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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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?

Highest level of spread, per 40k stats SM usually make up about 1/3rd of tournaments, per 40k stats the top lists are spread across several different chapters, as an example Hobart had SM finish 1st 2nd and 3rd, 2 space wolves and a ravenguard. Battle in the Bush also had 3 SM top 3 finishes blood angels, dark angels and white scars. So thats 6 total top 3 finishes in 2 events with only 1 SM Chapter being repeated, Space Wolves. But yet again, W/L doesn't matter compared to top finishes as a general statistic.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
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.

I can and have used a number of events in the past to prove my point, you just seem to keep forgetting 40kstats records top 4 finishes, space marines are HEAVILY over represented if they are merely an "ok" faction. I believe they have 8 top 4 finishes in 6 tournaments on 40kstats website, sadly you have to manually go through and check since they don't keep the actual top4 section up to date.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
That faction doing so consistently and disproportionately compared to their number of tournament entrants. You know, what Harlequins, Daemons, and DG have been doing.

Ah, well if other groups are doing good as well that must completely disprove my point....ohh wait, that is a strawman.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
You claim to have all this data, why don't you bother, IDK, posting some of it for once?

I have done so in the past on this very subject and have done so again. simply to go 40k stats or FLG to confirm the numbers i have given, i tend to use only GT's and Majors for results because they reflect a bit better on the general state of the game rather than 6-12 person tournaments which tend to reflect the meta of the local gamestore.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
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?

Because the original post that started all of this was comparing SM Dreadnoughts to other factions equivalent units hence why I am comparing Dreads to dreads in terms of internal/external balance. If you wanted to compare complete internal to external balance of a faction and compare it against SM the likelihood is the SM will be better balanced because SM's don't tend to get trash units like the Stompa or Burna boyz for example.



https://www.40kstats.com/top-4s

SemperMortis wrote:
Highest level of spread, per 40k stats SM usually make up about 1/3rd of tournaments, per 40k stats the top lists are spread across several different chapters, as an example Hobart had SM finish 1st 2nd and 3rd, 2 space wolves and a ravenguard. Battle in the Bush also had 3 SM top 3 finishes blood angels, dark angels and white scars. So thats 6 total top 3 finishes in 2 events with only 1 SM Chapter being repeated, Space Wolves. But yet again, W/L doesn't matter compared to top finishes as a general statistic.

You realize that SW wins don't change how BA wins are tabulated right? You can't just say SM is too strong and then lump them all together when nobody tracking stats in 40k is doing that.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I can and have used a number of events in the past to prove my point, you just seem to keep forgetting 40kstats records top 4 finishes, space marines are HEAVILY over represented if they are merely an "ok" faction. I believe they have 8 top 4 finishes in 6 tournaments on 40kstats website, sadly you have to manually go through and check since they don't keep the actual top4 section up to date.

8 of 24 spots is bang on where they should be as 1/3rd of all factions. Also, which exact SM subfactions are picking up these wins? That also matters.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Ah, well if other groups are doing good as well that must completely disprove my point....ohh wait, that is a strawman.

Not a strawman at all, I'm showing what a top tier faction should look like. Do the stats for Marines fit that same curve or are you going to insist that we throw out every bit of data that doesn't fit your model and then force your data to fit?

I have done so in the past on this very subject and have done so again. simply to go 40k stats or FLG to confirm the numbers i have given, i tend to use only GT's and Majors for results because they reflect a bit better on the general state of the game rather than 6-12 person tournaments which tend to reflect the meta of the local gamestore.

One link to 40k stats. You going to collate that data or do you expect me to do your job for you?

Because the original post that started all of this was comparing SM Dreadnoughts to other factions equivalent units hence why I am comparing Dreads to dreads in terms of internal/external balance.

Except that's not how codices are balanced. Necrons aren't a bad army because their Dreadnought equivalent is x% worse than SM Dreadnoughts, in fact, they're a good army because they have so many overlapping buffs. The same goes for Orkz.

The factions that are bad wouldn't become good even if their Dreadnoughts were equal to SM Dreadnoughts. They would see a winrate bump if those units are good enough and a list can be built around them but that won't change much.

Why does sub faction suddenly matter when we are talking about SM? Nobody looks at say Ork winrates/top placements and goes: "stop complaining guys it's just Goffs taking all those places, every other Ork army is fine". If SM are taking that many top placings something is wrong with their codex regardless of which color of SM is taking them.

 Castozor wrote:
Why does sub faction suddenly matter when we are talking about SM? Nobody looks at say Ork winrates/top placements and goes: "stop complaining guys it's just Goffs taking all those places, every other Ork army is fine". If SM are taking that many top placings something is wrong with their codex regardless of which color of SM is taking them.

It matters because of how the stats are counted. Also, why is getting 1/3rd of the top 4s when your army makes up 1/3rd of the field a sign that something is wrong? Should marines be nerfed so that they can be 1/3rd of the field and not take an equal share of the top places?

If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong. Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.

 Castozor wrote:
If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong. Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.

Then people need to buy and play Xenos and Chaos armies. As long as Marines are 30 to 40% of the meta they should be claiming 30 to 40% of the top places.

 Castozor wrote:
If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong. Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.

The Space Marines are an incredible bloated mess thanks to the Supplement system, but how do you go about addressing that? I can't imagine GW actually going and axing 11-12 supplements, including 4 they just released, until the eventual 10th edition reboot.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong. Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.

Then people need to buy and play Xenos and Chaos armies. As long as Marines are 30 to 40% of the meta they should be claiming 30 to 40% of the top places.

Then GW needs to update those armies.....

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Then GW needs to update those armies.....

If you want that you need to buy stuff first as companies don't make new things just because <3% of their players are unhappy.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Then GW needs to update those armies.....

If you want that you need to buy stuff first as companies don't make new things just because <3% of their players are unhappy.

Wait. What? I... I can't...

...Are you saying we should buy a product that doesn't exist, or give them money for a product we don't want?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You realize that SW wins don't change how BA wins are tabulated right? You can't just say SM is too strong and then lump them all together when nobody tracking stats in 40k is doing that.

Ahh the old, subfactions are totally different than the main faction argument. When 90%+ of all units in BA and SW are the same as Codex:Space Marines I absolutely can. Hell, even individual units which are technically different are usually just a different name and different weapons load out, BAAL predator...exactly the same as a normal predator but with a special rule and twin assault cannons for its main gun.

If you want to follow this logical fallacy to its conclusion that means we need to break every faction up by its sub categories. So orkz now get a sub category for every kulture and eldar get one for every craftworld etc etc. Or, we can just stick with the common sense approach that we group all SM chapters together (mind You, i was still nice enough to exclude Grey Knights and Custodians which are....Space Marines, but they at least differ significantly and don't share 90% of models/units)

 Canadian 5th wrote:

8 of 24 spots is bang on where they should be as 1/3rd of all factions. Also, which exact SM subfactions are picking up these wins? That also matters.

The argument was a strawman that you developed saying that SM weren't ...I think you said "God Tier" army. I pointed to the fact that they are winning 1/3rd of every tournament they enter, and posted 2 events where they swept 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. Anyone who understands competitive 40k (something you have admitted you don't understand since you don't play anymore) will tell you that the top couple of places are determined by a handful of dice rolls and realistically anyone in the top 8 was competing for the top spot in a 30 man tournament.

Regardless, I would agree with you that they are "bang on" where they should be IF every other faction was equally represented, the fact is they are not, SM's are "Bang on" where they need to be because they are steam rolling everyone else AND that is with most people list tailoring against them...you know, since they represent 1/3rd of the meta. I would argue that a 1/3rd tournament finish rate is amazing since everyone is gunning for them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Not a strawman at all, I'm showing what a top tier faction should look like. Do the stats for Marines fit that same curve or are you going to insist that we throw out every bit of data that doesn't fit your model and then force your data to fit?

100% a strawman Again, your point was that SM are not "God tier" or some other nonsense, others doing well is irrelevant to that point. In 7th edition SM, Tau and Eldar were on a Tier to themselves, yet they were still only winning about 1/3rd of the time, does that mean they weren't god tier? no.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
One link to 40k stats. You going to collate that data or do you expect me to do your job for you?

You mean like...I don't know....listing out wins/losses for tournaments and showing you how W/L ratio is irrelevant compared to placement? something like that? I assumed you had the wherewithal to be able to navigate to the other sources I mentioned without needing a link, if you really need a link to FLG let me know. As for tier lists, google will show you a bunch, ironically I do feel the need to share this one because its a bit funny, this is from 40k competitive group on facebook and has the results from over 1,200 participants. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=4037952019563066&set=gm.2664565170501021 Dark angels made the "God level" tier and Blood angels, Ultrasmurfs, Space furries, White scars and Salamanders made the 2nd highest group with Ravenguard, Imperial Fists, Black Templars, and Deathwatch considered Mid tier. By my math that is 6 factions of Space Marines in the top 2 tiers and 4 in the mid tier with NONE in the below average tiers.

I also want to take a second to point out that within each tier the factions are also ranked, So DA are ranked 2nd strongest in S Tier, White Scars and Blood Angels are ranked as 1st in 2nd within the 2nd tier, and the Mid tier is ranked with Raven guard as the strongest.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Except that's not how codices are balanced. Necrons aren't a bad army because their Dreadnought equivalent is x% worse than SM Dreadnoughts, in fact, they're a good army because they have so many overlapping buffs. The same goes for Orkz.

Congrats on defending an argument NOBODY has made In case you forgot, YOU argued against the dreads post created by scots I believe. You ran to the defense of space marines when he pointed out that the Space Marine Dreadnought was better than its non SM counter-parts Here, let me refresh your memory.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
For a fun laugh compare loyalist dreadnoughts to any of the various xenos 'similar to dreads' units.

You know

Triarch Stalkers
Talos Pain Engines
Deff Dreads
Wraithlords
Carnifexes
Broadsides

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.

So I pointed out that the dread has been superior for several editions compared to its orkish counterpart and here we are.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
The factions that are bad wouldn't become good even if their Dreadnoughts were equal to SM Dreadnoughts. They would see a winrate bump if those units are good enough and a list can be built around them but that won't change much.

Ah, thank you for completing another argument that again NOBODY made The Canadian 5th dubbed the Strawmen


Bud, SM are one of the best performing factions in the game right now, You would know this if you played or looked at the data besides W/L rate. You would also know that SM are the beginners army because of ease of access and massive marketing, you would see first hand how tournaments have players who show up for fun and newbies trying their hand and those poor guys get steam rolled. Don't take my word for it, someone who has been playing tournaments for years, take the word of all the posters here who also regularly go to tournaments around the world and say the exact same thing. 1 person is an anecdote, 10 is a trend you won't be able to deny that claim except by demanding an impossible level of evidence which you regularly do. "Show me proof that beginners go to tournaments" How do we do that exactly? Should I travel around the country collecting data just to win a useless debate with someone on the internet who doesn't even play the game anymore?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Then GW needs to update those armies.....

If you want that you need to buy stuff first as companies don't make new things just because <3% of their players are unhappy.

If people buy the product what reason do they have to update it?

 CEO Kasen wrote:
Wait. What? I... I can't...

...Are you saying we should buy a product that doesn't exist, or give them money for a product we don't want?

You need to show interest in a faction or else the cycle continues. So yeah, if you want new models make sure those 25-year-old models move.

Hecaton wrote:
If people buy the product what reason do they have to update it?

Ask Marine players about how it works. They buy products, they get the new products. It's the same with everything, Apple doesn't say the iPhone 11 sold well so we'll just not make the iPhone 12 this year, they say the iPhone 11 sold well let's see how many people we can get to buy a new phone next year too.

SemperMortis wrote:
Ahh the old, subfactions are totally different than the main faction argument. When 90%+ of all units in BA and SW are the same as Codex:Space Marines I absolutely can. Hell, even individual units which are technically different are usually just a different name and different weapons load out, BAAL predator...exactly the same as a normal predator but with a special rule and twin assault cannons for its main gun.

If you want to follow this logical fallacy to its conclusion that means we need to break every faction up by its sub categories. So orkz now get a sub category for every kulture and eldar get one for every craftworld etc etc. Or, we can just stick with the common sense approach that we group all SM chapters together (mind You, i was still nice enough to exclude Grey Knights and Custodians which are....Space Marines, but they at least differ significantly and don't share 90% of models/units)

Except that this isn't how anybody who stat tracks 40k does things. So either you need to go through the data and apply your standards to it or you need to accept that a SW win counts as different than a BA win.

The argument was a strawman that you developed saying that SM weren't ...I think you said "God Tier" army. I pointed to the fact that they are winning 1/3rd of every tournament they enter, and posted 2 events where they swept 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. Anyone who understands competitive 40k (something you have admitted you don't understand since you don't play anymore) will tell you that the top couple of places are determined by a handful of dice rolls and realistically anyone in the top 8 was competing for the top spot in a 30 man tournament.

So yeah, those Marines could have as easily finished 6th, 7th, and 8th and nobody would bother bringing this tournament up. How does this help your case?

Regardless, I would agree with you that they are "bang on" where they should be IF every other faction was equally represented, the fact is they are not, SM's are "Bang on" where they need to be because they are steam rolling everyone else AND that is with most people list tailoring against them...you know, since they represent 1/3rd of the meta. I would argue that a 1/3rd tournament finish rate is amazing since everyone is gunning for them.

You do realize that if you nerf them it doesn't appreciably change how many players bring them to tournaments, it just means that those players don't get to win as the meta is still against them and now they don't have the buffs needed to count that effect. You can't just buff or nerf units in a vacuum, you need to base any changes on the actual meta and their predicted effects on said meta.

100% a strawman Again, your point was that SM are not "God tier" or some other nonsense, others doing well is irrelevant to that point. In 7th edition SM, Tau and Eldar were on a Tier to themselves, yet they were still only winning about 1/3rd of the time, does that mean they weren't god tier? no.

If they were winning a 1/3rd of the time without being 1/3rd of the field it absolutely makes them a god-tier army. In what world are two factions being 66% of the meta with like 10% of the entries not far worse than the current meta?

You mean like...I don't know....listing out wins/losses for tournaments and showing you how W/L ratio is irrelevant compared to placement? something like that?

Much like how a scientific paper isn't just a bunch of data you actually need to take the time to gather and format your data, explain why the data says what you claim it says, and then test to see if the experts agree with your view of things. If you want to claim that W/L data is meaningless PROVE IT.

I assumed you had the wherewithal to be able to navigate to the other sources I mentioned without needing a link,

"Yes your honor, I didn't bother bringing any evidence to court today because I assumed the jury would have the wherewithal to do their own research on the subject."

As for tier lists, google will show you a bunch, ironically I do feel the need to share this one because its a bit funny, this is from 40k competitive group on facebook and has the results from over 1,200 participants. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=4037952019563066&set=gm.2664565170501021

Just showing a bunch of lists proves nothing. I want the underlaying data for how these opinions were formed, exact meanings behind each tier and the thresholds for them, I'd also like to see the error bars and margine of error for these lists if at all possible. Otherwise these lists are just a circle jerk of what people lost to recently, people voting/making a list for memes, and are thus 100% meaningless.

Congrats on defending an argument NOBODY has made In case you forgot, YOU argued against the dreads post created by scots I believe. You ran to the defense of space marines when he pointed out that the Space Marine Dreadnought was better than its non SM counter-parts Here, let me refresh your memory.

<snip>

So I pointed out that the dread has been superior for several editions compared to its orkish counterpart and here we are.

Yes, and what was your point again? That Orkz needs their Deff Dreads buffed before they can be considered a good army, that Marines need nerfs, or is this just whinging for the sake of it?

Bud, SM are one of the best performing factions in the game right now, You would know this if you played or looked at the data besides W/L rate. You would also know that SM are the beginners army because of ease of access and massive marketing, you would see first hand how tournaments have players who show up for fun and newbies trying their hand and those poor guys get steam rolled. Don't take my word for it, someone who has been playing tournaments for years, take the word of all the posters here who also regularly go to tournaments around the world and say the exact same thing. 1 person is an anecdote, 10 is a trend you won't be able to deny that claim except by demanding an impossible level of evidence which you regularly do. "Show me proof that beginners go to tournaments" How do we do that exactly? Should I travel around the country collecting data just to win a useless debate with someone on the internet who doesn't even play the game anymore?

10 is still an anecdote. Hell every active member on Dakka is still an anecdote. Hit 5% of the player base reporting the same thing and we can talk trends.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Except that this isn't how anybody who stat tracks 40k does things. So either you need to go through the data and apply your standards to it or you need to accept that a SW win counts as different than a BA win.

So you have graduated from the logical fallacy of a Strawman and ran straight into the Argument from Authority. Congrats and this new fallacious argument. I do not give any merit to how others "track" their stats, and have shown how W/L is meaningless. "But muh speese mehreens only have a 50% W/L ratio!" cool story bud, still placing more than 1/3rd of the time.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So yeah, those Marines could have as easily finished 6th, 7th, and 8th and nobody would bother bringing this tournament up. How does this help your case?

Because those 5th-8th places usually contain at least 1-2 more space Marine lists Another wonderful example at the aforementioned Hobart tournament, Space Marines also held 7th and 8th place with white scars and Salamanders, which if my math serves me correctly would make it 5/8ths Space Marines. In fact, atm, 4 of the top 8 spots in ITC rankings belong to space marines.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You do realize that if you nerf them it doesn't appreciably change how many players bring them to tournaments, it just means that those players don't get to win as the meta is still against them and now they don't have the buffs needed to count that effect. You can't just buff or nerf units in a vacuum, you need to base any changes on the actual meta and their predicted effects on said meta.

YAY, another strawman, when you switched to Argument from Authority I was afraid you wouldn't keep firing off these Strawmen arguments. Show me exactly where I said "NERF ALL DA SPEESE MEHREENS!" in this thread. Ah, I haven't, I have only pointed out that they are doing extremely well for themselves you than jumped into assumption mode faster than you jump into strawman arguments.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If they were winning a 1/3rd of the time without being 1/3rd of the field it absolutely makes them a god-tier army. In what world are two factions being 66% of the meta with like 10% of the entries not far worse than the current meta?

Woohoo! another strawman. I never claimed Harlies and custodes doing well was a good thing, in fact, I think for the most part custodes are doing too well while harlies need a slight nerf but are mostly doing well because they are anti-speese mehreens which benefits them greatly. Kind of like how the Ork tournament list is counter to most Space Marine lists because it spams cheap throw away infantry that most Space marine lists aren't built to handle.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Much like how a scientific paper isn't just a bunch of data you actually need to take the time to gather and format your data, explain why the data says what you claim it says, and then test to see if the experts agree with your view of things. If you want to claim that W/L data is meaningless PROVE IT.
Just showing a bunch of lists proves nothing. I want the underlaying data for how these opinions were formed, exact meanings behind each tier and the thresholds for them, I'd also like to see the error bars and margine of error for these lists if at all possible. Otherwise these lists are just a circle jerk of what people lost to recently, people voting/making a list for memes, and are thus 100% meaningless.

10 is still an anecdote. Hell every active member on Dakka is still an anecdote. Hit 5% of the player base reporting the same thing and we can talk trends.

Pretty sure I answered these last 3 of yours with a statement that amounts to basically you demanding an impossible level of evidence that isn't available anywhere on the web. So what your defense amounts to is "spend tens of thousands of dollars flying around the country to EVERY GT and Major and interview every single attendee and get every single army list, compile them all into scientific paper and than maybe i'll believe you". There is probably over a million players in 40k right now, so all i have to do to convince you is interview 50k people? seems fair LMAO!

I'm sorry you stopped playing and haven't been to a tournament in like 4 editions or whenever you decided to stop playing, but that is the facts. I've played tournaments in 3 time zones across 5 states in 3 different regions of the US, I have been to dozens if not hundreds of tournaments and have not only played against these newbies but have talked with many of them as well as the players who show up to play their narrative army that they love. I played against a guy at a GT in 8th who loved his Imperial Fists Siege army based around Vindicator tanks, I know you stopped playing so i'll point out why that is terrible. The Vindicator used to get D6 shots a turn. 3 of them amounts to an average of 10-11 shots a turn, keep in mind this is 8th, so thats SHOTS not hits nor wounds. Basically i swamped his vehicles and destroyed his entire army by turn 3. Dude went 0 and 5 at the event but had a great time, and he is absolutely not the only guy like that running around GT's that I met

But, here is the kicker, every other tournament goer who has talked to you on here has said the exact same things, to my knowledge there aren't any frequent tournament attendees who disagree with what I have said on here. So its literally you with your opinion based on ZERO evidence and ZERO experience arguing a point against people who are literally going to these events all the time. But I know this won't satisfy you and you are going to hop onto your high horse yet again and demand we pull together a better scientific paper on why you are wrong than what doctoral candidates put out in their thesis papers. I'll put it bluntly, you are wrong

If I still had my university Dissertation on hand I could give you your coveted and fetishized data that W/L percentage is often misleading and usually meaningless, and that was based around SC2, not even Warhammer.

But really, you just need to actually engage and be familiar with any competitive game to know this is the case. There's a wealth of material written on this subject, especially when it concerns e-sports, but there's plenty on Warhammer too. If you were actually engaged and familiar with competitive 40k, which you have admitted you aren't, you would know this and would have read it. Top 4 or maybe even top 10 finishes are really the only concrete way to measure a factions relative power in this game, because as you somehow refuse to believe despite every competitive player telling you, the majority of tournament attendees are not hyper competitive in-it-to-win-it players. I was facing people playing all Primaris Imperial Fist armies in the middle of 8th tournaments for instance.

If you want data on this, just go and check tournament results. Scroll down to the bottom half of placings and see what armies are being run and what sorts of lists they're using. There's your fething proof.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Top 4 or maybe even top 10 finishes are really the only concrete way to measure a factions relative power in this game, because as you somehow refuse to believe despite every competitive player telling you, the majority of tournament attendees are not hyper competitive in-it-to-win-it players. I was facing people playing all Primaris Imperial Fist armies in the middle of 8th tournaments for instance.

Not to be whatever but wouldn't that skew the results if you have a mix of WAAC donkey-caves and casual playing in the same tourney??

I have zero skin in the competitive scene and it boggles the mind why anyone would play like that. That said, if everyone is bandying about hard data and taking that data as gospel, all the while the data has games that amount to pickup league vs Major League Baseball teams in it seems flawed.

If we were talking about something like the N.I.T.(March madness invitational) then you could correlate from a known dataset(i.e. all teams have a similar ability), not Joe Drukharilover vs nanavanti(or whomever, I don't know only know his name from the stupid metawatch article).

Otherwise SM take up waaaayyyyyyy too much of the design space available. I love my Salamanders, but not to the detriment of the rest.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Top 4 or maybe even top 10 finishes are really the only concrete way to measure a factions relative power in this game, because as you somehow refuse to believe despite every competitive player telling you, the majority of tournament attendees are not hyper competitive in-it-to-win-it players. I was facing people playing all Primaris Imperial Fist armies in the middle of 8th tournaments for instance.

Not to be whatever but wouldn't that skew the results if you have a mix of WAAC donkey-caves and casual playing in the same tourney??

I have zero skin in the competitive scene and it boggles the mind why anyone would play like that. That said, if everyone is bandying about hard data and taking that data as gospel, all the while the data has games that amount to pickup league vs Major League Baseball teams in it seems flawed.

If we were talking about something like the N.I.T.(March madness invitational) then you could correlate from a known dataset(i.e. all teams have a similar ability), not Joe Drukharilover vs nanavanti(or whomever, I don't know only know his name from the stupid metawatch article).

Otherwise SM take up waaaayyyyyyy too much of the design space available. I love my Salamanders, but not to the detriment of the rest.

Because the casual players will usually only be facing the true contenders in the early stages. Past the first 2 games, if you've won both of yours, you're more likely to start facing more serious resistance. (and this is to say nothing of ITC ranking and Seeded players etc.)

But you're right, it does skew the results. That's why looking at and relying completely upon absolute winrates in 40k is a flawed endeavour.

Also calling competitive players WAAC donkey-caves is pretty distasteful, shockingly ignorant and insulting to other hobbyists.

You do realize that it was to illustrate the wide spectrum of players at tourneys, which furthermore proved my point. I know plenty of people who play hard-core tourney lists but are not waac donkey-caves. The 2 are not mutually inclusive.

But it doesn't just skew win rates. It skews every other metric you could use to draw popularity or anything other than pure mathematical power.

Canadian is doing an argumentative trick by narrowing the field of discussion to an area he feels more confident he can win. He's made the entire thread become about tournament win rates and whether Space Marines are powerful on the table (an argument favoured by others like Irbis as well).

This is a trick, it cuts out questions about the releases and the fiction of the game and anything else that feeds into dissatisfaction with the Space Marine dominated status quo.

It's pointless to engage with someone who does this in internet arguments. They're not interested in engaging with you, only making you annoyed or "winning" by narrowing things down to an area where your argument is weaker.

 Da Boss wrote:
Canadian is doing an argumentative trick by narrowing the field of discussion to an area he feels more confident he can win. He's made the entire thread become about tournament win rates and whether Space Marines are powerful on the table (an argument favoured by others like Irbis as well).

This is a trick, it cuts out questions about the releases and the fiction of the game and anything else that feeds into dissatisfaction with the Space Marine dominated status quo.

It's pointless to engage with someone who does this in internet arguments. They're not interested in engaging with you, only making you annoyed or "winning" by narrowing things down to an area where your argument is weaker.

Are you sure he's aware he's doing this, like, maliciously? Yes, the Marine status quo is awful, and I imagine I'm missing a lot of history here, but I see a lot of people accusing each other of argumentative trickery and disingenuousness when really isn't it just kind of natural to press the points you think you can win on an internet board?

I like to assume people I'm talking to are intelligent enough to understand the other side and not misrepresent or twist things like this, so I tend to assume he is doing it knowingly. I guess you are right, he might not be doing it like that. I saw other comments basically saying that he does this to amuse himself, and he likes to laugh at non-Marine players who dislike the status quo, so I tend to suspect a less than innocent approach on his part.
Which is a shame because sometimes he has good points, he had a good idea about how to fix Eldar to make them play better for example.
And anyway, some people enjoy the argument and would have it no matter what.

We all enjoy having arguments.

This board has very little informative content (except for painting) and very little general knowledge about the game.

So you don't come here to get enlightened.

At the same time, GW would have to be extremely dumb to take ideas from this board, so we surely don't come here proposing ideas because we think that they could potentially get implemented.

The main reason most of dakkanauts are here, is to kill time and enjoy fruitless discussions

Spoletta wrote:
We all enjoy having arguments.

This board has very little informative content (except for painting) and very little general knowledge about the game.

Some of the tactics threads aren't too bad.

But yes. This is why I think "put everyone on ignore" isn't really an answer. If you don't like threads to the tune of "faction X is overpowered and overrepresented/no u", or "I like 5th edition pls bring it back/I'd rather eat my own face", I'm not sure why you'd stay.

Lol. Ok. I love hearing this competitive 40K!!!!
I love my hobby I think it’s great and like too attended events. But this is not a competitive thing people,, it’s adults playing with little bonhommes that we painted. Space marines are the most popular faction that’s why you see them the most, sorry people like em more then your Dark Eldar, deal with it, sorry if that sounds rude. But GW makes product that they want too sell. And marines players buy more models then players from other factions, I’m sure GW pays attention too this. They are a very successful company, the biggest guy on the block by far when you look at it without your TROLL eyes. So I’m sure they understand they customer base more then us. So if you don’t like that, just move on, put your BonHommes on eBay and let someone else enjoy them.

And wow this site is full a negative Nancy’s. lol.
If you just have negative gak too type, just don’t and go troll somewhere else.

dogboy311 wrote:
Lol. Ok. I love hearing this competitive 40K!!!!
I love my hobby I think it’s great and like too attended events. But this is not a competitive thing people,, it’s adults playing with little bonhommes that we painted. Space marines are the most popular faction that’s why you see them the most, sorry people like em more then your Dark Eldar, deal with it, sorry if that sounds rude. But GW makes product that they want too sell. And marines players buy models for whatever reason they want.

yeah. we know?

Your argument has no basis because its arguing against something none of us has said.

Da Boss wrote:Canadian is doing an argumentative trick by narrowing the field of discussion to an area he feels more confident he can win. He's made the entire thread become about tournament win rates and whether Space Marines are powerful on the table (an argument favoured by others like Irbis as well).

This is a trick, it cuts out questions about the releases and the fiction of the game and anything else that feeds into dissatisfaction with the Space Marine dominated status quo.

CEO Kasen wrote:Are you sure he's aware he's doing this, like, maliciously?

Canadian 5th hasn't played 9th and has some very weird takes on the game born from what seems like a hyper-competitive attitude, so I wouldn't take it as a malicious redirection of the thread so much as blithely hijacking it for his personal hobby of arguing about tournament stats.

 Castozor wrote:
If any army takes 1/3 of the spots despite being only 1/10 of the available factions something is obviously wrong.

Interesting way to look at the situation.

So, in an ideal world, every faction would have the same number of models (or close to it?) How about Custodes / Chaos Knights / Grey Knights?

 Castozor wrote:
Furthermore I rarely see people arguing X or Y Xenos/Chaos army is totes okay guys it's only A or B subfaction doing the heavy lifting except when we get to SM and every SM player and their mother rushes out to defend the faction to point out it's only 4 out of 15 subfactions causing the problems. SM as an army are far to bloated and it needs to be addressed.

I wonder how the number of people playing Space Marines, historically, compares with the number of people playing Xenos factions.

Anecdotally, I helped manage a FLGS for a couple years. For the 40k stuff, a lot of Xenos stuff sold around the time 6th edition Tau and Eldar Codexes were released. Outside of that, we mostly sold Imperial stuff (Space Marines and Guard.)

While this should not be taken as proof of anything, my impression was there's larger demand for Imperial factions, at least for first time players. The demand for Xenos stuff was greater amongst people starting their second army, which was a smaller number.

dogboy311 wrote:
I’m sure GW pays attention too this. They are a very successful company, the biggest guy on the block by far when you look at it without your TROLL eyes. So I’m sure they understand they customer base more then us. So if you don’t like that, just move on, put your BonHommes on eBay and let someone else enjoy them.

I had to do a double take when I read this, and yep, brand new poster. GW has historically NOT paid attention to his customer base nor understood them. Hell, they didn't even start selling basic things like T-shirts and stuff until very recently. They were literally known as one of the least responsive companies in the games industry, as proven by their sheer lack of Feths to give when asked for rules clarifications "We are a model company not a game company" or some such nonsense. Some broken rules went YEARS without getting fixed in prior editions. As it stands they push out a rules fix and a points adjustment once a year and get an extra FAQ out for new releases. For a lot of companies this would be considered the bare minimum, but for GW this is literally light years better than they used to be. Generally speaking I have anecdotally seen a LOT of players LOVE the game but hate the company. 40k is just about the best IP out there right now, but that has more to do with the original concept rather than how the company was run for the last few decades. Put it this way, if a MMORPG like World of Warcraft ran their game like GW has historically run 40k, they would be out of business and Lineage2 or some other MMORPG would have taken over as the dominant game.

SemperMortis wrote:
Hell, they didn't even start selling basic things like T-shirts and stuff until very recently.

I still have GW shirts from the 90s. 3 with logos and 1 with Abaddon.

It's a practice that comes and goes.