LVO Space Marine results

[superwill]

 

I would say that having 1 list finish within the top 30% doesn’t to me at all disprove the poor rating. When you have 1 list out of 150 in the top 30%, that’s proof for you that they can’t possibly be trash? Fascinating.

Where is that statement coming from lol. What's 30% of 750? Is there only one marine list in that number?

Ah okay, I guess I misunderstood your earlier comment. You were talking about total representation in the top 30%? If so, about 25 out of 150 marine armies are in the top 30%. The average would obviously be around 50, so marines are roughly half of what they would be if they were average. I guess it depends on what you mean by “solidly being inside the top 30%” whether you count half of average as that. Edited January 30, 2022 by superwill

[SkimaskMohawk]

Competitive is when a faction is as strong to win tournaments against top tier armies. But in some cases there are auto-losses. Even the BT player  Ogden who scored all won games with 100 points was not able to run undefeated. And moreso in the Top 8 are no space marines.

 

Even the strong Dark Angels (which played just with their own Terminators which are very different to other marines) are far from able to win the LVO.

 

 

 

@superwill - THX.

 

So according to you, marines winning other tournaments didn't qualify them as competitive, despite beating better factions. But not being able to break top 8 in a tournament with 768 players condemns them to trash?

 

John Lennon on Custodes, TJ Lannigan on GSC, and Mani Cheema on Wracks got less battle points (how they determine placing) than Tom Ogden on Templars; Charlie Andre's Dark Angels got more points than almost anyone out of the top 8. Marines have never been at the same level as DE, Orks and the rest of the nonsense. But at the biggest tournament in the world, against the best players playing better armies, marines are able to be piloted extremely far and rack up fantastic scores.

 

Marines have the tools to do well, compete in the meta, and potentially win tournaments. Most of us just suck at the game and can't figure out how the same list can go so far. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

I would say that having 1 list finish within the top 30% doesn’t to me at all disprove the poor rating. When you have 1 list out of 150 in the top 30%, that’s proof for you that they can’t possibly be trash? Fascinating.

Where is that statement coming from lol. What's 30% of 750? Is there only one marine list in that number?

Ah okay, I guess I misunderstood your earlier comment. You were talking about total representation in the top 30%? If so, about 25 out of 150 marine armies are in the top 30%. The average would obviously be around 50, so marines are roughly half of what they would be if they were average. I guess it depends on what you mean by “solidly being inside the top 30%” whether you count half of average as that.

you understand there’s an independent variable right?

[Dark Shepherd]

Theres a perception bias of marines being very competetive/favoured due to hate of the golden child but also they get their codex first so each edition starts with them dominating or doing really well.

 

Then they get a secone codex too for an extra bump

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Competitive is when a faction is as strong to win tournaments against top tier armies. But in some cases there are auto-losses. Even the BT player  Ogden who scored all won games with 100 points was not able to run undefeated. And moreso in the Top 8 are no space marines.

 

Even the strong Dark Angels (which played just with their own Terminators which are very different to other marines) are far from able to win the LVO.

 

 

 

@superwill - THX.

 

By this definition I think marines are competitive just look at the Nottingham GT, out of 300 players two marine lists in the top 8, Iron hands made the top 4. Which shouldn't be possible with "auto-losses", but they made it. That was a really recent tournament not me cherry picking results it was literally covered by goonhamer on 26th.

 

I don't think marines top tier, but I do think they're competitive because they have a shot at placing. In my opinion the subfraction rule changes are going to hurt SoB, GK, and TS which will probably push marines up. The older supplements need work, but I don't think garbage or trash tier.

[superwill]

 

 

 

I would say that having 1 list finish within the top 30% doesn’t to me at all disprove the poor rating. When you have 1 list out of 150 in the top 30%, that’s proof for you that they can’t possibly be trash? Fascinating.

Where is that statement coming from lol. What's 30% of 750? Is there only one marine list in that number?

Ah okay, I guess I misunderstood your earlier comment. You were talking about total representation in the top 30%? If so, about 25 out of 150 marine armies are in the top 30%. The average would obviously be around 50, so marines are roughly half of what they would be if they were average. I guess it depends on what you mean by “solidly being inside the top 30%” whether you count half of average as that.

you understand there’s an independent variable right?

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that have 25/150 in the top 30% makes them trash, I’m disputing the suggestion that it proves they’re not. Likewise earlier; I wasn’t arguing that having 5 in the top 100 makes them trash, just disputing the suggestion that having 5 in the top 100 proves that they’re not.

 

Hope the difference is clear.

[Tokugawa]

Nids/Druks/Custodes has 2nd-4th most players in LVO because they are just the 3 most powerful factions in current meta. They all have 10+ players with 6-0 or 5-1. Players bring them to win big events.

 

Marine has 1st most players…because marine. We all know that.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

I would say that having 1 list finish within the top 30% doesn’t to me at all disprove the poor rating. When you have 1 list out of 150 in the top 30%, that’s proof for you that they can’t possibly be trash? Fascinating.

Where is that statement coming from lol. What's 30% of 750? Is there only one marine list in that number?

Ah okay, I guess I misunderstood your earlier comment. You were talking about total representation in the top 30%? If so, about 25 out of 150 marine armies are in the top 30%. The average would obviously be around 50, so marines are roughly half of what they would be if they were average. I guess it depends on what you mean by “solidly being inside the top 30%” whether you count half of average as that.

you understand there’s an independent variable right?

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that have 25/150 in the top 30% makes them trash, I’m disputing the suggestion that it proves they’re not. Likewise earlier; I wasn’t arguing that having 5 in the top 100 makes them trash, just disputing the suggestion that having 5 in the top 100 proves that they’re not.

 

Hope the difference is clear.

I think 5 top 100 out of 700 kinda does prove they don’t suck…unless you’re saying that those players are literally 5 of the best players alive, having 5 placing in the top 100 proves that you only have to be good to do good with them.

 

It proves they’re not trash tied, it doesn’t prove they’re great by any means, just that they’re not trash.

[Orange Knight]

They aren't trash, but they are still underpowered.

 

Some chapters are also much worse than others, that's an issue no one is addressing here. Dark Angels can get some good wins, sure, but you won't have that same performance with the Imperial Fists, for example.

[Ultramarine1999]

 

 

What I'm saying is that if there's over 700 players, then solidly being in the top 30% is hardly trash.

 

What I'm saying is all that granulation of ranking down to the 255th was marine players going 4-2 at the most competitive tournament in the world; a very respectable score, and clearly not trash.

 

What I'm saying is that a book that's highest end competitive builds hover around an A- is doing right what you'd expect in the face of dark eldar, wracks, crushers, nids, grey knights and all the better lists. I never said they were the most competitive army, or that they would win lvo; I said they're capable of competing in tournament. Placing in the top 2%, the top 3% and even the top 30% for our guy who went 3/3 is demonstrable of being able to compete.

 

Compete =/= roll the event.

It shows that perhaps Dark Angels and Templars are capable of competing to some extent in very good hands, but the standard marine codex chapters not so much looking at the data.

I'm still trying to understand what you people mean with "compete" and how competitive you thought they were before the biggest tournament. What percentile of the competition is high enough to say they're able to compete in tournament for you?

 

I notice we've already shifted from "trash" to "not able to compete", so let me know when you guys want to firm up your definitions so we can analyze without moving goal posts.

I'm not speaking for anyone else I'm making my own point, the fact remains most chapters win rates are below 40% some below 30% in some cases. You're the one throwing out general statements like marines are very good /A tier which is skeptical at best.

[Medjugorje]

 

Competitive is when a faction is as strong to win tournaments against top tier armies. But in some cases there are auto-losses. Even the BT player  Ogden who scored all won games with 100 points was not able to run undefeated. And moreso in the Top 8 are no space marines.

 

Even the strong Dark Angels (which played just with their own Terminators which are very different to other marines) are far from able to win the LVO.

 

 

 

@superwill - THX.

 

So according to you, marines winning other tournaments didn't qualify them as competitive, despite beating better factions. But not being able to break top 8 in a tournament with 768 players condemns them to trash?

 

John Lennon on Custodes, TJ Lannigan on GSC, and Mani Cheema on Wracks got less battle points (how they determine placing) than Tom Ogden on Templars; Charlie Andre's Dark Angels got more points than almost anyone out of the top 8. Marines have never been at the same level as DE, Orks and the rest of the nonsense. But at the biggest tournament in the world, against the best players playing better armies, marines are able to be piloted extremely far and rack up fantastic scores.

 

Marines have the tools to do well, compete in the meta, and potentially win tournaments. Most of us just suck at the game and can't figure out how the same list can go so far. 

 

its much more easy to win against weaker player / lists / factions. Ogden lost the secound game so he wasnt playing against the best of the best. !!!

[superwill]

 

 

 

 

 

I would say that having 1 list finish within the top 30% doesn’t to me at all disprove the poor rating. When you have 1 list out of 150 in the top 30%, that’s proof for you that they can’t possibly be trash? Fascinating.

Where is that statement coming from lol. What's 30% of 750? Is there only one marine list in that number?

Ah okay, I guess I misunderstood your earlier comment. You were talking about total representation in the top 30%? If so, about 25 out of 150 marine armies are in the top 30%. The average would obviously be around 50, so marines are roughly half of what they would be if they were average. I guess it depends on what you mean by “solidly being inside the top 30%” whether you count half of average as that.

you understand there’s an independent variable right?

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that have 25/150 in the top 30% makes them trash, I’m disputing the suggestion that it proves they’re not. Likewise earlier; I wasn’t arguing that having 5 in the top 100 makes them trash, just disputing the suggestion that having 5 in the top 100 proves that they’re not.

 

Hope the difference is clear.

I think 5 top 100 out of 700 kinda does prove they don’t suck…unless you’re saying that those players are literally 5 of the best players alive, having 5 placing in the top 100 proves that you only have to be good to do good with them.

 

It proves they’re not trash tied, it doesn’t prove they’re great by any means, just that they’re not trash.

Well… I guess it’s hard to argue something so subjective (although it feels like the burden of proof lies on the person trying to show why it proves your point, rather than the person asking how) but maybe we just have different expectations.

 

So like, would you only call an army trash tier if it had 0 players in the top 100? Is that your metric? Or is it some other specific number between 0-5? And you wouldn’t factor in how many people are running the army, you’d judge their presence in the top 100 equally regardless of whether there’s 5 armies or 150 armies? Or you -would- factor it in, but feel like marines’ 4x underperforming the AVERAGE just isn’t significant enough to register on your metric? If your suggestion is that any army that can make top 100 at a major event can’t possibly be trash, then I guess we just don’t have a trash tier since every army has made top 100 somewhere sometime? So every army is competitive then I suppose? There are no bottom factions?

 

“unless you’re saying that those players are literally 5 of the best players alive, having 5 placing in the top 100 proves that you only have to be good to do good with them.” This whole argument was very weird and not logical. But I’ll attempt to engage it - in terms of “proof”, it really doesn’t provide much of anything resembling hard evidence. In a game involving skill as well as luck and chance, you roll enough dice and some players will get lucky. When the stats show marines are doing very poorly, a handful of outliers (5 in the top 100, 2 in the top 90) amongst 150 entrants really doesn’t prove much. 150 entries of even the worst army in the game would be expected to produce some outliers. And in addressing the other (less relevant) part of your point, some of these guys -are- some of the best players in the world anyway??

 

I totally understand that there are complexities in data around what the top players are running, whether some players are more casual, etc. But the problem seems to be that you disregard any metric as even being capable of proving that an army isn’t good. Apparently W/L ratio doesn’t matter, top placings doesn’t matter, average placings doesn’t matter, comparison of army representation vs placings doesn’t matter. I’m just not even sure what an army would need to do to stop you “proving” it’s not bad.

[Medjugorje]

i dont call AM trash because the codex is outdated but Marines have a 9th editon codex and a few very new supps ... and for that facts they are trash.

In LVO the new CA makes them even worst because the best units gone up while other armies which perform VERY well in LVO got just minimal point adjustments (some of them even got cheaper !!)

[DesuVult]

Imperial Fists are in the 30% win range.  The codex seems quite trash.  Some supplements are good.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that if there's over 700 players, then solidly being in the top 30% is hardly trash.

 

What I'm saying is all that granulation of ranking down to the 255th was marine players going 4-2 at the most competitive tournament in the world; a very respectable score, and clearly not trash.

 

What I'm saying is that a book that's highest end competitive builds hover around an A- is doing right what you'd expect in the face of dark eldar, wracks, crushers, nids, grey knights and all the better lists. I never said they were the most competitive army, or that they would win lvo; I said they're capable of competing in tournament. Placing in the top 2%, the top 3% and even the top 30% for our guy who went 3/3 is demonstrable of being able to compete.

 

Compete =/= roll the event.

It shows that perhaps Dark Angels and Templars are capable of competing to some extent in very good hands, but the standard marine codex chapters not so much looking at the data.

I'm still trying to understand what you people mean with "compete" and how competitive you thought they were before the biggest tournament. What percentile of the competition is high enough to say they're able to compete in tournament for you?

 

I notice we've already shifted from "trash" to "not able to compete", so let me know when you guys want to firm up your definitions so we can analyze without moving goal posts.

I'm not speaking for anyone else I'm making my own point, the fact remains most chapters win rates are below 40% some below 30% in some cases. You're the one throwing out general statements like marines are very good /A tier which is skeptical at best.

I've said their best lists are A-- and the faction isn't trash; that it is able of competing.

 

Does it have good internal balance? No. Do a lot of the subfactions need updates? Yes.

 

Can the codex still compete with an array of its supplements? Somehow, yes.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would say that having 1 list finish within the top 30% doesn’t to me at all disprove the poor rating. When you have 1 list out of 150 in the top 30%, that’s proof for you that they can’t possibly be trash? Fascinating.

Where is that statement coming from lol. What's 30% of 750? Is there only one marine list in that number?

Ah okay, I guess I misunderstood your earlier comment. You were talking about total representation in the top 30%? If so, about 25 out of 150 marine armies are in the top 30%. The average would obviously be around 50, so marines are roughly half of what they would be if they were average. I guess it depends on what you mean by “solidly being inside the top 30%” whether you count half of average as that.

you understand there’s an independent variable right?

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that have 25/150 in the top 30% makes them trash, I’m disputing the suggestion that it proves they’re not. Likewise earlier; I wasn’t arguing that having 5 in the top 100 makes them trash, just disputing the suggestion that having 5 in the top 100 proves that they’re not.

 

Hope the difference is clear.

I think 5 top 100 out of 700 kinda does prove they don’t suck…unless you’re saying that those players are literally 5 of the best players alive, having 5 placing in the top 100 proves that you only have to be good to do good with them.

 

It proves they’re not trash tied, it doesn’t prove they’re great by any means, just that they’re not trash.

Well… I guess it’s hard to argue something so subjective (although it feels like the burden of proof lies on the person trying to show why it proves your point, rather than the person asking how) but maybe we just have different expectations.

 

So like, would you only call an army trash tier if it had 0 players in the top 100? Is that your metric? Or is it some other specific number between 0-5? And you wouldn’t factor in how many people are running the army, you’d judge their presence in the top 100 equally regardless of whether there’s 5 armies or 150 armies? Or you -would- factor it in, but feel like marines’ 4x underperforming the AVERAGE just isn’t significant enough to register on your metric? If your suggestion is that any army that can make top 100 at a major event can’t possibly be trash, then I guess we just don’t have a trash tier since every army has made top 100 somewhere sometime? So every army is competitive then I suppose? There are no bottom factions?

 

“unless you’re saying that those players are literally 5 of the best players alive, having 5 placing in the top 100 proves that you only have to be good to do good with them.” This whole argument was very weird and not logical. But I’ll attempt to engage it - in terms of “proof”, it really doesn’t provide much of anything resembling hard evidence. In a game involving skill as well as luck and chance, you roll enough dice and some players will get lucky. When the stats show marines are doing very poorly, a handful of outliers (5 in the top 100, 2 in the top 90) amongst 150 entrants really doesn’t prove much. 150 entries of even the worst army in the game would be expected to produce some outliers. And in addressing the other (less relevant) part of your point, some of these guys -are- some of the best players in the world anyway??

 

I totally understand that there are complexities in data around what the top players are running, whether some players are more casual, etc. But the problem seems to be that you disregard any metric as even being capable of proving that an army isn’t good. Apparently W/L ratio doesn’t matter, top placings doesn’t matter, average placings doesn’t matter, comparison of army representation vs placings doesn’t matter. I’m just not even sure what an army would need to do to stop you “proving” it’s not bad.

1. I don’t think a single event can provide enough data to say which factions are strong and which are weak.

2. 1 maybe even 2 in the top 100 could be written off as a fluke of 1 or 2 extremely good players being outliers.

3. I think the fact that SM players from multiple chapters end up in the top 30% of many if not most tournaments.

Doesn’t matter how many players are using the faction if the faction is trash/bad then few should be able to get success with that faction.

4. I sum competitive up as meaning good player can regularly get good results, with the faction.

[DesuVult]

 

Doesn’t matter how many players are using the faction if the faction is trash/bad then few should be able to get success with that faction.

 

I feel this is a poor argument.  If a large percentage of the field is from one faction you must take that into account and attempt to estimate how many would likely reach self determined breakpoints through only facing their own faction.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Doesn’t matter how many players are using the faction if the faction is trash/bad then few should be able to get success with that faction.

I feel this is a poor argument. If a large percentage of the field is from one faction you must take that into account and attempt to estimate how many would likely reach self determined breakpoints through only facing their own faction.

sure if that faction is a flat out majority of most or all events like 70%, but that’s not the case for space marines.

[spessmarine]

I'll always expect the space marines cluster as a whole to err on the lower win rate side and that's perfectly fine. It is the most popular faction encompassing many different people, and I imagine will have the most people giving a tournament a whirl for funsies or just to take a crack at it. That crowd is fine to do so, but it will always drag down the win rate a bit by sheer volume of noobs.

[DesuVult]

 

 

Doesn’t matter how many players are using the faction if the faction is trash/bad then few should be able to get success with that faction.

I feel this is a poor argument. If a large percentage of the field is from one faction you must take that into account and attempt to estimate how many would likely reach self determined breakpoints through only facing their own faction.

sure if that faction is a flat out majority of most or all events like 70%, but that’s not the case for space marines.

 

 

Unless I am mistaken 30% of the field being one faction would give that faction good odds at reasonable representation in the top 30% solely through defeating itself and at LVO marines were almost 20% of the field.

[Dracos]

Just curious if I followed a couple of these numbers correctly?

 

Marines were 5 out 100? Wouldn’t that 5%?

 

Marines outnumbered other factions 4 to 1?

- wouldn’t that lower that 5% to something relatively around 1-2%?

 

I could careless about one tournament but BCP seems to have compiled the largest data set possible and if I recall Marines are 40% well below the 50% target win rate for being average.

 

Most importantly … you can start them all in one Codex if you cant put all Marines in the same basket. Imperial Fist and Raven Guard just don’t compare to Iron Hands and Black Templar. White Scars and Salamander players can tell you how quickly a Chapter can go from Prince to Pauper. Frankly anyone making the argument “Marines are good” are talking about the two most recent factions that haven’t been nerfed yet.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@Dracos - when I'm saying the marine book is fine, I'm just talking about the core book not the supplements. The first batch has needed to be re done for a while, and honestly RG and IF really deserve some love. I don't really agree with point increases they gave marines, but the subfraction changes are going to have a pretty negative on a lot of armies. Just wish they would nerf DE abit more because they've been a problem for quite awhile now.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I'll always expect the space marines cluster as a whole to err on the lower win rate side and that's perfectly fine. It is the most popular faction encompassing many different people, and I imagine will have the most people giving a tournament a whirl for funsies or just to take a crack at it. That crowd is fine to do so, but it will always drag down the win rate a bit by sheer volume of noobs.

exactly.

SM being so popular among newbs means people who are just giving tournaments a try just for funsies with no real expectation of winning are likely to be overwhelmingly among the SMs vs other factions

 

 

 

 

Doesn’t matter how many players are using the faction if the faction is trash/bad then few should be able to get success with that faction.

I feel this is a poor argument. If a large percentage of the field is from one faction you must take that into account and attempt to estimate how many would likely reach self determined breakpoints through only facing their own faction.

sure if that faction is a flat out majority of most or all events like 70%, but that’s not the case for space marines.

Unless I am mistaken 30% of the field being one faction would give that faction good odds at reasonable representation in the top 30% solely through defeating itself and at LVO marines were almost 20% of the field.

20% is a small minority…not really sure what you’re talking about but ok

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Just curious if I followed a couple of these numbers correctly?

 

Marines were 5 out 100? Wouldn’t that 5%?

 

Marines outnumbered other factions 4 to 1?

- wouldn’t that lower that 5% to something relatively around 1-2%?

 

I could careless about one tournament but BCP seems to have compiled the largest data set possible and if I recall Marines are 40% well below the 50% target win rate for being average.

 

Most importantly … you can start them all in one Codex if you cant put all Marines in the same basket. Imperial Fist and Raven Guard just don’t compare to Iron Hands and Black Templar. White Scars and Salamander players can tell you how quickly a Chapter can go from Prince to Pauper. Frankly anyone making the argument “Marines are good” are talking about the two most recent factions that haven’t been nerfed yet.

however 40% is far from being trash tier like the OP claims.

Most people seem to agree 45-55% is a solid range for a faction to be in, meaning some points reductions or minor rules changes to the main codex could likely put SM into that 45-55% range

[Medjugorje]

 

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that if there's over 700 players, then solidly being in the top 30% is hardly trash.

 

What I'm saying is all that granulation of ranking down to the 255th was marine players going 4-2 at the most competitive tournament in the world; a very respectable score, and clearly not trash.

 

What I'm saying is that a book that's highest end competitive builds hover around an A- is doing right what you'd expect in the face of dark eldar, wracks, crushers, nids, grey knights and all the better lists. I never said they were the most competitive army, or that they would win lvo; I said they're capable of competing in tournament. Placing in the top 2%, the top 3% and even the top 30% for our guy who went 3/3 is demonstrable of being able to compete.

 

Compete =/= roll the event.

It shows that perhaps Dark Angels and Templars are capable of competing to some extent in very good hands, but the standard marine codex chapters not so much looking at the data.

I'm still trying to understand what you people mean with "compete" and how competitive you thought they were before the biggest tournament. What percentile of the competition is high enough to say they're able to compete in tournament for you?

 

I notice we've already shifted from "trash" to "not able to compete", so let me know when you guys want to firm up your definitions so we can analyze without moving goal posts.

I'm not speaking for anyone else I'm making my own point, the fact remains most chapters win rates are below 40% some below 30% in some cases. You're the one throwing out general statements like marines are very good /A tier which is skeptical at best.

I've said their best lists are A-- and the faction isn't trash; that it is able of competing.

 

Does it have good internal balance? No. Do a lot of the subfactions need updates? Yes.

 

Can the codex still compete with an array of its supplements? Somehow, yes.

 

but look again... it cant compete EVEN with supplements.