Prediction Time

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.

**SemperMortis**

tneva82 wrote:
So codex sm 47%. Woo. Mighty broken.

Get off W/L rate and look at tournament results. Those 47% win rates = 40% First place finishes. W/L isn't indicative of how strong a top build is. Every tournament i've ever been to has a host of SM players showing up with fluffy or badly written lists because they want to play their fluffy list or are new to the game/tournament scene and end up getting blasted off the table. In contrast, I haven't seen many first time Ork, nidz, or DE Players showing up.

From the 9th to the 10th there were 8 events, Power armored factions won 3 of them (4 if you count custards). So basically a 50% tournament win rate. No other faction comes close to that.

catbarf wrote:

So for Orks, rather than have dedicated Ork shooting units be bad for the cost, if the goal were for the army to need melee (something I don't really agree with- Orks have always been about dakka) I'd look at instead promoting more hybrid units; things cost-ineffective if used just for shooting, but having melee capability that's worth using. I'd also try to insert some conspicuous gaps, like lack of long-range shooting, requiring a more in-your-face approach. These units could be good and well-pointed for what they are, just lacking the capabilities to facilitate a pure gunline.

To be blunt, they already tried what you are suggesting with the new "Dakka" weapons which (because GW is incapable of writing ork rules) became literally worse than the old Dakka Dakka Dakka Rule to the point where Shoota boyz have literally not been taken by a single list in 9th edition that went on to place in a GT.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
guard get almost every upgrade for free and aren't dominating the meta...its not so much about the upgrades as the stats of units and the upgrades, which the marines are behind on.

Guard get almost ZERO upgrades for free. Those free upgrades are on infantry squads. And in an edition where T4 2W 3+ save isn't considered very durable what do you think a T3 1w 5+ save is going to do? a more apt comparison would have been if IG tanks/vehicles got free upgrades....which they don't. SM getting free upgrades and points cost was just too much which is why, as stated above, Marines are now running around with an almost 50% Tournament Win Rate.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
jumping into the ork argument late and without full context, but I think Orks should kinda be middle of the road at everything on an individual level, with their numbers being what decides how good an individual army is at one or the other.

BS5+ with lots of shots per weapon, and lots models shooting would mean they're pretty good at shooting (assuming their guns have decent stats)

S5 T5 WS4+ and 1A per boy isn't too bad when you've got 9 of them and a nob with 2 attacks for example.

I do like the idea of them being slightly better at melee over all though.

Not only no, but hell no. BS5+ but with lots of shots per weapon! COOL! Oh...whats that? Your entire army or at least the majority of it gets -1 to hit? Ok, well there goes 50% of my dmg output.

S5 T5 WS4+ and 1 attack? you realize you just made Ork boyz worse in almost every way possible right? Those boyz are currently S4 T5 2A per boy, most are Goff so they get S5 on the charge...and on the WAAAGH turns its S6 They also get 3 attacks thanks to choppas and 4 on the WAAAGH turns. Also they swing at WS3+ not 4+. And to be blunt, a Boy has ALWAYS been better than a Marine in CC and almost as good at Ranged combat (when they finally got in range) as those Marines (All of this is Pt for Pt) . Marines used to be Jack of all Trades master of none but with heavy armor. It didn't matter that Boyz could almost match a Marine at 18' range because those Marines were killing Orkz at 24' range compared to the Orkz 18' range assault guns.

Back in the day a Boy was 6pts and a Marine was 15pts. So for every Marine you could take 2.5 boyz. 5 boyz at 18' range with shootas was 10 shots, 3.3 hits 1.65 wounds and 0.55 dead Marines. Those 2 Marines were 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds for 0.67 dead Boyz.

In CC those 5 boyz averaged 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds and 1.66 Dead Marines, those Marines in turn averaged 2 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds and 0.55 dead Boyz.

This game has boiled down to how certain players feel their army should play/perform rather than balance and its a bit ridiculous.

**JNAProductions**

You have a strong point, Semper, but Custodes aren’t Marines. They’ve similarities, but they’re definitely distinct forces.

**SemperMortis**

JNAProductions wrote:
You have a strong point, Semper, but Custodes aren’t Marines. They’ve similarities, but they’re definitely distinct forces.

Fair enough. Call it 3/8th wins if you want. We are still just 2-3 weeks into AoO results and Marines are winning the plurality of tournaments and DA seem to be the front runner at the moment.

**johnpjones1775**

SemperMortis wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
So codex sm 47%. Woo. Mighty broken.
Get off W/L rate and look at tournament results. Those 47% win rates = 40% First place finishes. W/L isn't indicative of how strong a top build is. Every tournament i've ever been to has a host of SM players showing up with fluffy or badly written lists because they want to play their fluffy list or are new to the game/tournament scene and end up getting blasted off the table. In contrast, I haven't seen many first time Ork, nidz, or DE Players showing up.

From the 9th to the 10th there were 8 events, Power armored factions won 3 of them (4 if you count custards). So basically a 50% tournament win rate. No other faction comes close to that.

catbarf wrote:

So for Orks, rather than have dedicated Ork shooting units be bad for the cost, if the goal were for the army to need melee (something I don't really agree with- Orks have always been about dakka) I'd look at instead promoting more hybrid units; things cost-ineffective if used just for shooting, but having melee capability that's worth using. I'd also try to insert some conspicuous gaps, like lack of long-range shooting, requiring a more in-your-face approach. These units could be good and well-pointed for what they are, just lacking the capabilities to facilitate a pure gunline.

To be blunt, they already tried what you are suggesting with the new "Dakka" weapons which (because GW is incapable of writing ork rules) became literally worse than the old Dakka Dakka Dakka Rule to the point where Shoota boyz have literally not been taken by a single list in 9th edition that went on to place in a GT.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
guard get almost every upgrade for free and aren't dominating the meta...its not so much about the upgrades as the stats of units and the upgrades, which the marines are behind on.

Guard get almost ZERO upgrades for free. Those free upgrades are on infantry squads. And in an edition where T4 2W 3+ save isn't considered very durable what do you think a T3 1w 5+ save is going to do? a more apt comparison would have been if IG tanks/vehicles got free upgrades....which they don't. SM getting free upgrades and points cost was just too much which is why, as stated above, Marines are now running around with an almost 50% Tournament Win Rate.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
jumping into the ork argument late and without full context, but I think Orks should kinda be middle of the road at everything on an individual level, with their numbers being what decides how good an individual army is at one or the other.

BS5+ with lots of shots per weapon, and lots models shooting would mean they're pretty good at shooting (assuming their guns have decent stats)

S5 T5 WS4+ and 1A per boy isn't too bad when you've got 9 of them and a nob with 2 attacks for example.

I do like the idea of them being slightly better at melee over all though.

Not only no, but hell no. BS5+ but with lots of shots per weapon! COOL! Oh...whats that? Your entire army or at least the majority of it gets -1 to hit? Ok, well there goes 50% of my dmg output.

S5 T5 WS4+ and 1 attack? you realize you just made Ork boyz worse in almost every way possible right? Those boyz are currently S4 T5 2A per boy, most are Goff so they get S5 on the charge...and on the WAAAGH turns its S6 They also get 3 attacks thanks to choppas and 4 on the WAAAGH turns. Also they swing at WS3+ not 4+. And to be blunt, a Boy has ALWAYS been better than a Marine in CC and almost as good at Ranged combat (when they finally got in range) as those Marines (All of this is Pt for Pt) . Marines used to be Jack of all Trades master of none but with heavy armor. It didn't matter that Boyz could almost match a Marine at 18' range because those Marines were killing Orkz at 24' range compared to the Orkz 18' range assault guns.

Back in the day a Boy was 6pts and a Marine was 15pts. So for every Marine you could take 2.5 boyz. 5 boyz at 18' range with shootas was 10 shots, 3.3 hits 1.65 wounds and 0.55 dead Marines. Those 2 Marines were 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds for 0.67 dead Boyz.

In CC those 5 boyz averaged 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds and 1.66 Dead Marines, those Marines in turn averaged 2 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds and 0.55 dead Boyz.

This game has boiled down to how certain players feel their army should play/perform rather than balance and its a bit ridiculous.

ummm...winning 3/8 tournaments is a 37% win rate. custodes are a different faction, you don't just get to pad stats to fit your opinion by including other factions that just so happen to have won.

45% win rate comes from the tournaments. it has nothing to with any other method or style of gaming because theres no way to accurately track wins or losses for factions outside of tournaments.

SM won 3/8 tournaments, but how many SM players participated? how many made it to top 5? how big were these tournaments? how many of those SM made it to top 10?

SM are hands down the most popular faction so you're going to see a lot of them every where, and likely a lot of them will be seen winning. thats why we go off of win rates rather than just raw numbers.

guard get a gak ton of upgrades for free. IS, CST, krieg, catachan all get free special and/or heavy weapons. officers get free power swords and bolt pistols. FOBs get free upgrads, sentinels get all of their guns for free, rough riders get all of their upgrades for free, command squads get medics and standards for free, oh yeah everyone gets vox casters for free. the only things that really costs points in the guard codex are plasma pistols, power fits, and hull/sponson guns for tanks.

you can talk gak about guard stats all you want, but they're not supposed to be individually strong or tough. at 65 points per squad i can take 20 plus squads with double plasma or double melta, and still have 700 points left over for HQ, FA, elites and HS slots.

doesn't matter much if they have gak stats, thats 40 special weapons (likely all hitting on a 3+ with +1 AP) followed by 140 lasgun shots, and likely 40 autogun shots, for less than 1500 pts. most armies will likely kill a lot maybe even 20-30 per turn if they're kitted to wreck GEQ, but if that's the case they'll then struggle to deal with the supporting units like dorns and russes or bull/ogryns.

also this game has never ever been balanced, which makes the fact that a tournament scene sprouted up absolutely ridiculous, so forgive people for wanting their army to play like the lore that most likely got most of them to pick said army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
You have a strong point, Semper, but Custodes aren’t Marines. They’ve similarities, but they’re definitely distinct forces.

Fair enough. Call it 3/8th wins if you want. We are still just 2-3 weeks into AoO results and Marines are winning the plurality of tournaments and DA seem to be the front runner at the moment.

the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh

what factions won those other 5 events?

**Tyel**

I guess the issue is just that overpoweredness is measured in different ways.

Barring something changing it appears Marines are the best faction by tournament results. But equally, by win%, they don't appear in Tau/Custodes/Harlequins/Tyranids spot where you could take essentially any units and expect to crush your friends, because they were comically busted, hence the 70%~ win rates.

Its why I think there's a major clash with say GSC. If you play the game to the objectives they seem quite capable. Indeed there were sort of whispers of that in the last season. But if you play them to just "go fight your friend", their mathhammer kind of sucks and odds are you are going to get crushed.

Not really sure how GW resolve the clash.

**EviscerationPlague**

That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.

**johnpjones1775**

Tyel wrote:
I guess the issue is just that overpoweredness is measured in different ways.

Barring something changing it appears Marines are the best faction by tournament results. But equally, by win%, they don't appear in Tau/Custodes/Harlequins/Tyranids spot where you could take essentially any units and expect to crush your friends, because they were comically busted, hence the 70%~ win rates.

Its why I think there's a major clash with say GSC. If you play the game to the objectives they seem quite capable. Indeed there were sort of whispers of that in the last season. But if you play them to just "go fight your friend", their mathhammer kind of sucks and odds are you are going to get crushed.

Not really sure how GW resolve the clash.

win ratio and tournament results are essentially the same thing since that’s how win rates are calculated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.

why would tournaments do that? Never participated in one, but don’t they charge entry fees?
I imagine the profit margins are pretty low for most tournaments already, limiting the number of participants just seems like a fiscally bad idea…

It doesn’t matter how many marines are entering a tournament.
If there’s 100 players and 50 are marines, and a marine list wins and another comes in 5th that doesn’t mean marines are strong or the best.

People really do overlook how much luck plays a role in this game, and then after that player skill.

The dude who won the LVO with BA probably could have made top 10 with ANY faction assuming he maintained the same level of luck.

**Tyran**

johnpjones1775 wrote:
win ratio and tournament results are essentially the same thing since that’s how win rates are calculated.

Lol no, you can have a fantastic win rate and still fail to place well on a tournament, because tournament placing isn't just determined by if you won but also by how well you won (aka how many VP or equivalent you got)

**Breton**

SemperMortis wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
So codex sm 47%. Woo. Mighty broken.
Get off W/L rate and look at tournament results. Those 47% win rates = 40% First place finishes. W/L isn't indicative of how strong a top build is. Every tournament i've ever been to has a host of SM players showing up with fluffy or badly written lists because they want to play their fluffy list or are new to the game/tournament scene and end up getting blasted off the table. In contrast, I haven't seen many first time Ork, nidz, or DE Players showing up.

From the 9th to the 10th there were 8 events, Power armored factions won 3 of them (4 if you count custards). So basically a 50% tournament win rate. No other faction comes close to that.

Whoa whoa whoa, did we just go from Space Marines to (multiple, combined) "Power Armored Factions" vs no other (singular by itself, no less?) faction?

Has anyone seen the goalposts? They were just here a minute ago...

**Boosykes**

Really should go back to FOC restrictions. 1 superheavy per faction and make it beastly, 1 set of flash gits per three squads of boys but make the gits beastly.

1 terminator squad for every 3 tactical/interssor squad but make terminators beastly, etc.

Dawn of war had this figure out years ago. You can have factions balanced against faction and difrent thing within those factions can be extra special if they are heavily limited Ted in number.

Otherwise everything has to have equal power to points and none of it feels special.

**johnpjones1775**

Tyran wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:
win ratio and tournament results are essentially the same thing since that’s how win rates are calculated.

Lol no, you can have a fantastic win rate and still fail to place well on a tournament, because tournament placing isn't just determined by if you won but also by how well you won (aka how many VP or equivalent you got)

and guess what, no one is winning with fewer points than other people either. you can't lose 53% of the games you play and win a tournament, that's the point.

no one is losing a bunch of games, but winning tournaments. you have to win games to win tournaments. lose a game you're probably not winning the tournament.

**Breton**

johnpjones1775 wrote:

the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh

what factions won those other 5 events?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's broken when the faction played by ~40% of the participants wins ~40% of the Tournaments.

**Gadzilla666**

Breton wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:

the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh

what factions won those other 5 events?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's broken when the faction played by ~40% of the participants wins ~40% of the Tournaments.

Free upgrades. If the game has devolved to the point where that doesn't matter, then it's broken. Don't care about tournament win rates, but if upgrades just don't matter anymore? Then the game is a burning dumpster. Don't really care, personally, as I've been done with this

for almost a year now, but it's absolutely fascinating to watch the train wreck progress......

**Tyran**

johnpjones1775 wrote:

and guess what, no one is winning with fewer points than other people either. you can't lose 53% of the games you play and win a tournament, that's the point.

no one is losing a bunch of games, but winning tournaments. you have to win games to win tournaments. lose a game you're probably not winning the tournament.

And you can win games and still not place that well on a tournament. While a good win rate facilitates good tournament results, they are not the same thing.

**Breton**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Breton wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:

the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh

what factions won those other 5 events?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's broken when the faction played by ~40% of the participants wins ~40% of the Tournaments.

Free upgrades. If the game has devolved to the point where that doesn't matter, then it's broken. Don't care about tournament win rates, but if upgrades just don't matter anymore? Then the game is a burning dumpster. Don't really care, personally, as I've been done with this for almost a year now, but it's absolutely fascinating to watch the train wreck progress......

A) That doesn't explain why a faction played by 40% of the entrants shouldn't win 40% of the tournaments.

B) So it doesn't matter if you take the 5 point chainfist or the 5 point powerfist for minor differences resulting in roughly equal tradeoffs its broken if you can choose two roughly equal mandatory options for equal points or no points? We've done the "Free Upgrades" are more often points drops than "free upgrades".

**EviscerationPlague**

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?

The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.

**vict0988**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?

The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.

There are statistical tools that lets you account for faction playrates and see who performs above rate. If we take a slice of Necron data we can see they had a 48% win rate, an average first loss at round 1.92, field % of 4.53% and TiWP ratio of 1.13. So that means in the given data set they end up in a position to win tournaments a slightly disproportionate amount of the time compared to their play rate.

In the same data set Harlequins have 54.88% win rate, an average first loss at round 2.30, field % of 2.44% and TiWP ratio of 1.22 so they are less represented and they end up in a position to win tournaments in a more disproportionate amount of the time compared to their play rate.

In the same dataset Astra Militarum have a 0.69 TiWP ratio, which means they are underrepresented in lists that are in a position to win tournaments compared to their play rate.

We'll probably get AoO data on this in a month or two, it's important to remember that LVO used the previous mission pack. The data presented in this post is not for AoO.

**johnpjones1775**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?

The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.

thats not the community’s job.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyran wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:

and guess what, no one is winning with fewer points than other people either. you can't lose 53% of the games you play and win a tournament, that's the point.

no one is losing a bunch of games, but winning tournaments. you have to win games to win tournaments. lose a game you're probably not winning the tournament.

And you can win games and still not place that well on a tournament. While a good win rate facilitates good tournament results, they are not the same thing.

so we shouldn't be looking at tournament winners at all then, because if a player is getting big points it's because they're making better tactical decisions, meaning that unless you're specifically trying to win tournaments, tournament winners is pointless knowledge and W/L rate is the only thing that realistically matters to the overwhelming majority of players.

i don't know anyone who will feel bad about winning by 1 point.

**VladimirHerzog**

Boosykes wrote:
Really should go back to FOC restrictions. 1 superheavy per faction and make it beastly, 1 set of flash gits per three squads of boys but make the gits beastly.

1 terminator squad for every 3 tactical/interssor squad but make terminators beastly, etc.

Dawn of war had this figure out years ago. You can have factions balanced against faction and difrent thing within those factions can be extra special if they are heavily limited Ted in number.

Otherwise everything has to have equal power to points and none of it feels special.

nah, making beastly units and adding a tax to them in the form of other units is boring as feth, just make every unit balanced

**johnpjones1775**

Breton wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Breton wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:

the most commonly played faction is winning multiple events? wow ya don't say! its still only a 38% win rate if you want to round up...that's not great. thats not good, thats not even ok...that's meh

what factions won those other 5 events?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's broken when the faction played by ~40% of the participants wins ~40% of the Tournaments.

Free upgrades. If the game has devolved to the point where that doesn't matter, then it's broken. Don't care about tournament win rates, but if upgrades just don't matter anymore? Then the game is a burning dumpster. Don't really care, personally, as I've been done with this for almost a year now, but it's absolutely fascinating to watch the train wreck progress......

A) That doesn't explain why a faction played by 40% of the entrants shouldn't win 40% of the tournaments.

B) So it doesn't matter if you take the 5 point chainfist or the 5 point powerfist for minor differences resulting in roughly equal tradeoffs its broken if you can choose two roughly equal mandatory options for equal points or no points? We've done the "Free Upgrades" are more often points drops than "free upgrades".

it's people like my brother who are salty that marines always get a lot of love, despite them under performing most of this edition they're angry that marines are getting more love and they just want to complain about it.

**JNAProductions**

3/8 first place rankings is "underperforming"?

I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?

**johnpjones1775**

JNAProductions wrote:
3/8 first place rankings is "underperforming"?

I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?

you don’t really understand statistics do you?

The examples given lack a lot of important information like number of players total in total, how many were marine players, etc.

But considering most players are marine players, a 38% win rate in tournaments doesn’t seem like a particularly strong showing.

**JNAProductions**

johnpjones1775 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
3/8 first place rankings is "underperforming"?

I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?
you don’t really understand statistics do you?

Elucidate me.
Don’t just say “You’re wrong” explain what’s right.

**johnpjones1775**

JNAProductions wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
3/8 first place rankings is "underperforming"?

I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?
you don’t really understand statistics do you?
Elucidate me.
Don’t just say “You’re wrong” explain what’s right.

40-50% of players play SM of some flavor, and if the LVO is any example of the typical spread and entry rates, they dominate tournaments based on participation. If you make up 40% or more of the participants and your win rate is under 40% at those tournaments that’s statistically under performing.

Someone did a much better job of explaining it via the actual math a few posts above. SM are under represented in terms of 1st places at tournaments based on their rate of participation, and other factions are over represented in terms of 1st places finishes based on their participation rate.

**JNAProductions**

johnpjones1775 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
3/8 first place rankings is "underperforming"?

I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?
you don’t really understand statistics do you?
Elucidate me.
Don’t just say “You’re wrong” explain what’s right.
40-50% of players play SM of some flavor, and if the LVO is any example of the typical spread and entry rates, they dominate tournaments based on participation. If you make up 40% or more of the participants and your win rate is under 40% at those tournaments that’s statistically under performing.

Someone did a much better job of explaining it via the actual math a few posts above. SM are under represented in terms of 1st places at tournaments based on their rate of participation, and other factions are over represented in terms of 1st places finishes based on their participation rate.

There are more than six factions in the game.
If there are eight tournaments we're looking at, and SM won three, that means that if every single other tournament was won by a different faction, any factions past six didn't win ANY tournaments.

What site is used for these stats? I'd want to take a look at them myself.

**johnpjones1775**

JNAProductions wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
3/8 first place rankings is "underperforming"?

I don't know where to find the stats, but did any other faction get more than one 1st place?
you don’t really understand statistics do you?
Elucidate me.
Don’t just say “You’re wrong” explain what’s right.
40-50% of players play SM of some flavor, and if the LVO is any example of the typical spread and entry rates, they dominate tournaments based on participation. If you make up 40% or more of the participants and your win rate is under 40% at those tournaments that’s statistically under performing.

Someone did a much better job of explaining it via the actual math a few posts above. SM are under represented in terms of 1st places at tournaments based on their rate of participation, and other factions are over represented in terms of 1st places finishes based on their participation rate.
There are more than six factions in the game.
If there are eight tournaments we're looking at, and SM won three, that means that if every single other tournament was won by a different faction, any factions past six didn't win ANY tournaments.

What site is used for these stats? I'd want to take a look at them myself.

idk where the person who initially brought it up got the data from, but just working off his numbers that’s a sub38% win rate for a faction that’s played by 40-50% of people is not very good.

It can be better or worse depending on the total numbers of players in each tournament.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Isn't it misleading to say "SMs are under performing?"

I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.

If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?

**JNAProductions**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't it misleading to say "SMs are under performing?"

I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.

If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?

Again, not privy to the data right now, but given how 9th edition works... I don't think that you're gonna see many Guard armies taking a single unit of Marines.
And anything non-Imperium flat-out CAN'T take any Marine units. Excepting Votann, I think-though that might be an upcoming rule.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

JNAProductions wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't it misleading to say "SMs are under performing?"

I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.

If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?
Again, not privy to the data right now, but given how 9th edition works... I don't think that you're gonna see many Guard armies taking a single unit of Marines.
And anything non-Imperium flat-out CAN'T take any Marine units. Excepting Votann, I think-though that might be an upcoming rule.

Fallen violate the non-imperium rule right? You can technically field a detachment of fallen DA with Cypher or whatever he's called. Did that go bye bye in 9th? I've completely stopped keeping track of what is no allowed in 9th now.

But yes, I doubt many would give up their purity bonus for a squad of say, hell blasters. But DA Terminators are still the most deadly soup option on the menu. Bar that, BA Assault Terminators or Death Company troops with JPs and TH/SS

**EviscerationPlague**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't it misleading to say "SMs are under performing?"

I mean there are 4 major SM factions, more than a dozen sub chapters, and a "make your own". Not to mention soup.

If I recall my statistics lessons, in order to find the true performance of a given faction, we need to include ANY placing that had ANY Space Marine unit, correct? Is that what this data is reflecting? 100% of SM wins are of any color?
Again, not privy to the data right now, but given how 9th edition works... I don't think that you're gonna see many Guard armies taking a single unit of Marines.
And anything non-Imperium flat-out CAN'T take any Marine units. Excepting Votann, I think-though that might be an upcoming rule.

Fallen violate the non-imperium rule right? You can technically field a detachment of fallen DA with Cypher or whatever he's called. Did that go bye bye in 9th?

That hasn't been a thing done even in 8th WHEN Fallen had rules LOL

Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That's why tournaments should stop people entering a specific army once you hit a certain number. If you just have 10-15 of each army, you'd definitely only see a few particular things top.
why would tournaments do that?

The theory would be to test external balance, that's all.
thats not the community’s job.

I never said it was, just to more prove a point that GW creates a bad game and that it can be proven.