Hopes and expectations for Marines in the new balance Dataslate and points updates.

[Metzombie]

So? It is still not influenced by changes to other things.

[phandaal]

Tempest being released during Nachmund is irrelevant. Tempest is its own separate version of Matched Play. It is not a "Nachmund" game mode.

 

If you want to align the games for Nephilim, use Nephilim CP changes and the new WLT/Relic Strategems.

[DesuVult]

I honestly never expected GW to tell marine players they were performing poorly because the players are bad at the game.

[Medjugorje]

44 minutes ago, DesuVult said:

I honestly never expected GW to tell marine players they were performing poorly because the players are bad at the game.

I dont know if I should lough because of this statement.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, DesuVult said:

I honestly never expected GW to tell marine players they were performing poorly because the players are bad at the game.

 

"Why should we change? They're the ones that suck!"

[Closet Skeleton]

1 hour ago, DesuVult said:

I honestly never expected GW to tell marine players they were performing poorly because the players are bad at the game.

 

Marine players who aren't using BA in the Nephilim mission pack are bad at the Nephilim mission pack. Blood Angels have a perfectly respectable win rate and its not because their supplement is the most powerful its because their playstyle is actually in line with scoring points.

 

When the game is 'evenly spaced objectives requiring wide board control and the ability to maintain momentum while trading units' then playing foot slogging marines is being bad at the game.

 

If marines were like Necrons in having 'show up, get 45 for secondary' then they'd be at a similar win rate. Shock tactics is too little but its still a much bigger buff than reducing the points on trap tanks would be. Un-nerfing Oath of Moment would have been nice too.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Closet Skeleton

[ValourousHeart]

54 minutes ago, DesuVult said:

I honestly never expected GW to tell marine players they were performing poorly because the players are bad at the game.

GW didn't say that... they said that marines were often a player's first army.  In other words they are new and inexperienced players.

 

Also since marines account for the most players a disproportionate number of games are marines vs marines... which means statistically most games marines play will count zero on the chart because Marines won and lost that game.  So the only way for marines to increase their score is to win against non-marines.  But the players playing non-marine codexes  tend to build armies specifically to beat marines since marines are the most prolific army.  And often the marine army is also built to face marines instead of the army it is actually facing.

[DesuVult]

15 minutes ago, ValourousHeart said:

GW didn't say that... they said that marines were often a player's first army.  In other words they are new and inexperienced players.

 

Also since marines account for the most players a disproportionate number of games are marines vs marines... which means statistically most games marines play will count zero on the chart because Marines won and lost that game.  So the only way for marines to increase their score is to win against non-marines.  But the players playing non-marine codexes  tend to build armies specifically to beat marines since marines are the most prolific army.  And often the marine army is also built to face marines instead of the army it is actually facing.

If marines trend towards an even 50% winrate due to common mirror matches their low winrate would mean marines are an even worse army than they appear.

Edited October 20, 2022 by DesuVult

[XeonDragon]

9 hours ago, Kallas said:

An absolutely nothing dataslate.

 

Leviathan nerf is welcome, but barely anything at all for any of the underperforming factions - I almost would have preferred no change at all than this measly piece of crap. Shock Tactics is mediocre in the absolute best situation possible.

 

As someone who has (mostly) shelved their space marine armies, as getting flogged isn't fun (but losing close games can be!) for Tyranids, but Behemoth Tyranids, this is welcome news :)

[Lord_Ikka]

Unless something in the points update (whenever that comes out) gives some severe discounts to SM, I'm going to stay with my Knights and Necrons (and maybe Scions...). Right now they just aren't as good in a competitive place, but they are fun to play in a Narrative/intro games that I've had lately.

[DesuVult]

Just going to mention that GW's claim about the winrate being brought down by inexperienced players appears to be untrue.  Stat check did a bit of math awhile back and did not find evidence of that based on comparing players on their 1st GT+ against players on their 2+ GT+.  Some armies do have massive disparities between new and experienced players but marines did not.  Also, if marines winrates were held down by new players marine players would show up in top 4 placings. 

[XeonDragon]

1 hour ago, DesuVult said:

 Also, if marines winrates were held down by new players marine players would show up in top 4 placings. 

 ^ this. If marines were good enough, at least some of the top players would run them and win. Jack Harper and Blood Angels earlier this year aside, the fact they aren't speaks volumes, as it means there is not a single build among all the space marine codices that the top players think is as good or better than non-marine options that will match their intended play style and plan. Not one.  

[Lord_Ikka]

True. You see disparity between newbies and veterans in win rates for armies that are generally considered "finesse" armies- like GSC or Aeldari. Marines aren't a finesse army, they are a baseline army in-game (regardless of how they are uber-elite in-universe) that doesn't require a high level of experience or tactical thinking to get the most out of. 

[Maritn]

Well I guess, the worse Space Marines are doing, the more "welcome" a second codex will be. Makes no sense to buff them to 50% now when you want to sell a second book.

[Kallas]

12 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

"Why should we change? They're the ones that suck!"

[Closet Skeleton]

10 hours ago, XeonDragon said:

 

As someone who has (mostly) shelved their space marine armies, as getting flogged isn't fun (but losing close games can be!) for Tyranids, but Behemoth Tyranids, this is welcome news :)

Still doesn't help Behemoth Tyranids that much since you still can't wound on 2s so our psychic power is still useless except on hormagaunts. Only really matters if you're throwing S5 base units into T5 leviathan synapse.

 

6 hours ago, Lord_Ikka said:

True. You see disparity between newbies and veterans in win rates for armies that are generally considered "finesse" armies- like GSC or Aeldari. Marines aren't a finesse army, they are a baseline army in-game (regardless of how they are uber-elite in-universe) that doesn't require a high level of experience or tactical thinking to get the most out of. 

 

 

Craftworld Eldar aren't a Finesse army, they're a mobile glass cannon army in a mission set and terrain meta that favours mobile glass cannons. 9th ed missions are so unfriendly to beginners that basically every army needs finesse to win. Managing 5 different objectives and trying to get to a high total is a lot more complicated than 'hide the squishy stuff until its time to jump out'.

[Emperor Ming]

So gw are suggesting

 

New players buy marines

 

Then go straight to event level games to lose games left right and centre

 

Honestly....have they lost the plot....

 

 

[DesuVult]

Sounds to me like GW is telling new players to play Horus Heresy.

[Brother Christopher]

Having been out of the loop game-wise and rule-wise for a long time, I tried to get my bearing by following your responses to the update. You throw around names like Nachmund, Nichilim and Tempest and I have no idea what these things are (I just understand that they are books or sets of rules or game modes) and at this point I feel like I shouldn't really care. The game must've gotten way more complex (convoluted?) since the last time I followed anything rules-related, which was probably around the start of the covid mess (I remember the restrictions in the hobby stores). I gather that the bottom line is this - it appears that GW failed to address the issues the current SM codex(es?) have and we have to wait for things to get better. Cool.

 

Anyway, I'll be heading back under that rock of mine. More than ever, I feel like I really should hibernate till 10th edition.

[Kallas]

2 hours ago, Brother Cristopher said:

The game must've gotten way more complex (convoluted?) since the last time I followed anything rules-related, which was probably around the start of the covid mess

 

Honestly, the Nephilim book (it and the Nachmund book are just Tournament Mission packs) is helpful in consolidating rules together: it gives all of the Tournament rules, including the pre-game process laid out fully, and it also puts all of the Secondary Objectives in one place (rather than having the core ones, plus your Factions' ones in your Codex and any other location), and it also includes a mostly up-to-date Rulebook after the missions. So Nephilim was actually really solid (bar the supply issues they had)

[Blade of Sigismund]

Yes, the ge has gotten convoluted if you follow tournament packs. It gets 100% better if you just play tempest.

 

It's amazing what happens when everyone has the same objectives to pull from.