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.
2021/02/24 19:52:06
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Theres a COUPLE of "trap" choices in marine lists.
Compared with 90% of the game that isnt top competitive options of Custodes/Sisters/Harlequins, they are perfectly fine units.
The space marine codex is phenomenal, theres really not many units that you could not make a competent (not competitive) list.
Even vehicle heavy lists, with the amount of support in the form of Iron Hands psychic discipline, techmarines, etc... can work. The reason why they dont has less to do with marine vehicles and more to do with the fact that 9th is a infantry and meele based edition, not a shooting vehicle one.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2021/02/24 20:08:45
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Galas wrote: Theres a COUPLE of "trap" choices in marine lists.
Compared with 90% of the game that isnt top competitive options of Custodes/Sisters/Harlequins, they are perfectly fine units.
The space marine codex is phenomenal, theres really not many units that you could not make a competent (not competitive) list.
Even vehicle heavy lists, with the amount of support in the form of Iron Hands psychic discipline, techmarines, etc... can work. The reason why they dont has less to do with marine vehicles and more to do with the fact that 9th is a infantry and meele based edition, not a shooting vehicle one.
And a lot of the worst trap units are that BECAUSE of changes GW put into the game IN ORDER TO SELL MORE MARINES.
Many marine vehicles are trap choices because if you take them someone will take eradicators or attack bikes or retributors or myphitic blight-haulers against them and blast them off the board instantly for a 120% points return and 3 BID points. Nice Land Raider idiot, GW had 3 new marine kits featuring multimeltas to sell so they casually tripled their damage output and didnt change their points costs.
"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!"
2021/02/24 21:07:23
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
The basic MM+CCW dreadnought fething wipes the floor with any of them effortlessly for a suspiciously similar (sometimes less lol Wraithlords...) point cost. But it's a 'trap option' lol...
I notice that you're mostly focusing on armies that have yet to be updated this edition.
You're also doing that thing you like to do in comparing units in a vacuum and ignoring the fact that, for example, Tyranids should be fielding hierodules instead of Fexes right now. Or that a C'Tan or Ghazkul will mince a Dread and ask for seconds.
Somewhat telling that you are shown that Dreadnoughts are better than their non-SM competition and you respond with "yeah they don't have updates yet" and "But ghaz can kill a dread".
So your argument is that when those factions get their release their dread equivalents will be as good as dreadnoughts and that Orkz should be happy that their 1 off LoW, 300pt special character can kill a 120pt dread easily...mind you only in close combat.
Well lets do a rewind to 8th edition, were Dreadnoughts better than DeffDreadz than? Yep, and by a long shot how about in 7th? yep...hmm, so its almost like the edition doesn't matter....
A deffdread has worse shooting options by far, is less accurate and when it finally gets into CC isn't all that much better than a normal SM Dread. So yes, it is better than its orky counterpart and yet Marine players complain that its a "Trap" because they have options which make this one look like garbage. So its a trap in the sense that there are better options because SM's have more codex options than any other 2 factions combined LOL.
Spoletta wrote: Scouts too are very trappy, but indeed SM entries are more Timmy than trap, you are right in that.
The problem with SM in 8th was that it was said that you could take random units in a list and it would be a competitive list. Now, that was clearly an hyperbole... but not so far from truth.
In 9th the percentage of the SM dex which can make it onto a table against an experienced opponent, is actually quite scarce.
Thing is, these are only "trap" choices because of how many good units marines have access to.
Once you place them in another codex it's different. Reivers, if placed in the Ork codex, would basically be mega-armored kommando nobz with superior movement. They'd be an incredibly potent and versatile unit which had a combination of durability, movement, deployment shenanigans, and damage output. Even Assault Marines would be solid in other codex's.
Which is the entire point. While other armies are having their options slashed, receiving no releases, and being given plenty of gimp stuff... Marines have multiple squads which all accomplish the same thing, with the worst of them merely being "bad by marine standards," which still puts them head-and-shoulders above what other armies have access to.
Talk about being dishonest.
Many of those SM units, if they were in the nid codex I would never look at them.
Why would I ever take an assault intercessor when a warrior with swords is better under every single aspect? Seriously, look at it! One more attack instead of having it only in shock assault, one more AP, immune to morale (and provides synapse), hinders enemy psykers, better defensive profile, huge stratagem support... and we are talking about a warrior build which is considered a bad one!
Scouts? Really? For little more than 2 scouts I can take a lictor!
Assault squads good in other factions? Then raveners must look horribly OP to you.
And I mean, we are talking about the nid codex here! Which isn't exactly boasting excellent profiles, right now we live on scoring tricks and FW beasts.
Marines are full of good tools, but saying that their bad choices would be good in other codici, means that you have to take off your SMOP tainted googles.
2021/02/24 22:48:45
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
SemperMortis wrote: Somewhat telling that you are shown that Dreadnoughts are better than their non-SM competition and you respond with "yeah they don't have updates yet" and "But ghaz can kill a dread".
So your argument is that when those factions get their release their dread equivalents will be as good as dreadnoughts and that Orkz should be happy that their 1 off LoW, 300pt special character can kill a 120pt dread easily...mind you only in close combat.
Well lets do a rewind to 8th edition, were Dreadnoughts better than DeffDreadz than? Yep, and by a long shot how about in 7th? yep...hmm, so its almost like the edition doesn't matter....
A deffdread has worse shooting options by far, is less accurate and when it finally gets into CC isn't all that much better than a normal SM Dread. So yes, it is better than its orky counterpart and yet Marine players complain that its a "Trap" because they have options which make this one look like garbage. So its a trap in the sense that there are better options because SM's have more codex options than any other 2 factions combined LOL.
Yet, as of the end of January, Orks are more highly rated than any space except White Scars, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels and easily hold an above-average position in the tournament meta. Yes, Orks have more internal balance issues than some other factions but you don't solve that by going down the list and making sure that each faction's ~100 point walkers/MCs are equal to one another.
2021/02/24 23:52:41
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Spoletta wrote: Scouts too are very trappy, but indeed SM entries are more Timmy than trap, you are right in that.
The problem with SM in 8th was that it was said that you could take random units in a list and it would be a competitive list. Now, that was clearly an hyperbole... but not so far from truth.
In 9th the percentage of the SM dex which can make it onto a table against an experienced opponent, is actually quite scarce.
Thing is, these are only "trap" choices because of how many good units marines have access to.
Once you place them in another codex it's different. Reivers, if placed in the Ork codex, would basically be mega-armored kommando nobz with superior movement. They'd be an incredibly potent and versatile unit which had a combination of durability, movement, deployment shenanigans, and damage output. Even Assault Marines would be solid in other codex's.
Which is the entire point. While other armies are having their options slashed, receiving no releases, and being given plenty of gimp stuff... Marines have multiple squads which all accomplish the same thing, with the worst of them merely being "bad by marine standards," which still puts them head-and-shoulders above what other armies have access to.
Talk about being dishonest.
Many of those SM units, if they were in the nid codex I would never look at them.
Why would I ever take an assault intercessor when a warrior with swords is better under every single aspect? Seriously, look at it! One more attack instead of having it only in shock assault, one more AP, immune to morale (and provides synapse), hinders enemy psykers, better defensive profile, huge stratagem support... and we are talking about a warrior build which is considered a bad one!
Scouts? Really? For little more than 2 scouts I can take a lictor!
Assault squads good in other factions? Then raveners must look horribly OP to you.
And I mean, we are talking about the nid codex here! Which isn't exactly boasting excellent profiles, right now we live on scoring tricks and FW beasts.
Marines are full of good tools, but saying that their bad choices would be good in other codici, means that you have to take off your SMOP tainted googles.
Okay, I don't disagree with you on the Warrior/Lictor comparison, but you've got to explain how the hell a Ravener is better than anything lol (or at least what you're comparing it to, and why that unit somehow dies even faster than Raveners do)
2021/02/25 00:20:29
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
SemperMortis wrote: Somewhat telling that you are shown that Dreadnoughts are better than their non-SM competition and you respond with "yeah they don't have updates yet" and "But ghaz can kill a dread".
So your argument is that when those factions get their release their dread equivalents will be as good as dreadnoughts and that Orkz should be happy that their 1 off LoW, 300pt special character can kill a 120pt dread easily...mind you only in close combat.
Well lets do a rewind to 8th edition, were Dreadnoughts better than DeffDreadz than? Yep, and by a long shot how about in 7th? yep...hmm, so its almost like the edition doesn't matter....
A deffdread has worse shooting options by far, is less accurate and when it finally gets into CC isn't all that much better than a normal SM Dread. So yes, it is better than its orky counterpart and yet Marine players complain that its a "Trap" because they have options which make this one look like garbage. So its a trap in the sense that there are better options because SM's have more codex options than any other 2 factions combined LOL.
Yet, as of the end of January, Orks are more highly rated than any space except White Scars, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels and easily hold an above-average position in the tournament meta. Yes, Orks have more internal balance issues than some other factions but you don't solve that by going down the list and making sure that each faction's ~100 point walkers/MCs are equal to one another.
And we keep pointing out that Win/Loss isn't a useful stat, hell I literally posted a GT where space marines had 3 of the top 4 placings and 5 of the top 8 and BARELY had more wins than losses across the entire faction at the tournament. Space Marines are the entry level army and generally speaking have some of the newest (read that as, bad) players. And if you are talking about tiers for orkz, most tier rankings have orkz as middle of the pack where as most space marine chapters are higher than that.
Also, I really want you to explain to me how orkz have "internal balance issues" specifically in relation to Deff Dreadz and how that internal balance isn't more apparent in Codex: Space Marines where they have literally 3-4 options for every option orkz have.
Internal balance means that units inside the codex aren't balanced against one another and you have no brainer choices. External balance would be the codex itself is weak against other codexs...keeping in mind i am talking specifically about dreads in this instance. In this instance I think the deffdread/Dreadnought debate is an issue with EXTERNAL not internal balance.
SemperMortis wrote: And we keep pointing out that Win/Loss isn't a useful stat, hell I literally posted a GT where space marines had 3 of the top 4 placings and 5 of the top 8 and BARELY had more wins than losses across the entire faction at the tournament. Space Marines are the entry level army and generally speaking have some of the newest (read that as, bad) players.
If you want to assert that SM are god-tier and only brought down due to bad players and mirror matches then find the evidence and show your work. I'd be shocked if they had that many more new players at tournaments than any other faction has.
And if you are talking about tiers for orkz, most tier rankings have orkz as middle of the pack where as most space marine chapters are higher than that.
Most? Which ones? The one I'm quoting is from the Goonhammer article I posted a ways back shows them as being well above the midpoint in terms of power and normalizes for wins against weaker armies
Also, I really want you to explain to me how orkz have "internal balance issues" specifically in relation to Deff Dreadz and how that internal balance isn't more apparent in Codex: Space Marines where they have literally 3-4 options for every option orkz have.
Orkz have a larger distance between their tournament-viable units and their bad units than Marines have. Most bad Marine units are still somewhat playable at a casual level even if they're not good, whereas the Ork codex has stuff like grots, killa kanz, and squig buggies stinking up the joint; even deff dreads aren't seeing any tournament play among skilled players and they're probably close to the average power of that codex. That's what I mean by internal balance issues.
2021/02/25 07:12:35
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Spoletta wrote: Scouts too are very trappy, but indeed SM entries are more Timmy than trap, you are right in that.
The problem with SM in 8th was that it was said that you could take random units in a list and it would be a competitive list. Now, that was clearly an hyperbole... but not so far from truth.
In 9th the percentage of the SM dex which can make it onto a table against an experienced opponent, is actually quite scarce.
Thing is, these are only "trap" choices because of how many good units marines have access to.
Once you place them in another codex it's different. Reivers, if placed in the Ork codex, would basically be mega-armored kommando nobz with superior movement. They'd be an incredibly potent and versatile unit which had a combination of durability, movement, deployment shenanigans, and damage output. Even Assault Marines would be solid in other codex's.
Which is the entire point. While other armies are having their options slashed, receiving no releases, and being given plenty of gimp stuff... Marines have multiple squads which all accomplish the same thing, with the worst of them merely being "bad by marine standards," which still puts them head-and-shoulders above what other armies have access to.
Talk about being dishonest.
Many of those SM units, if they were in the nid codex I would never look at them.
Why would I ever take an assault intercessor when a warrior with swords is better under every single aspect? Seriously, look at it! One more attack instead of having it only in shock assault, one more AP, immune to morale (and provides synapse), hinders enemy psykers, better defensive profile, huge stratagem support... and we are talking about a warrior build which is considered a bad one!
Scouts? Really? For little more than 2 scouts I can take a lictor!
Assault squads good in other factions? Then raveners must look horribly OP to you.
And I mean, we are talking about the nid codex here! Which isn't exactly boasting excellent profiles, right now we live on scoring tricks and FW beasts.
Marines are full of good tools, but saying that their bad choices would be good in other codici, means that you have to take off your SMOP tainted googles.
Okay, I don't disagree with you on the Warrior/Lictor comparison, but you've got to explain how the hell a Ravener is better than anything lol (or at least what you're comparing it to, and why that unit somehow dies even faster than Raveners do)
In that case it was in relation to assault squads An assault squad with jetpack costs the same as a ravener. They both deepstrike and have the same speed. Assault marines have a slight advantage on mobility thanks to fly, yet they are both infantry so fly is only marginally useful. Also, the assault marines have a slightly better defensive profile at 2W 3+ vs the 3W 5+ of the ravener. The difference in offensive power between the two though is staggering.
Yeah, raveners are not exactly a great unit, but that just shows how bad are assault squads.
2021/02/25 07:32:31
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Of course Space Marines have more newer, more casual players at events than any other faction. They're the most popular army and the easiest to collect.
Ever notice how Necron numbers in tournies shot up recently? Almost like a ton of new, easily collectible, affordable releases came out for the army.
Ever notice how Ynnari lists were like 0.5% of total tournament numbers or how Harlequins are pretty much the same right now? Despite being incredibly strong? Almost like they're difficult armies to collect and not ones that new players gravitate towards.
Nazi punks feth off
2021/02/25 07:55:22
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Bosskelot wrote: Of course Space Marines have more newer, more casual players at events than any other faction. They're the most popular army and the easiest to collect.
If it's so obvious prove it.
2021/02/25 08:06:23
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Bosskelot wrote: Of course Space Marines have more newer, more casual players at events than any other faction. They're the most popular army and the easiest to collect.
If it's so obvious prove it.
Build any other list and an SM one, compare:
Model count.
Price total.
Availability in bundles.
Models to paint.
Material of models
Forgiving ruleset Attributed to faction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/25 08:06:44
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/02/25 08:13:41
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Model count.
Price total.
Availability in bundles.
Models to paint.
Material of models
Forgiving ruleset Attributed to faction.
None of that is proof. That's a hypothesis at best, now you need to gather data and test it.
Well gw doesn't Breakdown sales but:
beyond general sales we don't get much from gw, unless you Check the Hard data released by it from chapterhouse lawsuit.
There's also statements from gw officials f.e. which paint a picture but incomplete one f.e. in regards to tacs outselling any other kit.
Or Trends in regards to rules and subsequent massive Spikes in competitve or slow increases , e.g. Space marines turning good meant massive Space marines attendance compared to slow(er) increases of other factions with decent rules..
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/02/25 08:26:43
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Bosskelot wrote: Of course Space Marines have more newer, more casual players at events than any other faction. They're the most popular army and the easiest to collect.
If it's so obvious prove it.
Wich part?
A B or C?
2021/02/25 08:35:14
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Not Online!!! wrote: beyond general sales we don't get much from gw, unless you Check the Hard data released by it from chapterhouse lawsuit.
There's also statements from gw officials f.e. which paint a picture but incomplete one f.e. in regards to tacs outselling any other kit.
Or Trends in regards to rules and subsequent massive Spikes in competitve or slow increases , e.g. Space marines turning good meant massive Space marines attendance compared to slow(er) increases of other factions with decent rules..
Literally, none of that is proof.
If you want to show that the trends you claim exist, gather up the data, slap it on a graph, and show that SMs trend upwards at a rate that outpaces what we'd expect to see based on their overall popularity. Even then, those spike rates could be skewed as many players will have a secondary SM army so when the rules are good it's easier to bust that army out and shelve your other force(s). So you'd need to show that these spikes are driven by new/casual players and to do that you need to know who those players are, what their records are, and what they play. Marines will have the most players, in general, playing them and thus the most new players as well so rather than showing that you'd need to show that they make up a greater percentage of the marine player base than they do in other factions.
Then, because you now have the data for what percentage of each faction is played by casual/new players you can create a conversion factor and show corrected win-rates for all factions. This would prove your point.
Canadian 5th wrote:If you want to assert that SM are god-tier and only brought down due to bad players and mirror matches then find the evidence and show your work. I'd be shocked if they had that many more new players at tournaments than any other faction has.
Reading the thread tends to answer context questions like yours. You should try that sometime.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/25 08:37:41
2021/02/25 08:38:21
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Not Online!!! wrote: beyond general sales we don't get much from gw, unless you Check the Hard data released by it from chapterhouse lawsuit.
There's also statements from gw officials f.e. which paint a picture but incomplete one f.e. in regards to tacs outselling any other kit.
Or Trends in regards to rules and subsequent massive Spikes in competitve or slow increases , e.g. Space marines turning good meant massive Space marines attendance compared to slow(er) increases of other factions with decent rules..
Literally, none of that is proof.
If you want to show that the trends you claim exist, gather up the data, slap it on a graph, and show that SMs trend upwards at a rate that outpaces what we'd expect to see based on their overall popularity. Even then, those spike rates could be skewed as many players will have a secondary SM army so when the rules are good it's easier to bust that army out and shelve your other force(s). So you'd need to show that these spikes are driven by new/casual players and to do that you need to know who those players are, what their records are, and what they play. Marines will have the most players, in general, playing them and thus the most new players as well so rather than showing that you'd need to show that they make up a greater percentage of the marine player base than they do in other factions.
Then, because you now have the data for what percentage of each faction is played by casual/new players you can create a conversion factor and show corrected win-rates for all factions. This would prove your point.
I don't need to , i am not the one that claimed it, however i have bothered to give a potential answer as to why it could be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/25 08:38:43
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/02/25 08:39:18
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Space Marines are simply easy to collect due to the amount of Space Marines that have been historically been put into dual boxes on top of being in every single starter. As well as having quite a few Combat Patrol boxes that are very generic despite their sub-faction insignia.
Putting the Indomitus box aside I would say that this is the first edition that starters aren't chuck full of easy to collect standard Space Marine warriors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/25 08:40:15
2021/02/25 08:40:49
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't need to , i am not the one that claimed it, however i have bothered to give a potential answer as to why it could be.
So you're going to dispute hard numbers as presented by sites such as Goonhammer and 40k stats by shrugging and going, "I 'unno, these wild ass guesses seem right so you must be wrong." That's hardly convincing.
2021/02/25 08:45:05
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't need to , i am not the one that claimed it, however i have bothered to give a potential answer as to why it could be.
So you're going to dispute hard numbers as presented by sites such as Goonhammer and 40k stats by shrugging and going, "I 'unno, these wild ass guesses seem right so you must be wrong." That's hardly convincing.
None of which is here.
Is focussed on comp.
But sure Buddy you of all people know what is up with the casual meta
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/25 08:45:17
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/02/25 08:49:45
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
But sure Buddy you of all people know what is up with the casual meta
Given that this line of conversation started with:
Me wrote:Yet, as of the end of January, Orks are more highly rated than any space except White Scars, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels and easily hold an above-average position in the tournament meta. Yes, Orks have more internal balance issues than some other factions but you don't solve that by going down the list and making sure that each faction's ~100 point walkers/MCs are equal to one another.
SemperMortis wrote:And we keep pointing out that Win/Loss isn't a useful stat, hell I literally posted a GT where space marines had 3 of the top 4 placings and 5 of the top 8 and BARELY had more wins than losses across the entire faction at the tournament. Space Marines are the entry level army and generally speaking have some of the newest (read that as, bad) players.
Me wrote:If you want to assert that SM are god-tier and only brought down due to bad players and mirror matches then find the evidence and show your work. I'd be shocked if they had that many more new players at tournaments than any other faction has.
Your replies have all been entirely off-topic.
2021/02/25 08:53:40
Subject: Re:Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
ccs wrote: Well the only one of those that can't be proven is the # of new casual SM players at tourneys. Not even GW could prove that.
That rather hurts the assertion that SM win-rates are skewed due to these masses of new/casual players then, doesn't it? Also, if anybody cared to poll such stats at tournaments we could hand out sheets with questions like:
1) How many years have you been playing this game for?
1a) Have you played other war games before getting into 40k? If so, did you play them competitively?
2) How many tournaments have you attended? Do you intend to enter more in the near future?
2a) If you have played in previous tournaments what was your record and how did you place?
3) Do you consider yourself a competitive player with an optimized list?
4) Which army are you playing in this event?
This would be enough to get a good idea of what the demographics at tournaments look like.
2021/02/25 10:24:12
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
It's hard to argue that marine W/L rate isn't affected by a certain amount of new players.
It is also true though that such effect is often overstimated. To have an hint to that, let's look at the lists reported on 40k stats for the month of January.
10 ultramarines 10 white scars 7 salamanders 5 iron hands 4 black templars 4 raven guards 2 IF/CF
One data point we can use is that competitive players that go to an event and want to win, tend to faction hop to the best SM of the moment. New players are usually loyal to their favourite flavor.
From those lists, you can see that white scars, ultramarines and salamanders have more lists submitted than the other chapters. It also happens that ultramarines, white scares and salamanders were considered the best chapters in January. This points to a certain amount of faction hopping.
5 iron hands on the other hand tell us that there is still a good core of players loyal to their favourite chapter. Iron hands have not been winning anything for a good while. Part of that could be inertia from 8th though.
BA/DA/DW and SW were not considered, since faction hopping to and from those SM factions is much harder due to an high amount of specific datasheets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/25 10:24:45
2021/02/25 11:45:33
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Spoletta wrote: One data point we can use is that competitive players that go to an event and want to win, tend to faction hop to the best SM of the moment. New players are usually loyal to their favourite flavor.
I think its clear we saw competitive Marine players move around over the last 18+ months as new supplements/9th codex, FAQs and rules changes etc made certain flavours weaker or stronger.
No, I didn't take screenshots of this process, but we were all there.
Its why I find the idea that "Iron Hands" are as much a faction as Orks or Dark Eldar hard to credit. If that suite of perks isn't working for you just pick one of the others. That's largely what competitive players seem to do - they don't try and make "the best Imperial Fist army you can".
Which unfortunately means those people who are still keeping the yellow alive, are probably not the most competitively minded. And the win rates will represent that. (Realistically this is probably an issue for all factions - i.e. good players go for good factions, bad/disinterested players don't care, so things will tend to appear a bit more skewed than they actually are from purely win percentages. Which is why placing/winning tournaments is probably a better bar.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/25 11:46:48
2021/02/25 11:58:54
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Spoletta wrote: Actually a little more than that. SM have 11 factions, and the game totals 34 I think.
They are around 1/3 of the players.
Problem is that right now they are also way more than 1/3 of the releases.
1/3 players based on...what? Because there's 11 factions out of 34? That assumes there's as many harlequin players as IG or ultramarines...Which is obviously false.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2021/02/25 12:38:09
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
Spoletta wrote: Actually a little more than that. SM have 11 factions, and the game totals 34 I think.
They are around 1/3 of the players.
Problem is that right now they are also way more than 1/3 of the releases.
1/3 players based on...what? Because there's 11 factions out of 34? That assumes there's as many harlequin players as IG or ultramarines...Which is obviously false.
Based on goonhammer data showing that currently about 1/3 of players are playing marines.
Compared to, reminder, 3% playing the strongest army atm by winrate (Harlequins)
"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!"
2021/02/25 17:11:09
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
And a lot of the worst trap units are that BECAUSE of changes GW put into the game IN ORDER TO SELL MORE MARINES.
Many marine vehicles are trap choices because if you take them someone will take eradicators or attack bikes or retributors or myphitic blight-haulers against them and blast them off the board instantly for a 120% points return and 3 BID points. Nice Land Raider idiot, GW had 3 new marine kits featuring multimeltas to sell so they casually tripled their damage output and didnt change their points costs.
I'm more of the mind that many vehicles are dodged, because they don't have anything to shoot. There's two dynamics that will change that. First, a re-emergence of knight heavy lists, which seems to be picking up steam due to very limited anti-tank. Second, armies like DG and DA suppressing the effectiveness of high strength/D2 weapons.
A Reaper does a fair bit of damage to gravis, hordes, and PMs. It is T8 and should be capable of hopping out from cover and getting the jump on things. It can survive a round from Eradicators even without smokescreen up.
2021/02/25 22:20:34
Subject: Space marines are supposed to represent 1/4 of the game.
If you want to assert that SM are god-tier and only brought down due to bad players and mirror matches then find the evidence and show your work. I'd be shocked if they had that many more new players at tournaments than any other faction has.
Where did I assert that SM were god tier? Stop building strawman arguments. However, I will gladly assert that Space Marines as a faction are doing significantly better than most and absolutely have their W/L dropped by new/bad players. Again this is evident by tournament results, you will have Space Marines in the top 4 and 8 at major tournaments and have at least as many in the bottom 4 and 8. A great example is the recent Hobart GT. 3 separate flavors of Space Marine finished 1st 2nd and 3rd. And guess what? Grand total they had 36 wins and 29 Losses. So lets see, that is a W/L of 55% The top 5 SM players who all finished in the top 8 had 19 wins and 6 losses or a W/L rate of 76% the bottom 5 SM players finished with a W/L rate of 9 wins and 16 losses or 36% and again, the tournament was 30 players with 13 being Space Marine, so mirror matches ABSOLUTELY happened.
So the question than becomes, if a faction taking all 3 medal positions in a GT isn't proof that the faction is doing amazing, what is? The fact is that W/L rate is USELESS as a stat, what is meaningful is Top 4 and Top 8 finishes, and Space Marines are doing great there.
And if you are talking about tiers for orkz, most tier rankings have orkz as middle of the pack where as most space marine chapters are higher than that.
Canadian 5th wrote: Most? Which ones? The one I'm quoting is from the Goonhammer article I posted a ways back shows them as being well above the midpoint in terms of power and normalizes for wins against weaker armies
Competitive 40k on Facebook has a bunch of posts regarding tiers, there's the BIF podcast which has ranked tiers, basically a host of places have tier lists, Goonhammer relies on a tournaments to come up with their rankings based on ....W/L and scoring. So they also don't take into account Top 4 and top 8 placings in tournaments. So go figure they agree with you
Also, I really want you to explain to me how orkz have "internal balance issues" specifically in relation to Deff Dreadz and how that internal balance isn't more apparent in Codex: Space Marines where they have literally 3-4 options for every option orkz have.
Canadian 5th wrote: Orkz have a larger distance between their tournament-viable units and their bad units than Marines have. Most bad Marine units are still somewhat playable at a casual level even if they're not good, whereas the Ork codex has stuff like grots, killa kanz, and squig buggies stinking up the joint; even deff dreads aren't seeing any tournament play among skilled players and they're probably close to the average power of that codex. That's what I mean by internal balance issues.
...That isn't internal balance that is external balance. A killakan and a deffdread aren't equal but they are close and deffdreadz and Mork/gorkanaughts are roughly in the same category as far as playability with the edge going to Naughts (points wise) so the internal balance is probably BETTER than the internal balance between low performing SM dread types and high performing SM Dread types.
yet again this is an example of SM's being basically +1 Thanks for confirming that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/25 22:23:34
SemperMortis wrote: Again this is evident by tournament results, you will have Space Marines in the top 4 and 8 at major tournaments and have at least as many in the bottom 4 and 8.
It's almost like being the faction with the highest level of representation will get you a spread of results at every tournament... However, you need to look deeper than that. Are the SM lists that are at the top playing the same sub-faction as those at the bottom? How many SM lists of each type attended and what percentage of the field were they? How did their spread compare to the spread for other factions? Where did they take their losses in the early or late rounds and against which factions?
A great example is the recent Hobart GT. 3 separate flavors of Space Marine finished 1st 2nd and 3rd. And guess what? Grand total they had 36 wins and 29 Losses.
You can't use single event results to prove a trend. You need to list every 9th edition tournament since the current codex dropped and then you can prove a trend.
So the question than becomes, if a faction taking all 3 medal positions in a GT isn't proof that the faction is doing amazing, what is?
That faction doing so consistently and disproportionately compared to their number of tournament entrants. You know, what Harlequins, Daemons, and DG have been doing.
Competitive 40k on Facebook has a bunch of posts regarding tiers, there's the BIF podcast which has ranked tiers, basically a host of places have tier lists, Goonhammer relies on a couple tournaments to come up with their rankings based on ....W/L and scoring. So they also don't take into account Top 4 and top 8 placings in tournaments. So go figure they agree with you
You claim to have all this data, why don't you bother, IDK, posting some of it for once?
...That isn't internal balance that is external balance. A killakan and a deffdread aren't equal but they are close and deffdreadz and Mork/gorkanaughts are roughly in the same category as far as playability with the edge going to Naughts (points wise) so the internal balance is probably BETTER than the internal balance between low performing SM dread types and high performing SM Dread types.
Why are you only wanting to compare Dreads in the codex? Shouldn't we be comparing them to every unit in their codex to get a delta between the units winning lists play most often, the units that losing lists play most often, and the units that never see play and using that to determine the state of a codex's internal balance?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/25 22:31:33
how about in 7th? yep...hmm, so its almost like the edition doesn't matter....
