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.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


But that have been doing better?

The Metawatch video demonstrates that they understand the problems they're facing. It's a big ship and it doesn't turn on a dime.

There's always going to be facets of 40K that some faction doesn't like though.

How many editions does the design team need to notice that the rules they are giving eldar are a head above other factions. Their other insights in to what they think about win rates and rules aren't much better either. Marine players are noobs, there for they will always have lower win rates?

I'm still waiting for their post on the data that contradicts the data that contradicts GW

Karol wrote:
players are noobs, there for they will always have lower win rates? That is a view that requires a dozen logical hoops to jump through.

No, that one is pretty stright forward. Marines are the most popular army. They're also the common 'starter' army. A lot of not-very-good players show up to tournaments and oftentimes they're playing marines. This can drag down win rates for the faction.

By how much? I dunno. But the phenomena is very understandable.

Toofast wrote:
If that's their concern, release the rules digitally or go back to 1 year seasons.

Well guess digital price for about same price as now might work

As for 1 season...That would mean they would need to basically double the sales of that once a year season book. Not likely to happen. Thus we are more likely to go to 3 per year season than 1 per year season.

tneva82 wrote:

Toofast wrote:
If that's their concern, release the rules digitally or go back to 1 year seasons.

Well guess digital price for about same price as now might work

As for 1 season...That would mean they would need to basically double the sales of that once a year season book. Not likely to happen. Thus we are more likely to go to 3 per year season than 1 per year season.

Better yet, make them an annual season available digitally via Warhammer+ as part of the subscription, or make them a stand alone digital sale that happens to be just over half of the WH+ sub is so that it pushes people to subscribe, or if multiple per year, the collective sum equal to just over half.

That would need then to increase subscription count quite a lot. After all that needs to generate just as much or more profit than now.

No, that one is pretty stright forward. Marines are the most popular army. They're also the common 'starter' army. A lot of not-very-good players show up to tournaments and oftentimes they're playing marines. This can drag down win rates for the faction.

Aha so BA and SW are not marines, and only the in the know veteran players pick them up? When 9th was in its early stages and WS were actualy good , although worse then custodes or harlequins, people knew to pick them, but now they no longer do? Not to mention people already made comperation between win/lose rates of people who played their first and multiple GT game. And marines, along eldar to make it more fun, had one of the closest win rate between new and old players. Marines being bad is not a noob issue.

Karol wrote:

No, that one is pretty stright forward. Marines are the most popular army. They're also the common 'starter' army. A lot of not-very-good players show up to tournaments and oftentimes they're playing marines. This can drag down win rates for the faction.

Aha so BA and SW are not marines, and only the in the know veteran players pick them up? When 9th was in its early stages and WS were actualy good , although worse then custodes or harlequins, people knew to pick them, but now they no longer do? Not to mention people already made comperation between win/lose rates of people who played their first and multiple GT game. And marines, along eldar to make it more fun, had one of the closest win rate between new and old players. Marines being bad is not a noob issue.

well, no. BA and SW aren't marines since they have their own codexes...

It's harder for a WS player to pivot into BA/SW/DA than another codex compliant chapter

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

No, that one is pretty stright forward. Marines are the most popular army. They're also the common 'starter' army. A lot of not-very-good players show up to tournaments and oftentimes they're playing marines. This can drag down win rates for the faction.

Aha so BA and SW are not marines, and only the in the know veteran players pick them up? When 9th was in its early stages and WS were actualy good , although worse then custodes or harlequins, people knew to pick them, but now they no longer do? Not to mention people already made comperation between win/lose rates of people who played their first and multiple GT game. And marines, along eldar to make it more fun, had one of the closest win rate between new and old players. Marines being bad is not a noob issue.

well, no. BA and SW aren't marines since they have their own codexes...

It's harder for a WS player to pivot into BA/SW/DA than another codex compliant chapter

Was this meant to be a serious post? A White Scars player wouldn't be able to use a Ravenwing based army for what reasons?

I've been thinking about this "SM win rates are lower than they really are because of noobs" argument attempted by GW.

Does this mean late 8th Space Marines were even more busted than we realise?

Are they actually arguing that their own 8th ed SM 2.0 codex was even more poorly written than anyone gave it credit?

EightFoldPath wrote:
I've been thinking about this "SM win rates are lower than they really are because of noobs" argument attempted by GW.

Does this mean late 8th Space Marines were even more busted than we realise?

Are they actually arguing that their own 8th ed SM 2.0 codex was even more poorly written than anyone gave it credit?

Nah man, back then they were being only played by crack veteran players with years of expiriance, while the noobs were flocking to such armies like GK.

well, no. BA and SW aren't marines since they have their own codexes...

It's harder for a WS player to pivot into BA/SW/DA than another codex compliant chapter

How about early 9th ed White Scars or later IH , for a short time, lists? Only veterans with loads of expiriance flocked to those too, no noobs to drop their win rates? While Imperial fists with their yellow armour and sub 30% win rates draw in legions of noobs. Probably every new space marine player starts as an imperial fist one.

Plus it doesn't explain why other armies end up working so well, when they have OP rules. Ad mecha when they were busted were super popular, had the results in wins , and it took heavy handed nerfs for only veterans to be able to win with those factions. At the same time, when one compares the win rates of eldar players, veterans or first time GT players, they are somehow very similar in their W/L spread. Same as marines, only marine win rates are down in the dumps. The impact new players have on a faction like marines is no way responsible for 29% win rates of armies like Imperial Fists, and CF don't even get recorded I think they are so bad. RG are more often played as succesor, then the actual RG, and they still do bad.

EightFoldPath wrote:
I've been thinking about this "SM win rates are lower than they really are because of noobs" argument attempted by GW.

Does this mean late 8th Space Marines were even more busted than we realise?

Are they actually arguing that their own 8th ed SM 2.0 codex was even more poorly written than anyone gave it credit?

I think the other skew that happens is when players swap their chapter tactics for competition. The hypercompetetive crowd will skew to take the most competetive armies, so I imagine you'd get an effect opposite to the "nub slump" if there are particular outlier builds.

Karol wrote:
At the same time, when one compares the win rates of eldar players, veterans or first time GT players, they are somehow very similar in their W/L spread.

The whole point of the argument is that non-marine armies don't have as much of a newbie element. Marines are the focus of the game and always present in the starter sets, which means most players start with marines and by the time they get a non-marine army they already have a certain minimum level of skill: Let's consider some numbers:

Assume that all factions have a 50% win rate given players of equal skill. Perfect balance has been achieved.

A veteran has a 60% win rate.

A newbie has a 30% win rate.

Marines are 80% newbies, 20% veterans. Their win rate is 0.6x0.2 + 0.3x0.8 = 36%

Eldar are 20% newbies, 80% veterans. Their win rate is 0.6x0.8 + 0.3x0.2 = 54%

So despite the rules all being perfectly balanced the higher proportion of newbies playing marine armies gives them a significantly worse win rate, 36% vs 54%. Purely looking at raw win rate data would tell you to nerf eldar and buff marines, accounting for the player skill factor would tell you things are fine. This is why win rates alone are not sufficient data, you need to look at things like tournament wins, top 4/8 finishes, times in winning position, etc. Those numbers will focus much more on the higher-skill players where the skill factor is less significant and success rates have more to do with the strength of each army's rules.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Was this meant to be a serious post? A White Scars player wouldn't be able to use a Ravenwing based army for what reasons?

its a different codex -.- pretty simple

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Was this meant to be a serious post? A White Scars player wouldn't be able to use a Ravenwing based army for what reasons?

its a different codex -.- pretty simple

So the color of ones bikes & speeders means that you can't apply your skill with one of these forces to the other?

You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA, and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
Is that a rhetoric question ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

Karol wrote:
At the same time, when one compares the win rates of eldar players, veterans or first time GT players, they are somehow very similar in their W/L spread.

The whole point of the argument is that non-marine armies don't have as much of a newbie element. Marines are the focus of the game and always present in the starter sets, which means most players start with marines and by the time they get a non-marine army they already have a certain minimum level of skill: Let's consider some numbers:

.

But we don't have to assume anything. A dude already did the comperation of new and old GT marine players, and they were one of the top three armies as far as similarity of results in a GT setting. There is no way that the noob factor makes for a +20% difference from the avarge. The other army who had similar win rates and lose rates were, eldar. The only difference between marines and eldar , that marines had much lower win and much higher lose rates, across all type of players. The marines do bad, because noob play them is a cope out explanation. Marienes do back, because their rules are writen bad for the type of army they suppose to be. Their core mechanics of doctrines and marrying those to specific chapters do not work for all chapters that are focused around the devastator doctrine? why well because if the opponent isn't 100% incompetent or the table isn't a flat plain, those core rules marines have never come in to action. There is a reason why WS and BA are or were the best marine factions in 9th.

Purely looking at raw win rate data would tell you to nerf eldar and buff marines, accounting for the player skill factor would tell you things are fine. This is why win rates alone are not sufficient data, you need to look at things like tournament wins, top 4/8 finishes, times in winning position, etc. Those numbers will focus much more on the higher-skill players where the skill factor is less significant and success rates have more to do with the strength of each army's rules.

And again marine veterans don't win substentialy more, then noob marine players. Same way Eldar player who are GT first timers are not losing substentialy more then the veteran eldar players. You know where you can see the big difference between new and top world players? Ad Mecha post nerf. Post nerf the prior winning everything Ad mecha noob, couldn't win a darn thing. But the real good Ad Mecha players were not just wining, or placing high, but sporadicly winning GTs. No Imperial Fist player won a GT in 9th, I don't even think they had one place in top 8.

Karol wrote:
You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA, and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
Is that a rhetoric question ?

Yes you can. Its why successor chapters exist. As long as they're sticking to the rules of a single codex you can paint your guys whatever colour and with whatever symbols you want.

Karol wrote:
You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA,

Sure I can. I can paint things any color I please. Or play things with merely a base coat of primer. Or I can run them as bare plastic/metal/resin. Or some mix....

Karol wrote:
and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.

No, not faction specific units (ex: a DA/RW Landspeeder Vengeance used as such in a WS army) or rules. And I never claimed any such thing.
But even that's not 100% true. I could mix DA & WS - if I didn't mind losing faction bonuses.

Karol wrote:
Is that a rhetoric question ?

Nope.
You didn't even understand the question....

Karol wrote:
You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA, and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
Is that a rhetoric question ?

Uhhuh. That's what people keep doing all the time. Paint != rules.

Either you are trolling or you don't know rules.

ccs wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Was this meant to be a serious post? A White Scars player wouldn't be able to use a Ravenwing based army for what reasons?

its a different codex -.- pretty simple

So the color of ones bikes & speeders means that you can't apply your skill with one of these forces to the other?

No, i mean that you litterally need to buy a new rulebook to swap from WS to DA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA, and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
Is that a rhetoric question ?

what? who gives a crap about paint scheme? a bike is a bike.

A better argument wouldve been "White scars don't have an obvious equivalent to the land speeder character that DA have"

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


But that have been doing better?

The Metawatch video demonstrates that they understand the problems they're facing. It's a big ship and it doesn't turn on a dime.

There's always going to be facets of 40K that some faction doesn't like though.

How many editions does the design team need to notice that the rules they are giving eldar are a head above other factions. Their other insights in to what they think about win rates and rules aren't much better either. Marine players are noobs, there for they will always have lower win rates? That is a view that requires a dozen logical hoops to jump through. Why can the BA noobs not take down the win rates of their armies. Why are the marine armies with better win rates having better results. Are we really , considering the win rates exisitng, to think that all or the majority CoB and EC chaos marine players are decade long veterans, while the csm noobs pick AL and IW for some reason? With other OP factions they leave the rule sets to affect the game for months or years, before they nerf them in to the ground, often by the time the faction players already moved to play other builds. But Votan or SW were pre nerfed. DG in 9th suffer from what I think of the GK FAQ effect, where every new rules update nerfs them for some reason, and the DG players are most happy, when GW just ingores them. GW is not a fresh new company, we are not playing in 2ed , and the people working as heads of the design studio are not people employed last year. It is a company over twice my age , where some people worked for decades. The "give them time" argument should not be accepted anymore. Especialy when it is in their favour, not the players, they are willing to do changes instantly, wide spread ones killing entire games, without telling players that they will do it etc.

Eldar do not have any extreme advantage, at present. Harlies are a small faction and fixing them without imploding the whole faction is pretty difficult and Ynnari only recently came back on to the scene with high win rates.

I posted this in another thread when the topic came up with data as per the dashboard. As others have mentioned - more people get into the hobby with marine models than a faction like GSC. It can absolutely be a factor that changes our perception of the strength of a faction.

A special secondary to try and fix this may not have worked, but it was absolutely an idea worth testing. At this point I think marines are largely locked behind pretty old supplements with high cost stratagems and middling secondaries. GW probably isn't sweeping through those supplements, because they probably intend to update them with 10th. I don't see points being a good way to save them without breaking others and creating that race to the bottom again.

That data does nothing to help prove GW correct. It just proves Imperial Fists are that awful.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ccs wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Was this meant to be a serious post? A White Scars player wouldn't be able to use a Ravenwing based army for what reasons?

its a different codex -.- pretty simple

So the color of ones bikes & speeders means that you can't apply your skill with one of these forces to the other?

No, i mean that you litterally need to buy a new rulebook to swap from WS to DA.

Sure, one could do that if they wanted. And it might be required to for some events/tourney play to have the waste-o-paper. But for daily play there's this handy Russian site.

So since skill transfers, and the color of your paint doesn't matter, and the rules are a mere click away.... Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?

ccs wrote:

Sure, one could do that if they wanted. And it might be required to for some events/tourney play to have the waste-o-paper. But for daily play there's this handy Russian site.

So since skill transfers, and the color of your paint doesn't matter, and the rules are a mere click away.... Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?

oh can you feth off, i've been plenty clear in what i mean. It's not HARD, it's HARDER than just sticking to codex compliant chapters.

Sure in a casual game you can proxy the feth out of everything and i won't ever complain, heck, i'll encourage it. But in a tournament (where the winrates are taken from), thats not a possibility since theyre usually much more restrictive on count-as/proxies.

I don't mind if my opponent has a generic marine Captain instead of Azrael or whoever the feth the chapter master of DA is in a casual game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That data does nothing to help prove GW correct. It just proves Imperial Fists are that awful.

Correlation != Causation and all that good stuff, but you can clearly see that the marines are clustered towards the bad end. They also happen to have the most new players in IF and RG who also happen to have the worst win rates.

Essentially marines DO have more new players. The question is WHERE are the new players floundering and what fixes are most appropriate.

It becomes a situation where you have a ton less room for error and bad dice. When looking at BA and SW we can see that their tools are a little more refined ( and as such they're newer books ). Even WS and DW have a better go at it likely because their traits allow them to be more effective.

This rules out points. Changing anything to that effect will boost WS, DW, DA, BA, and SW more than the other marine factions. The changes then need to be traits, strats, and missions. Relics and WL traits have a smaller footprint now and I imagine IF suffer the more as they have some key ones they always need on top of strats that are costed pretty high for the new lower CP pool.

The multiple hits to the super doctrines is probably the next best place to look. IF really got screwed in that department. Going first means you likely have no good targets and no activation of their specialty doctrine. Revert them to either work with lower S weapons ( affects only IF ) or allow marines to actively pick Devastator turns 1 and 2 ( not localized and could benefit other marines more ).

I searched, "Warhammer 40k Chapter Approved War Zone Nephilim GT Mission Pack," and found the ebook right away. The issue is not access...

They aren't more refined and BA and SW noobs do not have a big win/lose rate difference comparing to veterans of the faction.
What GW did in 9th is butcher the doctrine mechanic. No matter what marines have if your chapter happens to be based around devastator it will struggle. Then there is the delayed reaction to stuff and testing vs books way in the future, without taking any FAQ changes taken in to account. 9th ed books were reacting to the power of PA marines, and they were full of 2W killing, save mods etc Marines without a strong fire base, aside for dreadnoughts, and even that only till DE came out and not counting Harlequins, were forced in to a more melee centric or short range army. This ment that armies like WS in early 9th and BA right now were the "good" marines armies. Although it is worth pointing out that the "good" marine armies right now are no where near the level of the really good armies.

The push to melee came at a price though. Marines could not deal with armies which were faster, couldn't deal with armies who can just shot them off the board etc But the real problems started when armies like Custodes, GK, Tyranids, new Harlis or new CSM came. Marines didn't not have the shoting to levarge vs those armies, while at the same time they were weaker then those armies in melee. CoB is an instant lose to a marine player, because an army that fights on death on hyper strong melee units, is faster and has at worse just as good objective does not leave much wiggle room to play well, no matter if you are a super end game tournament player or just a new guy playing with his two patrol boxs vs his friends two patrol boxs.

The third marine problem was the secondaries game. There are armies in w40k aren't hyper efficient, and there are armies in w40k who are, but have bad secondaries. You can't be both meh or mid tier at objectives, and not hyper efficient. That is why the "good" marine armies spam the living hell out of units normal marines can't run, because they don't have access to them, and BA secondaries are just better then regular marine ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?

VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.

Karol wrote:

ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?

VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.

Thats only in your shithole of a LGS, pretty much everywhere else, people won't mind

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?

VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.

Thats only in your shithole of a LGS, pretty much everywhere else, people won't mind

Nah, Karol has a SLIGHT point here, though it needs to be taken in a metaphorical sense rather than literal. I mean, think about how many people were using their Marine armies as Space Wolves with their 5th edition codex.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I posted this in another thread when the topic came up with data as per the dashboard. As others have mentioned - more people get into the hobby with marine models than a faction like GSC. It can absolutely be a factor that changes our perception of the strength of a faction.

A special secondary to try and fix this may not have worked, but it was absolutely an idea worth testing. At this point I think marines are largely locked behind pretty old supplements with high cost stratagems and middling secondaries. GW probably isn't sweeping through those supplements, because they probably intend to update them with 10th. I don't see points being a good way to save them without breaking others and creating that race to the bottom again.

This is good data that fails on one point, it doesn't give you the Newcomer Win-Rate and the non-Newcomer Win-Rate. Only if those differ substantially is the issue Newcomers rather than the Codex/Supplement.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?

VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.

Thats only in your shithole of a LGS, pretty much everywhere else, people won't mind

Nah, Karol has a SLIGHT point here, though it needs to be taken in a metaphorical sense rather than literal. I mean, think about how many people were using their Marine armies as Space Wolves with their 5th edition codex.

idk, i didnt play back then, but if i was to face a space wolf army that was obviously made of non SW models,i wouldnt care at all

"these thunder hammer dudes are actually wulfen" ok