Fair enough, E&C.
However, when was the last time someone who writes "no one takes formation X" or "everyone takes formation Y" actually cited the kind of sources you do above? Even when all-or-nothing statements are based upon battle results, no one can tell because it all sounds like hyperbole; 1) not everyone (or even the majority) posts their results, which is their fault but the fact remains; 2) the results are not even close to scientific (which is probably impossible anyway) - more correlation instead of causation; 3) In the Northeast US, I have seen many SM lists that do not use warhounds and win or make a good showing. This includes playtests and normal games within my local group, and tournaments.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

Dave frequently wins playing Marines with no Warhounds and with Vindicators* and Tactical Marines.

* That's not to say that we think that Vindicators are fine as they are now.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Mephiston. Every single time.

Really. Done. With. Thread. Topic. Honest.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And here we approach the heart of many issues. We all play in varying different meta levels, and these all effect both the internal and external balance of all lists.

For example Mosc, I can't remember the last time I faced an eldar army that had warp spiders in it. This year of the 17 eldar lists only 4 have pure warp spider formations with a further 2 using them in mixed formations. So in the UK they really aren't seen as a game winner. Powerful yes, too good, not sure anymore. Going back through all the lists I have only 11 our of 51 have Warp spiders, in fact Shining Spears are more common!

One metas auto include is anothers never seen. It is then the job of the AC to collate all the debate and decide what the way forward should be.

The debate will never end. Every year we will have the 'mud marine' debate followed closely by 'why aren't Fire Warriors FF4+'. In fact I know kinda know what season we are in by such debates now

Not trying to hound you into staying in the debate, honest; but for those still in it:
Well then, the rest of the "no one/everyone takes" crowd needs to jump on Mephiston's bandwagon of admirable posting habits. Like I said, when the all-or-nothing statements are posted without support of any kind (or even a qualifier about incomplete reporting), it all sounds like hyperbolic nonsense whether its based in fact or not. How can the reader tell, especially when its someone who has just experienced the opposite of said all-or-nothing statement?

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

Well i couldnt resist a reply after reading this thread.

After reading all that has been said, some of the points i found myself nodding with and others just thinking well they are just nit picking minor issues.
But the one thing that weather its in agreement with the original posting or not or even relevant lol, But my main vibe i get when i read all the changes thoughts and discussions is this.
Lists are great, change can work and variants add flavor but please why are we all pouring so much effort and work into variant lists and other things when we dont even have a united world wide rule set that we can play too ?
Personally i think alot of the issues of this and that and oh he doesnt play with "X" or only ever takes "Y" might (or might not) be more refined and less of a picking point with people if they are all coming from the same angle when making there points of view.
It seems like a baby trying to run befor it can walk, by developing more and more army lists with out getting the "Compendium" sorted and "released" ( i use this word for lack of a better term).

Thats just my 2 cents worth, and for the record im very happy with the open source community that is this website, i think it does a fantastic job and produces some top end content.

and i think L4 summed it up perfectly, at the end of the day its a game, enjoy it and have fun and "Do what works for you"


Tim NZ

I like the Epic UK records because a reasonably stable group of players with enough new people joining have generated a lot of details including the army lists. A lot of games have now been played and recorded. It allows you to make sweeping statements. No where else plays as manyt o=tournies throughout the year with so many factors recorded. The amount of games means most are now familure with the various strategies and tactics and every so often a play pops up with the sorts of lists you see online or when Epic was first about and they have a very tough time. Thunderbolts have finally become ubiquitous. Its only natural that after so many games the strong points of each list show through and conversly what isn't as good and all lists have it.

But of course there are differences. EpicUK marauders are not as good as NetEA ones. But everyone who wishes to win has an anti thunderhawk/landing craft strategy somewhere with most going to meet them in the air. Into that environment aircraft carefully fly.

The non warhound lists are of course possible. I have played and won games without warhounds, indeed you can see some of them on the EpicUK site (I had a warlord as well and this was before the marine ATSKNF changes). However I would have been a hell of a lot better off with warhounds.

I feel confident baldly stating that bar some very bad luck those two lists mentioned above would fail against me and a nigh identical bar adding in warhounds for some 'sub par' formations. And I don't even know whats in the lists (a list with 2 formations of marauders and built around that of course would be a bit different, still a warhound there would help me deal with enemy flak batteries). Saying that any list switching vindicators for warhounds will experience an efficiency rise

Perhaps the points come up so often because the changes never seem to get made?

Seriously. Look at the LR thread for a good example. People speak out against half-multi-meltas. People whole-heartedly embrace 75 point LRs. And as far as I can tell, we're going to do whatever Hena wants to do.

That doesn't feel like good development to me.

Equally, I find it frustrating that the general theme among the arguments against changes seems to be "oh, it's alright if some things aren't perfect".

Screw that. We should make changes if they'll make things better, and not make them if they won't. But we shouldn't not make changes just because people don't like change.

Oh, and to specifically address Dobbsy's original post - yes, every army will have staple units. But the fact is that the Space Marines' staple units are units that should be less common, not ubiquitous.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

But what defines "better"? It's equally as bad to make changes just because people LIKE change. I've seen things rammed through at work because a majority of the people LIKE it even though it's not the best choice or sometimes even a good choice. Just because the majority clamors for something doesn't make it good.

That's not to say input from everyone isn't valuable, but it should be up to the Army Champions and eventually the ERC to filter that input and discern what is actually a problem with balance versus a change for the sake of change. Just because a unit appears more often does NOT make a strong case to nerf it or change a list. It is cause to examine why this is the case, but I think it's very bad to use it as a springboard to say "yeah, it does show up quite a bit, we need to end that".

EDIT: I think it's also important to see WHO we are using as a guide for what needs changed. It's fine to say that Codex Marines are one of the most powerful armies based on the EUK results, but I think it's just as important to note that people like Dave Thomas tend to finish in the top tier at a tournament regardless of what army they bring.

_________________
-Vaaish

True. But equally just because it's a change doesn't mean it's bad.

However, proposed changes don't seem to be debated on their merits. They seem to be debated on a basis of "your interpretation of the list is wrong - you need to play better/read the fluff". Usually without explanation of what should be done or referenced in order to justify what currently stands. Or people are told that we're changing things too much, and there's been enough change.

The existing list seems to be taken by many people as "how Space Marines should work". I'd be a lot more comfortable if the people arguing against change seemed to be arguing for a different interpretation of how Marines work (and that the current list represented that), rather than seeming to be arguing against change on the principle that the current list was close enough, and that change might cause problems.

But if the list is not meeting expectations, surely that is a sign of a problem?



I think if it were Tactical Squads or Assault Squads or Devastators or Predators or even Whirlwinds, you'd see less of that. But at the moment, the staple units of the Space Marine lists on the table seem not to be the staples of the Space Marine list in the fluff. One of them isn't even a Space Marine unit. And people notice that dissonance.



True. But on the other hand, if Dave Thomas is doing very well with a particularly army list configuration, it would seem fair to ask whether that army list configuration is what a Space Marine army 'should' look like.

Presumably, Mr. Thomas is competent enough to take something quite close to the most powerful army he can for his playstyle. If the most powerful army for the Space Marines is not representative of a theoretical Space Marine force, this may be a problem.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Ok, this is an admittedly very basic question, but I've cruised the forums for while this morning, procrastinating while I should be doing real work and haven't seen the records that people are talking about. I know about the battle report/results threads. However, if the EpicUK results are going to used to make sweeping statements on this forum, shouldn't it be a lot more transparent as to where to find them? Let's put it this way, if this isn't a stupid question (i.e. "It's right here [link], you lazy SoB, right under your nose") then that's a problem, IMO.

Please don't call me a lazy SoB, even if it's true

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

Start here - http://www.epic-uk.co.uk/ukepicachampio ... evrace.php then go were the mood takes you. Data is from all tournaments in the UK since Feb 2008. All the lists taken since Jan 2009 are available from the individual tournament result pages.

More info can probably be extracted on request, but I can't and won't commit to deadlines for it.

Fairy snuff, its not that clear.

Go to epic-uk.co.uk, on the left hand side menu is an option Epic UK Championship

That records the various tourneys. Investigating anything that can hyperlink will show you different things.

For a completely random example if you go to here
http://epic-uk.co.uk/ukepicachampionship/t6x.php?tid=35
You will see who won what against who in Britcon this year.

The scoring for tourneys is based on 0-32 points to fit with other competitions that take place in the UK but broadly it breaks down as
3rd Turn Victory
Victory with a difference of 4 or more goals 32-0
Victory with a difference of 3 goals 29-3
Victory with a difference of 2 goals 26-6
Victory with a difference of 1 goal 23-9
4th Turn Victory
Victory with a difference of 4 or more goals 29-3
Victory with a difference of 3 goals 26-6
Victory with a difference of 2 goals 23-9
Victory with a difference of 1 goal 21-11
5th Turn Victory
Victory with a difference of 4 or more goals 26-6
Victory with a difference of 3 goals 23-9
Victory with a difference of 2 goals 21-11
Victory with a difference of 1 goal 19-13

Draw – More than 150vps difference 18-14
Draw – Less than 150vps difference 16-16

Clicking the highlighted army shows you what was in them (so for example my list would be here
http://epic-uk.co.uk/ukepicachampionshi ... =25&tid=35)

You can also see lots of data on overall army performance and individual player performance.

Thanks Mephiston and TRC (esp. the points breakdown, that clears things up a bit when looking at the charts). I'll take a look.

*cough* "Fairy snuff"? Is that "fair enough"?

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

Minor point is that the Open Wars don't use the 32 point system. Nor did GW when they ran events if you go back that far.