CA won’t help SM

[Dracos]

Data like this is what convinces me that without a complete rewrite of how SM work, they will never have a place in a truly competitive environment. Maybe if Phil Kelley actually likes Marines as much as Eldar?

 

From bloodofkittens:

Here you will find a continually updated list of major Grand Tournament Winner Lists for 8th Edition Warhammer 40k. All lists will come from ITC events. To qualify, lists are taken from events with at least least 25 players and five games played. Lists may use older codexes versions and with certain restrictions specific to each Tournament format.

 

Updated as of 11-26-2018

 

Below is the current breakdown of what primary factions are winning events. The list combines all the top lists for 8th edition 2017 ITC season events only, taking only the top three from each Major or GT.

55 Astra Militarum

45 Ynnari

33 Chaos Space Marines

31 Dark Eldar

29 Daemons

23 Tyranids

22 Ultramarines

21 Imperial Knights

20 Eldar

14 T’au Empire

12 Thousand Sons

10 Death Guard

8 Sisters of Battle

8 Orks

7 Adeptus Custodes

7 Blood Angels

7 Harlequins

6 Grey Knights

6 Space Marines

6 Adeptus Mechanicus

5 Genestealer Cults

4 Necrons

3 Officio Assassinorum

2 Renegade Knights

2 Space Wolves

2 Dark Angels

1 Deathwatch

And you can bet those 6 are all Robbie Boy wins. No, by all means nerf the one (Raven Guard)set of quasi competitive Chapter Tactics and Stratagems that was at least on tables other than the Big Four. Yeah I’m salty as hell about SftS and -1 to hit.

[SydonianDragoon404]

The factions it will help us against are Orks and Dark Eldar. Dark Eldar didn't get any point decreases at all and Orks are too new, so a straight upgrade against those two factions.

 

Side grade against everyone else. We already lost to Tyranids, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Mechanicus, and Tau, nothing will change there. 

[Tamiel]

I unironically want Matt Ward to make 40k great again. No one is going to treat us marines right like he can. We will be "guardsmen in 3+ armor" without Matt Ward or someone like him who understands what genetically enhanced supersoldier means.

Look at our bolters for pete's sakes. We're shooting lasguns with +1 strength. What happened to the rocket propelled deep-detonating grenade launchers that bolters were said to be? And don't even get me started on how underwhelming power armour 3+ is in 8th edition's save system. Marines have become a shadow of their former selves. It's like we're not even Astartes anymore. I too have doubts about this Chapter Approved fixing anything, but at least they can't make things worse.
 

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

I unironically want Matt Ward to make 40k great again. No one is going to treat us marines right like he can. We will always be "Guardsmen in 3+ armor" without Matt Ward or someone like him who understands what genetically enhanced supersoldier means.

 

Look at our bolters for pete's sakes. We're shooting lasguns with +1 strength. What happened to the rocket propelled deep-detonating grenade launchers that bolters were said to be? And don't even get me started on how underwhelming power armour 3+ is in 8th edition's save system.

I have to agree here. Ward, while he wrote some pretty OP stuff, he stayed true to lore for the most part (or shoehorned in lore to fit the rules) and had rules that were both fluffy and good. He may have given the UM perhaps a little too much back in the day, but without someone who well and truly loves astartes as a faction will get them right.

 

EDIT: Abhor the typo, purge the incorrect autocorrect!

[Lemondish]

Legitimate question - is ITC performance the only metric we have to measure the efficacy of an army at all levels of the game? Does ITC have an impact on whether or not the force is competitive in your local meta? Does it matter if Space Marines are or are not winning top level events if they produce good, relatively well balanced local games? 

[Dracos]

With all due respect you can’t truly test how good something is unless it is tested against the best. Good generals with average armies can make them seem successful but when facing another player of equal ability and losing 4 out of 5 reveals the truth of the matter.

 

I don’t want Marines to be OP I just want the game mechanics to give Marines the same opportunity to win as “top” armies. And I don’t want to have to play UM to do it. Hell I don’t even need a mechanical 50/50 opportunity 40/60 would be a wonder :)

[Tamiel]

By no means is ITC the only metric, and no one is saying that it is, but it's a much better metric than "my local meta" and "my relatively well balanced local games".

[Lemondish]

With all due respect you can’t truly test how good something is unless it is tested against the best. Good generals with average armies can make them seem successful but when facing another player of equal ability and losing 4 out of 5 reveals the truth of the matter.

 

I don’t want Marines to be OP I just want the game mechanics to give Marines the same opportunity to win as “top” armies. And I don’t want to have to play UM to do it. Hell I don’t even need a mechanical 50/50 opportunity 40/60 would be a wonder :)

Well, we're already there. Statistically, codex marines as a primary faction have a 39% win rate.

 

50% would be a great spot, but let's wait and see what CA and the campaign book do to the meta before making sweeping statements about marine placement.

 

The reason I'm hesitant to jump in on either side is that everybody is still looking at their current list and sharing how much they save without considering that list building tendencies need to go out the window now.

[Dracos]

I’m not sure how you get 39%

 

Guard and Ynarri are in are 9x as successful at tournaments.

Chaos and Dark Eldar have 6x as many top wins.

Tau, 1000 Son and DG are almost have almost twice as many.

 

And you right it’s not the only metric but it’s a pretty damning indicator of who has “better” mechanics. I also agree builds are going to be changing but point changes are going to have negligible effects. Saving 100 or so points is like adding an addition character or cheaper squad. It won’t be changing the mechanics of the game for Marines and that’s the real issue as noted. Power Armor and Bolters are a pale imitation of 3rd-5th. editions. They were poorly designed for 8th in my opinion, because they are pushing Primaris and at same time not releasing the tools Primaris need to compete .... and the stratagems and chapter tactics are still weak toast.

[FlamingDeth]

That list seems a little strange since you bold the 6 space marine wins but higher up it lists 22 for Ultramarines and I'm not sure why those are two separate numbers. Combining them to 28 makes the numbers seem a lot more reasonable.

[Dracos]

For the same reason they separate Blood Angels and etc. the Big Four of UM, BA, DA and SW have a markedly enhanced set of resources that Vanilla Marines do not. Otherwise you might as well combine the results of UM, BA, DA, and SW. I missed that myself on first glance.

 

And yes I bolded SM because I’ve seen as many DIY/Counts As Marines over my 25+ years on table as I have canon colored Marines. I know I’m really feeling salty and it will diminish but it doesn’t change the fact the Space Marine Codex is pretty much bloated with units that aren’t in the least relevant in a competitor even environment.

 

Now if someone is not into a competitive game that’s perfectly legitimate but that person doesn’t have a dog in this hunt. That person can enjoy playing Centurions (god I love those models) and Landspeeders and Etc and more power to them for having fun that way. I’m not that guy. I don’t mind losing but I want to play on an equal playing field.

 

And by equal I mean mono-dex. I see GW putting band-aids on issues that need surgery. Blood Angels got nerfed because of Soup. The recent FAQ attempted to pull in Imperial Soup (with debatable results) but in doing so tanked pure codex BA players. I’m calling party foul. I just happen to feel the situation is way worst for the rest of us and the numbers show it.

[FlamingDeth]

What resources do Ultramarines get that "vanilla" marines don't? It's literally the same book, and I don't see an individual faction trait listed for any other codex up there.

[AdmirableGoal]

What resources do Ultramarines get that "vanilla" marines don't? It's literally the same book, and I don't see an individual faction trait listed for any other codex up there.

 

The below a pretty well-known resource that was so strong that it got nerfed twice, and whose existence the entire SM codex is balanced around.  Most of those tournament wins, I believe, are from before said nerfs happened.

 

 

For good measure, Ultramarines have very strong chapter tactics. They also have several characters of varying utility.  Tigurius is also very good, for example.  His -1 to hit buff is very strong, and his ability to reroll psychic tests actually makes null zone reliable enough to actually use effectively, which is no small thing, as it's one of the only good psychic powers that Codex SM can use.

 

To your claim that it's the same book, that's still a little dependent on what chapter you play.  For example, several chapters have access to a chapter master character who could provide a hit reroll aura to get them partway to what Guilliman offers, if not all the way.  White Scars, Salamanders, and Iron Hands, however, do not.*  They are forced to pay 3 CP at the start of the game to grant the ability to a captain, and I wouldn't call 3 CP a negligible price.   This is especially nuts as Space Marines are, in part, clearly balanced around their access to reroll auras, which most other factions have far more limited access to, if they have access at all.  Think of it this way, just to keep running with this example - if any Salamander, Iron Hands, or White Scars player went to a tournament, they'd start 3 CP in the hole if they built a list around the the reroll aura that their rulebook already functionally assumes they have access to.  Not quite as much of a problem for the Salamanders player, but still an issue.  

 

 

There are other differences between the chapters beyond this one, of course.  I'm sure others know them better than me, I don't even play codex marines, I just sympathize with their plight.

 

Also, FWIW, it's not even Guilliman's reroll hits aura that's the biggest boost.  Blanket access to reroll wounds is very rare, even for one unit.  Having the ability in an aura is an enormous force multiplier for low-strength weapons.  Like, for example, bolters.

 

TL;DR - a primarch whose rebirth is the entire premise of 8th edition has some rules that are strong enough to probably merit a separate mention of ultramarines

 

*Iron Hands, in fact, do not have a single named character despite having existed in the game for decades.  Which I imagine is pretty infuriating for them, as even I'm a little pissed at the idea, and I don't play Iron Hands.

[Lemondish]

I’m not sure how you get 39%

 

Guard and Ynarri are in are 9x as successful at tournaments.

Chaos and Dark Eldar have 6x as many top wins.

Tau, 1000 Son and DG are almost have almost twice as many.

 

And you right it’s not the only metric but it’s a pretty damning indicator of who has “better” mechanics. I also agree builds are going to be changing but point changes are going to have negligible effects. Saving 100 or so points is like adding an addition character or cheaper squad. It won’t be changing the mechanics of the game for Marines and that’s the real issue as noted. Power Armor and Bolters are a pale imitation of 3rd-5th. editions. They were poorly designed for 8th in my opinion, because they are pushing Primaris and at same time not releasing the tools Primaris need to compete .... and the stratagems and chapter tactics are still weak toast.

Well, I got 39% from 175 lists attending 31 major tournaments since July playing 662 games and winning 261.

 

You can find the stats on 40kstats.com

 

Ynnari 9x as succesful isn't really possible, though the data does show that they are by far the winningest faction at 63%. Guard data is weird because they're taken as a secondary detachment almost 3 times as often, but they stand at 53% as primary.

 

I disagree that the real issue is the mechanics of the game. I personally take issue with the mechanics because I believe marines should behave far more like Primaris as a baseline, but the real situation here is that players have a hard time divorcing capability at acceptable points levels and their preferred play style. Marines were still placing top 20 in majors and GTs, and when that happens I really start to question the validity of using podium positions in a cut throat meta as the best metric for success. That meta does not filter down locally quite as effectively as many seem to think.

 

I can't tell you how much your own strategies impact your efficacy on the table far and above just choosing the Netlist of the Month™ and winning before the game even starts. The statistical winning percentage of a faction in tournaments has very little impact on people not playing in tournaments.

 

As anecdotal as it is, I've faced the LVO winning Eldar list countless times and won all but one with codex and then Deathwatch marines. Likewise, I've faced Grey Knights amd Ad Mech players that have just destroyed me.

 

I predict marine lists in most local metas will start looking far more varied, but I also expect the player base to still complain about their preferred faction not taking first place as if it actually matters.

[Emicus]

Personally I think Marines are Marines are Marines. So combine them all from SW to Ultras. For sure doesn't put the Astartes at the forefront but certainly much better than proposed here.

 

As an aside on super competetive play:

- people gravitate towards the strongest, even if the difference is minor. More people, higher representation, regardless of balance. A difference of 2% between armies should be considered insanely well balanced in game terms. Yet inordinately more than 2% will play the stronger army...

- tournaments change the core rules in fundamental ways. This often skews which armies are ideal.

- comparing armies from their placing in a tourney is like shopping shoes from which football team wins the league. Models are the tools but the players is truly what matters.

 

It's often said the best players can win with a half baked potato against the cheese lists at the hands of a noob, that doesn't make half baked potatoes actually good.

If the best players then also gravitate towards the 2% best armies to get aby advantage, that skews the numbers up.

 

You're also just looking at wins here, not wins as a percentage of how many players bring those armies. Noobs and pro's alike take the strong cookie cutter builds.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Oh well here we go again. I for one am stoked about CA 2018.

[HighMarshalAmp]

Oh well here we go again. I for one am stoked about CA 2018.

I didn't have much grief with the Codex to begin with. Now Grav is cheaper and my guys have had a whole lotta Grav for ages anyway :D

So the few corrections I actually feel are nice and everything new is a bonus and I'm very excited to try it in my games.

 

Terminators still aren't a great choice, but they'll never be S5 T5 anyway so I wasn't holding out for much there :D

 

Grey Knights got screwed though. Marginal point reductions, no new rules, nothing like we had hoped for. Which wouldn't be so bad if GW hadn't hyped the GK changes so much.

 

Nothing like that with C:SM.

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

 

*Iron Hands, in fact, do not have a single named character despite having existed in the game for decades.  Which I imagine is pretty infuriating for them, as even I'm a little pissed at the idea, and I don't play Iron Hands.

 

 

I know I'm pretty infuriated about it (IH successor here).

I really hope Vigilus 2 brings us a character+formation, or permits us to use char crafting in matched play to make up for it....

[GreyCrow]

One question to ask though : is the tournament ruleset following the intent behind the balancing of each faction?

 

Or are they incentivizing different things in army buildings that Marines aren't particularily good at?

 

Examples:

I know some TO have preset maps and scenarios with set objectives. Part of the 40k design is to choose your own objective placement to nudge the scenario in your favour.

Can't tell how many times placing objectives in areas with very poor LOS to and from helped against shooty armies.

 

If the scenario is preset, there will be an optimal army to deal with it. Probably not the Marines.

 

___

 

Another question to ask : Are the Marines players in these Tournaments the most competitive and knowledgeable about the game?

 

Marines are the gateway drug for 40k. Xenos armies are usually a 2nd army for the game. This indicates already broader knowledge of the units and mechanics, especially if these players also play/played Marines from time to time.

 

___

 

Final questions to ask : do all armies function similarily in respect to the ruleset and their list building?

 

40k is a statistical system. You beat probability through redundancy and weight of dice. Marines are already at a disadvantage due to smaller numbers.

If the Marines list is 'diverse', it puts the player at a further disadvantage, simply due to the lack of redundancy.

 

Xenos armies tend to have either more bodies, or sharper tools for given situations.

 

I've had very strong successes lately with spam lists. I ran a 1000pts list with 20 naked Tacticals, 5 Scouts, 2 Las/Bolter Predators and 2 Vindicators. I ideally wanted to run 4 Las/Bolter Predators but I didn't have the models.

 

It actually works okay.

 

___

 

Final question : are Marines harder to play than any other army?

 

Short answer : Yes they are, for 2 reasons.

 

1) They have average performance compared to more polarized designs found in other books.

It's harder to set up decisive actions, and performance over time (sustain) is really the goal to look for.

That means more discipline in playing and less opportunity to do crazy game changing moves.

Players have to think and execute a battleplan throughout the game, rather than turn by turn, which adds a layer of complexity.

 

Original battle company structure also meant that units HAD to fire support or melee support each other. Which is harder to think of rather than have units operating independently.

 

2) Their options are so diverse in the Codexes, from number of units to loadout options. Other armies do not have so much burden of choice.

In turn, it's easy to lose track in building the army because this diversity IS cool.

Players have to show discipline when selecting the units, and it's harder than in other books, where they pretty much guide you into understanding where each unit fits in their role.

[UnkyHamHam]

One question to ask though : is the tournament ruleset following the intent behind the balancing of each faction?

 

Or are they incentivizing different things in army buildings that Marines aren't particularily good at?

 

Examples:

I know some TO have preset maps and scenarios with set objectives. Part of the 40k design is to choose your own objective placement to nudge the scenario in your favour.

Can't tell how many times placing objectives in areas with very poor LOS to and from helped against shooty armies.

 

If the scenario is preset, there will be an optimal army to deal with it. Probably not the Marines.

 

___

 

Another question to ask : Are the Marines players in these Tournaments the most competitive and knowledgeable about the game?

 

Marines are the gateway drug for 40k. Xenos armies are usually a 2nd army for the game. This indicates already broader knowledge of the units and mechanics, especially if these players also play/played Marines from time to time.

 

___

 

Final questions to ask : do all armies function similarily in respect to the ruleset and their list building?

 

40k is a statistical system. You beat probability through redundancy and weight of dice. Marines are already at a disadvantage due to smaller numbers.

If the Marines list is 'diverse', it puts the player at a further disadvantage, simply due to the lack of redundancy.

 

Xenos armies tend to have either more bodies, or sharper tools for given situations.

 

I've had very strong successes lately with spam lists. I ran a 1000pts list with 20 naked Tacticals, 5 Scouts, 2 Las/Bolter Predators and 2 Vindicators. I ideally wanted to run 4 Las/Bolter Predators but I didn't have the models.

 

It actually works okay.

 

___

 

Final question : are Marines harder to play than any other army?

 

Short answer : Yes they are, for 2 reasons.

 

1) They have average performance compared to more polarized designs found in other books.

It's harder to set up decisive actions, and performance over time (sustain) is really the goal to look for.

That means more discipline in playing and less opportunity to do crazy game changing moves.

Players have to think and execute a battleplan throughout the game, rather than turn by turn, which adds a layer of complexity.

 

Original battle company structure also meant that units HAD to fire support or melee support each other. Which is harder to think of rather than have units operating independently.

 

2) Their options are so diverse in the Codexes, from number of units to loadout options. Other armies do not have so much burden of choice.

In turn, it's easy to lose track in building the army because this diversity IS cool.

Players have to show discipline when selecting the units, and it's harder than in other books, where they pretty much guide you into understanding where each unit fits in their role.

This is the kind of game theory that definitely deserves its own thread to discuss these claims. I'd be very interested in further discussions on this. I too have believed much of this to be true for some time.

[MARK0SIAN]

Marines can’t be balanced without an entirely new codex. I agree with those who say they’d welcome back Matt Ward at this point as he at least likes the faction. You can really spot this edition which codexes were written by people who loved the faction (orks, Eldar, knights, some chaos) and those that felt like they were written by someone who was having to complete a job they didn’t want to do and put in minimum effort.

 

CA was a wasted opportunity to fix some of the big picture balance problems in the game and did nothing to alter the balance of the different factions.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Marines need more than CA was going to give them. I wouldn't put too much stock in that list though, it's just too simplified I highly doubt that many mono codex lists are on that list. The breakdown of points may also be deceiving some lists may be the biggest of 3 fractions, others may be close.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Marines need a new codex but CA has helped a lot... I’m grateful.

[Lemondish]

Unpopular opinion - Marines will be fine after CA. CA will help them.

 

The problem isn't that the army cannot be balanced - that's absurd. Points drops to a variety of bubble units and special weapons will make them more competitive.

 

The thing is...points drops can't change how the army plays. Just because the army does not live up to what you or others think it should be does not make it impossible to balance.

 

The problem is that many thought CA would and could actually make massive changes to the entire line despite it never being likely in the first place.

[GreyCrow]

Words of wisdom Lemondish

 

What we actually need like UnkyHamHam said is a proper objective study on what competitive lists we can build.

 

I have a feeling that this will be vastly different from the headcannon of many of us about what we would like to be competitive.