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.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I mean, this is still based on the fact that we don't have any other codex's out yet, but since we know the release schedule we are talking about 6 months minimum before we start seeing most of the game getting theirs.

Good. Plenty of time to paint and build and wait for this 'Rona thing to blow over so you can, you know, actually congregate.

We are mostly already congregating lol. Even in ridiculous places where the government says you have to sit at 2 tables with your family because while it was safe to drive together, eating together might kill you, even then we are still allowed to game I mean, masks required etc.

Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?

Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
A lot of people will find problems if they go looking for them. And 'the army that I don't play and beat me' is always OP. The one that I beat all the time is perfectly fine, leave it alone. My army ALWAYS needs a buff desperately.

Except that it doesn't take a genius to find unbalance in favor of marines in 9th edition. The game is unbalanced because players support GW's model of unbalanced rules, or the rules are balanced and people need to shut up? Which is it? Again, two-faced.

Hecaton wrote:
Except you're being two-faced about this. You're saying Eradicators are fine, but then saying people deserve to have bad game balance. It honestly sounds like you're one of those players who wants bad game balance so they can meta-chase to secure easy wins, and is unremittingly angry at people who want a balanced game.

No. I'll keep it simple. This is what I'm saying:

1- Wait for your Codex.

2- If your Codex sucks, stop buying stuff. Stop playing. Stop supporting

3- If your Codex sucks and you keep throwing money at GW, it will not change. You deserve the bad game balance because you are enabling it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?

Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?

I don't know, do you think if I yank a pizza out of the oven 2 minutes after I put the damned thing in there, it'll be good?

Wait for your Codex.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

No. I'll keep it simple. This is what I'm saying:

1- Wait for your Codex.

2- If your Codex sucks, stop buying stuff. Stop playing. Stop supporting

3- If your Codex sucks and you keep throwing money at GW, it will not change. You deserve the bad game balance because you are enabling it.

That's not what you're saying in your other posts, though, where you're saying that people are going "looking for problems" by comparing the Necron codex to the Astartes one. Again, two-faced. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't write a post without contradicting yourself? You don't seem to have anything meaningful to say.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
What you are calling the middle here is literally 90% of the edition time wise.

Index was what 6 months? other factions didn't even get their codex until the end of 2018, and then in 2019 you guys got your 2nd codex that was broken levels of good. But regardless, you aren't arguing that the Marine codex wasn't good for 90% of the time, you are basically arguing it wasn't the MOST OP in the game for 90% of the time. Because yet again, tournament results show SM players still pulling out wins and victories, maybe not 1st place against the OP broken castellan loyal 32 combo with smash captains to flavor, but I haven't seen anyone defending those combos.

You are looking at outliers though. win% was really low. The issue for the army has always been durability. It's always done a lot of damage when you get to go first because of the reroll auras. Marines could win any game they go first - that was always true. Almost no chance to win going second. 8.5 doubled down on it by giving marines durable buffs like apoth and always counts in cover which gave them more staying power. Then they gave them even more damage. So it's no surpise they started to dominate.

Anyways...with lots of marine entries the chance of going first in most of their games - there should be a few that place high in any high volume event. This is a game of dice afterall. More tickets to the lotery increases your chances quite a bit. Which IMO is why you have to look at WR combined with top finishes.

SemperMortis wrote:
We are mostly already congregating lol. Even in ridiculous places where the government says you have to sit at 2 tables with your family because while it was safe to drive together, eating together might kill you, even then we are still allowed to game I mean, masks required etc.

Quiet, you! The 'Foreign People' will latch onto this and go nuts.

(You say it like we actually stopped in the first place. WASH YOUR HANDS)

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Except you're being two-faced about this. You're saying Eradicators are fine, but then saying people deserve to have bad game balance. It honestly sounds like you're one of those players who wants bad game balance so they can meta-chase to secure easy wins, and is unremittingly angry at people who want a balanced game.

No. I'll keep it simple. This is what I'm saying:

1- Wait for your Codex.

2- If your Codex sucks, stop buying stuff. Stop playing. Stop supporting

3- If your Codex sucks and you keep throwing money at GW, it will not change. You deserve the bad game balance because you are enabling it.

Just to be clear, 8th edition Codecs are compatible with 9th edition.

Why should one Codex be released that is wildly more powerful than other Codecs, when all available Codecs are usable? If they really intend to make the power level so much higher, they should NOT be slow-walking Codex releases. Otherwise, you're waiting anywhere from a few months to potentially years to be brought up to par.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?

Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?

I don't know, do you think if I yank a pizza out of the oven 2 minutes after I put the damned thing in there, it'll be good?

Wait for your Codex.

Great! I already have it-sure, it's from 8th edition, but it's fully compatible with 9th!

Why does it suck so hard compared to Space Marines?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


I don't know, do you think if I yank a pizza out of the oven 2 minutes after I put the damned thing in there, it'll be good?

Wait for your Codex.

How about you stop interjecting if COVID has prevented you from participating in the hobby? The rest of us are talking. The rest of us think the game should have been balanced from the new edition, and "wait for your codex" is a meaningless thing to say.

To be honest, if the complaining bothers you, that's just more incentive to do it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?

Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?

I don't really think in a casual scene is good because marines are just too easy to be extremely strong and a casual marine list will stomp nearly all casual lists of other armies.


https://www.goonhammer.com/the-october-2020-40k-meta-review/

By competitive and tournamend data, if we find reasonable armies between a 55% and 45% winrate we have more than half the codex of the game between those brackets. So competitive, is relatively fine? But when you look at normal feeling of gameplay, things could not be more different. Thats why personally I don't take just and only tournament data for this kind of judgement of an edition or the state of a faction.

 Galas wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?

Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?

I don't really think in a casual scene is good because marines are just too easy to be extremely strong and a casual marine list will stomp nearly all casual lists of other armies.


https://www.goonhammer.com/the-october-2020-40k-meta-review/

By competitive and tournamend data, if we find reasonable armies between a 55% and 45% winrate we have more than half the codex of the game between those brackets. So competitive, is relatively fine? But when you look at normal feeling of gameplay, things could not be more different. Thats why personally I don't just take tournament data for this kind of judgement of an edition or the power of a faction.

That's a very reasonable stance-one I agree with, as a matter of fact.

I do think that tournament data is the best data available, since there is not (to my knowledge) any good data on casual games, but yeah. In the same way that -4 to-hit Lord Discordants might've been able to rock the tournament scene, but weren't a problem casually (because you could just take different relics or powers or whatever, even if the models were exactly the same) Space Marines could be manageable on the tourney scene, but overwhelming in a more casual scene.

Admittedly, I do like how the Marine Dex can take many different viable builds, and has relatively good internal balance. It's the external balance that's shot to hell, and a few stand outs of imbalance internally.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are looking at outliers though. win% was really low. The issue for the army has always been durability. It's always done a lot of damage when you get to go first because of the reroll auras. Marines could win any game they go first - that was always true. Almost no chance to win going second. 8.5 doubled down on it by giving marines durable buffs like apoth and always counts in cover which gave them more staying power. Then they gave them even more damage. So it's no surpise they started to dominate.

Anyways...with lots of marine entries the chance of going first in most of their games - there should be a few that place high in any high volume event. This is a game of dice afterall. More tickets to the lotery increases your chances quite a bit. Which IMO is why you have to look at WR combined with top finishes.

The reason I look at the "outliers" as you put it, is because I have been to these tournaments and seen the Fluffy SM list with 6 squads of terminators/assault terminators walking up the board or Deep striking being led by the 1st company captain, beautifully painted etc. I've watched the SM player show up to these bigger events with one of the worst lists imaginable because hes doing it for fluffy fun, and more power to him. I've also watched the kids who just put together their start collecting space marine boxes and slap some black and silver with their chapter color and call it good enough, and show up to major events. SM are the largest faction by a significant portion, you guys get the bigger portion of newbies, hell, most players started with SM of some flavor, I started with Blood Angels before switching to Orkz. So when you compare W/L rates as opposed to top 4 top 8 or even top 12 finishes you are purposely skewing the data to fit your desired result. Go look at the 2017 LVO results when SM's were unarguably TOP tier with Tau triptides and Eldar shenanigans. What was the W/L ratio for those SM lists? i'll tell you this, in the bottom 100 players were a lot of SM players, does that mean that SM's were bad in 7th as opposed to being one of the best factions? No. it just means little timmy showing up with his first collection of badly painted marines got steam rolled by Triptide players and Marines bringing 10-20 Free Razorbacks.

text removed

reds8n

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The Necron book came out too. Some people look at the two books side by side and see some eyebrow raising things.

A lot of people will find problems if they go looking for them. And 'the army that I don't play and beat me' is always OP. The one that I beat all the time is perfectly fine, leave it alone. My army ALWAYS needs a buff desperately.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Wait for your Codex.

I see. So "wait for your codex", but even if the codex is already out, complaints about it are totally invalid and we should not even be talking about it.

Vey constructive.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are looking at outliers though. win% was really low. The issue for the army has always been durability. It's always done a lot of damage when you get to go first because of the reroll auras. Marines could win any game they go first - that was always true. Almost no chance to win going second. 8.5 doubled down on it by giving marines durable buffs like apoth and always counts in cover which gave them more staying power. Then they gave them even more damage. So it's no surpise they started to dominate.

Anyways...with lots of marine entries the chance of going first in most of their games - there should be a few that place high in any high volume event. This is a game of dice afterall. More tickets to the lotery increases your chances quite a bit. Which IMO is why you have to look at WR combined with top finishes.

The reason I look at the "outliers" as you put it, is because I have been to these tournaments and seen the Fluffy SM list with 6 squads of terminators/assault terminators walking up the board or Deep striking being led by the 1st company captain, beautifully painted etc. I've watched the SM player show up to these bigger events with one of the worst lists imaginable because hes doing it for fluffy fun, and more power to him. I've also watched the kids who just put together their start collecting space marine boxes and slap some black and silver with their chapter color and call it good enough, and show up to major events. SM are the largest faction by a significant portion, you guys get the bigger portion of newbies, hell, most players started with SM of some flavor, I started with Blood Angels before switching to Orkz. So when you compare W/L rates as opposed to top 4 top 8 or even top 12 finishes you are purposely skewing the data to fit your desired result. Go look at the 2017 LVO results when SM's were unarguably TOP tier with Tau triptides and Eldar shenanigans. What was the W/L ratio for those SM lists? i'll tell you this, in the bottom 100 players were a lot of SM players, does that mean that SM's were bad in 7th as opposed to being one of the best factions? No. it just means little timmy showing up with his first collection of badly painted marines got steam rolled by Triptide players and Marines bringing 10-20 Free Razorbacks.

I hear this point an awful lot. I don't think there is anything I could say to disprove it. Without going and looking at large events bottom 50 rosters of space marine armies and showing they have basically the same composition. Tournaments are mostly grown men and college age men each running essentially net lists or minor variations of net lists. That has been my experience with larger tournaments (50 plus or more). Locals might have some of the players you are talking about but most anyone knows it's not any fun to consistently get smashed against power lists with some kind of fluffy army. Sure there are some players like you describe at larger events but it is not the norm.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I don't know, do you think if I yank a pizza out of the oven 2 minutes after I put the damned thing in there, it'll be good?

Instructions on the pizza box tell me to cook it for longer than 2 mins.

GW tells me current 8e codexes are compatible with 9th edition.

Hmm. . .

Hecaton wrote:
The difference is, I'm factually right and you're factually wrong.

I'm sure you have more to back up your claim than just saying "I'm right, you are wrong"? Some statistics showing the average skill level of players and their associated factions? Maybe showing their skill level when they started out with their first army and how it changed when they started their second army or played for some time? Or a statistic showing that the lesser players stay with Marines, while those who seek success change to other factions?

SemperMortis wrote:
Beyond the words being a bit mean i guess, how is he wrong? Anecdotally the worst players I see on average are Marine players. This might be because SM's are the beginners army, how many L2P starter boxes contain Marines vs dont? It might also be because they are the most popular and as such draw in the largest crowd of "casual" players whom tend to be less skilled than more frequent players. And of course, with the possible exception of Eldar, they tend to be the best faction edition to edition and easiest to swap out traits for.

"Oh no, green Marines are bad, well these Green Marines are now a chapter of Blue Marines! yay".

I believe you that you feel the worst players are Marines on average. But that is anecdotally and thus not relevant when asked about proof.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Which faction does GW push the hardest? Which faction is the most popular among new players?

Without having numbers, I'm taking a wild guess and say Marines. By the point you are trying to make, you may as well say since most people play Marines, they have the most competent players. What makes you think that the quote on quote "incompetent" players stay with Marines and the rest goes to harder to play factions if they want to succeed? Even though Marines are somewhere between middle of the road to A tier in every edition, depending on the color?

You guys really think just because a faction is less popular that its playerbase is more skilled? Hot take

a_typical_hero wrote:
You guys really think just because a faction is less popular that its playerbase is more skilled? Hot take

Not less popular, less accessible, though those two ideas are kind of linked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm sure you have more to back up your claim than just saying "I'm right, you are wrong"? Some statistics showing the average skill level of players and their associated factions? Maybe showing their skill level when they started out with their first army and how it changed when they started their second army or played for some time? Or a statistic showing that the lesser players stay with Marines, while those who seek success change to other factions?

Tournament results, even when Marines are a powerful army, show a lot of Astartes players in the bottom rungs of tournament placings. Moreover, you made a claim too - that Astartes 2.0 was balanced, and that's trivially untrue.

a_typical_hero wrote:


You guys really think just because a faction is less popular that its playerbase is more skilled? Hot take

Yeah, this is what I strongly disagree with when people try to seel marines as the noob army and other factions as this heavens of proplayers, specially by the metric than most players of warhammer are quite bad, and the worst one tend to be the oldest ones, that don't want to adapt to new dynamics of the edition.

The best players rotate between armies because thats whats needed to win. And the wannabe "Proplayers" do just the same going after the net list of the moment. Thats why when Imperial Guard became OP on 8th most "competitive" tau players jumped to play it and from 7th to 8th Tau playerbase dwindled. Because the people that like an army and stick with it are not only a minority but most are not the kind of competitive players that will be noted by their tactical knowledge.

Hecaton wrote:
Tournament results, even when Marines are a powerful army, show a lot of Astartes players in the bottom rungs of tournament placings. Moreover, you made a claim too - that Astartes 2.0 was balanced, and that's trivially untrue.

You would have a point if other factions would have the same attention rate as Marines. But you / they don't.
10 Marines show up and 4 play bad.
2 GSC show up and both play bad.

What does this say about the average skill of each faction's playerbase? Absolutely nothing.

My claim about Marines 2.0 being balanced was sarcasm. I thought it was outlandish and provoking enough to not be taken for an actual opinion. Like the post I wanted to challenge with it.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Which faction does GW push the hardest? Which faction is the most popular among new players?

Without having numbers, I'm taking a wild guess and say Marines. By the point you are trying to make, you may as well say since most people play Marines, they have the most competent players. What makes you think that the quote on quote "incompetent" players stay with Marines and the rest goes to harder to play factions if they want to succeed? Even though Marines are somewhere between middle of the road to A tier in every edition, depending on the color?

You guys really think just because a faction is less popular that its playerbase is more skilled? Hot take

I think that many tournament goers/competitive people switch armies when they go to tournaments. The competitive group will skew to whatever faction/combination they think gives them the best chance of winning. Players who are less competitive and in it more for the lulz, are more likely to stick with whatever army they enjoy. So if the most popular army is marines, and the most common "beginner" army is marines, then marines will have a higher representation of lower-skilled players.

That doesn't directly correlate "less popular factions have more skilled players", but it does correlate to "more competitive factions will attract more competitive players."

a_typical_hero wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Tournament results, even when Marines are a powerful army, show a lot of Astartes players in the bottom rungs of tournament placings. Moreover, you made a claim too - that Astartes 2.0 was balanced, and that's trivially untrue.

You would have a point if other factions would have the same attention rate as Marines. But you / they don't.
10 Marines show up and 4 play bad.
2 GSC show up and both play bad.

What does this say about the average skill of each faction's playerbase? Absolutely nothing.

My claim about Marines 2.0 being balanced was sarcasm. I thought it was outlandish and provoking enough to not be taken for an actual opinion. Like the post I wanted to challenge with it.

It says nothing *on its own*, but taken holistically with the actual power level of the faction in question, it can be meaningful.

Hecaton wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Tournament results, even when Marines are a powerful army, show a lot of Astartes players in the bottom rungs of tournament placings. Moreover, you made a claim too - that Astartes 2.0 was balanced, and that's trivially untrue.

You would have a point if other factions would have the same attention rate as Marines. But you / they don't.
10 Marines show up and 4 play bad.
2 GSC show up and both play bad.

What does this say about the average skill of each faction's playerbase? Absolutely nothing.

My claim about Marines 2.0 being balanced was sarcasm. I thought it was outlandish and provoking enough to not be taken for an actual opinion. Like the post I wanted to challenge with it.

It says nothing *on its own*, but taken holistically with the actual power level of the faction in question, it can be meaningful.

It's really not. I've seen lots of new players come into the game. The players that choose to play marines aren't any worse or better than the ones that choose to play csm or orks or crons.

I appreciate a good tangent as much as the next man, but we do seem to have strayed quite a way from the original topic.

Surely the average (or mean or mode) skill of Marine players, relative to players of other armies, isn't especially relevant to whether Marines should have 2 wounds?

 vipoid wrote:
I appreciate a good tangent as much as the next man, but we do seem to have strayed quite a way from the original topic.

Surely the average (or mean or mode) skill of Marine players, relative to players of other armies, isn't especially relevant to whether Marines should have 2 wounds?

Honestly? One could make the argument.

2W is a more accessible type of "toughness" and "grit" than the old ATSKNF.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's really not. I've seen lots of new players come into the game. The players that choose to play marines aren't any worse or better than the ones that choose to play csm or orks or crons.

I disagree. Just by putting the work into to play those other factions they're already more invested into the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wyches aren't some badass CC unit though.

Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.

They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.

I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.

How expensive was a Tactical Marine before Primaris? Now at 2W they are... 19pts? Being twice as durable than before vs dmg 1 weapons made a lot of Xenos units useless vs them.

 Denegaar wrote:
How expensive was a Tactical Marine before Primaris? Now at 2W they are... 19pts? Being twice as durable than before vs dmg 1 weapons made a lot of Xenos units useless vs them.

Well, GW sees them as NPC factions so...

 Denegaar wrote:
How expensive was a Tactical Marine before Primaris? Now at 2W they are... 19pts? Being twice as durable than before vs dmg 1 weapons made a lot of Xenos units useless vs them.

This also has lore implications, as brought up before.

Even if you can make the points work out, needing a horde of supposedly-elite units to down a handful of space marines just doesn't feel right.

I can't remember who said it, but a few pages ago someone made a very good point about ATSKNF being a very good way to represent the eliteness of SMs, beyond just giving them a stupidly good statlines. But sadly meaningful Morale mechanics was yet another casualty in the move to the ""streamlined"" rules of 8th onwards.