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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.

Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.

Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.

Ultramarines are +10
Salamanders are -2
Blood Angels are -9
Iron Hands are -10

What does that tell us about "marines"?

Looks like you forgot to remove the WTC missions which for reasons I don't understand have some odd results.

Using just Book missions for all players not even trying to split out the best players.

Salamanders +9VP
Black Templars +10VP
Whitescars +5VP
Custodes +4VP
Ultramarines +4VP
Imperial Fists +3VP
SpaceWolfs +.5VP ???
Iron hands +6VP
Raven guard-2VP ???
Dark Angels 0VP???
Blood Angles -10VP???

Okay blood angles might have an issue but they are also the only marine sub faction to fall below 45% wins.

Slipspace wrote:
Yes, it can work in some situations, but not all and probably not the majority.

Then can you tell me why a tournament-winning list would include trukks and use them for that purpose if they can't be expected to work most of the time?

The difference is you're basing your experience off reading a battle report of a game you didn't play (for a game you don't play)

You mean a game I haven't played since 8th due to a pandemic and a friend group who has other priorities. There are other players in this discussion who are in the same position.

while other people are talking about the realities of playing the game in a more general sense and how your situation is not likely to be applicable in a large number of cases.

My hypothetical about using trukks is based on facts but more importantly, was brought up to show that boyz are good units because they work well with other synergies within their codex. A unit of boyz on an objective are going to be better off if you can park a roadblock between them and the objective, or tie up the opponent's troops in a preemptive melee, or tie them up while conga lining back to the objective, or... The point was that boyz should be judged on how many PEQ models are removed by x shoota boyz because that isn't their job.

 addnid wrote:
Canadian 5th you really do need to play 9th on TTS (since you seem to not have an alternative, which of course is not your fault). I see you shaking your head behind your screen. Please stop doing that. Download the thing already ! Then once you get a few games in, you will be able to speak from (slightmy more) experience. I will never play on TTS because I am lucky to have a (skeleton) crew to play with of about 5-6 people. But those of them who also play on TTS say it is good training, so I will take their word for it.

You don't need any models, TTS is free (or so I hear), what say you ?

I own TTS already, my issue with it is that I loathe how it controls. I've tried it for far simpler games than 40k and found it a total chore to use. I'd much rather use Vassal, even if it's 2D and less accurate than TTS would be but I don't think any of the 40k projects for it are current.

I'll consider TTS, but I make no promises about actually using it given its issues.

What I will do is thank you for the constructive suggestion. It's a great olive branch and something I'm happy to see from you!

Ice_can wrote:

Looks like you forgot to remove the WTC missions which for reasons I don't understand have some odd results.
.

Mmm that didn't seem to change much. I am only looking at November games though.

That's why I don't use 40k stats.
The data is too outdated when we get 1/2 codici per month.

Spoletta wrote:
That's why I don't use 40k stats.
The data is too outdated when we get 1/2 codici per month.

Okey, this kind of a kills any form ofdiscussion up until the edition restard. Because only then we can with 100% accuracy say what was bad and what was not. At the same time it doesn't stop non marines players from making 80 pages thread about how their armies should be better and marines should be nerfed.

How accurate do we have to be to agree on something like, the Tau are REALLY bad in 9th or Harlequins are REALLY good in 9th? Do we have to review every game ever played with those armies, in every meta around the world? Because if yes, then w40k forums non dedicted to painting or converting make no sense to exist.

Karol wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That's why I don't use 40k stats.
The data is too outdated when we get 1/2 codici per month.

Okey, this kind of a kills any form ofdiscussion up until the edition restard. Because only then we can with 100% accuracy say what was bad and what was not. At the same time it doesn't stop non marines players from making 80 pages thread about how their armies should be better and marines should be nerfed.

How accurate do we have to be to agree on something like, the Tau are REALLY bad in 9th or Harlequins are REALLY good in 9th? Do we have to review every game ever played with those armies, in every meta around the world? Because if yes, then w40k forums non dedicted to painting or converting make no sense to exist.

The problem with 40k stats (the website) is that it was still showing Castellan and Ynnari as having their obscene winrate even after they got gutted. Its just not precise enough. Now that we're at the start of a new edition with codexes rolling out (relatively) quickly, 40kstats will most of the time show outdated results.

Once we can get a regular number of events going, it will probably be reliable, but right now you have to go event by event.

Karol wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That's why I don't use 40k stats.
The data is too outdated when we get 1/2 codici per month.

Okey, this kind of a kills any form ofdiscussion up until the edition restard. Because only then we can with 100% accuracy say what was bad and what was not. At the same time it doesn't stop non marines players from making 80 pages thread about how their armies should be better and marines should be nerfed.

How accurate do we have to be to agree on something like, the Tau are REALLY bad in 9th or Harlequins are REALLY good in 9th? Do we have to review every game ever played with those armies, in every meta around the world? Because if yes, then w40k forums non dedicted to painting or converting make no sense to exist.

Data are definitely useful, but only if put into context and elaborated. Pure numbers do not provide information.

We aren't here to certify who's the best, we're discussing the game. I do mostly to improve as a player and the ultimate goal is to have better games. I couldn't care less about Australian tournaments, I know metas there are different from here but I can still get some interesting ideas by having a look at data or winning lists. The latter especially are definitely meta dependant because they're affetcted by house rules (time limitations, no Legends, etc...), not to mention that are heavily tailored to counter the flavour(s) of the month, and I've seen several lists that placed high in tournaments but were not so special if not flat out mediocre in a full regular game against TAC lists.

You say that Harlies are really good in 9th? You're probably right, they're extremely competitive and due to the fact that their codex only have 8 datasheets an average collection is already close to a competitive list. But in reality they aren't even remotely as problematic as SM in casual play.

I think Harlies are extremely problematic for casual play, because you need skill to counter them.
I remember when in 6th ed I was still what I consider to be a casual player, our casual eldar player with his wraithknight and his distortion weapon grav plaforms would just crush me and all the other poor fools part of our player group.

Did not take a genius to figure out how to play eldar back then, doesn't take one to play harlequin currently.

A secondary to balance clowns would be great, they don't have many wounds, don't have much toughness, they just don't have the digits to get on the radar of any kind of "kill secondary mission".

Army wide ignore basic rules is just the worst design philosophy ever

Harlequins' effectiveness drops a lot outside tournaments because it's true that they have a solid codex and don't suffer much from secondary but their rating is high because they're extremely anti meta.

They're also not so easy to play as you claim, still a glasscannon army with mid-short range.

And tournament meta is not casual meta. They do benefit a lot if people highly tailor against SM and then bump into Harlequins. In casual play if someone has to face Harlequins he of course will tailor somehow as clowns' units all have the same profiles (either light vehicles or T3 models), SM instead can play a wide range of models with several different efficient builds.

Not everyone plays against strangers, there's a large portion of players who know in advance who (and typically also what faction) is gonna play with. And change/refine their list due to that.

Even considering single pick up games: if you bring a real TAC list, with solid answers to T3-T4 1W models and not a pure tailor against primaris/gravis, you should get decent odds against Harlequins.

My for fun Argent Shroud sister list is choke full of flamers... I don't think that harleys would be a real issue.

 Blackie wrote:
Harlequins' effectiveness drops a lot outside tournaments because it's true that they have a solid codex and don't suffer much from secondary but their rating is high because they're extremely anti meta.

They're also not so easy to play as you claim, still a glasscannon army with mid-short range.

And tournament meta is not casual meta. They do benefit a lot if people highly tailor against SM and then bump into Harlequins. In casual play if someone has to face Harlequins he of course will tailor somehow as clowns' units all have the same profiles (either light vehicles or T3 models), SM instead can play a wide range of models with several different efficient builds.

Not everyone plays against strangers, there's a large portion of players who know in advance who (and typically also what faction) is gonna play with. And change/refine their list due to that.

Even considering single pick up games: if you bring a real TAC list, with solid answers to T3-T4 1W models and not a pure tailor against primaris/gravis, you should get decent odds against Harlequins.

Not really. -1 to wound aura is literally an I win button.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Harlequins' effectiveness drops a lot outside tournaments because it's true that they have a solid codex and don't suffer much from secondary but their rating is high because they're extremely anti meta.

They're also not so easy to play as you claim, still a glasscannon army with mid-short range.

And tournament meta is not casual meta. They do benefit a lot if people highly tailor against SM and then bump into Harlequins. In casual play if someone has to face Harlequins he of course will tailor somehow as clowns' units all have the same profiles (either light vehicles or T3 models), SM instead can play a wide range of models with several different efficient builds.

Not everyone plays against strangers, there's a large portion of players who know in advance who (and typically also what faction) is gonna play with. And change/refine their list due to that.

Even considering single pick up games: if you bring a real TAC list, with solid answers to T3-T4 1W models and not a pure tailor against primaris/gravis, you should get decent odds against Harlequins.

Not really. -1 to wound aura is literally an I win button.

So a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 4+ with 1 Wound is impossible to take down, but a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 3+ with 2 Wounds is fine?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 4+ with 1 Wound is impossible to take down, but a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 3+ with 2 Wounds is fine?

Of course, because the second model is Astartes and they deserve an "I win" button.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 4+ with 1 Wound is impossible to take down, but a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 3+ with 2 Wounds is fine?

Of course, because the second model is Astartes and they deserve an "I win" button.

yeah, wound roll modifications are strong only when the base unit benefitting from it is already decently resilient. the shadowseer aura isnt the strongest part of the codex.

 Blackie wrote:
But in reality they aren't even remotely as problematic as SM in casual play.

This is a common claim, but it isn't supported by much. According to TiWP daemons are easy to pilot and strong where GSC is not easy to pilot, but still strong. Marines are like daemons, but just more common. That doesn't make marines more problematic - just more noticed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But in reality they aren't even remotely as problematic as SM in casual play.

This is a common claim, but it isn't supported by much. According to TiWP daemons are easy to pilot and strong where GSC is not easy to pilot, but still strong. Marines are like daemons, but just more common. That doesn't make marines more problematic - just more noticed.

The number if player's in a casual environment that happen to have the correct models for the top demon lists has in my experiance been extremely small.

Most demon players have more of a mix of units in my experiance than the top lists contain

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 4+ with 1 Wound is impossible to take down, but a model wounded on a 4+ and saving on a 3+ with 2 Wounds is fine?

Of course, because the second model is Astartes and they deserve an "I win" button.

You really need some therapy, dude.

In answer to JNA's question, 4+/4+/1W should definitely be viewed as easier to kill than 4+/3+/2W, if we're looking at basic profiles - heck, even if the former is around half the cost of the latter, the latter is a stronger profile, assuming AP0 D1 weapons. The relative value may shift a bit as AP and D numbers change, especially as I think the Hari save is a 4++ not a 4+, isn't it?

Yeah, it's a 4++.

 Dysartes wrote:


You really need some therapy, dude.

Why? Because I won't cheer on glorious corporation GW?

I'm not really convinced by the view Harlequins are "hard to play" - but I do think as a collection is not terribly attractive to most casual players.

It would be interesting to try and track whether the number of Harlequin players has increased. Custodes certainly seemed to explode when 9th launched (something like the 2nd most played faction?), but I feel they've been on a bit of a downer since the new codexes appeared and people have got a better grasp of the game.

Harlequins have so much speed and fly/ignore terrain, I have seen casual games where the harly player just locks almost every threat down in melee.

There are not the easiest army to play, but the lack of choices mean a casual dude building his army will not be taking too much crap stuff.

Also it is not a « true beginner » army, the only people who play it are veterans and returning players, from what I have seen. So you get like the least « crap at playing the game » casuals playing harly against casuals usually not as good, again from what I have seen (in no less than three clubs !)

 addnid wrote:
Harlequins have so much speed and fly/ignore terrain, I have seen casual games where the harly player just locks almost every threat down in melee.

There are not the easiest army to play, but the lack of choices mean a casual dude building his army will not be taking too much crap stuff.

Also it is not a « true beginner » army, the only people who play it are veterans and returning players, from what I have seen. So you get like the least « crap at playing the game » casuals playing harly against casuals usually not as good, again from what I have seen (in no less than three clubs !)

my experience with harlie players has been the complete opposite, every club i've played at, they were exclusively played by new players.

Or simply change Thin Their Ranks to be based upon units total Wound count...

T3 1W 4++ and -1 to hit is actually very weak for 14ppm plus weapons. A single dude could actually cost 19-24 points.

Of course they look problematic if you are mainly focussed on dealing with a bunch of T5 multiwounds models, but if you're ready to face an horde army you shouldn't have problems with Harlequins. I mean you should get a fair game, with reasonable odds to win. For "problematic" I mean that out of 10ish games most of them end up one-sided.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
My for fun Argent Shroud sister list is choke full of flamers... I don't think that harleys would be a real issue.

I've no idea about your list's composition, but Adepta Sororitas are highly competitive and it's entirely possible to play a powerful list with Argent Shroud. Typically Adepta Sororitas vs Harlequins shouldn't be problematic for both sides, they're powerful factions that can deal with every kind of opponent.

I call it a "For fun" list because I have fun with it

More seriously, it is an Adepta Sororitas list where I purposefully avoid all the top meta choices. No BR and VH, no Exorcists, no melta retributors, no repentia, no mortifiers, no imagifiers... and I use a whole lot of basic sister squads (and squads with nothing but flamers!).

Still works quite well, but that's because the Sororitas book is quite balanced internally. You don't gimp yourself so much even by avoiding all top picks.

Hecaton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:


You really need some therapy, dude.

Why? Because I won't cheer on glorious corporation GW?

No, because the ridiculous ongoing attacks on "Astartes players" as if they are a single homogeneous group with any control over what rules are published for their factions.

And then there's the ongoing irrationality regarding the Imperium in 40k Background, too.

+ + +

Sounds an interesting list, Spoletta - how many flamers do you end up with in there, normally?

 Dysartes wrote:


No, because the ridiculous ongoing attacks on "Astartes players" as if they are a single homogeneous group with any control over what rules are published for their factions.

And then there's the ongoing irrationality regarding the Imperium in 40k Background, too.

Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.

Astartes players complained about the Kellermorph, they're very much invested in other players not have a good play experience.

Hecaton wrote:
Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.

They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.

 Dysartes wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:


You really need some therapy, dude.

Why? Because I won't cheer on glorious corporation GW?

No, because the ridiculous ongoing attacks on "Astartes players" as if they are a single homogeneous group with any control over what rules are published for their factions.

And then there's the ongoing irrationality regarding the Imperium in 40k Background, too.

+ + +

Sounds an interesting list, Spoletta - how many flamers do you end up with in there, normally?

With the usual setup 8 flamers, 8 combi flamers and 10 heavy flamers.