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.
Out of 11 marine factions you ought to have some of them above the 50% curve. There is nothing strange with that, and the BT record is highly unreliable with just 4 lists recorded.
I mean, they seem well distributed. 5 marine factions above 50%, 5 marine factions below 50% and DA that is currently below but is bound to change.
(By the way, we have a faction with pre-nerf IH levels of win rate and we are not worried?)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/16 19:04:17
Argive wrote: Yep lets just completely gloss over 4 out of top ten armies are some colour of space marine.. You present data and parade it like some sort of win?
Then just ignore the obvious...
How many of the top 5 do they occupy? I suspect you picked the top 10 - around a third of all playable factions - just to make Marines look bad. However when we consider that there are ~20 non-space marine armies that are commonly played and that, when counted separately as we currently do for statistical purposes - space marines account for 11 primary chapters and another 20 successor chapters their placement in the top 10 makes sense. If we only count the primary chapters Marines [b]should[b] make up between 3 and 4 of the top 10 armies in a balanced meta as they make up just over 1/3rd of the available armies one could choose to play.
Grumble all you like about special treatment but marines would rate as a below-average army if we just counted all of them as one and that is far less accurate than counting them apart and saying they claim x top y spaces.
Oh and the deathwatch, space wolves and BT. yeah lets ignore those too. Those are not THOSE marines.
Once the DA codex drops in ernest im sure no issues.
Hah. I'm not the one making any claims about marines as a whole. You're the one attempting to lump things into a singular argument and then you go around cherry picking the winning marines while ignoring the rest and act like it is solely an "all-marine" problem rather than a structural "how 9th plays" problem. Then you try to hold up someone's comment about Salamander's Eradicators as proof, but that appears to be a garbage take.
Color me presently unconcerned with Sisters, Daemons, Harlies, Tyranids, Custodes, and Orks all either better or within striking distance of said marines. DE are doing ok there, too, but I bet it is a temp bump because of the gakky point screwups. Does this mean all those armies don't need looking after? Absolutely not. I bet their lists are really constrained so I look forward to their codexes.
Yep lets just completely gloss over 4 out of top ten armies are some colour of space marine.. You present data and parade it like some sort of win?
Then just ignore the obvious...
Yea one is Crimson Fists with a 3-1-1 record at one tournament. WOOOO. I'm gettin' the vapors.
I'll also bet you that the vast majority of those use little to no Eradicators.
Perhaps, but is that because loyalist players have found better platforms for their meltas, like attack bikes and landspeeders, or because the meta has already adjusted for them? How many of the top performing lists include vehicles without invuls, -1 damage abilities, Quantum Shielding, or other damage mitigating abilities? If the existence of Eradicators and other efficient melta equipped units has already pushed any vehicle without such abilities out of use, then they have already changed the meta, and everyone, including loyalists, would be including less AT in their lists. Just looking at a list of top performing armies isn't enough information. We need to see actual lists.
Spoletta wrote:Out of 11 marine factions you ought to have some of them above the 50% curve. There is nothing strange with that, and the BT record is highly unreliable with just 4 lists recorded.
I mean, they seem well distributed. 5 marine factions above 50%, 5 marine factions below 50% and DA that is currently below but is bound to change.
(By the way, we have a faction with pre-nerf IH levels of win rate and we are not worried?)
Are you referring to SoB? Which sub-faction is dominant? I assume Bloody Rose? Are those pure SoB lists, or do they include detachments from other Imperial factions? Again, not enough information.
Spoletta wrote: Out of 11 marine factions you ought to have some of them above the 50% curve. There is nothing strange with that, and the BT record is highly unreliable with just 4 lists recorded.
I mean, they seem well distributed. 5 marine factions above 50%, 5 marine factions below 50% and DA that is currently below but is bound to change.
(By the way, we have a faction with pre-nerf IH levels of win rate and we are not worried?)
Basically I'm not as worried about Harlequins because at the end of the day, they're like 5 units that will be pretty simple to balance out.
You can fix a HUGE amount of what's currently busted about harlequins by removing something that...I would say basically no harlequin player views as their "core playstyle" - just limit the number of fusion pistols you can take in a troupe to 2 per 5.Or ditch the stratagem that allows Shield From Harm to get put onto Starweavers and Skyweavers. Simple, easily pointed out fixes that you can use to trim down the power of a faction that at the end of the day has what, six units in it total?
When I see something like Harlequins at 60%, yeah, I am vastly less concerned with that than if that said "Dark Angels - 60%" like it will in a month. Because the Harlequin codex has been a known quantity for what, a year and a half where they just kind of sat around at a ~50% winrate?
At the end of the day, they're a tiny codex, with a tiny number of rules, it's incredibly simple to point out what the problem is and it's incredibly simple to fix.
They don't have hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of kits and stratagems and relics and traits and wargear options and 7 layer bean dip special rules to try and untangle, and GW doesn't just throw out dumb gak takes like
"AHURRRRRRRRRRRRR What if we just made it so this unit that's already considered quite good couldn't be wounded on anything but a 4 5 or 6 for no extra points, yeah that sounds balanced!!!"
With non-marine factions GW actually decides to put some balance levers and limitations in place that make it much easier to correct balance issues. And it helps you point out where the problems lie when a faction has less than 1,203,234,642,466 options to pick from.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Perhaps, but is that because loyalist players have found better platforms for their meltas, like attack bikes and landspeeders, or because the meta has already adjusted for them? How many of the top performing lists include vehicles without invuls, -1 damage abilities, Quantum Shielding, or other damage mitigating abilities? If the existence of Eradicators and other efficient melta equipped units has already pushed any vehicle without such abilities out of use, then they have already changed the meta, and everyone, including loyalists, would be including less AT in their lists. Just looking at a list of top performing armies isn't enough information. We need to see actual lists.
What came first? The chicken or the egg? Did marine players realize that taking too much anti-tank was hurting their ability to score? Or did people take so few vehicles that Eradicators become a waste of points? I'd wager the former and the latter is just a result of fear of using vehicles either because of losing them or their limited role in the overall battleplan.
Attack Bikes appear to be used more often than Eradicators, but I don't have data to fully quantify that. That makes Eradiactors a bit of a red herring otherwise.
A #3 BT at Wizards GT used 4 attack bikes and a couple squads of ( the real hero ) plasma Inceptors. That isn't a lot of redundancy. The rest of the list? 3 Crusader squads, Servitors (for actions), 10 Assault Termies, 8 VV, WW, Grimaldus, and Chappy on Bike.
The #6 Salamanders used zero Eradicators and zero Attack Bikes. Opting instead for flamer Redemptors, all flamer SG, Termie, 2 Sicaran Omegas, and Intercessors. But he was WLLWW.
#10 SW took 2x5 Long Fangs with ML, LCWG, BGV, and Intercessors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/16 20:07:32
I wonder if one could make a BT marine swarm list. Crusaders are only 15pts. One could take 60 of them for 900 and still have over a 1000pt for support, that could be vanvetsquads, MM attack bikes and heroes to buff stuff up.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Daedalus81 wrote: DE are doing ok there, too, but I bet it is a temp bump because of the gakky point screwups. Does this mean all those armies don't need looking after? Absolutely not. I bet their lists are really constrained so I look forward to their codexes.
Excellent point.
Even before the Reaver points screwup there was an issue where the only viable Drukhari choice was Coven with Dark Technomancers and Master of Mutagens. That isn't to say that this was illegitimate, but simply that a codex where only a single subfaction with a very specific choice of traits is viable isn't healthy, regardless of how well it does.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Are you referring to SoB? Which sub-faction is dominant? I assume Bloody Rose? Are those pure SoB lists, or do they include detachments from other Imperial factions? Again, not enough information.
He's likely referring to Harlequins as they are by far the winningest faction in the game right now. Dakka doesn't seem to care but that's most likely because many of them haven't seen a Harlequin model in person much less played against a competitive version of the army.
The information for SoB lists is out there if you choose to look for it. You can't claim a lack of data if you're unwilling to do the research for yourself.
Perhaps, but is that because loyalist players have found better platforms for their meltas, like attack bikes and landspeeders, or because the meta has already adjusted for them? How many of the top performing lists include vehicles without invuls, -1 damage abilities, Quantum Shielding, or other damage mitigating abilities? If the existence of Eradicators and other efficient melta equipped units has already pushed any vehicle without such abilities out of use, then they have already changed the meta, and everyone, including loyalists, would be including less AT in their lists. Just looking at a list of top performing armies isn't enough information. We need to see actual lists.
What came first? The chicken or the egg? Did marine players realize that taking too much anti-tank was hurting their ability to score? Or did people take so few vehicles that Eradicators become a waste of points? I'd wager the former and the latter is just a result of fear of using vehicles either because of losing them or their limited role in the overall battleplan.
Attack Bikes appear to be used more often than Eradicators, but I don't have data to fully quantify that. That makes Eradiactors a bit of a red herring otherwise.
A #3 BT at Wizards GT used 4 attack bikes and a couple squads of ( the real hero ) plasma Inceptors. That isn't a lot of redundancy. The rest of the list? 3 Crusader squads, Servitors (for actions), 10 Assault Termies, 8 VV, WW, Grimaldus, and Chappy on Bike.
The #6 Salamanders used zero Eradicators and zero Attack Bikes. Opting instead for flamer Redemptors, all flamer SG, Termie, 2 Sicaran Omegas, and Intercessors. But he was WLLWW.
#10 SW took 2x5 Long Fangs with ML, LCWG, BGV, and Intercessors.
So instead of Eradicators those lists (besides the SW list) brought faster, more mobile AT units. Makes sense. But if people are using less vehicles for "fear of losing them", then all of the new, more powerfull AT, has changed the meta. I expect that to change as more factions get their 9th edition codexes, as most things have gotten a durability buff of some sort, so far.
Spoletta wrote:Most likely soups.
Ponies + sisters right now is the absolute top of the meta.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Are you referring to SoB? Which sub-faction is dominant? I assume Bloody Rose? Are those pure SoB lists, or do they include detachments from other Imperial factions? Again, not enough information.
He's likely referring to Harlequins as they are by far the winningest faction in the game right now. Dakka doesn't seem to care but that's most likely because many of them haven't seen a Harlequin model in person much less played against a competitive version of the army.
The information for SoB lists is out there if you choose to look for it. You can't claim a lack of data if you're unwilling to do the research for yourself.
I assumed Spoletta was referring to the list Daedelus provided. As for looking up the information myself, I will, but that particular list doesn't provide it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/16 20:40:13
Karol wrote: I wonder if one could make a BT marine swarm list. Crusaders are only 15pts. One could take 60 of them for 900 and still have over a 1000pt for support, that could be vanvetsquads, MM attack bikes and heroes to buff stuff up.
I am unsure if GW intends for them to be 15, but I wouldn't bank on it staying like that even if I'd be ok with that being BT's "thing".
Perhaps, but is that because loyalist players have found better platforms for their meltas, like attack bikes and landspeeders, or because the meta has already adjusted for them? How many of the top performing lists include vehicles without invuls, -1 damage abilities, Quantum Shielding, or other damage mitigating abilities? If the existence of Eradicators and other efficient melta equipped units has already pushed any vehicle without such abilities out of use, then they have already changed the meta, and everyone, including loyalists, would be including less AT in their lists. Just looking at a list of top performing armies isn't enough information. We need to see actual lists.
What came first? The chicken or the egg? Did marine players realize that taking too much anti-tank was hurting their ability to score? Or did people take so few vehicles that Eradicators become a waste of points? I'd wager the former and the latter is just a result of fear of using vehicles either because of losing them or their limited role in the overall battleplan.
Attack Bikes appear to be used more often than Eradicators, but I don't have data to fully quantify that. That makes Eradiactors a bit of a red herring otherwise.
A #3 BT at Wizards GT used 4 attack bikes and a couple squads of ( the real hero ) plasma Inceptors. That isn't a lot of redundancy. The rest of the list? 3 Crusader squads, Servitors (for actions), 10 Assault Termies, 8 VV, WW, Grimaldus, and Chappy on Bike.
The #6 Salamanders used zero Eradicators and zero Attack Bikes. Opting instead for flamer Redemptors, all flamer SG, Termie, 2 Sicaran Omegas, and Intercessors. But he was WLLWW.
#10 SW took 2x5 Long Fangs with ML, LCWG, BGV, and Intercessors.
So instead of Eradicators those lists (besides the SW list) brought faster, more mobile AT units. Makes sense. But if people are using less vehicles for "fear of losing them", then all of the new, more powerfull AT, has changed the meta. I expect that to change as more factions get their 9th edition codexes, as most things have gotten a durability buff of some sort, so far.
Spoletta wrote:Most likely soups.
Ponies + sisters right now is the absolute top of the meta.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Are you referring to SoB? Which sub-faction is dominant? I assume Bloody Rose? Are those pure SoB lists, or do they include detachments from other Imperial factions? Again, not enough information.
He's likely referring to Harlequins as they are by far the winningest faction in the game right now. Dakka doesn't seem to care but that's most likely because many of them haven't seen a Harlequin model in person much less played against a competitive version of the army.
The information for SoB lists is out there if you choose to look for it. You can't claim a lack of data if you're unwilling to do the research for yourself.
I assumed Spoletta was referring to the list Daedelus provided. As for looking up the information myself, I will, but that particular list doesn't provide it.
Ponies are the DKOK cavalry. Strongest unit in the game at the moment.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I assumed Spoletta was referring to the list Daedelus provided. As for looking up the information myself, I will, but that particular list doesn't provide it.
The same complaints come up whenever anybody brings up stats regardless of how well-sourced the article is, so I don't give anybody the benefit of the doubt on the subject these days. If you want to call out bad data go to the tournament results and army lists and prove that the data is, in-fact, bad.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I assumed Spoletta was referring to the list Daedelus provided. As for looking up the information myself, I will, but that particular list doesn't provide it.
The same complaints come up whenever anybody brings up stats regardless of how well-sourced the article is, so I don't give anybody the benefit of the doubt on the subject these days. If you want to call out bad data go to the tournament results and army lists and prove that the data is, in-fact, bad.
I never said that the data was "bad", I just said I wanted to see more. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have looked into it, and now see that "ponies", are in fact DKoK Death Riders, as Spoletta has just informed me. And the combination of them and SoB seems quite strong.
Right, right. Outriders are absurd with 19 attacks. People are going to take 18 Eradicators. Hordes are dead. Melee will suck this edition.
The forum is full of people who don't actually play the game and/or have strong opinions that don't seem to square with reality.
January results:
OMG! Crimson Fists are OP! Let's all switch armies!
Yep lets just completely gloss over 4 out of top ten armies are some colour of space marine.. You present data and parade it like some sort of win?
Then just ignore the obvious...
This certainly does not mean other things like KOS/SIsters needs a bit of a reeling in...
By all means guys just snark away.
It's not my data. I'm just the guy mocking all the tourney worshipers & meta jumpers.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
There are probably about 10-20 billion eldar and ~100 billion dark eldar. Compared to 1 million marines, the most hilariously overhyped special forces in fiction since the one freaking halo guy.
Spoiler:
That seems like a highball, but if you accept those numbers, 20 billion Eldar at a military of 1% (twice the US) translates into about 200 million troops. That seems like a lot, but that's divided over a couple hundred craftworlds, unevenly.
Assuming 200 craftworlds and 20 billion eldar, you would have just 100 million Eldar per craftworld, on average.
A prosperous, well populated craftworld can afford to have less of its troops waving swords and shuriken guns around. An embattled, depopulated craftworld that pushes more civilians into guardian duty might have 5% under arms but is going to have supply issues.
You are looking at roughly a million Eldar defending a craftworld. When a craftworld sends 10% of its military strength to go fight a war, that's still 100k, the size of maybe 2-3 guard regiments and 100 times the size of a puny marine chapter. The problem is, they are still outnumbered 10-1 by the US Military, and presumably any PDF of reasonable size. if they gather in those numbers they leave themselves open to being mauled by WMDs, titans, a million lasguns etc.
The real issue is it takes about 3 years to turn a fresh-faced battle royale winner into a superhuman badass. Eldar gestation probably takes longer than that.
Space Marine chapters have to carefully manage geneseed because it takes 50 years to produce enough for 1000 marines from a single set. We don't have hard data on Eldar age, but the youngest warlock -a junior psyker- in Ulthwe is 300 'Eldar years'. If I had to guess whether an Eldar year was longer or shorter than a human year, I'd go longer.
We are told the Eldar are a declining race who can't replace their losses. For context, Germans have an 8/12 birth/death ratio. At that rate, in less than 200 years, Germany's population will be halved.
That's why it is an Eldar tragedy when a single assault marine ambushes a group of guardians and murders them all, only to be killed by the team's 400 year old Warlock. The Marine was 20 years old and had spent 7 of those with the Chapter. Each guardian was over 100 and had studied for decades to be a great wraithbone polisher, baker, candlestick maker etc, before being drafted into a few decades of Guardian service. The marines will just repurpose his geneseed and armour if they can recover it then hand them to the next 13 year old who can murder his way through an obstacle course.
The Eldar need to recover each soulstone or their irreplacable friends will be eaten by daemons.
Daily reminder that if all loyalist marines were gathered in one place and had to fight all the Tau, they'd be utterly flattened by the 1:10,000 numerical advantage.
If all the Tau were gathered together in one place, I think the marines would deepstrike half of their numbers in to engage the command structure. This would buy time for the the other half to exterminatus the planet, cheerfully accepting friendly losses that can be replaced in 50 years.
There are probably about 10-20 billion eldar and ~100 billion dark eldar. Compared to 1 million marines, the most hilariously overhyped special forces in fiction since the one freaking halo guy.
[spoiler]That seems like a highball, but if you accept those numbers, 20 billion Eldar at a military of 1% (twice the US) translates into about 200 million troops. That seems like a lot, but that's divided over a couple hundred craftworlds, unevenly.
Assuming 200 craftworlds and 20 billion eldar, you would have just 100 million Eldar per craftworld, on average.
A prosperous, well populated craftworld can afford to have less of its troops waving swords and shuriken guns around. An embattled, depopulated craftworld that pushes more civilians into guardian duty might have 5% under arms but is going to have supply issues.
You are looking at roughly a million Eldar defending a craftworld. When a craftworld sends 10% of its military strength to go fight a war, that's still 100k, the size of maybe 2-3 guard regiments and 100 times the size of a puny marine chapter. The problem is, they are still outnumbered 10-1 by the US Military, and presumably any PDF of reasonable size. if they gather in those numbers they leave themselves open to being mauled by WMDs, titans, a million lasguns etc.
The real issue is it takes about 3 years to turn a fresh-faced battle royale winner into a superhuman badass. Eldar gestation probably takes longer than that.
Space Marine chapters have to carefully manage geneseed because it takes 50 years to produce enough for 1000 marines from a single set. We don't have hard data on Eldar age, but the youngest warlock -a junior psyker- in Ulthwe is 300 'Eldar years'. If I had to guess whether an Eldar year was longer or shorter than a human year, I'd go longer.
We are told the Eldar are a declining race who can't replace their losses. For context, Germans have an 8/12 birth/death ratio. At that rate, in less than 200 years, Germany's population will be halved.
That's why it is an Eldar tragedy when a single assault marine ambushes a group of guardians and murders them all, only to be killed by the team's 400 year old Warlock. The Marine was 20 years old and had spent 7 of those with the Chapter. Each guardian was over 100 and had studied for decades to be a great wraithbone polisher, baker, candlestick maker etc, before being drafted into a few decades of Guardian service. The marines will just repurpose his geneseed and armour if they can recover it then hand them to the next 13 year old who can murder his way through an obstacle course.
The Eldar need to recover each soulstone or their irreplacable friends will be eaten by daemons.
Daily reminder that if all loyalist marines were gathered in one place and had to fight all the Tau, they'd be utterly flattened by the 1:10,000 numerical advantage.
If all the Tau were gathered together in one place, I think the marines would deepstrike half of their numbers in to engage the command structure. This would buy time for the the other half to exterminatus the planet, cheerfully accepting friendly losses that can be replaced in 50 years.
[/spoiler]
Sorry, I was going to read this post but I got distracted by the hrud, a more galactically relevant military force than the one-guy-per-planet-in-the-imperium adeptus astartes.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
the_scotsman wrote:Sorry, I was going to read this post but I got distracted by the hrud, a more galactically relevant military force than the one-guy-per-planet-in-the-imperium adeptus astartes.
Eh, not sure.
Galactically more common? Definitely.
Galactically more numerous? Certainly.
Galactically more likely to bump into? Eh, depends where you are.
But galactically relevant? Not sure about that - for as small in number Astartes are, they have *vastly* larger impacts than forces of comparable size. But we have criminally little information on Hrud with current lore and setting (we have no idea, I think, how they handled the Great Rift).
Look, I know it's cool to point out how unreasonably few Astartes there are supposed to be, but if we're taking that at face value, should we not also take at face value that this is (just about) enough to hold the line, and even achieve some genuinely impressive stuff (the Astral Knights destroying the World Engine, or the Invaders destroying Idharae)?
the_scotsman wrote:Sorry, I was going to read this post but I got distracted by the hrud, a more galactically relevant military force than the one-guy-per-planet-in-the-imperium adeptus astartes.
Eh, not sure.
Galactically more common? Definitely.
Galactically more numerous? Certainly.
Galactically more likely to bump into? Eh, depends where you are.
But galactically relevant? Not sure about that - for as small in number Astartes are, they have *vastly* larger impacts than forces of comparable size. But we have criminally little information on Hrud with current lore and setting (we have no idea, I think, how they handled the Great Rift).
Look, I know it's cool to point out how unreasonably few Astartes there are supposed to be, but if we're taking that at face value, should we not also take at face value that this is (just about) enough to hold the line, and even achieve some genuinely impressive stuff (the Astral Knights destroying the World Engine, or the Invaders destroying Idharae)?
We also have a lot of information on the power and effectiveness of the King Tiger and Jagdtiger tanks in WW2, down to basically each and every detail of where one fought in WW2.
What people find cool and epic and awesome has no bearing on whether or not it ever accomplished any particular relevancy in an armed conflict.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
the_scotsman wrote:Sorry, I was going to read this post but I got distracted by the hrud, a more galactically relevant military force than the one-guy-per-planet-in-the-imperium adeptus astartes.
Eh, not sure.
Galactically more common? Definitely.
Galactically more numerous? Certainly.
Galactically more likely to bump into? Eh, depends where you are.
But galactically relevant? Not sure about that - for as small in number Astartes are, they have *vastly* larger impacts than forces of comparable size. But we have criminally little information on Hrud with current lore and setting (we have no idea, I think, how they handled the Great Rift).
Look, I know it's cool to point out how unreasonably few Astartes there are supposed to be, but if we're taking that at face value, should we not also take at face value that this is (just about) enough to hold the line, and even achieve some genuinely impressive stuff (the Astral Knights destroying the World Engine, or the Invaders destroying Idharae)?
We also have a lot of information on the power and effectiveness of the King Tiger and Jagdtiger tanks in WW2, down to basically each and every detail of where one fought in WW2.
What people find cool and epic and awesome has no bearing on whether or not it ever accomplished any particular relevancy in an armed conflict.
That's great, but we *do* know that Astartes accomplish relevancy on a regular basis, which is kind of my point.
You can say that the numbers shouldn't support that, but somehow, in GW's infinite wisdom, Astartes *are* relevant.
Spoletta wrote: Out of 11 marine factions you ought to have some of them above the 50% curve. There is nothing strange with that, and the BT record is highly unreliable with just 4 lists recorded.
I mean, they seem well distributed. 5 marine factions above 50%, 5 marine factions below 50% and DA that is currently below but is bound to change.
(By the way, we have a faction with pre-nerf IH levels of win rate and we are not worried?)
Basically I'm not as worried about Harlequins because at the end of the day, they're like 5 units that will be pretty simple to balance out.
You can fix a HUGE amount of what's currently busted about harlequins by removing something that...I would say basically no harlequin player views as their "core playstyle" - just limit the number of fusion pistols you can take in a troupe to 2 per 5.Or ditch the stratagem that allows Shield From Harm to get put onto Starweavers and Skyweavers. Simple, easily pointed out fixes that you can use to trim down the power of a faction that at the end of the day has what, six units in it total?
When I see something like Harlequins at 60%, yeah, I am vastly less concerned with that than if that said "Dark Angels - 60%" like it will in a month. Because the Harlequin codex has been a known quantity for what, a year and a half where they just kind of sat around at a ~50% winrate?
At the end of the day, they're a tiny codex, with a tiny number of rules, it's incredibly simple to point out what the problem is and it's incredibly simple to fix.
They don't have hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of kits and stratagems and relics and traits and wargear options and 7 layer bean dip special rules to try and untangle, and GW doesn't just throw out dumb gak takes like
"AHURRRRRRRRRRRRR What if we just made it so this unit that's already considered quite good couldn't be wounded on anything but a 4 5 or 6 for no extra points, yeah that sounds balanced!!!"
With non-marine factions GW actually decides to put some balance levers and limitations in place that make it much easier to correct balance issues. And it helps you point out where the problems lie when a faction has less than 1,203,234,642,466 options to pick from.
Or you could just make Fusion Pistols more expensive instead.
Spoletta wrote: Out of 11 marine factions you ought to have some of them above the 50% curve. There is nothing strange with that, and the BT record is highly unreliable with just 4 lists recorded.
I mean, they seem well distributed. 5 marine factions above 50%, 5 marine factions below 50% and DA that is currently below but is bound to change.
(By the way, we have a faction with pre-nerf IH levels of win rate and we are not worried?)
Basically I'm not as worried about Harlequins because at the end of the day, they're like 5 units that will be pretty simple to balance out.
You can fix a HUGE amount of what's currently busted about harlequins by removing something that...I would say basically no harlequin player views as their "core playstyle" - just limit the number of fusion pistols you can take in a troupe to 2 per 5.Or ditch the stratagem that allows Shield From Harm to get put onto Starweavers and Skyweavers. Simple, easily pointed out fixes that you can use to trim down the power of a faction that at the end of the day has what, six units in it total?
When I see something like Harlequins at 60%, yeah, I am vastly less concerned with that than if that said "Dark Angels - 60%" like it will in a month. Because the Harlequin codex has been a known quantity for what, a year and a half where they just kind of sat around at a ~50% winrate?
At the end of the day, they're a tiny codex, with a tiny number of rules, it's incredibly simple to point out what the problem is and it's incredibly simple to fix.
They don't have hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of kits and stratagems and relics and traits and wargear options and 7 layer bean dip special rules to try and untangle, and GW doesn't just throw out dumb gak takes like
"AHURRRRRRRRRRRRR What if we just made it so this unit that's already considered quite good couldn't be wounded on anything but a 4 5 or 6 for no extra points, yeah that sounds balanced!!!"
With non-marine factions GW actually decides to put some balance levers and limitations in place that make it much easier to correct balance issues. And it helps you point out where the problems lie when a faction has less than 1,203,234,642,466 options to pick from.
Or you could just make Fusion Pistols more expensive instead.
True. They could easily be 10pts with the new profile they're going to get, but still I think a lot of the issue with them is the fact you can take them on every single clown, transforming them from an anti-elite unit into a ridiculously powerful antitank unit.
Spoletta wrote: Out of 11 marine factions you ought to have some of them above the 50% curve. There is nothing strange with that, and the BT record is highly unreliable with just 4 lists recorded.
I mean, they seem well distributed. 5 marine factions above 50%, 5 marine factions below 50% and DA that is currently below but is bound to change.
(By the way, we have a faction with pre-nerf IH levels of win rate and we are not worried?)
I mean this data is still pretty short. IMO Ultramarines are clearly the most powerful marine faction right now but the data doesn't show that so it makes me skeptical.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Why are you even arguing for pages in another thread that DA need to be reigned in, when by your own measurement Ultramarines are the strongest Marine faction?
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
Spoletta wrote: Out of 11 marine factions you ought to have some of them above the 50% curve. There is nothing strange with that, and the BT record is highly unreliable with just 4 lists recorded.
I mean, they seem well distributed. 5 marine factions above 50%, 5 marine factions below 50% and DA that is currently below but is bound to change.
(By the way, we have a faction with pre-nerf IH levels of win rate and we are not worried?)
Basically I'm not as worried about Harlequins because at the end of the day, they're like 5 units that will be pretty simple to balance out.
You can fix a HUGE amount of what's currently busted about harlequins by removing something that...I would say basically no harlequin player views as their "core playstyle" - just limit the number of fusion pistols you can take in a troupe to 2 per 5.Or ditch the stratagem that allows Shield From Harm to get put onto Starweavers and Skyweavers. Simple, easily pointed out fixes that you can use to trim down the power of a faction that at the end of the day has what, six units in it total?
When I see something like Harlequins at 60%, yeah, I am vastly less concerned with that than if that said "Dark Angels - 60%" like it will in a month. Because the Harlequin codex has been a known quantity for what, a year and a half where they just kind of sat around at a ~50% winrate?
At the end of the day, they're a tiny codex, with a tiny number of rules, it's incredibly simple to point out what the problem is and it's incredibly simple to fix.
They don't have hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of kits and stratagems and relics and traits and wargear options and 7 layer bean dip special rules to try and untangle, and GW doesn't just throw out dumb gak takes like
"AHURRRRRRRRRRRRR What if we just made it so this unit that's already considered quite good couldn't be wounded on anything but a 4 5 or 6 for no extra points, yeah that sounds balanced!!!"
With non-marine factions GW actually decides to put some balance levers and limitations in place that make it much easier to correct balance issues. And it helps you point out where the problems lie when a faction has less than 1,203,234,642,466 options to pick from.
Yeah you hit it for sure. -1 to wound on t5 vehicals is the issue. The main issue. Str 4 has to wound them on 6's and str 9 on 4's. You are basically T9 at that point except for a few weapons in the game. Forgive me...but that is 100% BS. Never should have been considered being put on any unit. There just aren't enough pips on a dice to make a -1 to wound fair. Max to wound on a 4+ at least lets 50% of the wounds through and even that is a bit over the top IMO due to the way Str/T scales.
Fusions on each dude is also an issue. But it was an issue I could deal with before Quinn's because tougher than knights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: Why are you even arguing for pages in another thread that DA need to be reigned in, when by your own measurement Ultramarines are the strongest Marine faction?
In that data they should be IMO. DA are not really represented there it is January data. It is also yet to be seen if DA will be more powerful that Ultras.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/17 20:00:45
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Spoletta wrote: Out of 11 marine factions you ought to have some of them above the 50% curve. There is nothing strange with that, and the BT record is highly unreliable with just 4 lists recorded.
I mean, they seem well distributed. 5 marine factions above 50%, 5 marine factions below 50% and DA that is currently below but is bound to change.
(By the way, we have a faction with pre-nerf IH levels of win rate and we are not worried?)
Basically I'm not as worried about Harlequins because at the end of the day, they're like 5 units that will be pretty simple to balance out.
You can fix a HUGE amount of what's currently busted about harlequins by removing something that...I would say basically no harlequin player views as their "core playstyle" - just limit the number of fusion pistols you can take in a troupe to 2 per 5.Or ditch the stratagem that allows Shield From Harm to get put onto Starweavers and Skyweavers. Simple, easily pointed out fixes that you can use to trim down the power of a faction that at the end of the day has what, six units in it total?
When I see something like Harlequins at 60%, yeah, I am vastly less concerned with that than if that said "Dark Angels - 60%" like it will in a month. Because the Harlequin codex has been a known quantity for what, a year and a half where they just kind of sat around at a ~50% winrate?
At the end of the day, they're a tiny codex, with a tiny number of rules, it's incredibly simple to point out what the problem is and it's incredibly simple to fix.
They don't have hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of kits and stratagems and relics and traits and wargear options and 7 layer bean dip special rules to try and untangle, and GW doesn't just throw out dumb gak takes like
"AHURRRRRRRRRRRRR What if we just made it so this unit that's already considered quite good couldn't be wounded on anything but a 4 5 or 6 for no extra points, yeah that sounds balanced!!!"
With non-marine factions GW actually decides to put some balance levers and limitations in place that make it much easier to correct balance issues. And it helps you point out where the problems lie when a faction has less than 1,203,234,642,466 options to pick from.
Or you could just make Fusion Pistols more expensive instead.
True. They could easily be 10pts with the new profile they're going to get, but still I think a lot of the issue with them is the fact you can take them on every single clown, transforming them from an anti-elite unit into a ridiculously powerful antitank unit.
If that were really the case then any Marine unit with a similar capability, like Command Squads, Chosen, Sternguard, etc., would be an issue.
Eldar- 4436 pts
