last week's local tournament. Those Fusion Pistols delete Marines, and melee weapons doing D2 can also chew through Marines. Haywire deals with Primaris vehicles. I am not saying they are unbeatable, but I think that their win rate will stay high as the sample size increases.

Popey45696321 wrote:
As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.

I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot

Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.

As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?

 Irbis wrote:

Popey45696321 wrote:
As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.

I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot

Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.

As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?

Only DA vs DA WR is 50%, not DA vs BA etc. The amount of DA mirrors is probably very low. Sallies are good because of tactical reinforcements and Eradicators. DW Vets got hit on SBs SSs and base cost, had they not they would be great. DW Vets w/SB SS went up 33%, IH Intercessors 18%.

 Irbis wrote:

Popey45696321 wrote:
As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.

I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot

Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.

As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?

Except Salamanders and WS (and other Chapters) are all winning with Codex/Indomitus units.

There are probably just 3 games out of 1500+ involving DW.

From this you can probably determine people don't like the faction and think they are weak. You can probably in turn suggest they are weak, but its an incredibly small pool so plenty of things could lurk in the faction that are not being exploited. On these stats if one good player took DW to a 3 game tournament and went 3-0 they'd go to a 66% win rate, top tier omg nerf.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Popey45696321 wrote:
As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.

I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot

Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.

As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?

Except Salamanders and WS (and other Chapters) are all winning with Codex/Indomitus units.

Not from what I have seen. Relic units are common in a lot of lists (Contemptors, Leviathans, Scorpius, etc.) The imperial soup list (Sisters and IF) that won the first tournament had 3 relic contemptors and both Salamanders winning lists had FW in them.

We really need the updated FW books. We are still working with index rules for FW and the balance is painful. The relic contemptor is the same cost as the base codex one and is better in everyway.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Spoiler:

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Popey45696321 wrote:
As I said at the end of my post, I do not think the marine winrate is inflated by this kind of misuse of statistics, and that I think it really is being deflated down towards 50% by mirror matchups.

I like how no one pointed out the simple fact that if mirror matches push win rate towards 50%, and almost all marine lists have win rates in 30s and 40s, then it means without mirror matches their win rates would drop. So, all marine complainers trying to frantically find new excuse why a faction with such bad performance is supposedly ""OP"" and pushing mirror matches as explanation just shoot their own foot

Anyway, I am not surprised Salamanders and IH are on top, for very simple reason. Broken FW garbage that is being spammed as ""SM"" units (even though you won't find it in Codex) lends itself exceptionally well to both Chapters, as their rules greatly enhance both durability and killiness of big, scary models like las contemptors and leviathans - gee, who could have guessed broken crap gets better if you buff it. The simple fact that all other SM perform badly without that crutch, even if a lot of these probably spammed FW too, means SM have big problems and the ludicrous strawmans people construct in order to complain about the army have little to do with reality.

As for the simplistic excuse of some xenos winning because of ++ saves and damage - Deathwatch can field 3++ on everything they want, they have special ammo, doctrines, the works - if "being just good at killing marines" launched you to high win rates, DW would be up there. Instead, they have win rate in the 30s. I wonder why, if said cheap excuse was in any way correct, they would be on top, not the bottom. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the SM who are actually the OP army?

Except Salamanders and WS (and other Chapters) are all winning with Codex/Indomitus units.

Not from what I have seen. Relic units are common in a lot of lists (Contemptors, Leviathans, Scorpius, etc.) The imperial soup list (Sisters and IF) that won the first tournament had 3 relic contemptors and both Salamanders winning lists had FW in them.

We really need the updated FW books. We are still working with index rules for FW and the balance is painful. The relic contemptor is the same cost as the base codex one and is better in everyway.

While I agree that the Relic Contemptor is underpriced, it isn't because we're still using index rules. The original Forge World Indexes priced the 3 contemptor variants differently based on their different stats and abilities, with the Mortis being 75 PPM, the Hellforged being 116 PPM, and the relic being 135 PPM. This current situation is due entirely to gw's continued bungling of the prices for fw units which they continued with the decrease of the Relic Contemptor while increasing the prices on all other variants in CA 2020. Which, I can only assume, was done by gw assuming, since they all had the word "Contemptor" in their names, that they all had the same rules.

One thing that's important to keep in mind with marine win rates is that the more competitive oriented marine players will tend to switch their subfaction to whichever one promises the best results, just like with many other armies. So, the win rates of the suboptimal chapters are pretty meaningless because many of the players that bring the hardest list will be going for the flavour of the month chapter, boosting that win rate and decreasing that of the other chapters.

You would see exactly the same with other armies. Why bring Ulthwe when you can go custom or Alaitoc when your goal is to win tournaments?

Have to admit, today's community article did give me a giggle. It's basically confirmation that GW recognises Marines dominate the meta.

"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.

"Sometimes,** Space Marines fight Space Marines. ..............**Pretty often, actually."

So, it seems Harlequins are like 13% of top tables (Space Marines are 20%).

https://imgur.com/gallery/IpZaE55

Reddit poster who put it together:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/ikmk6m/9th_ed_meta_analysis_40k_meta_analysis/

 Super Ready wrote:
Have to admit, today's community article did give me a giggle. It's basically confirmation that GW recognises Marines dominate the meta.

"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.

"Sometimes,** Space Marines fight Space Marines. ..............**Pretty often, actually."

NUMBER 8 GSC Aberrants - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hooooo....

....that gave me a good laugh. Thanks, GW, never change.

And number 9 is, of course, a space marine unit.

"uhhh we ran out of ideas after that one flyer that costs like 160pts and kills like 1 primaris marine on average with its shooting."

I didn't understand the article, or why they posted it.

A) They are trying to convince people that SMs are not that good and are easily killable (by using units twice the cost of a unit of Intercessors).

B) They are just making fun of us.

At least they are aware of how broken their game is. That's a start.

 Denegaar wrote:
I didn't understand the article, or why they posted it.

A) They are trying to convince people that SMs are not that good and are easily killable (by using units twice the cost of a unit of Intercessors).

B) They are just making fun of us.

At least they are aware of how broken their game is. That's a start.

I think it's just "They understand that the change of all firstborn stuff to have +1 wound with a nominal points increase is highly likely to be way out of wack with a large chunk of the rest of the game and will necessitate the meta to become almost entirely damage flat 2 weaponry to compensate, but they only have plans to bring everyone elses standard weaponry to that level with their codexes, so they're just reminding everyone that meta compensation is a possibility, albeit in a very stupid way by listing units that are in no way suitable for that task."

Hey, at least they got "spam dissie ravagers, spam exocrines' right. Two for 9 aint bad.

 Super Ready wrote:
Have to admit, today's community article did give me a giggle. It's basically confirmation that GW recognises Marines dominate the meta.

"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.

"Sometimes,** Space Marines fight Space Marines. ..............**Pretty often, actually."

These are some evidences GW seems to admit now.
If this lead to some rethinking of Xenos armies, we will see...

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
Have to admit, today's community article did give me a giggle. It's basically confirmation that GW recognises Marines dominate the meta.

"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.

"Sometimes,** Space Marines fight Space Marines. ..............**Pretty often, actually."

These are some evidences GW seems to admit now.
If this lead to some rethinking of Xenos armies, we will see...

Highly unlikely given that most (if not all) of the Xeno books will have been written already.

I think that's putting way too much faith both on the creative process of creating new units, and the time available to the rules-writing team.
As a business, why on earth would you have them crunch down to getting Codexes written for everything right at the start of an edition, leaving little work for them for the rest of the year, only to have to update them for new units anyway when the creative team can get round to handing over their details?

Sorry, but the idea that the Codexes are all written and ready to go is naive at best. They'll be working to a cycle.

You could release one Codex for each faction in short order at the beginning of the edition, and then put out a supplement later, pretty much along the lines of Vigilus or Psychic Awakening.

I wouldn't say that this is naive to believe. Especially since GW seems willing to modify the profiles for every unit and weapon out there. So it would make sense to lift everyone up to the new profiles and then go from there with expansions.

Maybe not all but since GW works with 1-2 year leadtimes if they would be reacting now to something it would be 1-2 years from now we see it.

 Super Ready wrote:

"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines." ...welp, THERE'S an admission of guilt.

Um, that's been true since at least... well forever.
GW knew that in RT, 2e, 3rd, 4th,5th, 6th, 7th, 8th.... Oh look, they still know it. Didn't the rest of you?

It definitely wasn't so much of a thing back in 2nd, when both armour modifiers and the weapons that had them were more commonplace.
If you knew there was a Marine player in the group, you had to make a plan for Terminators specifically, but that's a whole other issue.

3rd onwards? Yeah, I'll give you that. I just found it funny that the article is so upfront about it.

I mean, it's a pretty blatant piece to try and counter the "people are mad at marines!" stuff currently on social media/forums etc.

They just kind of looked through codexes and said "what's got a D2 weapon? That unit that costs 160pts and kills a single primaris body with its shooting attack? Throw it in! That unit that costs 32ppm, kills 80pts of primaris and then takes 64pts of casualties in return when fighting equal points of ranged intercessors? THATs gotta be an answer!"

 Super Ready wrote:


Sorry, but the idea that the Codexes are all written and ready to go is naive at best. They'll be working to a cycle.

And yet, several of the playtesters have said that they are done.

 harlokin wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:


Sorry, but the idea that the Codexes are all written and ready to go is naive at best. They'll be working to a cycle.

And yet, several of the playtesters have said that they are done.

It'll be both I assume, they're likely written but will be given a cycle/staggered release.