stratigo wrote: I mean, it worked well enough on Tabletop titans. The trick isn't not dying, it's dying slow enough to max your primaries while always having a threat to an objective.
I watched their battle report because I play both DG and orks, and the ork player should not have won that game if both had known what they were doing. The DG player made lots of big mistakes and had an odd army to begin with, and the ork player got tons of rules wrong and was quite lucky. Clearly neither had a lot of experienced in operating their corresponding armies, the were both just running one of the armies that they happen to own. They are great guys and I really enjoyed watching them play, but I'd take the opinion from someone who knows orks inside out and has years of experience playing them like blackie or other posters on this forum over their any day. Someone who has played orks for a decade simply has a different insight on what works and what doesn't than someone who played the top tier build of 8th edition a couple of times.
Not to mention that one of the main weaknesses of DG is killing hordes, their best shot at doing so is a unit of terminators with storm bolters.
Honestly, I don't think warbosses are worth much any longer. two KFF and two wierdboyz. teleport boyz squads onto objectives, in front of advancing enemies. Don't look to kill with them. Use your shooting to kill.
Considering how you suggest wasting most of your CP and over half your points on boyz squads, what shooting do you suggest is doing the killing?
A klaw warboss is mandatory to kill certain things, and it does so at a great value. Heck, with death skulls I could even see the foot warboss making a return because he has objective secured.
Now, I admit, this kinda sucks for orks to not be great at melee any more, and more about shooting/trying to die slowly. And they aren't the best faction in the game. But they're mid tier. Better than GSC and demons for sure. And maybe dark eldar at this point too, poor dark eldar. I think they'll be a good counter against armies set up to kill marines.
Orks haven't been great at melee since 5th.
You also don't need to convince me that orks aren't having it bad. I said as much in the very first post, precisely because of all the great shooting units we have. Sparkly morkanaut, mek guns, wazbomm, burna bommers, SJD, scrapjet, KBB, da boomer and tank bustas all got below average price hikes and many of them will be better than before due 9th edition rules. The only thing that's deader than dead are lootas.
If orks will be struggling in 9th - of which I'm not sure of yet - it will be because of overcosted troops.
I dunno how you're gonna grab objectives without boyz. You don't need 90 of them, but a block of 30 is still gonna be useful. Unless MANz are suddenly good enough to delete the enemy's shock troops, but they strike me as way too fragile against the kind of shooting and melee everyone is going to tech in to to try and kill primaris marines. I think boyz are a sticky unit that's going to dodge what most people are teching into.
I dunno how you're gonna grab objectives without boyz. You don't need 90 of them, but a block of 30 is still gonna be useful. Unless MANz are suddenly good enough to delete the enemy's shock troops, but they strike me as way too fragile against the kind of shooting and melee everyone is going to tech in to to try and kill primaris marines. I think boyz are a sticky unit that's going to dodge what most people are teching into.
How do armies with no units bigger than 5 man squads (or even 10 actually) grab objectives? Elite oriented and or vehicles heavy ork lists will do the same.
I dunno how you're gonna grab objectives without boyz. You don't need 90 of them, but a block of 30 is still gonna be useful. Unless MANz are suddenly good enough to delete the enemy's shock troops, but they strike me as way too fragile against the kind of shooting and melee everyone is going to tech in to to try and kill primaris marines. I think boyz are a sticky unit that's going to dodge what most people are teching into.
How do armies with no units bigger than 5 man squads (or even 10 actually) grab objectives? Elite oriented and or vehicles heavy ork lists will do the same.
Rhino castles might make a comback?
75pts a bit steep imo for one, but 3 x are only 225 pts, for some decent hiding, whilest more aggresive tools tie up the enemy more prominently, in a way it forces people to keep the momentum and play more offensive to allow their smaller troops to score.
I've just watched the latest Tabletop Tactics batrep (which was really good) and Lawrence, who is a pretty great player and was been involved heavily in the playtesting, had a lot to say about 9e, and it was very encouraging stuff.
If you're a premium member I recommend watching it asap (Eldar vs Iron Warriors) to hear what he says.
The basic gist is chill the feth out, this is a first rough pass, 9e played with 8e armies and rules will hopefully be shortlived, don't overreact with limited information. I'll take it to heart and avoid this kind of discussion for a month or so and see what transpires. In particular he mentioned CSM getting fixed, but couldn't reveal the when of it.
grouchoben wrote: I've just watched the latest Tabletop Tactics batrep (which was really good) and Lawrence, who is a pretty great player and was been involved heavily in the playtesting, had a lot to say about 9e, and it was very encouraging stuff.
If you're a premium member I recommend watching it asap (Eldar vs Iron Warriors) to hear what he says.
The basic gist is chill the feth out, this is a first rough pass, 9e played with 8e armies and rules will hopefully be shortlived, don't overreact with limited information. I'll take it to heart and avoid this kind of discussion for a month or so and see what transpires. In particular he mentioned CSM getting fixed, but couldn't reveal the when of it.
Ah so he pulled the old goalpost move.
"You can't freak out about the leaks, we need the whole rulebook." "You can't freak out about the whole rulebook, we still need points." "You can't freak out about the points, we still need FAQs." "You can't freak out about the FAQs, we still need to play some games." "You can't freak out about the played games, we need to wait for [Insert Next Thing Here]."
Rhino castles might make a comback?
75pts a bit steep imo for one, but 3 x are only 225 pts, for some decent hiding, whilest more aggresive tools tie up the enemy more prominently, in a way it forces people to keep the momentum and play more offensive to allow their smaller troops to score.
IMHO rhinos were solid even in 8th, so yeah I expect longtime SM players who have classic vehicles like rhinos to use them and do fine. Sisters will definitely use them, like always.
Rhino castles might make a comback?
75pts a bit steep imo for one, but 3 x are only 225 pts, for some decent hiding, whilest more aggresive tools tie up the enemy more prominently, in a way it forces people to keep the momentum and play more offensive to allow their smaller troops to score.
IMHO rhinos were solid even in 8th, so yeah I expect longtime SM players who have classic vehicles like rhinos to use them and do fine. Sisters will definitely use them, like always.
i guess CSM more then SM, because the lack of primaris.
Also havoc launchers...
I dunno how you're gonna grab objectives without boyz. You don't need 90 of them, but a block of 30 is still gonna be useful. Unless MANz are suddenly good enough to delete the enemy's shock troops, but they strike me as way too fragile against the kind of shooting and melee everyone is going to tech in to to try and kill primaris marines. I think boyz are a sticky unit that's going to dodge what most people are teching into.
How do armies with no units bigger than 5 man squads (or even 10 actually) grab objectives? Elite oriented and or vehicles heavy ork lists will do the same.
From what I've seen, the best way for an elite army to grab objectives is to:
-Park a very tough unit on it, preferably in a forward position that prevents the enemy from getting within range to contest it (eg don't put your squad on the objective, put them 2" in front of it), or
-Put some cheap obsec troops on it if you can keep them out of LOS.
Big units of Boyz are a reliable way to hold objectives, but that's a lot of points tied up just in one objective, where MSU has an easier time grabbing multiple. A 5-man squad of Intercessors isn't too tough to clear out, but if you've got a 5-man squad on each of four objectives you will probably start your next turn still holding at least a couple.
One thing that I think is more important than ever is board footprint, and it's a bit of a double-edged sword. A mob of 30 Boyz takes up a lot of space, which is useful for screening the enemy out away from the objective, but also prevents friendlies from getting in. With the smaller boards and emphasis on movement, those big hordes can really block movement for both players. I did a test game with multiple big blobs of Termagants, and found that while being able to wall off part of the board was handy, they also got in the way of my actual combatants. Losing an objective because I could only fit the Termagants on it, only to have them get mulched by massed bolter fire, was quite frustrating.
That said, all of this goes out the window if you play on planet bowling ball. Terrain is really critical to the game now.
stratigo wrote: I dunno how you're gonna grab objectives without boyz. You don't need 90 of them, but a block of 30 is still gonna be useful. Unless MANz are suddenly good enough to delete the enemy's shock troops, but they strike me as way too fragile against the kind of shooting and melee everyone is going to tech in to to try and kill primaris marines. I think boyz are a sticky unit that's going to dodge what most people are teching into.
That goalpost moved quickly from "5++/6+++ boyz have staying power" to "you only need one unit". You need at least two squads to make them work, as well as a weird boy and multiple stratagems, including, but not limited to, endless green tide (2CP), get stuck in (3CP) and tellyport(2CP). Your original strategy also requires a KFF mek and a doc on top of that. And let's not forget that the 1/2" rule means you usually get about 10 orks in combat instead of the ~20 that could fight in 8th.
And no, people do not need to gear towards removing 30 boyz, the random guns on vehicles, characters and troops tend to be plenty to kill them.
Every ork infantry model, including MANz, can have objective secured if you run them as deff skulls, which is currently one of the top contenders for mono-clan builds. Most weapons geared towards killing primaris actually aren't that hot against MANz because they are 2+/W3, while the dual killsaw MANz shred primaris easily, and have a new +1 damage stratagem for bigger targets and can fight twice just like boyz. You can even try to get them +1 to their armor roll by having a vehicle die near them.
It is possible that brigade armies with 4-6 units of boyz will just drown the table in models and keep winning games by bringing more models than they have bullets like orks have done for a long time now. But that does not make a single unit of boyz a good unit in any way, their offensive power sucked in 8th and it has gotten worse. Not to mention that these armies are boring as heck to play, so pretty much any meta other than that would be preferable.
grouchoben wrote: I've just watched the latest Tabletop Tactics batrep (which was really good) and Lawrence, who is a pretty great player and was been involved heavily in the playtesting, had a lot to say about 9e, and it was very encouraging stuff.
If you're a premium member I recommend watching it asap (Eldar vs Iron Warriors) to hear what he says.
The basic gist is chill the feth out, this is a first rough pass, 9e played with 8e armies and rules will hopefully be shortlived, don't overreact with limited information. I'll take it to heart and avoid this kind of discussion for a month or so and see what transpires. In particular he mentioned CSM getting fixed, but couldn't reveal the when of it.
Ah so he pulled the old goalpost move.
"You can't freak out about the leaks, we need the whole rulebook."
"You can't freak out about the whole rulebook, we still need points."
"You can't freak out about the points, we still need FAQs."
"You can't freak out about the FAQs, we still need to play some games."
"You can't freak out about the played games, we need to wait for [Insert Next Thing Here]."
I have to agree here. I'm a big fan of Lawrence and the Tabletop Tactics team, but if we have to wait for codex updates to balance out the edition, that is horrible news. What if your codex is 2 years away? Fun times.
Not Online!!! wrote: Rhino castles might make a comback? 75pts a bit steep imo for one, but 3 x are only 225 pts, for some decent hiding, whilest more aggresive tools tie up the enemy more prominently, in a way it forces people to keep the momentum and play more offensive to allow their smaller troops to score.
IMHO rhinos were solid even in 8th, so yeah I expect longtime SM players who have classic vehicles like rhinos to use them and do fine. Sisters will definitely use them, like always.
I've been saying this in the Chaos Tactica thread, Rhinos are decent mobile walls in 9th.
It's a shame you can't disembark after movement or advance during the shooting phase. But a flamer and a havoc launcher that can shoot in combat is a good option.
More than that, anything to extend charge distance for your opponent is good. If they have to go an extra inch to get around the Rhino's back corner, that's going to make a difference.
stratigo wrote:I dunno how you're gonna grab objectives without boyz. You don't need 90 of them, but a block of 30 is still gonna be useful. Unless MANz are suddenly good enough to delete the enemy's shock troops, but they strike me as way too fragile against the kind of shooting and melee everyone is going to tech in to to try and kill primaris marines. I think boyz are a sticky unit that's going to dodge what most people are teching into.
Blast weapons are overrated. They are going to do a few more wounds, but they're not like they were with templates.
Honestly, my biggest fear in 9th is 3x 30 boys with ObSec objective camping. That's going to be hard to beat.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah so he pulled the old goalpost move.
"You can't freak out about the leaks, we need the whole rulebook." "You can't freak out about the whole rulebook, we still need points." "You can't freak out about the points, we still need FAQs." "You can't freak out about the FAQs, we still need to play some games." "You can't freak out about the played games, we need to wait for [Insert Next Thing Here]."
You forgot to add: return to final statement 32 times, then return to first statement.
It's the cyclical nature of the aspirational statements that makes them so charming.
Yes please, lots of blast weapons, bring all the blast weapons! Those expensive 6 shot weapons mostly mounted on expensive tanks definitely scare me a lot more than agressors or punishers or noise marines.
Replace all of them with blast weapons!
Jidmah wrote: Yes please, lots of blast weapons, bring all the blast weapons! Those expensive 6 shot weapons mostly mounted on expensive tanks definitely scare me a lot more than agressors or punishers or noise marines.
Replace all of them with blast weapons!
Havocs launcher at 5 pts is neither expensive nor on plattforms you'd not bring.
Also there are other incidents where blast hasn't increased pricing seemingly, Like defielers.
grouchoben wrote: I've just watched the latest Tabletop Tactics batrep (which was really good) and Lawrence, who is a pretty great player and was been involved heavily in the playtesting, had a lot to say about 9e, and it was very encouraging stuff.
If you're a premium member I recommend watching it asap (Eldar vs Iron Warriors) to hear what he says.
The basic gist is chill the feth out, this is a first rough pass, 9e played with 8e armies and rules will hopefully be shortlived, don't overreact with limited information. I'll take it to heart and avoid this kind of discussion for a month or so and see what transpires. In particular he mentioned CSM getting fixed, but couldn't reveal the when of it.
The problem I have with that is this is the 9th edition of game. GW should be able to produce something more balanced at the outset than they've done here. Admittedly part of the problem is this is effectively only the second edition of this iteration of 40k, but that's also a problem of how GW design their games. My biggest issue though is that GW continue to stick to their archaic approach of publishing points in books rather than updating online. I get it from a business POV, but I think they'd generate a lot more good will by releasing the points as PDFs initially and adjusting fairly soon after 9th officially releases. If they still insist on putting points updates in paid books they can then do that from the next CA. At the moment we face a year-long wait for points updates.
I respect the TTT guys a lot and their video about the points for 9th was a very honest appraisal of the situation. However, I'm not sure "wait and see" is much comfort to people who have no prospect of getting a Codex update before Christmas.
I don't think turning every thread into a Marine whinge is sensible, but the problem is less blast weapons, and more lots of accurate, rerolling 1 to wound S4/S5 shots with a dash of AP.
Invuls and FNPs undoubtedly help - but its still relatively easy to clear boyz or gaunts off the table in droves if you build that way.
And I think the rules will encourage a lot of basic infantry to hold objectives who do precisely that.
The loss of morale may make things more bitty (and facilitate respawning etc) - but eh. You should be easily able to clear 50+ boyz a turn unless you have gone all in on heavy weapons. A couple of turns of that, and there won't be much of a horde left.
New points/codexes/changes may however alter these 8th edition adopted tier systems though.
grouchoben wrote: I've just watched the latest Tabletop Tactics batrep (which was really good) and Lawrence, who is a pretty great player and was been involved heavily in the playtesting, had a lot to say about 9e, and it was very encouraging stuff.
If you're a premium member I recommend watching it asap (Eldar vs Iron Warriors) to hear what he says.
The basic gist is chill the feth out, this is a first rough pass, 9e played with 8e armies and rules will hopefully be shortlived, don't overreact with limited information. I'll take it to heart and avoid this kind of discussion for a month or so and see what transpires. In particular he mentioned CSM getting fixed, but couldn't reveal the when of it.
The problem I have with that is this is the 9th edition of game. GW should be able to produce something more balanced at the outset than they've done here. Admittedly part of the problem is this is effectively only the second edition of this iteration of 40k, but that's also a problem of how GW design their games. My biggest issue though is that GW continue to stick to their archaic approach of publishing points in books rather than updating online. I get it from a business POV, but I think they'd generate a lot more good will by releasing the points as PDFs initially and adjusting fairly soon after 9th officially releases. If they still insist on putting points updates in paid books they can then do that from the next CA. At the moment we face a year-long wait for points updates.
I respect the TTT guys a lot and their video about the points for 9th was a very honest appraisal of the situation. However, I'm not sure "wait and see" is much comfort to people who have no prospect of getting a Codex update before Christmas.
Aye, this, if the first rough pass would've been free, then we'd have a lot less complaints and ground for these.
However with GW still insisting on forcing people to pay for what feels like a shoddy afternoons work, (YMMV) not to mention, that further we know that all books technically are ready, the only issue is, that GW instead spreads them out again, which then again will lead to , atleast from the players perspective , armsrace again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, the defiler is still a battlecannon. It's shots are welcome on my hormagants!
The blasts are a nerf to MEQ and PEQ units mostly, while being only a gentle nudge to real horde units. Especially after the giga nerf of the TFC.
Well, yes, but a defiler can easily carry a Havoc launcher, and leaves you with decent other options for other targets aswell, so does the Rhino, which i will rekon makes a rennaissance soonish.
There are a few granade launchers weapons around which could be used, but how many points are we talking here? 20 points of those per list? 25?
So the difference is that instead of being hit by 25 points of weapons, I'm hit with the equivalent of 40 points of those weapons because they maximize hits? Wow, that's a 15 point advantage, such a nerf!
If there were 200 or 300 points of good anti horde weapons in a list, now THAT would hurt, but so far the only real issue in that sense are the Wiverns.
Also, the point increases were not really kind to aggressors (and marines in general), so hordes are probably in a better position now than in 8th.
The blasts are a nerf to MEQ and PEQ units mostly, while being only a gentle nudge to real horde units. Especially after the giga nerf of the TFC.
I agree. I fear blasts for Meganobz, Killa Kanz, Flash Gitz and Nobz, and I'm bringing 5 man units of those at most, except for Nobz which I'm considering 9+1 (Ammo Runt) squads instead of 10+2. Maybe even Tankbustas would fear blasts at the point that I'm considering 2x5 instead of 1x10 in a Trukk. But Boyz? What really deletes hordes of cheap bodies aren't blast weapons.
What about the IG Wyvern? As far as I know it did not really increase in points, so that's 24 S4 shots rerolling wounds towards large blobs. Not to shabby I guess?
Pyroalchi wrote: What about the IG Wyvern? As far as I know it did not really increase in points, so that's 24 S4 shots rerolling wounds towards large blobs. Not to shabby I guess?
It is indeed a problem. In fact if you read my post I identified the wyvern as the only real blast problem for hordes.
It's not an encounter frequent enough to be considered a major nerf.
Yeah, a lot of blast weapons are not going to be issues since they got demolished so hard with the points changes that even if they were to get their max shots every turn, the % they increased in cost means they'll basically be breaking even at best compared to the number of them you'd ordinarily have.
I think certain horde-y units like Ork Boyz, Guardsmen and Lesser Daemons will be OK since they received points changes in line with the general average of like 15% cost increase. It's a rare army I own that didn't go up to at least about 2250 points. They won't be able to punch at their weight class but they will be able to score at their weight class, and new morale really is quite handy, that's been evident in all my games so far.
The super-crazy points hike'd squads like guardians, fire warriors, kabalites, cultists, etc, I definitely do not think you'll see those in any kind of lists. but the gigantic points hikes on most blast stuff means you won't see tons of actual dedicated antiinfantry blast weapons on the field until the next round of points.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, a lot of blast weapons are not going to be issues since they got demolished so hard with the points changes that even if they were to get their max shots every turn, the % they increased in cost means they'll basically be breaking even at best compared to the number of them you'd ordinarily have.
I think certain horde-y units like Ork Boyz, Guardsmen and Lesser Daemons will be OK since they received points changes in line with the general average of like 15% cost increase. It's a rare army I own that didn't go up to at least about 2250 points. They won't be able to punch at their weight class but they will be able to score at their weight class, and new morale really is quite handy, that's been evident in all my games so far.
The super-crazy points hike'd squads like guardians, fire warriors, kabalites, cultists, etc, I definitely do not think you'll see those in any kind of lists. but the gigantic points hikes on most blast stuff means you won't see tons of actual dedicated antiinfantry blast weapons on the field until the next round of points.
I think demons are going to rely 100 percent of monster mash of greater demons to try and win.
Pyroalchi wrote: What about the IG Wyvern? As far as I know it did not really increase in points, so that's 24 S4 shots rerolling wounds towards large blobs. Not to shabby I guess?
That would have me worried if it weren't for a LRBT with punisher pumping out 40 S5 shots already on a much harder to kill platform that can receive orders or even be a tank commander itself. And it gets those 40 shots against units of any size and even while stuck in combat.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, a lot of blast weapons are not going to be issues since they got demolished so hard with the points changes that even if they were to get their max shots every turn, the % they increased in cost means they'll basically be breaking even at best compared to the number of them you'd ordinarily have.
I think certain horde-y units like Ork Boyz, Guardsmen and Lesser Daemons will be OK since they received points changes in line with the general average of like 15% cost increase. It's a rare army I own that didn't go up to at least about 2250 points. They won't be able to punch at their weight class but they will be able to score at their weight class, and new morale really is quite handy, that's been evident in all my games so far.
The super-crazy points hike'd squads like guardians, fire warriors, kabalites, cultists, etc, I definitely do not think you'll see those in any kind of lists. but the gigantic points hikes on most blast stuff means you won't see tons of actual dedicated antiinfantry blast weapons on the field until the next round of points.
I think demons are going to rely 100 percent of monster mash of greater demons to try and win.
I think you're wrong, and a lot of daemon troops look truly obnoxious with the new morale rules and their relatively low point hikes.
One of the biggest struggles daemons always had was their mandatory troops just not accomplishing anything, and now nearly every mission benefits you having dedicated units who just sit out of LOS or in -1 to hit terrain somewhere and do nothing except maybe perform an action every turn.
@ spoletta: sorry, I missed that you already mentioned it.
@ jidmah: I mentioned it as example for a blast weapon that did neither increase much in price nor is it wasted on boys. Also while the LRBT Punisher is great it costs much more, has half the range needs LoS and S5 is worse than S4 reroll wounds against boys
Pyroalchi wrote: @ jidmah: I mentioned it as example for a blast weapon that did neither increase much in price nor is it wasted on boys. Also while the LRBT Punisher is great it costs much more, has half the range needs LoS and S5 is worse than S4 reroll wounds against boys
Punisher LRBT is 165, kills 11.11 boyz on average, 14.85 points per boy killed
Wyvern is 120, kills 7.5 boyz on average, 16 points per boy killed
Unless the unit falls below 11 models, then the punisher still wipes them and the wyvern drops 4.375 killed boyz.
While the wyvern is definitely worth bringing now when it wasn't before, it's by no means the end of hordes. Which is the same for pretty much all blast weapons. From the games I've played so far, the biggest impact blast has on the game is that powerful d3 weapons are getting the full number of shots against units of 6+.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ jidmah: I mentioned it as example for a blast weapon that did neither increase much in price nor is it wasted on boys. Also while the LRBT Punisher is great it costs much more, has half the range needs LoS and S5 is worse than S4 reroll wounds against boys
Punisher LRBT is 165, kills 11.11 boyz on average, 14.85 points per boy killed
Wyvern is 120, kills 7.5 boyz on average, 16 points per boy killed
Unless the unit falls below 11 models, then the punisher still wipes them and the wyvern drops 4.375 killed boyz.
While the wyvern is definitely worth bringing now when it wasn't before, it's by no means the end of hordes. Which is the same for pretty much all blast weapons. From the games I've played so far, the biggest impact blast has on the game is that powerful d3 weapons are getting the full number of shots against units of 6+.
I can confirm this. The most impactful blast weapons have felt is certain antitank weapons getting real sexy against larger MEQ/TEQ type squads. I chalk most if it up to a lot of the strange, arbitrary points changes that render a lot of dedicated anti-infantry blasts just unusable.
So functionally, blast amounts to a lot of math assumptions that GW thought sounded cool, but didn't really double check to see if it worked out the way they thought?
Voss wrote: So functionally, blast amounts to a lot of math assumptions that GW thought sounded cool, but didn't really double check to see if it worked out the way they thought?
I mean, yeah, if you give a unit a fairly heavily conditional 30% firepower boost vs a certain type of target, but then you hike it's price by 50% always, and its competitor (lets call it an "aggressor" for the sake of argument, just an arbitrary name) gets a 20% cost increase by contrast, you should always take the competitor unit.
My summary for those who don't want to read a spreadsheet is this: blasts aren't a horde killer on their own, and anyone who says they are might as well sell you ocean front property on Arizona.
Blasts are great for softening up uninjured units, or finishing off MSUs if you're using Wyverns (turns out that 12 shots on average will wipe an MSU of Dire Avengers), but even the most devastating blast weapon averages maybe a quarter of the unit at best. Unita like Devastators who can use multiple blast weapons at the same time while hitting at their best profile, but come at the same cost as a tank, and are far leas durable making it a.trade off to use them with how 9th's cover system works.
The optimal use of blast weapons seems to.be to soften a horde before hitting it with massed infantry fire (for example using a Thunderfire followed by Intercessors rapid firing) to kill the horde.
Digging into it deeper, I feel points are what may kill some.specific horde builds as even a weedy Grot mob is now 150 points for 30 meaning that just dumping a large number of bodies (say...6 mobs of Grots which runs 900 points for 180 bodies) isn't the effecfice strategy it was. Hordes need to.be chosen with a purpose in mind instead of spammed. Armies with horde units will need to rely on more than just body count to be effective under the new points.
And I get it, I mean a fullsized Crsuader squad is now 290 before upgrades for 10 T4 1W 3+ saves, and 10 more bodies with 4+ saves. Not exactly appealing to take in large numbers these days.
So the impact of blasts has been oversold a fair bit, but hordes have taken some sacks to likely and curb some of their strengths when it comes to 9th's Primary mission structure.
ClockworkZion wrote: The optimal use of blast weapons seems to.be to soften a horde before hitting it with massed infantry fire (for example using a Thunderfire followed by Intercessors rapid firing) to kill the horde.
So the impact of blasts has been oversold a fair bit, but hordes have taken some sacks to likely and curb some of their strengths when it comes to 9th's Primary mission structure.
So blasts affect the game they way reality works. Troops in the open.
I figured blasts would hurt Elite armies more then horde armies. Since it makes anything that adds shots to weapons will make everything die faster. Not just cheap things.
ClockworkZion wrote: The optimal use of blast weapons seems to.be to soften a horde before hitting it with massed infantry fire (for example using a Thunderfire followed by Intercessors rapid firing) to kill the horde.
So the impact of blasts has been oversold a fair bit, but hordes have taken some sacks to likely and curb some of their strengths when it comes to 9th's Primary mission structure.
So blasts affect the game they way reality works. Troops in the open.
I figured blasts would hurt Elite armies more then horde armies. Since it makes anything that adds shots to weapons will make everything die faster. Not just cheap things.
Blast weapons average lower numbers the smaller the unit gets meaning they don't exactly mash elite MSU builds. That said, D3 blast weapons stay firing at their strongest mode for longer making a unit of Devsatators with Plasma Cannons one of the most flexible units in the game.
Jidmah wrote: Punisher LRBT is 165, kills 11.11 boyz on average, 14.85 points per boy killed
Wyvern is 120, kills 7.5 boyz on average, 16 points per boy killed
Punisher is minimum 180, with hull bolter. Wyvern is 135. Of course you get some bolter/flamer shots, although the wyvern would likely be hidden out of LOS.
So the impact of blasts has been oversold a fair bit, but hordes have taken some sacks to likely and curb some of their strengths when it comes to 9th's Primary mission structure.
Part of the issue is consistency. On average these weapons did X, but there was always the chance they could roll low.
But I think in the end Blast weapons *generally* got big enough point increases to offset the losses to a lot of popular horde units (like boys went up way less than a lot of blast units).
As you stated, what has really hurt a lot of horde armies is that horde units with few exceptions got MASSIVE point increases. Grots and cultists being perfect examples.
And going to the 6th model just seems like a stupid idea, with a lot of d3 weaponary not getting as much point increases at all.. and in some cases points DECREASES.
Blast is going to do nothing to the game except stop people taking 6 man and 11 man units, on most weapons it's actually a nerf because it means you can't shoot them when touched.
Coherency is the big nerf to hordes, along with point hikes for the very cheap stuff.
ClockworkZion wrote: The optimal use of blast weapons seems to.be to soften a horde before hitting it with massed infantry fire (for example using a Thunderfire followed by Intercessors rapid firing) to kill the horde.
So the impact of blasts has been oversold a fair bit, but hordes have taken some sacks to likely and curb some of their strengths when it comes to 9th's Primary mission structure.
So blasts affect the game they way reality works. Troops in the open.
I figured blasts would hurt Elite armies more then horde armies. Since it makes anything that adds shots to weapons will make everything die faster. Not just cheap things.
Nothing about blasts interacts with 'in the open' or what FOC slot they're in.
Elite armies tend to have smaller unit sizes- blast doesn't add any number of shots to small units. Horde armies tend to have larger minimums and (had, sometimes have) reasons to go bigger
yukishiro1 wrote: Blast is going to do nothing to the game except stop people taking 6 man and 11 man units, on most weapons it's actually a nerf because it means you can't shoot them when touched.
Coherency is the big nerf to hordes, along with point hikes for the very cheap stuff.
Engagement range too. From a long charge, you might be lucky to get 10 models in engagement range. Those 10 models better damn well hit hard.
So the impact of blasts has been oversold a fair bit, but hordes have taken some sacks to likely and curb some of their strengths when it comes to 9th's Primary mission structure.
Part of the issue is consistency. On average these weapons did X, but there was always the chance they could roll low.
But I think in the end Blast weapons *generally* got big enough point increases to offset the losses to a lot of popular horde units (like boys went up way less than a lot of blast units).
As you stated, what has really hurt a lot of horde armies is that horde units with few exceptions got MASSIVE point increases. Grots and cultists being perfect examples.
And going to the 6th model just seems like a stupid idea, with a lot of d3 weaponary not getting as much point increases at all.. and in some cases points DECREASES.
The problem with all of the point changes is that they're essentially random. You can say "blast weapons will do little because they got gigantic point hikes that more than compensate for their increased firepower" while looking at whirlwinds, TFCs, IG mortars, Nightspinners and some others, but then there's units like wyverns and exorcists that didn't change much at all.
You can say "hordes suck because cheap units got huge point hikes" but then there's stuff like lesser daemons, ork boyz, and Guardsmen that got point increases cleaving close to the average and who will benefit greatly from new morale and new missions.
At this moment the bonkers point changes make evaluating 9th extremely hard as a whole, because we have no way of knowing how much GW thinks things are worth. A guardsman is worth 5. A guardian, who gets slightly better movement and slightly better firepower, is worth 10? Point values seem like they were assigned utterly at random.
yukishiro1 wrote: Blast is going to do nothing to the game except stop people taking 6 man and 11 man units, on most weapons it's actually a nerf because it means you can't shoot them when touched.
Coherency is the big nerf to hordes, along with point hikes for the very cheap stuff.
Engagement range too. From a long charge, you might be lucky to get 10 models in engagement range. Those 10 models better damn well hit hard.
The only change to who gets to fight is instead of "within 1" of a model within 1" it's now "Within 1/2" of a model within 1"
The actual in-game effect of this is mostly just to remove the huge mechanical advantage of being on a 25mm base vs being on any other size base, because 25mm is like 0.98 inches. This allowed units with 25mm bases to have THREE rows of melee combatants fighting, while units on any other base size got two rows.
People seem to be assuming for some reason that only models within engagement range fight. This is not true.
Jidmah wrote: Punisher LRBT is 165, kills 11.11 boyz on average, 14.85 points per boy killed
Wyvern is 120, kills 7.5 boyz on average, 16 points per boy killed
Punisher is minimum 180, with hull bolter. Wyvern is 135. Of course you get some bolter/flamer shots, although the wyvern would likely be hidden out of LOS.
Same is true for the wyvern, so I left the bolters out the equation.
Yeah, engagement range is a big nerf too. I was kinda grouping it under coherency generally because the two work together to seriously bone melee units of more than 10ish models.
Mass stealers has been bad for a while, they simply bleed too many points.
One unit is fine. Going all in on 20x3 is a recipe for disaster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Blast is going to do nothing to the game except stop people taking 6 man and 11 man units, on most weapons it's actually a nerf because it means you can't shoot them when touched.
Coherency is the big nerf to hordes, along with point hikes for the very cheap stuff.
6 man units are perfectly fine, and I plan to deploy my warriors like that since at 6 they get a second heavy weapon.
The opponent doesn't get to max his d3 shots against you with all his weapons because you have 6 models, he has to resolve them one by one and as soon as you lose a model he is now shooting normally. The difference between 5 and 6 models is usually in the range of one more hit suffered.
yukishiro1 wrote: Coherency is the big nerf to hordes, along with point hikes for the very cheap stuff.
I'd argue only if your horde build was trying to make a squid out of some characters and a bunch of conga lines. Having played a game it's not hard to stay in coherecy, just slapping things in two ranks solves it pretty quick, which is the maximum amount of ranks you can fight in while in melee so it works out well to just run the unit basically like that anyways.
yukishiro1 wrote: Blast is going to do nothing to the game except stop people taking 6 man and 11 man units, on most weapons it's actually a nerf because it means you can't shoot them when touched.
Coherency is the big nerf to hordes, along with point hikes for the very cheap stuff.
Engagement range too. From a long charge, you might be lucky to get 10 models in engagement range. Those 10 models better damn well hit hard.
Eh, only on the 25mm stuff. For 32mm stuff the amount you can get into melee is unchanged. Which gives Ork players less reasons to hem and haw about if they should rebase to the modern bases or not.
Basically it lets units with bigger bases still get into melee range in two ranks, while preventing units on 25mm bases from fighting in three ranks. I'd still like to see horde units get bonus attacks for certain thresholds to represent the press of bodies, but that is likely asking too much of 40k right now.
Basically it lets units with bigger bases still get into melee range in two ranks, while preventing units on 25mm bases from fighting in three ranks. I'd still like to see horde units get bonus attacks for certain thresholds to represent the press of bodies, but that is likely asking too much of 40k right now.
It might be slightly controversial... but I'd like to see AoS's horde discount come to 40k for SELECT horde units. A little bonus like that might help mildly.
You'd have to buy the full amount, but you'd get a slight points discount for taking them, giving you a reason to go above the 11-20 range. I'm sure it would require some work to apply it correctly to the variety of horde units.
Infantry squads for example, wouldn't get it, but Conscript squads would, meaning if you brought them in a large horde, you'd get a discount and get them cheaper than IS.
Basically it lets units with bigger bases still get into melee range in two ranks, while preventing units on 25mm bases from fighting in three ranks. I'd still like to see horde units get bonus attacks for certain thresholds to represent the press of bodies, but that is likely asking too much of 40k right now.
It might be slightly controversial... but I'd like to see AoS's horde discount come to 40k for SELECT horde units. A little bonus like that might help mildly.
You'd have to buy the full amount, but you'd get a slight points discount for taking them, giving you a reason to go above the 11-20 range. I'm sure it would require some work to apply it correctly to the variety of horde units.
Infantry squads for example, wouldn't get it, but Conscript squads would, meaning if you brought them in a large horde, you'd get a discount and get them cheaper than IS.
Well, that kind of makes sense when every model beyond 12-15 is just an additional wound.
Basically it lets units with bigger bases still get into melee range in two ranks, while preventing units on 25mm bases from fighting in three ranks. I'd still like to see horde units get bonus attacks for certain thresholds to represent the press of bodies, but that is likely asking too much of 40k right now.
It might be slightly controversial... but I'd like to see AoS's horde discount come to 40k for SELECT horde units. A little bonus like that might help mildly.
You'd have to buy the full amount, but you'd get a slight points discount for taking them, giving you a reason to go above the 11-20 range. I'm sure it would require some work to apply it correctly to the variety of horde units.
Infantry squads for example, wouldn't get it, but Conscript squads would, meaning if you brought them in a large horde, you'd get a discount and get them cheaper than IS.
Yeah, a small points break here or there for massive units would be nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: Well, that kind of makes sense when every model beyond 12-15 is just an additional wound.
In a melee unit, yes. In a unit with guns, that's an extra gun -and- an extra wound.
Basically it lets units with bigger bases still get into melee range in two ranks, while preventing units on 25mm bases from fighting in three ranks. I'd still like to see horde units get bonus attacks for certain thresholds to represent the press of bodies, but that is likely asking too much of 40k right now.
It might be slightly controversial... but I'd like to see AoS's horde discount come to 40k for SELECT horde units. A little bonus like that might help mildly.
You'd have to buy the full amount, but you'd get a slight points discount for taking them, giving you a reason to go above the 11-20 range. I'm sure it would require some work to apply it correctly to the variety of horde units.
Infantry squads for example, wouldn't get it, but Conscript squads would, meaning if you brought them in a large horde, you'd get a discount and get them cheaper than IS.
Of course infantry squads wouldn't get it. They can only have exactly 10 models (or 9, I suppose, with the heavy weapon)
I like the concept of horde armies, but the way they work in the game is boring and disheartening. I'd rather see a horde work like it has the same number of models as an elite army, but recycle destroyed units back into play.
Basically it lets units with bigger bases still get into melee range in two ranks, while preventing units on 25mm bases from fighting in three ranks. I'd still like to see horde units get bonus attacks for certain thresholds to represent the press of bodies, but that is likely asking too much of 40k right now.
It might be slightly controversial... but I'd like to see AoS's horde discount come to 40k for SELECT horde units. A little bonus like that might help mildly.
You'd have to buy the full amount, but you'd get a slight points discount for taking them, giving you a reason to go above the 11-20 range. I'm sure it would require some work to apply it correctly to the variety of horde units.
Infantry squads for example, wouldn't get it, but Conscript squads would, meaning if you brought them in a large horde, you'd get a discount and get them cheaper than IS.
Of course infantry squads wouldn't get it. They can only have exactly 10 models (or 9, I suppose, with the heavy weapon)
It was more of a comparison that Conscripts would essentially be less than 5 points when taken in full squads. I know IS can't go over their normal size...
The stupidest thing about the whole "Horde" concept is that there's a fix that would have been ridiculously easy.
Keywords.
For units that are meant to be run as Hordes(Horma/Termagants, Ripper Swarms, Cultists, Conscripts, Necron Warriors apparently are shaping up to be that)...the "Horde" keyword could have been added.
Weapons could have had a rule that they interact differently firing at a "Horde" keyworded unit.
Kanluwen wrote: The stupidest thing about the whole "Horde" concept is that there's a fix that would have been ridiculously easy.
Keywords.
For units that are meant to be run as Hordes(Horma/Termagants, Ripper Swarms, Cultists, Conscripts, Necron Warriors apparently are shaping up to be that)...the "Horde" keyword could have been added.
Weapons could have had a rule that they interact differently firing at a "Horde" keyworded unit.
Problem is then the keyword is always on, even if the unit isn't actively a horde. If the keyword needs to work around unit sizes, then Blast handles that cleanly.
Stevefamine wrote: Tyranid Horde / Running 60 stealers with 120 gaunts seemed pretty bad. Tried a game with 3x20 Stealers and was not happy with that.
I guess its back to trying shooty heavy bugs for events, and swarm for casual
The way of the bug
how did the gaunts do? I was thinking run some leviathan warrior blobs with a few 30 man termagant units to hold objectives pretty nicely.
A lot of tyranid players I talk to think Levi Warriors will be pretty integral to this edition's strategy. They're multiwound, have a FNP as Levi, and are immune to morale. At 9 models with 3 venom cannons... they're pretty killey with deathspitters on the rest.
Kanluwen wrote: The stupidest thing about the whole "Horde" concept is that there's a fix that would have been ridiculously easy.
Keywords.
For units that are meant to be run as Hordes(Horma/Termagants, Ripper Swarms, Cultists, Conscripts, Necron Warriors apparently are shaping up to be that)...the "Horde" keyword could have been added.
Weapons could have had a rule that they interact differently firing at a "Horde" keyworded unit.
That sounds extremely stupid. Your way 2 gretchins should suffer more hits than 10 Intercessors against blast weapons despite SM dudes being way easier to hit in real life due to their size and number. Actual number of models makes sense but 11+ is just too low: many horde units get their bonus when they are 20+ models not just 11+ so the full shots that blast get should be against units of 20+ models. The minimum of 3 shot for units of 10-19 instead of 6-10.
Not Online!!! wrote: The keyword would be probably conditional, up to 10 cultists/horms etc. No blast effect. More then 10 blast applies
F.e.
So it's the same thing as the blast keyword then, but applied on the unit and not on the weapon?
Honestly I like blast as is. 6-10 gives us the small blast template effect of the past, while 11+ gives us the large blast. It's not about horde units, it's about replicating the effect those plastic templates had when hitting a unit.
Oh for sure, but if he 'd want to Make it work he'd have to add it in conditional terms.
Vice versa one could go further and add buffs to high rof weapons Like heavy bolter and stubber to gain Bonus Shots aswell, representing the old surpression rule.
You do that over the whole system, the game is suddenly 2nd edition again. I may not think GW does perfect rules, but I can understand why they try to keep them as simple as they think they can.
Trickstick wrote: You do that over the whole system, the game is suddenly 2nd edition again. I may not think GW does perfect rules, but I can understand why they try to keep them as simple as they think they can.
You can keep an expansive Deep System simple by applying Stuff with well writen rules and common sense.
That gw failed at it with usr's and decided to pull a netherlands in the sea of play is just the pendulum swinging they are Prone to.
Kanluwen wrote: The stupidest thing about the whole "Horde" concept is that there's a fix that would have been ridiculously easy.
Keywords.
For units that are meant to be run as Hordes(Horma/Termagants, Ripper Swarms, Cultists, Conscripts, Necron Warriors apparently are shaping up to be that)...the "Horde" keyword could have been added.
Weapons could have had a rule that they interact differently firing at a "Horde" keyworded unit.
Problem is then the keyword is always on, even if the unit isn't actively a horde. If the keyword needs to work around unit sizes, then Blast handles that cleanly.
It really doesn't though. They picked arbitrary numbers that really don't do jack beyond cap out at 11 models.
If they had actually wanted to do something meaningful, then they would have started at 11+ for them.
Kanluwen wrote: The stupidest thing about the whole "Horde" concept is that there's a fix that would have been ridiculously easy.
Keywords.
For units that are meant to be run as Hordes(Horma/Termagants, Ripper Swarms, Cultists, Conscripts, Necron Warriors apparently are shaping up to be that)...the "Horde" keyword could have been added.
Weapons could have had a rule that they interact differently firing at a "Horde" keyworded unit.
Problem is then the keyword is always on, even if the unit isn't actively a horde. If the keyword needs to work around unit sizes, then Blast handles that cleanly.
It really doesn't though. They picked arbitrary numbers that really don't do jack beyond cap out at 11 models.
If they had actually wanted to do something meaningful, then they would have started at 11+ for them.
I said it a few posts ago, and I'll say it again: the blast change -isn't- about targeting hordes. It's about trying to make those weapons feel meaningful in the game by emulating the effect of the templates and how you could get more hits in against larger units.
Only we don't have templates, and we don't have scatter so instead they count as "attacks" and we have to roll to hit to represent the random scatter chance instead.
The only real things that were done specifically to target hordes this edtion was unit coherency, and points. But at the same time their morale got buffed as well.
Kanluwen wrote: The stupidest thing about the whole "Horde" concept is that there's a fix that would have been ridiculously easy.
Keywords.
For units that are meant to be run as Hordes(Horma/Termagants, Ripper Swarms, Cultists, Conscripts, Necron Warriors apparently are shaping up to be that)...the "Horde" keyword could have been added.
Weapons could have had a rule that they interact differently firing at a "Horde" keyworded unit.
That sounds extremely stupid. Your way 2 gretchins should suffer more hits than 10 Intercessors against blast weapons despite SM dudes being way easier to hit in real life due to their size and number. Actual number of models makes sense but 11+ is just too low: many horde units get their bonus when they are 20+ models not just 11+ so the full shots that blast get should be against units of 20+ models. The minimum of 3 shot for units of 10-19 instead of 6-10.
Did I say my way was perfect? No.
But given that "Horde" units could have been given discounted point values to start with thanks to flamers, grenades, etc interacting differently coupled with a meaningful "horde" threshhold...it's not really a hard thing to see that this whole mess is half-cocked nonsense to appease tourney scrubs to start with.
Also, lol @ 10 Intercessors not being Combat Squadded.
I said it a few posts ago, and I'll say it again: the blast change -isn't- about targeting hordes. It's about trying to make those weapons feel meaningful in the game by emulating the effect of the templates and how you could get more hits in against larger units.
Only we don't have templates, and we don't have scatter so instead they count as "attacks" and we have to roll to hit to represent the random scatter chance instead.
The only real things that were done specifically to target hordes this edtion was unit coherency, and points. But at the same time their morale got buffed as well.
You can say it all you want, it literally was said to be targeting large units.
If they actually wanted to "make those weapons feel meaningful in the game by emulating the effect of the templates and how you could get more hits in against larger units"?
They would have made it so successful hits on the unit would chain to nearby units within a certain distance. Go look at the Deathstrike entry for an example of how this works.
It wasn't really the case that "you could get more hits in against larger units" because people would take advantage of coherency and spacing to mitigate templates. That's the whole reason behind scrapping them in the first place. Blast weapons had the advantage, however, of being able to get multiple units tagged with one template.
I said it a few posts ago, and I'll say it again: the blast change -isn't- about targeting hordes. It's about trying to make those weapons feel meaningful in the game by emulating the effect of the templates and how you could get more hits in against larger units.
Only we don't have templates, and we don't have scatter so instead they count as "attacks" and we have to roll to hit to represent the random scatter chance instead.
The only real things that were done specifically to target hordes this edtion was unit coherency, and points. But at the same time their morale got buffed as well.
You can say it all you want, it literally was said to be targeting large units.
If they actually wanted to "make those weapons feel meaningful in the game by emulating the effect of the templates and how you could get more hits in against larger units"?
They would have made it so successful hits on the unit would chain to nearby units within a certain distance. Go look at the Deathstrike entry for an example of how this works.
It wasn't really the case that "you could get more hits in against larger units" because people would take advantage of coherency and spacing to mitigate templates. That's the whole reason behind scrapping them in the first place. Blast weapons had the advantage, however, of being able to get multiple units tagged with one template.
Did the designers say that, or did the tactica articles on Warhammer Commuity that were written by third party playtesters say that they were designed to target hordes?
Because I feel like it's coming from the playtesters and everyone is saying that GW is the one who said the blasts were made to decimate hordes.
Also I've actually done at least -some- math about blasts against different unit sizes against a decent range of targets, and no, blasts aren't cracking hordes half as much as people say they are.
ClockworkZion wrote: You an me both. That's like 30 minutes off of every game of double checking templates, scatter angles, scatter distance, ect.
It was the arguments. Both players would 100% believe that they were right about the angle, although both saw different things. Parallax is a cruel mistress.
ClockworkZion wrote: You an me both. That's like 30 minutes off of every game of double checking templates, scatter angles, scatter distance, ect.
It was the arguments. Both players would 100% believe that they were right about the angle, although both saw different things. Parallax is a cruel mistress.
No lie. Same for how many models where covered by the template as well. When dealing with some of those "barely in" cases it came down to how close you got to the template to look at the unit below it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I love the interaction that, when Infantry squads get a Heavy weapon, they're no longer subject to being hurt by blasts as much.
Uh, no they're not. 6-10 gives a minimum of 3 hits. 9 is between 6 and 10.
Hmm, appears you're correct.
Doesn't fix the next issue of Heavy Weapon squads not functioning as six models though.
Should they really? They have large bases and under the old template getting two under a small template was about the best we could usually hope for unless they were in a triangle.
Kanluwen wrote: The stupidest thing about the whole "Horde" concept is that there's a fix that would have been ridiculously easy.
Keywords. For units that are meant to be run as Hordes(Horma/Termagants, Ripper Swarms, Cultists, Conscripts, Necron Warriors apparently are shaping up to be that)...the "Horde" keyword could have been added.
Weapons could have had a rule that they interact differently firing at a "Horde" keyworded unit.
how is this any better?
this is the dunning-kruger effect on full display, people. Someone else's way of doing it is "stupid", but the slightly different way that YOU thought of, that brings a bunch of problems of it's own and doesn't address the real issue at all? so much smarter, why didn't they think of it, so easy!
Love how you conveniently didn't include Guardsmen as a horde unit. Sure that's not personal bias at all.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Love how you conveniently didn't include Guardsmen as a horde unit. Sure that's not personal bias at all.
It's not an unreasonable point, though - when the initial news about Blasts came out, indicating that they were more effective at hitting large units, people were immediately speculating about how large the minimum threshold would be. Very few people were saying that ten models would qualify as a "horde", and I think most people were surprised when the first part of the Blast rule kicked in at six freakin' models...
Nitro Zeus wrote: Love how you conveniently didn't include Guardsmen as a horde unit. Sure that's not personal bias at all.
It's not an unreasonable point, though - when the initial news about Blasts came out, indicating that they were more effective at hitting large units, people were immediately speculating about how large the minimum threshold would be. Very few people were saying that ten models would qualify as a "horde", and I think most people were surprised when the first part of the Blast rule kicked in at six freakin' models...
Yeah but the post I responded to was including Tyranid Rippers (who are never taken in more than minimum size, 3x3's, which is even smaller than Guardsmen) and Necron Warriors etc. Yet interestingly, Guardsmen didn't fit his mold of a unit that would be susceptible.
Kanluwen wrote: The stupidest thing about the whole "Horde" concept is that there's a fix that would have been ridiculously easy.
Keywords.
For units that are meant to be run as Hordes(Horma/Termagants, Ripper Swarms, Cultists, Conscripts, Necron Warriors apparently are shaping up to be that)...the "Horde" keyword could have been added.
Weapons could have had a rule that they interact differently firing at a "Horde" keyworded unit.
how is this any better?
this is the dunning-kruger effect on full display, people. Someone else's way of doing it is "stupid", but the slightly different way that YOU thought of, that brings a bunch of problems of it's own and doesn't address the real issue at all? so much smarter, why didn't they think of it, so easy!
My way at least starts from a better point of declaring "hordes" are 6+ models and throwing cheap troops more or less at 5ppm everywhere.
Love how you conveniently didn't include Guardsmen as a horde unit. Sure that's not personal bias at all.
I included Conscripts. Since you chose to overlook that, just remember this:
Guard Infantry Squads are locked in size. You need to use a stratagem to get them to 20 or more models, and even then you're just taking two different units and effectively doing a reverse Combat Squad, throwing them together. If you want to make it so that doing so adds the "Horde" keyword? I'd be fine with it.
Conscripts are where every horde unit should be starting at from now on: 20 models minimum.
I noticed you include conscripts. I also have noticed all the posts you made complaining about how awful conscripts are, so I know you don't consider this a real impact at all and you deliberately threw them to the wolves, so long as the Infantry Squads that you always crusade for are intact. You chose a rule that means units that are smaller than Guardsmen squads actually get impacted here, whereas this is actually a BUFF to your Guardsmen who are now not even semi-affected by blasts. No, this is just biased writing that you thought was some stroke of genius because it didn't affect you any longer.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Love how you conveniently didn't include Guardsmen as a horde unit. Sure that's not personal bias at all.
It's not an unreasonable point, though - when the initial news about Blasts came out, indicating that they were more effective at hitting large units, people were immediately speculating about how large the minimum threshold would be. Very few people were saying that ten models would qualify as a "horde", and I think most people were surprised when the first part of the Blast rule kicked in at six freakin' models...
Yeah but the post I responded to was including Tyranid Rippers (who are never taken in more than minimum size, 3x3's, which is even smaller than Guardsmen) and Necron Warriors etc. Yet interestingly, Guardsmen didn't fit his mold of a unit that would be susceptible.
Because I remember the days of the "Swarm" rule that units like Rippers, Nurglings, and Scarabs had.
Also, Necron Warriors start at 10 and go up to 20. If you would argue they shouldn't have Horde because they're minimum of 10? Fine. Argue that...but it's pretty clear the wind is blowing towards Necron Warriors becoming a 'horde' unit ala Conscripts or Grots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: I noticed you include conscripts. I also have noticed all the posts you made complaining about how awful conscripts are, so I know you don't consider this a real impact at all and you deliberately threw them to the wolves, so long as the Infantry Squads that you always crusade for are intact. You chose a rule that means units that are smaller than Guardsmen squads actually get impacted here, whereas this is actually a BUFF to your Guardsmen who are now not even semi-affected by blasts. No, this is just biased writing that you thought was some stroke of genius because it didn't affect you any longer.
Then if you've read those posts you would also know that my arguments are usually accompanied with support for tearing the whole damn book that currently exists down, breaking Guardsmen into 3 different categories(heavy armored, skirmishers, conscript-grades) and boosting the points for each unit type accordingly while also putting restrictions in place for specific Regiments and Doctrines.
If we're not going to do that, then having a "Horde" mechanic that doesn't affect units with starting unit sizes of 10 is a far better place to go than "here's a magic number where it does more damage! but don't go below it, then you don't take damage the same way!".
PS: I don't necessarily say that "Conscripts are awful". I say they should be awful. I say that they should be worse than Infantry Squads, to the point of being a 6+ save with autoguns and no <Regiment> keyword.
I've also said that they were, at the launch of 8th, the biggest problem in that you could take them in squads of up to 50 and make them effectively immune to morale issues...and that people continue to confuse the issue of "blob squads"(which is where you take the Combined Squads stratagem and make two Infantry Squads{important distinction here, as some people like to claim it's any squad with Infantry...which it isn't} into one big squad) and "conscripts".
You can't call it a "horde" mechanic if it's not applicable to "horde" units. What we have is a "blast" mechanic that targets units based on size, not type.
Making up a narrative about hordes being targeted (something I'm blaming Table Top Titans for having a hand in, as well as Front Line Gaming as neither seems to actually looked at how effective blasts -actually- are and instead knee jerked because "look at how many shots a Wyvern has!!!11!one!!!") doesn't really address anything. All it's doing is peddling a fake narrative about hordes being unfairly targetted by a weapon that is the least effective against them.
Because people apparently didn't look at the link I posted that showed an actual breakdown of actual blast weapons aimed at (mainly Craftworlds) units of various sizes, as well as Plasma Cannon Devastators and some more common basic weapons here we go:
Now please note how many blast weapons actually managed to kill even -half- of a unit. That's right. The Wyvern killed 3.11/5 Dire Avengers who were taking their worst save and not soaking any wounds on the Exarch or standing in any kind of cover or with any kind of protection.
The math doesn't support the narrative that blast weapons are going to be regularly wiping out hordes unless you start pouring a large amount of CP, support buffs, psychic powers, or just using a lot of them to shoot at hordes.
The blast weapon is not an anti-horde weapon in the way people have been presenting it as, and it's clear they haven't actually checked their assumptions once.
Let me help: At 6-10 models D6 averages 4 attacks. That's the thing you'll most need to be aware of if you want to crunch your own numbers.
Ok so 3.5 going up to 4 average hits on 6-10 units isn’t so relevant. I think you’re missing the point that firing one Wyvern or Mortar or equivalent at an 11-30 unit, is almost the equivalent of firing two Wyverns at that unit. What does that change? Well, regardless of anything else - people are going to run min sized squads instead of full size just to avoid this, it’s completely detrimental to your own effectiveness for no gain
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok so 3.5 going up to 4 average hits on 6-10 units isn’t so relevant. I think you’re missing the point that firing one Wyvern or Mortar or equivalent at an 11-30 unit, is almost the equivalent of firing two Wyverns at that unit. What does that change? Well, regardless of anything else - people are going to run min sized squads instead of full size just to avoid this, it’s completely detrimental to your own effectiveness for no gain
Firing one Wyvern at 10 boyz vs 30 boyz is 3.2 more dead models. Not even double. Two Wyverns shooting 30 Orks should average 15 dead Boyz, but runs 240 points to kill 90 points of Boyz.
The MSU arguement is a crock as well because you're building to avoid an increase of .5 attacks on 10 man units, and the enemy isn't even doubling their wounds in a case where they literally double their number of attacks (Wyverns average 12 shots, at full shooting they get 24 shots). Plus you're opening yourself up to being easier to kill from other weapons, making your own buffs less efficient, and for what exactly? To prevent 3.2 extra wounds on average from Wyvern?
"MSU is the only way people will build because of blasts!" is a kneejerk arguement with no math supporting it. Table Top Tactics were the ones who sent me off on this little rabbit hole of actually checking because they called the Wyvern a horde killer. Specifically that it'd wreck hordes. But it doesn't really. Sure you might get lucky and roll hot, or dump a bunch of CP and points into it to make it into a horde killer, but that doesn't make the tank a horde killer.
I want you to go back and look at that image I posted again. Those blue squares are the deadliest blast weapon aimed at models ranging from Guardians to Wraithblades to Ork Boyz and Grots. Now look at every green and red square on that image as well. That's every single time it was out performed. Green was a unit of unbuffed Devastators with Plasma Cannons (actually a bit frightening based on how devastating 4 Plasma Cannons shooting an unprotected target can be) and red was bolters, bolt rifles, and lasguns.
I also have text in bold you can see easier on the original spreadsheet, where it shows everytime a unit lost at least half of it's models.
Only time a blast weapon did it was against an MSU unit of 5 models.
And while people love to argue that you can do this buff, or use that strat to make the shooting better, they're forgetting that you can do a lot to make a unit harder to kill and it all becomes a wash in the end.
The only reason people keep saying blasts are anti-horde is because they see that 2D6, or even 4D6 profile and they register all the attacks the model gets, but fail to account for the fact the model still needs to hit, to wound, and then the defenders still get saves.
And that's not bringing modifiers into the mix.
I welcome anyone who doesn't believe me to sit down and crunch some actual numbers that show blasts are the deadly horde killers they say they are. I'll even toss in a combat calculator link to help you, because I've at least done the work and have evidence showing that it's not as bad as claimed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Yeah, no one cares about shooting sub 10mans, its 11+ that you should math out. You did Boys, but they are T4, show us T3 then we can talk.
You mean, like Guardians, who are T3, with a 5+ save and are the first four units listed at 10 and 20 man sizes on that list with and without their 4++ strat?
If you're going to move goalposts, maybe you should see where you're standing on the field first.
Heck, the spreadsheet started as a way to math out if MSU really helped Craftworlds or not, so most of the entries on it are T3. Not to mention I even threw in Grots who are T2.
EDIT: I will actually make one correction: Thunderfire Cannons are listed as killing more than half of 10 man Boyz and Grots units. That was an error. The spreadsheet has been fixed to reflect that now.
The blast is surely NOT going to make me run my bugs in smaller squads.
If something does it, it will be the new terrain rules, but blasts? Who cares about those.
Now, if you were planning to run 10 men intercessors squads to benefit from your sweet sweet stratagems and better get into aura, then blasts will probably make you think twice about it.
Spoletta wrote: The blast is surely NOT going to make me run my bugs in smaller squads.
If something does it, it will be the new terrain rules, but blasts? Who cares about those.
Now, if you were planning to run 10 men intercessors squads to benefit from your sweet sweet stratagems and better get into aura, then blasts will probably make you think twice about it.
Honestly I doubt blasts will change people's minds that much about MSU for buffs.
Coherency and points costs will probably be the key factors there.
Terrain may not block line of sight in every circumstance, for anyone who didn't play Nova or ITC stuff they'll be seeing a buff to their army from the new rules.
Amishprn86 wrote: Yeah, no one cares about shooting sub 10mans, its 11+ that you should math out. You did Boys, but they are T4, show us T3 then we can talk.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok so 3.5 going up to 4 average hits on 6-10 units isn’t so relevant. I think you’re missing the point that firing one Wyvern or Mortar or equivalent at an 11-30 unit, is almost the equivalent of firing two Wyverns at that unit. What does that change? Well, regardless of anything else - people are going to run min sized squads instead of full size just to avoid this, it’s completely detrimental to your own effectiveness for no gain
A 9th edition wyvern at max shots is worse at killing hordes than the punisher who was available to AM for all of 8th edition.
Amishprn86 wrote: Yeah, no one cares about shooting sub 10mans, its 11+ that you should math out. You did Boys, but they are T4, show us T3 then we can talk.
First line Guardians T3 and 5+ save...
I over looked it, it kills 7.1, so why talk about Dire Avengers? You wont shoot Dire with there are 20 guardians.
Spoletta wrote: The blast is surely NOT going to make me run my bugs in smaller squads.
If something does it, it will be the new terrain rules, but blasts? Who cares about those.
Now, if you were planning to run 10 men intercessors squads to benefit from your sweet sweet stratagems and better get into aura, then blasts will probably make you think twice about it.
Honestly I doubt blasts will change people's minds that much about MSU for buffs.
Coherency and points costs will probably be the key factors there.
Terrain may not block line of sight in every circumstance, for anyone who didn't play Nova or ITC stuff they'll be seeing a buff to their army from the new rules.
Terrain is going to have a larger impact then most people think. Dense cover will be common enough that most of you army will be unseen, or have a -1 to hit them. Not to mention the way objectives work now, you will have to move toward the opposing army no matter what. Which wouldn't be that much of a problem, just add flamers and overwatch, except overwatch is limited to 1 unit per turn, and turns every flamer into an overpriced POS.
Amishprn86 wrote: Yeah, no one cares about shooting sub 10mans, its 11+ that you should math out. You did Boys, but they are T4, show us T3 then we can talk.
First line Guardians T3 and 5+ save...
I over looked it, it kills 7.1, so why talk about Dire Avengers? You wont shoot Dire with there are 20 guardians.
Hey Clockwork, I’m very open to being swayed here because I’d prefer to run max size Termagant units personally. Can you elaborate exactly what advantages that brings to offset the additional blast susceptibility?
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok so 3.5 going up to 4 average hits on 6-10 units isn’t so relevant. I think you’re missing the point that firing one Wyvern or Mortar or equivalent at an 11-30 unit, is almost the equivalent of firing two Wyverns at that unit. What does that change? Well, regardless of anything else - people are going to run min sized squads instead of full size just to avoid this, it’s completely detrimental to your own effectiveness for no gain
A 9th edition wyvern at max shots is worse at killing hordes than the punisher who was available to AM for all of 8th edition.
Mathammerfail right there. The Punisher has better DAMAGE output than the Wyvern. The Wyvern can sit at the back of the table, out of Line of Sight. The tank commander barely outranges a Carnifex and pretty much has to commit to being spotted by your entire army to even get its first shot off. No, Punishers are not 'better' at all, they are different units.
And it's irrelevant anyway. People WILL be taking Wyverns, so why would I open myself up to extra damage is the real question?
30 termagants have the advantage of being enough to string between 2 different points, even with the new coherency rules. You also have the usual obvious advantages of it (stratagems, buffs and such).
Also, if you go with a Battalion, you have only 6 troop slots, so you can't really play them in 3x10 and still have enough numbers. In a brigade this could be less of a problem.
These are all marginal benefits, but blasts are also just a marginal drawback, so if you were using them in 8th, you will probably use them in 9th.
Also, that Wyvern will be at the back of the table... which means about 6" inches behind the punisher? The tables are shorter now. And when my lictor gets on that wyvern, he is not getting OWed this time (and the wyveren can't do anything in engagement range). How many wyverns do we expect to find? They are an heavy support, which is a really crowded spot for guards, especially now that they can't just spam tank commanders in an SCD.
Blast D3 increases firepower by 50% against units with 6+ models. For BS3 units this would be like letting them re-roll failed hits against units with 6+ models. For BS4 units it's like hitting automatically.
Blast D6 increases firepower by 14% against units with 6+ models and a further 50% against units with 11+ models for a total of 71% more firepower against units with 11+ models compared to 1-4 models. For BS3 units this would be roughly equivalent to re-rolling 1s to wound for 6+ models and additionally re-rolling failed hits against 11+ models. For BS4 units it's like re-rolling wound rolls of 1 and hitting automatically for 6+ and 11+ models respectively.
Listing out the number of extra models are killed obfuscates things IMO, any unit that kills more than 25% of its cost at long-range ignoring LOS is really damn scary. Just like mortars weren't huge killers in 8th but still dominated the tournament scene because they were versatile and safe. A single FRFSRF Guardsman can put out a mortar's worth of shots and taking more Guardsmen and Company Commanders was generally avoided in favour of taking 3x3 mortars before mortars got their price increase.
"MSU is the only way people will build because of blasts!" is a kneejerk arguement with no math supporting it. Table Top Tactics were the ones who sent me off on this little rabbit hole of actually checking because they called the Wyvern a horde killer. Specifically that it'd wreck hordes. But it doesn't really. Sure you might get lucky and roll hot, or dump a bunch of CP and points into it to make it into a horde killer, but that doesn't make the tank a horde killer.
It's not really kneejerk, giving your opponent free Chapter Master + Lieutenant buffs seems like a bad idea. Just like people generally avoided big squads in 8th because of a small morale and CP advantage they will avoid big squads in 9th because of a chance of giving blasts free bonus damage on them. Maybe the morale changes will outweigh the blast changes, but add all the other anti-horde changes of 9th and hordes are on really rocky ground, best case scenario for hordes is that they'll be just weak enough that nobody bothers with blasts and so they won't ever get caught out by it. The Punisher is going to be absolutely amazing because it can shoot in melee, but LOS-ignoring shooting will most likely be great with the new terrain rules. Comparing models directly with vastly different costs is silly unless the cheaper one is better and you want to show the more expensive option is overpriced. The free extra damage from the bigger blast weapons also cannot be entirely ignored, while Basilisks might still be best used against vehicles, if they ever end up shooting at a big squad they will do so much more effectively than previously, as a Necron player I'm cautiously interested in big squads of Warriors, but most blast weapons that aren't too hot against Ork Boyz will be relatively effective against Warriors because of their better save, I think a chronometron Cryptek will be a must if I am to make big Warrior units work to avoid getting hammered by Basilisks and plasma cannons which will now be between 50 and 70% stronger until the Warrior unit gets low.
Spoletta wrote: Also, that Wyvern will be at the back of the table... which means about 6" inches behind the punisher? The tables are shorter now. And when my lictor gets on that wyvern, he is not getting OWed this time (and the wyveren can't do anything in engagement range). How many wyverns do we expect to find? They are an heavy support, which is a really crowded spot for guards, especially now that they can't just spam tank commanders in an SCD.
Guard vehicles don't crowd slots because they can be taken in trios in a single slot. Tank Commanders are HQ.
I know that tank commanders are HQ, and that's the biggest issue. HQ slots are now a luxury. All that firepower that was previously covered by TCs, must now be covered by something else, and Wyverns don't cover the same role.
The fact that they can squadron vehicles is indeed nice, but I still doubt that an AM list will sport more than one wyvern.
Spoletta wrote: 30 termagants have the advantage of being enough to string between 2 different points, even with the new coherency rules. You also have the usual obvious advantages of it (stratagems, buffs and such).
Also, if you go with a Battalion, you have only 6 troop slots, so you can't really play them in 3x10 and still have enough numbers. In a brigade this could be less of a problem.
These are all marginal benefits, but blasts are also just a marginal drawback, so if you were using them in 8th, you will probably use them in 9th.
Well assuming I have the slots, the first difference seems marginal if I can just go to three points by squadding them into 3 different squads. Seems like not taking twice as many hits from certain units dedicated to the role, would be ideal here?
Spoletta wrote: Also, that Wyvern will be at the back of the table... which means about 6" inches behind the punisher? The tables are shorter now. And when my lictor gets on that wyvern, he is not getting OWed this time (and the wyveren can't do anything in engagement range). How many wyverns do we expect to find? They are an heavy support, which is a really crowded spot for guards, especially now that they can't just spam tank commanders in an SCD.
The wyvern will be hidden from shooting and dug in with screens and terrain, as well as further back on the board. Much harder to deal with for most horde armies, definitely so for Tyranids, far more than the Tank Commander who I can just blank out with some hidden Hive Guard of my own.
As far as I can see they are optimal against boyz blobs (44-50% return prebuffs/debuffs depending on if the HB can fire) and will tend to drop off against everything else - because the target is cheaper (like gaunts), more resilient for their points, or doesn't run in hordes.
(Actually 11+ Genestealers would be even better - offering a 66% return.)
By the time you are down to shooting 5-10 man units of Intercessors however your pre-buff/debuff/heavy bolter return is about 13%-16%. Which I don't think is viable. Ignoring LOS shooting is always good etc - but using 405 points to maybe kill 2 intercessors - worse if they are in cover or something? Seems bad.
If Orks were as meta relevant as Marines it might be interesting, but they aren't and almost certainly never will be.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Hey Clockwork, I’m very open to being swayed here because I’d prefer to run max size Termagant units personally. Can you elaborate exactly what advantages that brings to offset the additional blast susceptibility?
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok so 3.5 going up to 4 average hits on 6-10 units isn’t so relevant. I think you’re missing the point that firing one Wyvern or Mortar or equivalent at an 11-30 unit, is almost the equivalent of firing two Wyverns at that unit. What does that change? Well, regardless of anything else - people are going to run min sized squads instead of full size just to avoid this, it’s completely detrimental to your own effectiveness for no gain
A 9th edition wyvern at max shots is worse at killing hordes than the punisher who was available to AM for all of 8th edition.
Mathammerfail right there. The Punisher has better DAMAGE output than the Wyvern. The Wyvern can sit at the back of the table, out of Line of Sight. The tank commander barely outranges a Carnifex and pretty much has to commit to being spotted by your entire army to even get its first shot off. No, Punishers are not 'better' at all, they are different units.
I was talking about a bare ass punisher LRBT in the heavy support role, with no buffs whatsoever. When you compare wyverns to punisher tank commanders, it's not even a competition anymore.
The whole point is that hordes didn't disappear when there were much better weapons to kill them were around. A weapons with less killing power and more utility will not change that, especially when hordes now take less casualties from morale.
Because keeping multiple 10 termagants units in synapse is harder than keeping a 30 bug one.
Because you can catalyst only one.
Because you can acid blood only one.
And so on...
Also, because there is now a secondary which punishes MSU.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Good answer thanks Spoletta. Clockwork mentioned being more susceptible to certain weapons while MSU, what did that mean?
AT weaponry, granted that only really is an issue if you use units that use the TAC setup, but for those squads AT weaponry has a higher chance at scoring a Value kill-
Another one, are Havocs, their squishyness comes from the 5 man and only 1 ablative wound in it.
Amishprn86 wrote: Yeah, no one cares about shooting sub 10mans, its 11+ that you should math out. You did Boys, but they are T4, show us T3 then we can talk.
First line Guardians T3 and 5+ save...
I over looked it, it kills 7.1, so why talk about Dire Avengers? You wont shoot Dire with there are 20 guardians.
Because the Dire Avengers are typically the more popular of the two to take as a troops choice and onenof the big debates for a while was unit sizes so I did my best to crunch numbers which lead to the amusing discovery that Dire Avengers are more susceptible to blasts (at least from Wyverns) as an MSU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: Hey Clockwork, I’m very open to being swayed here because I’d prefer to run max size Termagant units personally. Can you elaborate exactly what advantages that brings to offset the additional blast susceptibility?
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok so 3.5 going up to 4 average hits on 6-10 units isn’t so relevant. I think you’re missing the point that firing one Wyvern or Mortar or equivalent at an 11-30 unit, is almost the equivalent of firing two Wyverns at that unit. What does that change? Well, regardless of anything else - people are going to run min sized squads instead of full size just to avoid this, it’s completely detrimental to your own effectiveness for no gain
A 9th edition wyvern at max shots is worse at killing hordes than the punisher who was available to AM for all of 8th edition.
Mathammerfail right there. The Punisher has better DAMAGE output than the Wyvern. The Wyvern can sit at the back of the table, out of Line of Sight. The tank commander barely outranges a Carnifex and pretty much has to commit to being spotted by your entire army to even get its first shot off. No, Punishers are not 'better' at all, they are different units.
And it's irrelevant anyway. People WILL be taking Wyverns, so why would I open myself up to extra damage is the real question?
In the case of Nids, it'd be the same reason Craftworlds would want to take full sized units: a lot.of buffs come from psychic powers or strats. Not as much is aura based like a Marine army, so to get the most out of those rules you want to go big.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: I'll try and put the math into an 8th context.
Blast D3 increases firepower by 50% against units with 6+ models. For BS3 units this would be like letting them re-roll failed hits against units with 6+ models. For BS4 units it's like hitting automatically.
Blast D6 increases firepower by 14% against units with 6+ models and a further 50% against units with 11+ models for a total of 71% more firepower against units with 11+ models compared to 1-4 models. For BS3 units this would be roughly equivalent to re-rolling 1s to wound for 6+ models and additionally re-rolling failed hits against 11+ models. For BS4 units it's like re-rolling wound rolls of 1 and hitting automatically for 6+ and 11+ models respectively.
Listing out the number of extra models are killed obfuscates things IMO, any unit that kills more than 25% of its cost at long-range ignoring LOS is really damn scary. Just like mortars weren't huge killers in 8th but still dominated the tournament scene because they were versatile and safe. A single FRFSRF Guardsman can put out a mortar's worth of shots and taking more Guardsmen and Company Commanders was generally avoided in favour of taking 3x3 mortars before mortars got their price increase.
"MSU is the only way people will build because of blasts!" is a kneejerk arguement with no math supporting it. Table Top Tactics were the ones who sent me off on this little rabbit hole of actually checking because they called the Wyvern a horde killer. Specifically that it'd wreck hordes. But it doesn't really. Sure you might get lucky and roll hot, or dump a bunch of CP and points into it to make it into a horde killer, but that doesn't make the tank a horde killer.
It's not really kneejerk, giving your opponent free Chapter Master + Lieutenant buffs seems like a bad idea. Just like people generally avoided big squads in 8th because of a small morale and CP advantage they will avoid big squads in 9th because of a chance of giving blasts free bonus damage on them. Maybe the morale changes will outweigh the blast changes, but add all the other anti-horde changes of 9th and hordes are on really rocky ground, best case scenario for hordes is that they'll be just weak enough that nobody bothers with blasts and so they won't ever get caught out by it. The Punisher is going to be absolutely amazing because it can shoot in melee, but LOS-ignoring shooting will most likely be great with the new terrain rules. Comparing models directly with vastly different costs is silly unless the cheaper one is better and you want to show the more expensive option is overpriced. The free extra damage from the bigger blast weapons also cannot be entirely ignored, while Basilisks might still be best used against vehicles, if they ever end up shooting at a big squad they will do so much more effectively than previously, as a Necron player I'm cautiously interested in big squads of Warriors, but most blast weapons that aren't too hot against Ork Boyz will be relatively effective against Warriors because of their better save, I think a chronometron Cryptek will be a must if I am to make big Warrior units work to avoid getting hammered by Basilisks and plasma cannons which will now be between 50 and 70% stronger until the Warrior unit gets low.
The reason I looked at models killed was because the increased number of attacks doesn't result in the same percentage in increased models killed. Look at the Wyvern, at 11+ models it has double the attacks of it's average, but when you look at how many wounds get through the number isn't doubled.
Anyone can argue that we see a massive number of attacks, and they're not wrong, but it oversells the actual impact of the weapon when actually fired at a target.
As for the free Captaina and LT rerolls, if you're so afraid of your opponent being that tiny bit more efficient that you run MSU, congrats, you've bought into a build that opens you up to be more easilly wiped out. MSU horde units are incredibly squishy as their intended durability is from their body counts. Additionally, if you want to the same number of bodies that turns into an.issue of needing to spend CP to run more detachments. You can run 180 Boyz in a Battalion if you horde, but it'd take three battalions to do the same as MSUs.
Because people apparently didn't look at the link I posted that showed an actual breakdown of actual blast weapons aimed at (mainly Craftworlds) units of various sizes, as well as Plasma Cannon Devastators and some more common basic weapons here we go:
I looked at it. Very interesting. I'm curious about your methodology here. For example with the 10 Guard vs regular Guardians I've got 20 shots -> 10 hits -> 5 wounds -> 3.33 failed saves/kills
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok so 3.5 going up to 4 average hits on 6-10 units isn’t so relevant. I think you’re missing the point that firing one Wyvern or Mortar or equivalent at an 11-30 unit, is almost the equivalent of firing two Wyverns at that unit. What does that change? Well, regardless of anything else - people are going to run min sized squads instead of full size just to avoid this, it’s completely detrimental to your own effectiveness for no gain
A 9th edition wyvern at max shots is worse at killing hordes than the punisher who was available to AM for all of 8th edition.
This might actually be true now that vigilus is being cycled out.
Ok now so assuming I’m running Tyranids, and I know
I’m not gonna be casting Catalyst or any other buffs on a unit of TERMAGANTS (something I’ve never once had to do in a decade of playing Nids), it’s pretty safe to say that all the criticism is intact right - I’d be silly to run 30 man squads now and give up free hits right? It’s a shame because I enjoy the big termagant blob but I cannot see it being worth giving my opponent effectively a free Wyvern, and yeah I know both the local guard players here are excited for theirs in 9th
A wyverns comes out to 135 and shooting at termagants takes out 8,8 of them for 135 points. One more with the heavy bolter. 13,78 points per tgant kill.
A punisher comes out at 180 and in doubleshoot takes out 11 and one with the heavy bolter. 15 per tgant kill.
The wyvern is actually slightly better, assuming that the heavy bolter gets to shoot.
Obviously the wyvern output drops terrificantly as soon as the target is 10 or less models, while the punisher always works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok now so assuming I’m running Tyranids, and I know
I’m not gonna be casting Catalyst or any other buffs on a unit of TERMAGANTS (something I’ve never once had to do in a decade of playing Nids), it’s pretty safe to say that all the criticism is intact right - I’d be silly to run 30 man squads now and give up free hits right? It’s a shame because I enjoy the big termagant blob but I cannot see it being worth giving my opponent effectively a free Wyvern, and yeah I know both the local guard players here are excited for theirs in 9th
You never did in 8th, but in 9th a 5+++ tgant unit on a point is a really good asset.
The wyvern can shoot at characters hiding behind cover, outside of 3" from a unit. (Edit: I really should re-read the character rules, I I realise that I am not 100% on this). That is a pretty good advantage, although not really on the topic of hordes.
I see "barrage" style attacks being pretty nice this edition, an Guard are well suited to use them. The heavy support section of my lists are dropping expensive Russes and picking up artillery.
LoS ignoring fire is gonna be AMAZING in 9th and I can’t take anyone seriously who is saying a punisher is as good as a Wyvern. Are they factoring in that you’ll probably get one turn of shooting out of the punisher and 5 out of the Wyvern, with a MUCH higher selection of targets too?
Personally I'm looking at Manticores, now that the 4 shot limit is only 1 missed turn max. They are not really horde killers though. I would probably just use massed lasgun fire for hordes, like I always have.
ClockworkZion wrote: You can't call it a "horde" mechanic if it's not applicable to "horde" units. What we have is a "blast" mechanic that targets units based on size, not type.
Making up a narrative about hordes being targeted (something I'm blaming Table Top Titans for having a hand in, as well as Front Line Gaming as neither seems to actually looked at how effective blasts -actually- are and instead knee jerked because "look at how many shots a Wyvern has!!!11!one!!!") doesn't really address anything. All it's doing is peddling a fake narrative about hordes being unfairly targetted by a weapon that is the least effective against them.
Stu Black mentioned as part of the initial intro that it's something they looked at to simulate the effect of blast weapons on large units without penalizing smaller ones. That's where the whole "narrative" started coming from. The talk about them affecting units based on size.
There's no weapons that are penalizing multiple small units. Just "hordes" that are 6+ models. Continually shouting about how "IT'S A BLAST MECHANIC YOU CAN'T CALL IT A HORDE MECHANIC IF IT DOESN"T APPLY TO HORDES!" is nonsense, given that any 6-10 model unit is getting hit by at least one step of a blast weapon.
Because people apparently didn't look at the link I posted that showed an actual breakdown of actual blast weapons aimed at (mainly Craftworlds) units of various sizes, as well as Plasma Cannon Devastators and some more common basic weapons here we go:
Because Mathhammer isn't actually playing the game. If I want to play Spreadsheethammer, I'll fire up Excel instead of busting out dice.
Now please note how many blast weapons actually managed to kill even -half- of a unit. That's right. The Wyvern killed 3.11/5 Dire Avengers who were taking their worst save and not soaking any wounds on the Exarch or standing in any kind of cover or with any kind of protection.
The math doesn't support the narrative that blast weapons are going to be regularly wiping out hordes unless you start pouring a large amount of CP, support buffs, psychic powers, or just using a lot of them to shoot at hordes.
The blast weapon is not an anti-horde weapon in the way people have been presenting it as, and it's clear they haven't actually checked their assumptions once.
Let me help: At 6-10 models D6 averages 4 attacks. That's the thing you'll most need to be aware of if you want to crunch your own numbers.
ClockworkZion wrote: The reason I looked at models killed was because the increased number of attacks doesn't result in the same percentage in increased models killed. Look at the Wyvern, at 11+ models it has double the attacks of it's average, but when you look at how many wounds get through the number isn't doubled.
Anyone can argue that we see a massive number of attacks, and they're not wrong, but it oversells the actual impact of the weapon when actually fired at a target.
As for the free Captaina and LT rerolls, if you're so afraid of your opponent being that tiny bit more efficient that you run MSU, congrats, you've bought into a build that opens you up to be more easilly wiped out. MSU horde units are incredibly squishy as their intended durability is from their body counts. Additionally, if you want to the same number of bodies that turns into an.issue of needing to spend CP to run more detachments. You can run 180 Boyz in a Battalion if you horde, but it'd take three battalions to do the same as MSUs.
Shots fired increase by 71%, hits inflicted increase by 71%, wounds inflicted increase by 71%, unsaved wounds inflicted increase by 71%, number of models removed increase by 71%. The number of shots fired is increased by the same proportion the number of models removed are.
When you put it into raw numbers it sounds unimpressive, because generally, models can kill about 20% of their value, when you add 70% to that it's still only 34%, on a 125 pt model 14% is 18 pts. So even a massive boost of 70% more hits looks unimpressive, which IMO it shouldn't be. Imagine in any other game where you increase damage by 70% against a given type of target, that is huge.
MSU hordes aren't any more squishy than regular hordes, whether you have 3x10 Boys or 1x30 it's the same math, except when blasts come into play and you get shafted if you play big units in 9th. Orks might still play big units because that type of unit is heavily supported by the Ork Codex rules, but we'll see whether anything but Boyz, Warriors and Daemons will be run in big units competitively. You don't need to run more than 60 troops, just run vehicles and shooting units, it's a vehicle/shooting edition.
Because people apparently didn't look at the link I posted that showed an actual breakdown of actual blast weapons aimed at (mainly Craftworlds) units of various sizes, as well as Plasma Cannon Devastators and some more common basic weapons here we go:
I looked at it. Very interesting. I'm curious about your methodology here. For example with the 10 Guard vs regular Guardians I've got 20 shots -> 10 hits -> 5 wounds -> 3.33 failed saves/kills
I was using a combat calculator to smooth out any math errors I'd make.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok now so assuming I’m running Tyranids, and I know
I’m not gonna be casting Catalyst or any other buffs on a unit of TERMAGANTS (something I’ve never once had to do in a decade of playing Nids), it’s pretty safe to say that all the criticism is intact right - I’d be silly to run 30 man squads now and give up free hits right? It’s a shame because I enjoy the big termagant blob but I cannot see it being worth giving my opponent effectively a free Wyvern, and yeah I know both the local guard players here are excited for theirs in 9th
I mean you give up free hits just bringing models to the game, why fuss about this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: LoS ignoring fire is gonna be AMAZING in 9th and I can’t take anyone seriously who is saying a punisher is as good as a Wyvern. Are they factoring in that you’ll probably get one turn of shooting out of the punisher and 5 out of the Wyvern, with a MUCH higher selection of targets too?
Good luck getting 5 full turns of shooting out of the Wyvern in a game with smaller table sizes. There's less room to run and hide.
ClockworkZion wrote: You can't call it a "horde" mechanic if it's not applicable to "horde" units. What we have is a "blast" mechanic that targets units based on size, not type.
Making up a narrative about hordes being targeted (something I'm blaming Table Top Titans for having a hand in, as well as Front Line Gaming as neither seems to actually looked at how effective blasts -actually- are and instead knee jerked because "look at how many shots a Wyvern has!!!11!one!!!") doesn't really address anything. All it's doing is peddling a fake narrative about hordes being unfairly targetted by a weapon that is the least effective against them.
Stu Black mentioned as part of the initial intro that it's something they looked at to simulate the effect of blast weapons on large units without penalizing smaller ones. That's where the whole "narrative" started coming from. The talk about them affecting units based on size.
There's no weapons that are penalizing multiple small units. Just "hordes" that are 6+ models. Continually shouting about how "IT'S A BLAST MECHANIC YOU CAN'T CALL IT A HORDE MECHANIC IF IT DOESN"T APPLY TO HORDES!" is nonsense, given that any 6-10 model unit is getting hit by at least one step of a blast weapon.
Because people apparently didn't look at the link I posted that showed an actual breakdown of actual blast weapons aimed at (mainly Craftworlds) units of various sizes, as well as Plasma Cannon Devastators and some more common basic weapons here we go:
Because Mathhammer isn't actually playing the game. If I want to play Spreadsheethammer, I'll fire up Excel instead of busting out dice.
Now please note how many blast weapons actually managed to kill even -half- of a unit. That's right. The Wyvern killed 3.11/5 Dire Avengers who were taking their worst save and not soaking any wounds on the Exarch or standing in any kind of cover or with any kind of protection.
The math doesn't support the narrative that blast weapons are going to be regularly wiping out hordes unless you start pouring a large amount of CP, support buffs, psychic powers, or just using a lot of them to shoot at hordes.
The blast weapon is not an anti-horde weapon in the way people have been presenting it as, and it's clear they haven't actually checked their assumptions once.
Let me help: At 6-10 models D6 averages 4 attacks. That's the thing you'll most need to be aware of if you want to crunch your own numbers.
Cool, so now factor in the morale and attrition.
So Stu Black said it was based on unit size and everyone assumed that means it was based on hordes? I think my guess that they're trying to emulate the blast templates is more correct than the way people have talked about it being a horde killer.
And while you scoff at mathhammer, it gives us a clearer picture of how we can expect things to work in real life rather than assuming that since a Wyvern gets 24 shots that 24 wounds will be successfully dealt 100% of the time.
As for Morale, assuming they fail, 1 + 1/6th. Far less damning to a horde than old editions.
ClockworkZion wrote: The reason I looked at models killed was because the increased number of attacks doesn't result in the same percentage in increased models killed. Look at the Wyvern, at 11+ models it has double the attacks of it's average, but when you look at how many wounds get through the number isn't doubled.
Anyone can argue that we see a massive number of attacks, and they're not wrong, but it oversells the actual impact of the weapon when actually fired at a target.
As for the free Captaina and LT rerolls, if you're so afraid of your opponent being that tiny bit more efficient that you run MSU, congrats, you've bought into a build that opens you up to be more easilly wiped out. MSU horde units are incredibly squishy as their intended durability is from their body counts. Additionally, if you want to the same number of bodies that turns into an.issue of needing to spend CP to run more detachments. You can run 180 Boyz in a Battalion if you horde, but it'd take three battalions to do the same as MSUs.
Shots fired increase by 71%, hits inflicted increase by 71%, wounds inflicted increase by 71%, unsaved wounds inflicted increase by 71%, number of models removed increase by 71%. The number of shots fired is increased by the same proportion the number of models removed are.
When you put it into raw numbers it sounds unimpressive, because generally, models can kill about 20% of their value, when you add 70% to that it's still only 34%, on a 125 pt model 14% is 18 pts. So even a massive boost of 70% more hits looks unimpressive, which IMO it shouldn't be. Imagine in any other game where you increase damage by 70% against a given type of target, that is huge.
MSU hordes aren't any more squishy than regular hordes, whether you have 3x10 Boys or 1x30 it's the same math, except when blasts come into play and you get shafted if you play big units in 9th. Orks might still play big units because that type of unit is heavily supported by the Ork Codex rules, but we'll see whether anything but Boyz, Warriors and Daemons will be run in big units competitively. You don't need to run more than 60 troops, just run vehicles and shooting units, it's a vehicle/shooting edition.
It's not even a 70% flat boost though. A lot of the math bounces up and down based on the target it's aimed at, and honestly I just feel like some people are inflating "one or two more models" into "EVERYTHING IS DEAD" and that's misleading as heck.
Problem is that 3x10 boys are easier to remove off the table that 3x30. So if you want 180 boyz to ensure you can park large groups of Orks on a point, best way to do it is take a single detachment and run 6x30. If you run 3 Battalions to run MSU then say goodbye to 6CP.
ClockworkZion wrote: You can't call it a "horde" mechanic if it's not applicable to "horde" units. What we have is a "blast" mechanic that targets units based on size, not type.
Making up a narrative about hordes being targeted (something I'm blaming Table Top Titans for having a hand in, as well as Front Line Gaming as neither seems to actually looked at how effective blasts -actually- are and instead knee jerked because "look at how many shots a Wyvern has!!!11!one!!!") doesn't really address anything. All it's doing is peddling a fake narrative about hordes being unfairly targetted by a weapon that is the least effective against them.
Because people apparently didn't look at the link I posted that showed an actual breakdown of actual blast weapons aimed at (mainly Craftworlds) units of various sizes, as well as Plasma Cannon Devastators and some more common basic weapons here we go:
Now please note how many blast weapons actually managed to kill even -half- of a unit. That's right. The Wyvern killed 3.11/5 Dire Avengers who were taking their worst save and not soaking any wounds on the Exarch or standing in any kind of cover or with any kind of protection.
The math doesn't support the narrative that blast weapons are going to be regularly wiping out hordes unless you start pouring a large amount of CP, support buffs, psychic powers, or just using a lot of them to shoot at hordes.
The blast weapon is not an anti-horde weapon in the way people have been presenting it as, and it's clear they haven't actually checked their assumptions once.
Let me help: At 6-10 models D6 averages 4 attacks. That's the thing you'll most need to be aware of if you want to crunch your own numbers.
So what you're saying is, I should buy some Wyverns? But seriously, Exaltation for some excellent time consuming number crunching - well done!
I wonder how much of a difference the Master of Ordnance makes.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok now so assuming I’m running Tyranids, and I know
I’m not gonna be casting Catalyst or any other buffs on a unit of TERMAGANTS (something I’ve never once had to do in a decade of playing Nids), it’s pretty safe to say that all the criticism is intact right - I’d be silly to run 30 man squads now and give up free hits right? It’s a shame because I enjoy the big termagant blob but I cannot see it being worth giving my opponent effectively a free Wyvern, and yeah I know both the local guard players here are excited for theirs in 9th
I mean you give up free hits just bringing models to the game, why fuss about this?
...
I see what you’ve posted here, but there must be a mistake I don’t think you meant to say that... I am certain you have more self-respect than to actually make this argument in full sincerity
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok now so assuming I’m running Tyranids, and I know
I’m not gonna be casting Catalyst or any other buffs on a unit of TERMAGANTS (something I’ve never once had to do in a decade of playing Nids), it’s pretty safe to say that all the criticism is intact right - I’d be silly to run 30 man squads now and give up free hits right? It’s a shame because I enjoy the big termagant blob but I cannot see it being worth giving my opponent effectively a free Wyvern, and yeah I know both the local guard players here are excited for theirs in 9th
I mean you give up free hits just bringing models to the game, why fuss about this?
...
I see what you’ve posted here, but there must be a mistake I don’t think you meant to say that... I am certain you have more self-respect than to actually make this argument in full sincerity
If you're not using them to their full effectiveness then there is no argument that can be made to get you to change your mind.
Cool, so where's your numbers showing the effects of Attrition?
Because remember: it's any roll of a 1, rolled for on each model, with a -1 to the roll if the unit drops below half strength.
Those "1 or 2 more models" are the difference between being at Half Strength or Below Half Strength(when the -1 to attrition kicks in)--meaning it's the difference of passing on 2(assuming no negative modifiers from units or powers or auras or whatever)+ or failing on 1s and 2s.
ClockworkZion wrote: You can't call it a "horde" mechanic if it's not applicable to "horde" units. What we have is a "blast" mechanic that targets units based on size, not type.
Making up a narrative about hordes being targeted (something I'm blaming Table Top Titans for having a hand in, as well as Front Line Gaming as neither seems to actually looked at how effective blasts -actually- are and instead knee jerked because "look at how many shots a Wyvern has!!!11!one!!!") doesn't really address anything. All it's doing is peddling a fake narrative about hordes being unfairly targetted by a weapon that is the least effective against them.
Because people apparently didn't look at the link I posted that showed an actual breakdown of actual blast weapons aimed at (mainly Craftworlds) units of various sizes, as well as Plasma Cannon Devastators and some more common basic weapons here we go:
Now please note how many blast weapons actually managed to kill even -half- of a unit. That's right. The Wyvern killed 3.11/5 Dire Avengers who were taking their worst save and not soaking any wounds on the Exarch or standing in any kind of cover or with any kind of protection.
The math doesn't support the narrative that blast weapons are going to be regularly wiping out hordes unless you start pouring a large amount of CP, support buffs, psychic powers, or just using a lot of them to shoot at hordes.
The blast weapon is not an anti-horde weapon in the way people have been presenting it as, and it's clear they haven't actually checked their assumptions once.
Let me help: At 6-10 models D6 averages 4 attacks. That's the thing you'll most need to be aware of if you want to crunch your own numbers.
So what you're saying is, I should buy some Wyverns? But seriously, Exaltation for some excellent time consuming number crunching - well done!
I wonder how much of a difference the Master of Ordnance makes.
Seriously don't. The extra 2T and 1W are worth more then 10 points alone, and it does more damage, and if it gets tagged by 10 Gaunts it wont spend the rest of the game shooting its heavy bolter at them.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Ok now so assuming I’m running Tyranids, and I know
I’m not gonna be casting Catalyst or any other buffs on a unit of TERMAGANTS (something I’ve never once had to do in a decade of playing Nids), it’s pretty safe to say that all the criticism is intact right - I’d be silly to run 30 man squads now and give up free hits right? It’s a shame because I enjoy the big termagant blob but I cannot see it being worth giving my opponent effectively a free Wyvern, and yeah I know both the local guard players here are excited for theirs in 9th
I mean you give up free hits just bringing models to the game, why fuss about this?
...
I see what you’ve posted here, but there must be a mistake I don’t think you meant to say that... I am certain you have more self-respect than to actually make this argument in full sincerity
If you're not using them to their full effectiveness then there is no argument that can be made to get you to change your mind.
I genuinely don’t follow what you’re saying here but it’s starting to read like the words of someone in too deep who is now just arguing for the sake of not wanting to back down even a fraction. Spoletta made good points. What you’re saying is not.... very convincing in the slightest.
Kanluwen wrote: Cool, so where's your numbers showing the effects of Attrition?
Because remember: it's any roll of a 1, rolled for on each model, with a -1 to the roll if the unit drops below half strength.
Those "1 or 2 more models" are the difference between being at Half Strength or Below Half Strength(when the -1 to attrition kicks in)--meaning it's the difference of passing on 2(assuming no negative modifiers from units or powers or auras or whatever)+ or failing on 1s and 2s.
Cool, where's your math showing that any blast weapons are as deadly on their own as you're acting they are?
Let's use 30 Grots being shot by a Leman Russ since they lose an easy 5 models. They're Ld4, so they auto-fail and lose one, that leaves 24 models. 1/6 of those will run, so another 4, so they lose 5 models and still have 20 standing around.
How about another one? Guardian Defenders with 20 models lose 7 (rounding down the .11) to a Wyvern leaving them with 13, and auto-fail their morale of 7. 1 model flees, and they lose 2 to morale. They lose 10 models total.
Morale and attrition isn't taking large chunks out of units these days.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
I want to remind people that wyverns were inherently linked to vigilus, and only gained massive popularity because of all the buffs you could stack on them
Nitro Zeus wrote: I genuinely don’t follow what you’re saying here but it’s starting to read like the words of someone in too deep who is now just arguing for the sake of not wanting to back down even a fraction. Spoletta made good points. What you’re saying is not.... very convincing in the slightest.
When you asked if there was any reason to run massed Termaguants in hordes of 30 several where pointed out, only for you to move the goal posts and say that you basically play the unit with as little efficiency as possible and then ask the same question.
Honestly I just felt you were going to go "okay, there's that but..." on us again.
If he’s not leaning on math as a part of his argument, which he isn’t, then he’s fully justified in pointing out the flaws in your math without providing any math of his own.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
Wyvern is 4D6, not D6.
You're looking at 4 shots minimum, 24 maximum...which means vs 6-10 models, you're not really seeing any difference but 11+? That's a huge jump.
Seriously don't. The extra 2T and 1W are worth more then 10 points alone, and it does more damage, and if it gets tagged by 10 Gaunts it wont spend the rest of the game shooting its heavy bolter at them.
I'm sorry, I've no idea what you're talking about, what has 2T and 1W more than what? Are you talking about a Leman Russ? (something I did not mention)
Nitro Zeus wrote: If he’s not leaning on math as a part of his argument, which he isn’t, then he’s fully justified in pointing out the flaws in your math without providing any math of his own.
When I asked him to provide math to disprove my math he pulled a "but you didn't talk about morale!" and moved the goal posts. He didn't prove anything, and he disproved even less.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
? Wyvern is 4D6 shots, against 11+ that 24 shots
No its per weapon not per dice. So 4d6 min 6.
When a Blast weapon targets a unit that has 11 or more models, do not roll dice to randomly determine how many attacks are made – instead, make the maximum possible number of attacks For example, if a Grenade D6 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 11 or more models, that weapon makes six attacks against that unit
That's straight from the free PDF. It's the maximum amount of attacks--24.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
? Wyvern is 4D6 shots, against 11+ that 24 shots
No its per weapon not per dice. So 4d6 min 6.
It's one weapon shooting 4d6 shoots, so minimum of 4 shots, average of 12, max of 24.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I genuinely don’t follow what you’re saying here but it’s starting to read like the words of someone in too deep who is now just arguing for the sake of not wanting to back down even a fraction. Spoletta made good points. What you’re saying is not.... very convincing in the slightest.
When you asked if there was any reason to run massed Termaguants in hordes of 30 several where pointed out, only for you to move the goal posts and say that you basically play the unit with as little efficiency as possible and then ask the same question.
Honestly I just felt you were going to go "okay, there's that but..." on us again.
What the? Wasting additional resources on Termagants isn’t “playing them to maximum efficiency” it’s the opposite of it. You have one Catalyst IF that, and real units to protect with it. Just because it’s more efficient to buff a 30 man squad than a 10 man squad doesn’t mean there’s any real efficiency in this play in the first place. You are LOSING efficiency here because the most realistic scenario where efficiency comes into play is the fact that you lose like twice as many modes to a Wyvern. There was no shifting of the goal posts that’s just you further leaning on buzzwords and other substance-less arguments. I’ve been asking one question from the start, I guess you just don’t really have any understanding of how Tyranids play before you made all these declarations, but we don’t buff up a bunch of Termagants like they are release state Cultists or something.
Nitro Zeus wrote: If he’s not leaning on math as a part of his argument, which he isn’t, then he’s fully justified in pointing out the flaws in your math without providing any math of his own.
When I asked him to provide math to disprove my math he pulled a "but you didn't talk about morale!" and moved the goal posts. He didn't prove anything, and he disproved even less.
And I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that Blast weapons are less deadly to non-large units than you're pretending them to be. Yes, there's a cap as to where the efficacy applies(that was going to be the case no matter what since these numbers are stupidly arbitrary as I've said repeatedly) but that doesn't change that it is not going to be hurting literally anyone who can have variably sized units since they can just skate past it.
I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge the nonsense argument that you made about how this is purely to bring back templates...while ignoring that it doesn't actually affect multiple units at once, meaning that argument is bunk.
Blast was a dud, no pun intended, as long as you're not obligated to take full sized units and the unit sizes for a maximum effect for D6 based weapons is beyond the maximum/minimum size for most units.
Seriously don't. The extra 2T and 1W are worth more then 10 points alone, and it does more damage, and if it gets tagged by 10 Gaunts it wont spend the rest of the game shooting its heavy bolter at them.
I'm sorry, I've no idea what you're talking about, what has 2T and 1W more than what? Are you talking about a Leman Russ? (something I did not mention)
Yeah sorry I'm just astounded this even an argument.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
? Wyvern is 4D6 shots, against 11+ that 24 shots
No its per weapon not per dice. So 4d6 min 6.
It's one weapon shooting 4d6 shoots, so minimum of 4 shots, average of 12, max of 24.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
? Wyvern is 4D6 shots, against 11+ that 24 shots
No its per weapon not per dice. So 4d6 min 6.
It's one weapon shooting 4d6 shoots, so minimum of 4 shots, average of 12, max of 24.
Given the average value on a d6 is 3.5, the average would be 14, not 12.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I genuinely don’t follow what you’re saying here but it’s starting to read like the words of someone in too deep who is now just arguing for the sake of not wanting to back down even a fraction. Spoletta made good points. What you’re saying is not.... very convincing in the slightest.
When you asked if there was any reason to run massed Termaguants in hordes of 30 several where pointed out, only for you to move the goal posts and say that you basically play the unit with as little efficiency as possible and then ask the same question.
Honestly I just felt you were going to go "okay, there's that but..." on us again.
What the? Wasting additional resources on Termagants isn’t “playing them to maximum efficiency” it’s the opposite of it. You have one Catalyst IF that, and real units to protect with it. Just because it’s more efficient to buff a 30 man squad than a 10 man squad doesn’t mean there’s any real efficiency in this play in the first place. You are LOSING efficiency here because the most realistic scenario where efficiency comes into play is the fact that you lose like twice as many modes to a Wyvern. There was no shifting of the goal posts that’s just you further leaning on buzzwords and other substance-less arguments. I’ve been asking one question from the start, I guess you just don’t really have any understanding of how Tyranids play before you made all these declarations, but we don’t buff up a bunch of Termagants like they are release state Cultists or something.
Losing an extra model or two from a unit to a Wyvern versus it being more easily shot off the board by non-blast weapons? Which is really more important? Because people keep talking about blasts, but forget that to counter blasts you make yourself weaker to stuff like bolters, bolt rifles, or even lasguns.
Nitro Zeus wrote: If he’s not leaning on math as a part of his argument, which he isn’t, then he’s fully justified in pointing out the flaws in your math without providing any math of his own.
When I asked him to provide math to disprove my math he pulled a "but you didn't talk about morale!" and moved the goal posts. He didn't prove anything, and he disproved even less.
And I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that Blast weapons are less deadly than you're pretending them to be.
I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge the nonsense argument that you made about how this is purely to bring back templates...while ignoring that it doesn't actually affect multiple units at once, meaning that argument is bunk.
Less deadly? Zion has been here repeatedly saying they're not going to be as deadly to hordes as people have been claiming - what are you talking about, Kan?
And the new Blast rules do simulate a template hit (or the in-world effect of a shot which in-game has a template, anyway) better than a straight dX roll seems to have done through the whole of 8th. It is a mechanic which can't cover clipping second units, etc, but that was always the thing people bitched about when it came to template weapons in previous editions anyway.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
? Wyvern is 4D6 shots, against 11+ that 24 shots
No its per weapon not per dice. So 4d6 min 6.
When a Blast weapon targets a unit that has 11 or more models, do not roll dice to randomly determine how many attacks are made – instead, make the maximum possible number of attacks For example, if a Grenade D6 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 11 or more models, that weapon makes six attacks against that unit
That's straight from the free PDF. It's the maximum amount of attacks--24.
You are correct, too much gak in my brain of which to keep track.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I genuinely don’t follow what you’re saying here but it’s starting to read like the words of someone in too deep who is now just arguing for the sake of not wanting to back down even a fraction. Spoletta made good points. What you’re saying is not.... very convincing in the slightest.
When you asked if there was any reason to run massed Termaguants in hordes of 30 several where pointed out, only for you to move the goal posts and say that you basically play the unit with as little efficiency as possible and then ask the same question.
Honestly I just felt you were going to go "okay, there's that but..." on us again.
What the? Wasting additional resources on Termagants isn’t “playing them to maximum efficiency” it’s the opposite of it. You have one Catalyst IF that, and real units to protect with it. Just because it’s more efficient to buff a 30 man squad than a 10 man squad doesn’t mean there’s any real efficiency in this play in the first place. You are LOSING efficiency here because the most realistic scenario where efficiency comes into play is the fact that you lose like twice as many modes to a Wyvern. There was no shifting of the goal posts that’s just you further leaning on buzzwords and other substance-less arguments. I’ve been asking one question from the start, I guess you just don’t really have any understanding of how Tyranids play before you made all these declarations, but we don’t buff up a bunch of Termagants like they are release state Cultists or something.
Losing an extra model or two from a unit to a Wyvern versus it being more easily shot off the board by non-blast weapons? Which is really more important? Because people keep talking about blasts, but forget that to counter blasts you make yourself weaker to stuff like bolters, bolt rifles, or even lasguns.
I don’t understand how it’s any easier to kill 30 Termagants in 10 man squads with Bolters than it is to kill one 30 man squad. In fact, it’s harder because you’ll likely waste shots over killing each unit. Once again, less efficient. Surely efficiency is not the word you meant to use here right?
Nitro Zeus wrote: If he’s not leaning on math as a part of his argument, which he isn’t, then he’s fully justified in pointing out the flaws in your math without providing any math of his own.
When I asked him to provide math to disprove my math he pulled a "but you didn't talk about morale!" and moved the goal posts. He didn't prove anything, and he disproved even less.
And I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that Blast weapons are less deadly than you're pretending them to be.
I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge the nonsense argument that you made about how this is purely to bring back templates...while ignoring that it doesn't actually affect multiple units at once, meaning that argument is bunk.
Less deadly? Zion has been here repeatedly saying they're not going to be as deadly to hordes as people have been claiming - what are you talking about, Kan?
And the new Blast rules do simulate a template hit (or the in-world effect of a shot which in-game has a template, anyway) better than a straight dX roll seems to have done through the whole of 8th. It is a mechanic which can't cover clipping second units, etc, but that was always the thing people bitched about when it came to template weapons in previous editions anyway.
Read the edit. I forgot a part.
It's a nonsense argument that Blast weapons are less deadly to "horde units" when they're the only ones where you'll see D6 based weapons really shining. You don't see people complaining that their 10 model Marine Squads are going to be affected...because they can just Combat Squad and avoid it. You don't see people complaining about Fire Warriors, Skitarii, etc. They've just started talking more and more about MSU.
Blast is a rule that will basically not exist for certain armies when playing against them. It's a joke that they even bothered adding this rule in the first place.
Nitro Zeus wrote: If he’s not leaning on math as a part of his argument, which he isn’t, then he’s fully justified in pointing out the flaws in your math without providing any math of his own.
When I asked him to provide math to disprove my math he pulled a "but you didn't talk about morale!" and moved the goal posts. He didn't prove anything, and he disproved even less.
And I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that Blast weapons are less deadly to non-large units than you're pretending them to be. Yes, there's a cap as to where the efficacy applies(that was going to be the case no matter what since these numbers are stupidly arbitrary as I've said repeatedly) but that doesn't change that it is not going to be hurting literally anyone who can have variably sized units since they can just skate past it.
I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge the nonsense argument that you made about how this is purely to bring back templates...while ignoring that it doesn't actually affect multiple units at once, meaning that argument is bunk.
Blast was a dud, no pun intended, as long as you're not obligated to take full sized units and the unit sizes for a maximum effect for D6 based weapons is beyond the maximum/minimum size for most units.
I never said they weren't less deadly to smaller units, I've done the math that shows how they play out at different unit sizes because that was what I was originally looking at, I said the sizes chosen were to emulate the old blast templates. I wouldn't be shocked if the devs dusted off a set, crammed a bunch of models under them and chose their numbers that way.
And just because a weapon type is better against a specific unit size doesn't make it anti-that unit. Look at those numbers again. Blasts weapons aren't killing more than Rapid Fire bolt rifles are even with morale factored in. Does that make bolt rifles an anti-horde weapon? No.
Blast weapons are a weapon of target priority that allows you to soften targets, but is bad at finishing targets off. The bigger the target the easier time it has hurting it, but generally speaking there's a few of them I wouldn't even use on hordes as getting multiple hits against enemy armour would be a better use for them.
The problem is that trying to counter blasts weakens units against other weapon types and the fixation on the effects of blasts (often being thrown about with no numbers to back it up) and pushing MSU as a baseline on units that don't have the toughness and/or saves to be MSU is very much a major over reaction.
The Wyvern has one blast weapon.
It get a minimum of 6 SHOTS , not hits, shots.
You are negating 9/1236 results
Your going to shoot the average number of shots, which means 3 ish wounds on average.
Punisher can't reroll wounds but gets 20 shots everytime. Which nets about 4 wounds.
So the punisher as long as its able to see will do more damage, it's also more durable T8 vs T6 is a huge difference. Punisher can still fire its weapon when it gets tagged (which by the way means you will probably more shooting put of the Punisher). If you stick the Wyvren behind cover to hide it your going to have to drop something to zone out DSing models.
? Wyvern is 4D6 shots, against 11+ that 24 shots
No its per weapon not per dice. So 4d6 min 6.
It's one weapon shooting 4d6 shoots, so minimum of 4 shots, average of 12, max of 24.
Is the average not 14?
No, you're right, it is 14. Which means I've been overselling the Wyvern when I've said it "doubles its shots" against 11+.
And that's why I used a combat calculator where I could just put 4d6 and let it math out the average.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I genuinely don’t follow what you’re saying here but it’s starting to read like the words of someone in too deep who is now just arguing for the sake of not wanting to back down even a fraction. Spoletta made good points. What you’re saying is not.... very convincing in the slightest.
When you asked if there was any reason to run massed Termaguants in hordes of 30 several where pointed out, only for you to move the goal posts and say that you basically play the unit with as little efficiency as possible and then ask the same question.
Honestly I just felt you were going to go "okay, there's that but..." on us again.
What the? Wasting additional resources on Termagants isn’t “playing them to maximum efficiency” it’s the opposite of it. You have one Catalyst IF that, and real units to protect with it. Just because it’s more efficient to buff a 30 man squad than a 10 man squad doesn’t mean there’s any real efficiency in this play in the first place. You are LOSING efficiency here because the most realistic scenario where efficiency comes into play is the fact that you lose like twice as many modes to a Wyvern. There was no shifting of the goal posts that’s just you further leaning on buzzwords and other substance-less arguments. I’ve been asking one question from the start, I guess you just don’t really have any understanding of how Tyranids play before you made all these declarations, but we don’t buff up a bunch of Termagants like they are release state Cultists or something.
Losing an extra model or two from a unit to a Wyvern versus it being more easily shot off the board by non-blast weapons? Which is really more important? Because people keep talking about blasts, but forget that to counter blasts you make yourself weaker to stuff like bolters, bolt rifles, or even lasguns.
I don’t understand how it’s any easier to kill 30 Termagants in 10 man squads with Bolters than it is to kill one 30 man squad. In fact, it’s harder because you’ll likely waste shots over killing each unit. Once again, less efficient. Surely efficiency is not the word you meant to use here right?
How many Termagaunts are we talking about in a list? 30, or 180? Because in the former you could run 3x10 and have the same effect, but if you're running a maxed out carpet of bugs, that 180 is a single battalion for hordes, or 3 Battalions for MSU. So are we talking about -just- 30 little bugs, or are you talking about every unit of 30 being run as 3x10 instead?
Nitro Zeus wrote: If he’s not leaning on math as a part of his argument, which he isn’t, then he’s fully justified in pointing out the flaws in your math without providing any math of his own.
When I asked him to provide math to disprove my math he pulled a "but you didn't talk about morale!" and moved the goal posts. He didn't prove anything, and he disproved even less.
And I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that Blast weapons are less deadly than you're pretending them to be.
I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge the nonsense argument that you made about how this is purely to bring back templates...while ignoring that it doesn't actually affect multiple units at once, meaning that argument is bunk.
Less deadly? Zion has been here repeatedly saying they're not going to be as deadly to hordes as people have been claiming - what are you talking about, Kan?
And the new Blast rules do simulate a template hit (or the in-world effect of a shot which in-game has a template, anyway) better than a straight dX roll seems to have done through the whole of 8th. It is a mechanic which can't cover clipping second units, etc, but that was always the thing people bitched about when it came to template weapons in previous editions anyway.
Read the edit. I forgot a part.
It's a nonsense argument that Blast weapons are less deadly to "horde units" when they're the only ones where you'll see D6 based weapons really shining. You don't see people complaining that their 10 model Marine Squads are going to be affected...because they can just Combat Squad and avoid it. You don't see people complaining about Fire Warriors, Skitarii, etc. They've just started talking more and more about MSU.
Blast is a rule that will basically not exist for certain armies when playing against them. It's a joke that they even bothered adding this rule in the first place.
My arguement is that people have overly fixated on the numbers that blasts do, and the MSU playstyle was being oversold. Especially when it's easy to remove a small unit off a point, but a larger unit will weather more fire before it can be removed.
This is the edition of holding objectives, and having capped CP. MSU generally means easier to remove when talking about T3/T4 bodies with 4+ or worse saves, and to bring the body count to make them matter that means spending CP to do so. I'm not sure the "cure" for blast is as good as people say it is.
I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.
@Zion You understand that MSU was already a thing, riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Some armies(looking at you Guard that aren't running Scions...there's probably more but I don't have the familiarity with all of the books that I used to) can't do it, but the armies that can't are few and far between.
This whole "Blast" stuff was unnecessary as introduced. End of story. Your continued insistence that it's healthy for the game and that "the numbers show it's fine!" is just mindblowingly absurd. Numbers don't show everything and they never will...especially when you choose to just focus on one aspect that you like.
Go run the numbers on a 12 model unit of Kataphron Breachers or Destroyers. A 20 model unit of either Electro-Priests. And then come back and tell me that this whole nonsense is "okay because the numbers show it's fine!".
Nitro Zeus wrote: I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.
If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: @Zion
You understand that MSU was already a thing, riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Some armies(looking at you Guard that aren't running Scions...there's probably more but I don't have the familiarity with all of the books that I used to) can't do it, but the armies that can't are few and far between.
This whole "Blast" stuff was unnecessary as introduced. End of story. Your continued insistence that it's healthy for the game and that "the numbers show it's fine!" is just mindblowingly absurd.
Numbers don't show everything and they never will.
Oh I know it's a thing, but some armies do MSU well, some don't. T3 bodies running MSU has been reliant on running lots of squads to get around the squish factor, something that costs CP now. CP you probably want to spend on other things since the game caps you at 17 normally, and 22 if you can regen 1 CP each turn. So most armies are going to need to be running 1 detachment to really benefit from their limited CP pool. which means not running MSU unless they're trying to give up the objectives they're trying to hold.
And your instance of trying to debunk statistics with opinion is hardly the silver bullet of an argument you think it is.
Oh now we're at the "but it costs CP now!" stage of the argument?
Remember that the different types of Detachments didn't go away. Just the number of Detachments you can take in various point scales. Oh, and while we're at it?
The Command Points are locked at points values too.
And you get refunded the CP if your Warlord is from the Detachment in question.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.
If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: @Zion
You understand that MSU was already a thing, riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Some armies(looking at you Guard that aren't running Scions...there's probably more but I don't have the familiarity with all of the books that I used to) can't do it, but the armies that can't are few and far between.
This whole "Blast" stuff was unnecessary as introduced. End of story. Your continued insistence that it's healthy for the game and that "the numbers show it's fine!" is just mindblowingly absurd.
Numbers don't show everything and they never will.
Oh I know it's a thing, but some armies do MSU well, some don't. T3 bodies running MSU has been reliant on running lots of squads to get around the squish factor, something that costs CP now. CP you probably want to spend on other things since the game caps you at 17 normally, and 22 if you can regen 1 CP each turn. So most armies are going to need to be running 1 detachment to really benefit from their limited CP pool. which means not running MSU unless they're trying to give up the objectives they're trying to hold.
And your instance of trying to debunk statistics with opinion is hardly the silver bullet of an argument you think it is.
I'll be honest, with 12 troops, 6 elites, 6 fast, and 6 heavy support I am not struggling to build MSU lists for 9th with still having 12 cp.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.
If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.
When did I say anything about 30 bodies? I’m running 90 bodies in a brigade. And where did you get the idea that I’m not supporting them? What do you think the role of Termagants is mate? And Even if I was running 30, no Rippers do not cover the same amount of space, soak as much fire, contest objectives from other GEQ as well, tarpit as well, and in the event of a horde list they would get shredded by any multi damage weapons that would be otherwise wasted. But this is just basic Tyranid stuff at this point, I think it’s safe to say you’re not really familiar with this army, which is fine, but it’s time to admit you were wrong.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh now we're at the "but it costs CP now!" stage of the argument?
Remember that the different types of Detachments didn't go away. Just the number of Detachments you can take.
Funny how you move the goal posts and go "what about the morale!" but when I point out that your MSU argument circles leads to a CP cost you try and act like I'm moving goalposts when I'm pointing out a serious flaw in your position.
And yes, those detachments do exist, but they cost CP. You're likely to run out of slots in a single detachment to run MSU hordes. MSU Elites like Custodes get to bank on being expensive to allow them to fill up an army without even breaking a Patrol detachment if they like, but hordes need all the slots they can get, which means the more units they run the more slots you need, which means more CP spent on at least one extra detachment. That or you're going to need to try and cram a Brigade into the game at 2k or less points to have enough troops slots since a majority of horde units are troops.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.
If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.
When did I say anything about 30 bodies? I’m running 90 bodies in a brigade. And where did you get the idea that I’m not supporting them? What do you think the role of Termagants is mate? And Even if I was running 30, no Rippers do not cover the same amount of space, soak as much fire, contest objectives from other GEQ, tarpit as well, and in the event of a horde list they would get shredded by any multi damage weapons that would be otherwise wasted. But this is just basic Tyranid stuff at this point, I think it’s safe to say you’re not really familiar with this army, which is fine, but it’s time to admit you were wrong.
See, I asked how many we were talking about earlier. Because just 30 bodies? Yeah, that doesn't work on any level. 90 bodies. You can run 3x30, or 9x10. Problem is 9x10 costs CP. And extra HQs.
I was talking about running Rippers instead of 3x10 because the only thing I could think you'd want to do with those MSUs was cap objectives on your side of the board.
And last I played Nids was 4th, before they took all the fun out of the book, so maybe I don't know the optimal way to play them now, but that wasn't the question. Your question, with no other context, was why would you play a unit of 30 Termagaunts. Then it was why would you use them if you're not buffing them in any way. I only answered based on what little I knew.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.
If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: @Zion
You understand that MSU was already a thing, riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Some armies(looking at you Guard that aren't running Scions...there's probably more but I don't have the familiarity with all of the books that I used to) can't do it, but the armies that can't are few and far between.
This whole "Blast" stuff was unnecessary as introduced. End of story. Your continued insistence that it's healthy for the game and that "the numbers show it's fine!" is just mindblowingly absurd.
Numbers don't show everything and they never will.
Oh I know it's a thing, but some armies do MSU well, some don't. T3 bodies running MSU has been reliant on running lots of squads to get around the squish factor, something that costs CP now. CP you probably want to spend on other things since the game caps you at 17 normally, and 22 if you can regen 1 CP each turn. So most armies are going to need to be running 1 detachment to really benefit from their limited CP pool. which means not running MSU unless they're trying to give up the objectives they're trying to hold.
And your instance of trying to debunk statistics with opinion is hardly the silver bullet of an argument you think it is.
I'll be honest, with 12 troops, 6 elites, 6 fast, and 6 heavy support I am not struggling to build MSU lists for 9th with still having 12 cp.
For which army? Because some armies can't go the brigade route, which means they do have to spend CP to MSU their hordes, so I'm curious which one you're talking about.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh now we're at the "but it costs CP now!" stage of the argument?
Remember that the different types of Detachments didn't go away. Just the number of Detachments you can take.
Funny how you move the goal posts and go "what about the morale!" but when I point out that your MSU argument circles leads to a CP cost you try and act like I'm moving goalposts when I'm pointing out a serious flaw in your position.
You're the one who threw the numbers out there and ignored that your numbers were just looking at the straight shooting. You literally cannot take multiple Detachments at low point values, but you can take MSU and Blast at all point values.
Sure, you can argue that I'm moving goalposts if you want--but it doesn't change the fact that Blast weapons vs large sized units are going to rely upon Morale and Attrition as a part of how they function.
And yes, those detachments do exist, but they cost CP. You're likely to run out of slots in a single detachment to run MSU hordes. MSU Elites like Custodes get to bank on being expensive to allow them to fill up an army without even breaking a Patrol detachment if they like, but hordes need all the slots they can get, which means the more units they run the more slots you need, which means more CP spent on at least one extra detachment. That or you're going to need to try and cram a Brigade into the game at 2k or less points to have enough troops slots since a majority of horde units are troops.
Electro-Priests are 'Horde units'(can be taken in units of up to 20) and are Elites.
Custodes are an elite army, not necessarily Elites.
Fun fact: did you know their Troops choice starts at 3 models, according to GW's Combat Roster?
A single Custodes Guardian box has this to say:
This multi-part plastic kit contains the components necessary to assemble a set of 5 Adeptus Custodes Custodian Guard, armed with either guardian spears or sentinel blades and storm shields. 1 model can be assembled as a Shield-Captain, featuring a cloak and choice of 2 heads, and 1 can be assembled as a Vexilus Praetors, carrying Custodes Vexilla.
It doesn’t cost CP or HQs. Why would a Nid list ever run less than 3 HQ?
The other real question is why WOULD I be buffing Termagants? If this niche ass idea of buffing a 30man squad of Termagants, that hasn’t come up for me in a decade of playing Nids is the only thing to offset taking significant extra casualties from blast, then yeah that argument is as poor as it sounds. In general, this rule just pushes the faction into running 10 man MSU which is pretty lame. But whatever you’re clearly NEVER going to admit that so maybe we’ll take a look at this once the meta develops. I’m sure even then it will be that everyone else is doing it wrong, but we’ll get there when we get there
ClockworkZion wrote: Kan, I honestly don't even get the argument you're trying to make at this point.
Keep beating your drum I guess.
Nope. You chose to bring up Command Points being a limiting factor for running MSUs.
Prove it.
Nah. I've wasted hours on this already and you've shown you won't budge, you just move goalposts and fail to bring up any evidence of anything you've claimed.
So have a good one. I've got better things to worry about than trying to change your mind at this point.
ClockworkZion wrote: Kan, I honestly don't even get the argument you're trying to make at this point.
Keep beating your drum I guess.
Nope. You chose to bring up Command Points being a limiting factor for running MSUs.
Prove it.
Nah. I've wasted hours on this already and you've shown you won't budge, you just move goalposts and fail to bring up any evidence of anything you've claimed.
So have a good one. I've got better things to worry about than trying to change your mind at this point.
You and Kanluwen are what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object
ClockworkZion wrote: Kan, I honestly don't even get the argument you're trying to make at this point.
Keep beating your drum I guess.
Nope. You chose to bring up Command Points being a limiting factor for running MSUs.
Prove it.
Nah. I've wasted hours on this already and you've shown you won't budge, you just move goalposts and fail to bring up any evidence of anything you've claimed.
So have a good one. I've got better things to worry about than trying to change your mind at this point.
You and Kanluwen are what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object
Nah, I'm not stubborn enough to claim to be either. And maybe I'm wrong, but I took the time to try and work out what I'm actually looking at in the game instead of just saying "well, we're all playing MSU now!" I look forward to 9th as it shakes out and will likely be running maxed squads of Guardians and Aspects unless I find it somehow pays out to not do so.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you're the one who keeps throwing nothing but numbers out.
You're refusing to acknowledge that statistics alone aren't the end-all, be-all. This is the reason I continually will harp upon ANYONE who does nothing but post spreadsheets.
You couldn't even acknowledge that you need to factor Morale and Attrition in when talking about Shooting Attacks without claiming that it was "moving goalposts". It's not like I was asking you to bring in leadership modifiers or attrition modifiers. A basic thing like the test a unit has to take after losing models should be factored in if you're going to claim the numbers matter. Or at least a basic acknowledgement made.
And then you went and gave some silly examples of a Wyvern firing at Guardians and a LRBT firing at Grots...who's taking LRBTs against Grots but no Wyverns? The thing was custom-made for screwing with Orks.
Keep saying that my argument has been "well, we're all playing MSU now!". That alone has been funny. My argument is and always has been that this has done nothing to actually encourage some of these previously underperforming weapons.
And to further add to it? It's done nothing but add another silly 'gatekeeping check' to any kind of organized event play.
The only reason I used mathhammer was because it helps create realistic expectations of what we can see on the table.
And I used those numbers for morale because they were nice and round and in both cases the unit was auto-failing morale checks. I was doing quick math in my head, not trying to spend more hours crunching numbers on morale.
ClockworkZion wrote: The only reason I used mathhammer was because it helps create realistic expectations of what we can see on the table.
And I used those numbers for morale because they were nice and round and in both cases the unit was auto-failing morale checks. I was doing quick math in my head, not trying to spend more hours crunching numbers on morale.
And that's the whole issue for me.
You didn't factor those numbers in to start with. You had to use "quick math in your head", rather than having incorporated those numbers in the first place while espousing how great the numbers are...and even then you chose two wildly different platforms to compare rather than using the same for both!
A Wyvern and its 4(minimum of all 1s vs sub-6 models or assuming you roll a 1 plus you get the 3 'free' shots for targeting a 6+ model unit) 3+D6(assuming you're targeting a 6+ model unit) to 24 shots(rolling all 6s or targeting an 11+ model unit) vs a Leman Russ and its 1-3-6 shots is a huge difference to be seeing when comparing a sub-6 model unit, a 6-10 model unit, and an 11+ model unit.
I understand that you can't necessarily math out every single exchange and that obviously you use averages, but that your averages didn't work out the morale bit to start with? It's silly when presenting it as the "end all, be all".
Not if the piece of work you're doing is "how many models will I kill by firing this weapon/unit at this target" - after all, odds are you're not firing a each unit at different targets, but you need a rough idea of how much damage will be done to determine which combination of units are likely to do sufficient damage to a target on average.
In the general case, once you've killed n models from a unit (where n is the unit's Leadership), the only other relevant factor is whether you did enough damage to get the unit below less than half the size it started the game at. 1/6 times nothing happens (as 1's pass Morale automatically), 5/6 times 1 model is removed. Of that 5/6, either 1/6 or 1/3 of the remaining models are removed, depending on if the damage done that turn (not just from one unit).
You could model that, but it'd be messy.
I do find it amusing that the Wyvern gets no benefit from Blast for shooting at a unit of 6-10 models, despite dropping, what, 4 small Blast templates in 7th edition. Big benefit at 11+, though, for sure.
Lovely discussion going on, but I would like to point out 2 wrong statements that have been said in this thread:
1) 10 men marine units are not affected by blasts because they can split in 5x2.
If you split in 5x2 due to blasts, you have already been affected. Your intercessors stratagems just became half as effective. That hurts more than a lot of people think.
2) The values are arbitrary and dont' make sense.
False. The way it has been implemented is actually quite nice and well represents how blasts used to works with templates. Between one and five models you don't present any kind of easier target. 6 models are slightly more affected than, and 6 is slightly less affected than 7, and so on until 10. 11 is a bit more affected than 10, and 12 models suffer blasts more than 11... Seems quite fine, it scales decently well with the amount of models in the unit.
You shoot with 5 plasma cannons at 5 intercessors? You score ten shots. You fire 5 plasma cannons at 6 intercessors? You score around twelve shots. You fire 5 plasma cannons at 7 intercessors? You score around fourteen shots.
Don't see a problem with tresholds.
This blast system shows some flaws only when you shoot with weapons with high numbers of dices at units which are just above 5 of 10 models, but we are talking about edge cases. The system is fine 99% of the time.
Spoletta wrote: Lovely discussion going on, but I would like to point out 2 wrong statements that have been said in this thread:
1) 10 men marine units are not affected by blasts because they can split in 5x2.
If you split in 5x2 due to blasts, you have already been affected. Your intercessors stratagems just became half as effective. That hurts more than a lot of people think.
2) The values are arbitrary and dont' make sense.
False. The way it has been implemented is actually quite nice and well represents how blasts used to works with templates. Between one and five models you don't present any kind of easier target. 6 models are slightly more affected than, and 6 is slightly less affected than 7, and so on until 10. 11 is a bit more affected than 10, and 12 models suffer blasts more than 11...
Seems quite fine, it scales decently well with the amount of models in the unit.
You shoot with 5 plasma cannons at 5 intercessors? You score ten shots.
You fire 5 plasma cannons at 6 intercessors? You score around twelve shots.
You fire 5 plasma cannons at 7 intercessors? You score around fourteen shots.
Don't see a problem with tresholds.
Not really. You could spread out just fine whether your squad had three members or thirty. If you had thirty, a blast template was basically guaranteed to hit SOME of your squad, but not necessarily any more than a five-man squad on a direct hit-scatter was less punishing, but the overall hits were not.
But it COULD delete multiple squads, or at least hit multiple squads. I see nothing allowing that now.
A wyvern was barrage if my memory serves right, so it could easily get 20 [u[hits[/u] even against a properly spaced out unit of boyz and was almost guaranteed to vaporize them if they were clumped up after combat or from a chokepoint.
Now we are talking about 24 shots, not hits, so sorry for not being terrified of something like that. If wyverns are the worst the blast unit has to offer, it will not have an impact on how many boyz or pox walkers I will bring in a unit.
I'd also like to point out that the thread went from "blasts are the end of horde units" to "wyverns are the end of termagants". I hope you made sure you have raised your banners high on all those goalposts.
Wyverns are probably the most extreme example of Blast, and probably the one most-optimized towards killing hordes.
Blast takes them from an average of 5.19 Cultists killed to 8.9 Cultists killed. A whole three-and-a-half extra Cultists.
1D6 weapons getting a minimum of 3 against 6-10 model units sounds powerful. But in practice your average goes from 3.5 to 4, so it's less impactful than re-rolling 1s. D3 shots weapons are obviously much better against units of 6-10, but they get nothing against hordes, and all the ones I've seen have shot up in cost considerably.
Plus, people seem to be fixating solely on the increase in shots. This ignores that Blast weapons have gone up in cost, they don't get to shoot in melee on vehicles (so, shutting down vehicles by charging them is still a thing), and the ones that are great against 6-10 model units get nothing extra against hordes, while the ones great against hordes get nothing against 6-10 model units. Blast weapons seem pretty specialized against very particular unit types, and pay for it. Overhauling armies to try to avoid Blast altogether seems extreme.
But I mean if people want to go full MSU- gut their stratagem efficiency, reduce the number of models I need to kill to target their characters, and make it harder to keep their units in buff range- all to avoid me getting a miniscule buff on the Plasma Cannons, Missile Launchers, and Grenade Launchers that I'm not taking because they now cost too much for what they do, well, more power to them. It'll help against my Battle Cannons, I guess.
The whole thing seems really overblown to me. Especially when the nature of the game means that TAC lists lean towards killing Marines, not hordes.
When I briefly compared the more significant blast weapons and the cost increases they seemed to roughly correlate damage increase to cost increase. Roughly. So for example instead of 3 TFCs I can expect to see 1-2 with better output against medium to larger units.
Personally I'm not really concerned and I will still run large units including returning to max size cultists and tzaangors again. I feel the weight of obsec is worth it alone besides other reasons. Also consider many blast weapon carriers do not control board space which is something 9th edition punishes so I feel there will be a reduction in the more static units anyway.
Jidmah wrote: A wyvern was barrage if my memory serves right, so it could easily get 20 [u[hits[/u] even against a properly spaced out unit of boyz and was almost guaranteed to vaporize them if they were clumped up after combat or from a chokepoint.
Now we are talking about 24 shots, not hits, so sorry for not being terrified of something like that. If wyverns are the worst the blast unit has to offer, it will not have an impact on how many boyz or pox walkers I will bring in a unit.
I'd also like to point out that the thread went from "blasts are the end of horde units" to "wyverns are the end of termagants". I hope you made sure you have raised your banners high on all those goalposts.
Who are you talking to? I’m the only person making it about Termagants, because I asked a personal question relevant to my army, and I only joined the thread a few pages ago. Perhaps you should take a look at what goalposts you have chosen to hang YOUR banner on here.
Jidmah wrote: Now we are talking about 24 shots, not hits, so sorry for not being terrified of something like that. If wyverns are the worst the blast unit has to offer, it will not have an impact on how many boyz or pox walkers I will bring in a unit.
I'd also like to point out that the thread went from "blasts are the end of horde units" to "wyverns are the end of termagants". I hope you made sure you have raised your banners high on all those goalposts.
Good for you, I hope to see some big mobs around as well and that things don't devolve into all Mek Gunz all the time. I wish you good luck getting it to work because the game seems to have made a lot of changes to hurt you, blast is just one of those. With nerfed SAGs and tagging no longer working on vehicles I think you'll be in hell against Dakkabots and Punisher Tanks with Orks especially, but maybe you guys can brew up a counter for that. The first few posts in the thread were all about how it was all pts and mission dependent and we couldn't draw hasty conclusions about blasts wiping or not wiping hordes from the meta. For me I have been wishing for blasts for quite some time, I think it's a great idea and the rule seems to have just the right amount of impact, I just don't like the time it has come, with morale being the only windfall for big units and fighting units on top of fences and ruins being the only buff for melee considering many competitive events engineered their terrain around 8th having poor terrain rules, better terrain rules will mostly help what was bad terrain in 8th be effective terrain in 9th.
Dysartes wrote: Not if the piece of work you're doing is "how many models will I kill by firing this weapon/unit at this target" - after all, odds are you're not firing a each unit at different targets, but you need a rough idea of how much damage will be done to determine which combination of units are likely to do sufficient damage to a target on average.
In the general case, once you've killed n models from a unit (where n is the unit's Leadership), the only other relevant factor is whether you did enough damage to get the unit below less than half the size it started the game at. 1/6 times nothing happens (as 1's pass Morale automatically), 5/6 times 1 model is removed. Of that 5/6, either 1/6 or 1/3 of the remaining models are removed, depending on if the damage done that turn (not just from one unit).
You could model that, but it'd be messy.
I do find it amusing that the Wyvern gets no benefit from Blast for shooting at a unit of 6-10 models, despite dropping, what, 4 small Blast templates in 7th edition. Big benefit at 11+, though, for sure.
I guess in a mathematical sense, morale is just a further boost to the most efficient weapons - because the most efficient weapons should kill more than less efficient weapons, which means your opponent should fail more morale tests.
But this is offset by the fact dead units can't run away.
But I'm not really sure what adding morale proves really, since as you say, finding what kills stuff efficiently is the aim of the exercise, and since you would tend to shoot with more than one unit, you have to come up with nearly infinite examples to work out the odds.
I stand by my view that Wyverns (certainly 3 of them) are going to be too bad against MSU power armour to be meta viable. Having a big disadvantage in probably 50%+ of games, just to have a big advantage in a few game if someone brings mass boyz, stealers or pre-kill fulgurites, isn't sensible.
But then maybe GW have managed to create a balanced game where you want to be running a soft highlander style list. (Press X for doubt.)
Could be wrong though.
Well. i dont know about the rest of the horde armies, but Orks at least, are going to suck.
The faction in 8th was mediocre but now with all the changes and point changes they're being hit real hard with the nerf hammer for no apparent reason.
Ive heard that the Tyranids were nerfed. pretty hard with the point changes too.
Beardedragon wrote: Well. i dont know about the rest of the horde armies, but Orks at least, are going to suck.
The faction in 8th was mediocre but now with all the changes and point changes they're being hit real hard with the nerf hammer for no apparent reason.
Ive heard that the Tyranids were raped pretty hard with the point changes too.
I play mainly nids and orks, nids are 100% better off than orks as vigilus was scrapped (which is a good thing, just not a good thing for orks and gsc). Not saying nids are in a good spot, they probably are not, but orks are in a much worse spot (unless spamming boyz against armies kitted out to kill armour, but I don't think many ork players will want to do that, we are all bored to death with boyz spam) .
vict0988 wrote: Good for you, I hope to see some big mobs around as well and that things don't devolve into all Mek Gunz all the time. I wish you good luck getting it to work because the game seems to have made a lot of changes to hurt you, blast is just one of those. With nerfed SAGs and tagging no longer working on vehicles I think you'll be in hell against Dakkabots and Punisher Tanks with Orks especially, but maybe you guys can brew up a counter for that. The first few posts in the thread were all about how it was all pts and mission dependent and we couldn't draw hasty conclusions about blasts wiping or not wiping hordes from the meta. For me I have been wishing for blasts for quite some time, I think it's a great idea and the rule seems to have just the right amount of impact, I just don't like the time it has come, with morale being the only windfall for big units and fighting units on top of fences and ruins being the only buff for melee considering many competitive events engineered their terrain around 8th having poor terrain rules, better terrain rules will mostly help what was bad terrain in 8th be effective terrain in 9th.
I doubt that mek guns will be going away though, they haven't gotten worse and with lootas basically losing everything that made them work, they are the only fire support option left for infantry-based armies.
If boyz are dead to the meta - and I'm not sure of that - it won't be because of blasts, but because of the 1/2 inch rule, vehicles shooting in combat, coherency, multi-charge nerf, less space to deep strike, point hikes and more difficult access to additional clans. On the other hand, morale is quite a huge buff for them as people can't shoot down 15-20 boyz and hope for the rest to disappear. Endless green tide is now a lot more reliable to pull off. The other big buff is the 5" vertical engagement range, which turns ruins from "immune to melee" into deathtraps you can't fall back from. Tagging also isn't completely dead, as many relevant guns are blast, and falling back is no longer free for flying units. It's different now.
So the thing to tip the scales for boyz is pretty much how well missions and secondaries reward going into melee with a large number of objective secured models. There is no way to theory-hammer that, I'll have to play a bunch of games myself and see some games by people who actually know their way around orks (almost all of the playtesters don't).
My meta already was full of punishers, aggressors, tf cannons, dakkabots, tesla necrons and noise marines. Losing 60-90 boyz in one turn was expected. If the one AM player brings wyverns intead of punsihers, more power to him. All others don't have wyverns and kill boyz just as well as before.
Beardedragon wrote: Well. i dont know about the rest of the horde armies, but Orks at least, are going to suck.
The faction in 8th was mediocre but now with all the changes and point changes they're being hit real hard with the nerf hammer for no apparent reason.
Ive heard that the Tyranids were raped pretty hard with the point changes too.
Stealers suffer a bit, but in general Tyranids didn't have any crazy point increases. Our midsize bugs actually came out pretty well.
Lictors, Pyrovores, guards and so on became much better.
ClockworkZion wrote: How did SAGs get nerfed? Or are we talking about the restriction of the relic SAG from competetive play?
massive pricehike on the regular aswell..
Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up 100% on all the points changes.
Yeah, the first time I read it I thought it was a mistake TBH. It looked to me like they hiked his points by 40pts because they were going to make the SAG 0 points (because they split the old "Big Mek" datasheet into "Big Mek with KFF, Big Mek With SAG, and Big Mek with Mega Armor" separate profiles, which means the SAG is now a mandatory piece of wargear only one unit has) but then they just...forgot to make the SAG 0 points, and left it with his datasheet getting a 40pt nerf and the SAG still at 35pts.
Buuuuuuuuuuut then they didn't FAQ it, so WoRkInG aS iNtEnDeD I guess.
ClockworkZion wrote: How did SAGs get nerfed? Or are we talking about the restriction of the relic SAG from competetive play?
massive pricehike on the regular aswell..
Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up 100% on all the points changes.
Yeah, the first time I read it I thought it was a mistake TBH. It looked to me like they hiked his points by 40pts because they were going to make the SAG 0 points (because they split the old "Big Mek" datasheet into "Big Mek with KFF, Big Mek With SAG, and Big Mek with Mega Armor" separate profiles, which means the SAG is now a mandatory piece of wargear only one unit has) but then they just...forgot to make the SAG 0 points, and left it with his datasheet getting a 40pt nerf and the SAG still at 35pts.
Buuuuuuuuuuut then they didn't FAQ it, so WoRkInG aS iNtEnDeD I guess.
We'll this is the fourth time an edition changes for my orks, and GW has always made sure to heavily nerf everything that was considered competitive in the previous edition. This time is no different.
Beardedragon wrote: Well. i dont know about the rest of the horde armies, but Orks at least, are going to suck.
The faction in 8th was mediocre but now with all the changes and point changes they're being hit real hard with the nerf hammer for no apparent reason.
Ive heard that the Tyranids were raped pretty hard with the point changes too.
Stealers suffer a bit, but in general Tyranids didn't have any crazy point increases. Our midsize bugs actually came out pretty well.
Lictors, Pyrovores, guards and so on became much better.
Pyrovores are probably about the same but I still think they're overrated. 25 points for a heavy flamer isn't great (I can't remember their 9th cost and I can't be bothered to look it up). Hive Guard will get -1s to hit a lot more than they used to, but they're still going to be great. I don't know what makes Tyrant Guard better.
And finally, the Lictor still does nothing.
So yeah, disagree. The points increases for Nids didn't do anything to fix the very mediocre datasheets of a couple of these units.
Jidmah wrote: A wyvern was barrage if my memory serves right, so it could easily get 20 [u[hits[/u] even against a properly spaced out unit of boyz and was almost guaranteed to vaporize them if they were clumped up after combat or from a chokepoint.
Now we are talking about 24 shots, not hits, so sorry for not being terrified of something like that. If wyverns are the worst the blast unit has to offer, it will not have an impact on how many boyz or pox walkers I will bring in a unit.
I'd also like to point out that the thread went from "blasts are the end of horde units" to "wyverns are the end of termagants". I hope you made sure you have raised your banners high on all those goalposts.
And to reinforce the perspective -
A Wyvern used to kill 3.5 KFF Boyz. Now it will kill 6. There is no more specialist detachment to worry about (for now). This does not seem to be an overwhelming issue. People can certainly add mortars and other such weapons, but then are they going to be turning into skew and suffering against non-horde armies?
BUT if you're not running KFF or Catalyst, etc you'll feel that pain a little more sharply - e.g. Termagants - but it is AP0 after all.
Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
Sort of a side point - but why are Tyranid players so bullish on warriors? (Speaking as someone who tried to be bullish through 8th, but was never entirely convinced.)
One unit with the Blood of Baal buffs makes sense - but I think they got a reasonable points hike. Hasn't A venom cannon+2 deathspitters+boneswords trio gone 82 to 99 points I think - about a 20% jump.
Maybe ditch the boneswords to make some saving, but still.
ClockworkZion wrote: How did SAGs get nerfed? Or are we talking about the restriction of the relic SAG from competetive play?
massive pricehike on the regular aswell..
Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up 100% on all the points changes.
Yeah, the first time I read it I thought it was a mistake TBH. It looked to me like they hiked his points by 40pts because they were going to make the SAG 0 points (because they split the old "Big Mek" datasheet into "Big Mek with KFF, Big Mek With SAG, and Big Mek with Mega Armor" separate profiles, which means the SAG is now a mandatory piece of wargear only one unit has) but then they just...forgot to make the SAG 0 points, and left it with his datasheet getting a 40pt nerf and the SAG still at 35pts.
Buuuuuuuuuuut then they didn't FAQ it, so WoRkInG aS iNtEnDeD I guess.
We'll this is the fourth time an edition changes for my orks, and GW has always made sure to heavily nerf everything that was considered competitive in the previous edition. This time is no different.
I don't know what you are talking about. 6th edition KillaKanz and warbikers were the best, and in 7th they were just as amazing....ohh wait. you are right
Granted going from 7th into 8th they didn't nerf that much except for boyz because honestly, orkz were about the worst army in the game in 7th.
As far as 9th, i am still leaning heavily into the idea of a KFF/Painboy protected Green tide list for tournament play. I think it will be sufficiently counter meta to survive. The worst part is that it won't be fun to play and will require a minimum of 180 Ork boyz to function.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
Yeah, this is all true (and I'm still on the Z'ope bandwagon personally). I guess Spoletta's point was fair, he just listed the wrong units and shouldn't have included Lictors lol.
SemperMortis wrote: I don't know what you are talking about. 6th edition KillaKanz and warbikers were the best, and in 7th they were just as amazing....ohh wait. you are right
Kanz were a top competitive choice during 5th and slightly worse in 6th due to the loss of the cover rules for shooting through squad members. They were completely obliterated in the 7th edition codex for that.
Granted going from 7th into 8th they didn't nerf that much except for boyz because honestly, orkz were about the worst army in the game in 7th.
So how about power klaws, da lucky stikk, MANz missiles, supa-cybork, mega-force field, exhaust cloud and Thrakka?
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
Warriors are nice but didn't need to go up 5ppm on the most common loadout. And why would you take Lictors when you can take Rippers? All you get is the ability to perform actions. But honestly it's easier to remove Lictors than it is to remove Rippers, so I don't think that's a plus.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
Warriors are nice but didn't need to go up 5ppm on the most common loadout. And why would you take Lictors when you can take Rippers? All you get is the ability to perform actions. But honestly it's easier to remove Lictors than it is to remove Rippers, so I don't think that's a plus.
Performing actions is pretty non-trivial. A lot of secondaries can't net you the full 15 VP, but there are several that allow you to muck about in the opponent's deployment zone or center of board and just pull in VPs.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
Warriors are nice but didn't need to go up 5ppm on the most common loadout. And why would you take Lictors when you can take Rippers? All you get is the ability to perform actions. But honestly it's easier to remove Lictors than it is to remove Rippers, so I don't think that's a plus.
The fact that they can drop somewhere out of sight and repair a teleport homer is a big plus. Also, they have an innate reroll out of charge, which can many times be useful.
SemperMortis wrote: I don't know what you are talking about. 6th edition KillaKanz and warbikers were the best, and in 7th they were just as amazing....ohh wait. you are right
Kanz were a top competitive choice during 5th and slightly worse in 6th due to the loss of the cover rules for shooting through squad members. They were completely obliterated in the 7th edition codex for that.
Granted going from 7th into 8th they didn't nerf that much except for boyz because honestly, orkz were about the worst army in the game in 7th.
So how about power klaws, da lucky stikk, MANz missiles, supa-cybork, mega-force field, exhaust cloud and Thrakka?
Also lobbas and deffkoptas were pretty good in 7th, now a legend unit and a sub-optimal one that has lost almost all the options it could take for customization. Not to mention that all the most competitive HQs of 7th edition were completely squatted when the 8th edition codex was released: biker boss, warboss in megarmor, big mek on bike, painboy on bike. Only the biker boss is alive for now, but it's has been relegated into an odd FW unit.
Granted going from 7th into 8th they didn't nerf that much except for boyz because honestly, orkz were about the worst army in the game in 7th.
So how about power klaws, da lucky stikk, MANz missiles, supa-cybork, mega-force field, exhaust cloud and Thrakka?
LMAO! I had completely forgotten those nerfs. Granted I thought MANz missiles were overated and never used Ghaz but the rest were pretty good. But those were the cherries on top of the turd sundae that was the 7th Edition Ork Codex.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
Interesting points Spoletta. The changes do make MORE sense than a lot may initially have thought, but they also still don’t make a lot of sense in many cases. Tervigon, Haruspex, etc? Genestealers didn’t need a 3 pt bump imo altho I can see why GW might have thought that... but yeah the pts changes for Nids aren’t entirely unreasonably at all
ClockworkZion wrote: The only reason I used mathhammer was because it helps create realistic expectations of what we can see on the table.
And I used those numbers for morale because they were nice and round and in both cases the unit was auto-failing morale checks. I was doing quick math in my head, not trying to spend more hours crunching numbers on morale.
And that's the whole issue for me.
You didn't factor those numbers in to start with. You had to use "quick math in your head", rather than having incorporated those numbers in the first place while espousing how great the numbers are...and even then you chose two wildly different platforms to compare rather than using the same for both!
A Wyvern and its 4(minimum of all 1s vs sub-6 models or assuming you roll a 1 plus you get the 3 'free' shots for targeting a 6+ model unit) 3+D6(assuming you're targeting a 6+ model unit) to 24 shots(rolling all 6s or targeting an 11+ model unit) vs a Leman Russ and its 1-3-6 shots is a huge difference to be seeing when comparing a sub-6 model unit, a 6-10 model unit, and an 11+ model unit.
I understand that you can't necessarily math out every single exchange and that obviously you use averages, but that your averages didn't work out the morale bit to start with? It's silly when presenting it as the "end all, be all".
Sorry to drag this one up but it's incorrect, a wyvern doesn't magically generate +3 shots for targeting a 6+ unit, it actually makes no difference to the wyvern. It's minimum number of shots is 4 right up to 11 model units when it jumps to 24.
Dudeface wrote: Sorry to drag this one up but it's incorrect, a wyvern doesn't magically generate +3 shots for targeting a 6+ unit, it actually makes no difference to the wyvern. It's minimum number of shots is 4 right up to 11 model units when it jumps to 24.
Part of me thinks that they meant the rule to be per die. That's not what they wrote though. The Wyvern would be scary with minimum 12 shots against 6-10 models.
Dudeface wrote: Sorry to drag this one up but it's incorrect, a wyvern doesn't magically generate +3 shots for targeting a 6+ unit, it actually makes no difference to the wyvern. It's minimum number of shots is 4 right up to 11 model units when it jumps to 24.
Part of me thinks that they meant the rule to be per die. That's not what they wrote though. The Wyvern would be scary with minimum 12 shots against 6-10 models.
Per die would give the Thunderfire 12 shots against 6+ model units which would be stupid broken for it's points.
Dudeface wrote: Sorry to drag this one up but it's incorrect, a wyvern doesn't magically generate +3 shots for targeting a 6+ unit, it actually makes no difference to the wyvern. It's minimum number of shots is 4 right up to 11 model units when it jumps to 24.
Part of me thinks that they meant the rule to be per die. That's not what they wrote though. The Wyvern would be scary with minimum 12 shots against 6-10 models.
Per die would give the Thunderfire 12 shots against 6+ model units which would be stupid broken for it's points.
Yup, would only work for d6. Same with how plasma cannons get full shots at 6+ models now. You would need a slightly more complex system, like "minimum half rounding down/up" or something, and more complex rules bring their own problems.
Sorry to drag this one up but it's incorrect, a wyvern doesn't magically generate +3 shots for targeting a 6+ unit, it actually makes no difference to the wyvern. It's minimum number of shots is 4 right up to 11 model units when it jumps to 24.
If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks So if, when determining how many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead For example, if a Grenade D6 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 6 or more models, and you roll a 2 to determine how many attacks are made, that roll is counted as being a 3 and that weapon makes three attacks against that unit
That's the 'long-form' version of the rule.
Blast Weapons: Minimum three attacks against units with 6+ models. Always make maximum number of attacks against units with 11+ models.
This is the 'bullet-point' version of the rule.
I'll totally agree this is something that is worth bringing up for a FAQ...but as of right now, what you posted is essentially what I said.
A Wyvern and its 4(minimum of all 1s vs sub-6 models or assuming you roll a 1 plus you get the 3 'free' shots for targeting a 6+ model unit) 3+D6(assuming you're targeting a 6+ model unit) to 24 shots(rolling all 6s or targeting an 11+ model unit)
It's messy as hell for the way it's worded but given that it just says "Minimum three attacks against units with 6+ models"? That's what I used for my 3 'free' shots and the assumption of rolling a 1 on your fourth D6.
AFAIK, you don't cease to roll for these shots. You're just cutting out the ability to get less than 3 shots minimum...which poses its own set of craziness when you get above 3D6 attacks for weapons.
Given that 4>3, Dudeface would be correct in saying that the rule has no impact on the Wyvern as things stand.
For attacks at targets with 6-10 models, it looks like weapons using a single d3 don't need to roll, but everything else does. If the total number of shots rolled is less than 3 - impossible for the Wyvern, given 4d6 - you increase that total to 3. At no point are you removing any of the dice before the roll and replacing them with a 3, as you appear to be implying.
I would say that a multiple dice weapon example would really have helped there, in addition to the Grenade D6 example given.
I do think you could've formatted your sentence about shot counts a bit better in the post Dudeface was quoting, though, Kan - I was going to comment on it yesterday, but gave up trying to parse it after a while.
I'm mathly challenged and that was the only way it was making sense to me, so I typed it as it was. Numbers and me get along about as well as...two things that really don't get along. It's a big part of why I dislike people hucking spreadsheets my way to showcase "efficiency". I'm not a robot, don't expect me to know these things!
Like I said though, I would definitely agree this is a thing that should get addressed in the FAQ.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
I am really looking forward to using my Warriors in 9th. The only thing that bugs me is that I'll be penalized for running units larger than 5 because of Blast. Maybe I'll run piles of units of 3, but that sounds pretty annoying too.
AFAIK, you don't cease to roll for these shots. You're just cutting out the ability to get less than 3 shots minimum...which poses its own set of craziness when you get above 3D6 attacks for weapons.
It does not cause any craziness. The blast rule is really clear. Against 6-10 models, you get minimum three for the _weapon_. 'Math' doesn't matter here. The number of dice rolled does not factor here. All blast weapons are simply given a minimum of 3 shots against 6-10 models.
The only way it would be weird is if there was a d2 blast weapon, as the blast rule would give it a third shot (from nowhere) against 6-10 models, and back down to 2 shots vs 11+.
So you do roll for the shots, but since a 4d6 (or more) weapon can't go below 4 (or thus, above the minimum of 3 vs 6-10 models), it never actually matters.
AFAIK, you don't cease to roll for these shots. You're just cutting out the ability to get less than 3 shots minimum...which poses its own set of craziness when you get above 3D6 attacks for weapons.
It does not. The blast rule is really clear. Against 6-10 models, you get minimum three for the _weapon_. The number of dice does not factor in any way at all. 'Math' doesn't matter here. The number of dice rolled does not factor here. All blast weapons are simply given a minimum of 3 shots against 6-10 models.
The only way it would be weird is if there was a d2 blast weapon, as the blast rule would give it a third shot (from nowhere) against 6-10 models, and back down to 2 shots vs 11+.
So you do roll for the shots, but since a 4d6 (or more) weapon can't go below 4 (or thus, above the minimum of 3 vs 6-10 models), it never actually matters.
I quoted the whole of the rule in a post.
Yes, it's clear that you make a minimum of 3 attacks...and then it goes on to give this:
Warhammer 40,000 Core Rules wrote:If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks So if, when determining how many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead.
For example, if a Grenade D6 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 6 or more models, and you roll a 2 to determine how many attacks are made, that roll is counted as being a 3 and that weapon makes three attacks against that unit
I agree that the rule is really clear...when we're talking about a single instance of a D6 being rolled. If we go off of that bit though, these kinds of cornercase <Insert Number Here>D6 weapons might be dealing their minimum damage in multiples of 3 vs 6-10 models.
Because it actually says "the dice rolled results in less than 3 attacks being made", which seems to be suggesting that you're not simply granting 3 attacks minimum, you're altering the values of the rolled dice to be a 3.
I'm inclined to agree with the idea of it being 4 minimum--but that's because like you said, you'd still roll and effectively it never becomes different at the 6-10 bracket.
I agree that the rule is really clear...when we're talking about a single instance. If we go off of that bit though, these kinds of cornercase <Insert Number Here>D6 weapons are going to be dealing their minimum damage in multiples of 3 vs 6-10 models.
You're making the same mistake I did and applying to example to the entire rule. Ignore the example and apply the wording of the rule in its entirety.
There is no multiple instance. Against 6-10 models, any blast weapon makes a minimum three attacks. The end.
You're adding something that isn't there at all.
So if, when determining how many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead.
Heavy 1d6 weapon: Rolled a 1 or 2? Minimum 3 instead
Heavy 2d6 weapon. Rolled a 2? Minimum 3 instead
Heavy 3d6 weapon. Rolled a 3? Minimum 3 is satisfied.
Heavy 4d6 weapon. Rolled a 4? Minimum 3 is satisfied.
etc.
The wording of the rule specifies _weapon_. It does not care at all about the number of dice you are rolling.
There's a reason why I stated that this is a thing that I'd like to see addressed in a FAQ. That reason is the ridiculous spikiness you'd see by simply adding a single model to the unit...unless you think going up by such a fairly large factor is acceptable. It would kinda/sorta smooth it out if it just doubles the result.
AFAIK, you don't cease to roll for these shots. You're just cutting out the ability to get less than 3 shots minimum...which poses its own set of craziness when you get above 3D6 attacks for weapons.
It does not. The blast rule is really clear. Against 6-10 models, you get minimum three for the _weapon_. The number of dice does not factor in any way at all. 'Math' doesn't matter here. The number of dice rolled does not factor here. All blast weapons are simply given a minimum of 3 shots against 6-10 models.
The only way it would be weird is if there was a d2 blast weapon, as the blast rule would give it a third shot (from nowhere) against 6-10 models, and back down to 2 shots vs 11+.
So you do roll for the shots, but since a 4d6 (or more) weapon can't go below 4 (or thus, above the minimum of 3 vs 6-10 models), it never actually matters.
I quoted the whole of the rule in a post.
Yes, it's clear that you make a minimum of 3 attacks...and then it goes on to give this:
Warhammer 40,000 Core Rules wrote:If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks So if, when determining how many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead.
For example, if a Grenade D6 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 6 or more models, and you roll a 2 to determine how many attacks are made, that roll is counted as being a 3 and that weapon makes three attacks against that unit
I agree that the rule is really clear...when we're talking about a single instance of a D6 being rolled. If we go off of that bit though, these kinds of cornercase <Insert Number Here>D6 weapons might be dealing their minimum damage in multiples of 3 vs 6-10 models.
Because it actually says "the dice rolled results in less than 3 attacks being made", which seems to be suggesting that you're not simply granting 3 attacks minimum, you're altering the values of the rolled dice to be a 3.
I'm inclined to agree with the idea of it being 4 minimum--but that's because like you said, you'd still roll and effectively it never becomes different at the 6-10 bracket.
You did quote the whole of the rule, but seem to be confused by the definition of "weapon". Given the use of "dice" - which is the plural form, not the singular - the rule is referring to all the dice (d3 or d6) in the Type column.
In the case of the Wyvern, it has a single weapon profile for the quad mortar, rather than four individual mortars, which is why it is Type Heavy 4d6. When you're determining the number of shots when firing at 6-10 models, you roll those 4 dice, and if the total number of shots is somehow less than 3, you get 3 shots. As that can't happen, you could end up on 4 shots, the same minimum as when firing at a 3 man or 5 man unit.
Any of the IG weapons which are 2dx - such as the Quake Cannon, which I assume is Blast - could see a benefit at 6-10 models, as you could still roll a 2. But anything with nDX, where n is 3 or more, sees no benefit from the Blast rule.
By all means, push for an FAQ on it, as it is confusing at least one player, but it seems clear to me.
AFAIK, you don't cease to roll for these shots. You're just cutting out the ability to get less than 3 shots minimum...which poses its own set of craziness when you get above 3D6 attacks for weapons.
Before jumping down my throat some more, read that. Keep that in mind.
Kanluwen wrote: There's a whole damn reason why I said this:
AFAIK, you don't cease to roll for these shots. You're just cutting out the ability to get less than 3 shots minimum...which poses its own set of craziness when you get above 3D6 attacks for weapons.
Before jumping down my throat some more, read that. Keep that in mind.
I acknowledge that it's a bit wonky with multiple dice weapons, but the rule is clear and the wonkiness in the other direction is worse. Thunderfires always getting maximum shots at a unit of 6+ is a far more awkward scenario than the off-chance that it rolls four 1's and gets no benefit from Blast.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
I am really looking forward to using my Warriors in 9th. The only thing that bugs me is that I'll be penalized for running units larger than 5 because of Blast. Maybe I'll run piles of units of 3, but that sounds pretty annoying too.
Warriors are good because of the defensive buffs you can stack on them. Adaptive Physiology and the -1 D strat both heavily lose potential with small units.
I would ignore Blasts and keep running them as 9.
the 3 min shots matters for d3 shot weapons but those tend to suffer a lot from -1 Damage.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
I am really looking forward to using my Warriors in 9th. The only thing that bugs me is that I'll be penalized for running units larger than 5 because of Blast. Maybe I'll run piles of units of 3, but that sounds pretty annoying too.
Warriors are good because of the defensive buffs you can stack on them. Adaptive Physiology and the -1 D strat both heavily lose potential with small units.
I would ignore Blasts and keep running them as 9.
the 3 min shots matters for d3 shot weapons but those tend to suffer a lot from -1 Damage.
Oh thanks! Are those from Psychic awakening? I didn't keep up with the Nid release for that because my actual playing slowed to a crawl around then. (and PA seemed like a lot of $$ for not much content that would be temporary anyways.) I am not up to snuff on my Nids.
I thought Adaptive Pysiology was in the standard book but no, only:
Adaptive Biology
Hyper-Adaptive Biology
Perfectly Adapted and
Adaptive Toxins . . .
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
I am really looking forward to using my Warriors in 9th. The only thing that bugs me is that I'll be penalized for running units larger than 5 because of Blast. Maybe I'll run piles of units of 3, but that sounds pretty annoying too.
Warriors are good because of the defensive buffs you can stack on them. Adaptive Physiology and the -1 D strat both heavily lose potential with small units.
I would ignore Blasts and keep running them as 9.
the 3 min shots matters for d3 shot weapons but those tend to suffer a lot from -1 Damage.
Oh thanks! Are those from Psychic awakening? I didn't keep up with the Nid release for that because my actual playing slowed to a crawl around then. (and PA seemed like a lot of $$ for not much content that would be temporary anyways.) I am not up to snuff on my Nids.
I thought Adaptive Pysiology was in the standard book but no, only:
Adaptive Biology
Hyper-Adaptive Biology
Perfectly Adapted and
Adaptive Toxins . . .
lol
Yes its from Blood of Baal (PA book). you can give 1 unit a bonus by giving up your Warlord Trait and/or you can spend 1 CP for another.
The most common choice is ignore AP -1 and -2 for a unit of Warrior (or Hive Guard)
Aswell as a new Stratagem for -1 Damage taken for a Warrior unit a shooting phase.
And another for -1 str when shooting at a unit within 6" of a Maleceptor, tho ofc that one works with MSU.
They really help make a Warrior unit pretty tanky.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Pyrovores are great now since they can outflank very cheaply into burning range, and then threaten their CCbs. Hive Guard will be better as per 9th changes. The Lictor is significantly worse imo, he did a couple of things okay in 8th that just aren’t worth covering in 9th. Tyrant Guard are probably better, able to perform their role more reliably on a less shooty field and hold ground in the mid field. But at the same time not gonna be flying off the shelves. Warriors are big winners, doing everything you want a good troop unit to do in 9th
And in fact the warriors and Hyve guards received the biggest hikes, while the other ones were de facto reduced in cost. The changes to tyranids actually make much more sense than what players are willing to admit.
By the way, I will put 2 lictors in every single list i make, for that cost they are broken generators of secondary points. They can also pheromon stuff now.
I am really looking forward to using my Warriors in 9th. The only thing that bugs me is that I'll be penalized for running units larger than 5 because of Blast. Maybe I'll run piles of units of 3, but that sounds pretty annoying too.
Warriors are good because of the defensive buffs you can stack on them. Adaptive Physiology and the -1 D strat both heavily lose potential with small units.
I would ignore Blasts and keep running them as 9.
the 3 min shots matters for d3 shot weapons but those tend to suffer a lot from -1 Damage.
Oh thanks! Are those from Psychic awakening? I didn't keep up with the Nid release for that because my actual playing slowed to a crawl around then. (and PA seemed like a lot of $$ for not much content that would be temporary anyways.) I am not up to snuff on my Nids.
I thought Adaptive Pysiology was in the standard book but no, only:
Adaptive Biology
Hyper-Adaptive Biology
Perfectly Adapted and
Adaptive Toxins . . .
lol
C'mon, man, you know you've got to adapt to these naming conventions...
But seriously, Exaltation for some excellent time consuming number crunching - well done!
