I think there are three situations where Jink can be considered:

1. Turn 1:

If you expect to be going second, you will minimize LoS to your Skimmers, and probably hide one behind the other, or behind terrain, or both.
My assumption is that in the worst of cases, there will be at most two Skimmers without terrain cover when deploying second.

v6 Jink: out of luck. doesn't work this time.
v7 Jink: you may Jink.
If only two Skimmers are in LoS, you can take two jinks, lose 66% (for TL weapons) or more of your DPS, and tank all incoming fire on 4+ (3+ if you have holofields).
Depending on the importance of the skimmers' alpha strike, this may be just as bad as having one of the two explode.

2. Behind Cover:

When behind cover, there is no difference between v6 or v7... or is there ?
Terrain (or unit) cover can be maneuvered around, and as long as your enemy finds a tiny window where all or 75% of your skimmer is visible, you're out of luck.
In that case, we have a clear difference:
v6 Jink: 5+ (4+ with holo) for free.
v7 Jink: You need to assess how much of a threat the one or two maneuvering units are.
If you feel they might down your Skimmer, you have to Jink and lose 66% (for TL weapons) or more of your DPS.
However, once you have Jinked, the opponent will automatically decide to pick another target, meaning you may want to delay your Jink after the first enemy, which would lose you the DPS and may even result in the Skimmer taking enough damage to explode.

3. Into the Wild:

Here's the huge difference between v6 and v7, a matter of mobility and firepower.
v6 Jink: 5+ (4+ with holo) for free.
v7 Jink: You are now in sight of most of the enemy army (at least after their movement phase).
If you feel they might down your Skimmer, you have to Jink and lose 66% (for TL weapons) or more of your DPS.
However, once you have Jinked, the opponent will automatically decide to pick another target, meaning you may want to delay your Jink after the first target, which would lose you the DPS and may even result in the Skimmer taking enough damage to explode.


The new Jink is a huge nerf, much more so for any army using more than a couple Skimmers, because any Jinking Skimmer will lose most of its DPS and be ignored by the enemy, leaving you with mostly the choice of not Jinking, which is almost the same as not having Jink to begin with.

I know you're thinking more about Eldar than Necrons here, but remember that Necrons also get skimmers. And twin-linked tesla loses very little effectiveness when snap-fired.

Not everyone is worse off with the changes.

Jink is not cover (at least I saw no indication it was 'As cover' but I'm still reading the rules) so the cover save is an either/or situation. since most of the time you'll have a 5+, jink is better.

Ignore cover weapons sadly don't cut it agasint jink in that case.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Jink is not cover (at least I saw no indication it was 'As cover' but I'm still reading the rules) so the cover save is an either/or situation. since most of the time you'll have a 5+, jink is better.

Ignore cover weapons sadly don't cut it agasint jink in that case.

Jink literally gives a 4+ cover save. It says so in the rules

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Jink is not cover (at least I saw no indication it was 'As cover' but I'm still reading the rules) so the cover save is an either/or situation. since most of the time you'll have a 5+, jink is better.

Ignore cover weapons sadly don't cut it agasint jink in that case.

"Jink" grants a cover save. "Ignores Cover" also negates any bonuses from Jink.

Will you please stop saying you lose 66% firepower. Its just bad math and not representative of the entire situation.

Twinlinked BS5 vs Twinlinked BS1. 89% vs 31%, that is only 58% per shot and a 65% relative reduction in firepower. Considering Eldar Wave Serpents are the focus of your post, you end up with a 78% chance of Twinlinking your Serpent Shield. It comes out to a 28% to hit when you factor all of that in for a 61% lower chance of hitting and 69% average Reduction in firepower for a Serpent Shield or Underslung Shuriken Cannon.

BS4 vs BS1 is 67% vs 17%. That is only 50% loss per shot or 75% reduction in firepower.

Twinlinked BS4 Tesla vs Twinlinked BS1 Tesla. Twinlinked BS4 Tesla averages 1.25 hits whereas a Twinlinked BS1 Tesla averages .92 hits or only a 26% reduction in firepower. Example is the Necron Tesla Destructor

Twinlinked BS2 vs Twinlinked BS1 56% vs 31%, that is a 25% lower chance to hit or a 45% Reduction in firepower. Example would be Ork Warbikers.

We can conclude that in all cases jinking does reduce firepower, anywhere from 26% to 75% for common units. As your main intent of this thread is lament over Wave Serpents being nerfed by Jink, ~66% is fair, but certainly not representative of all Skimmers. #FirstTierProblems


You also need to accurately factor in the increased resiliency form Jinking in this Edition compared to that in 6th.

5+ 6th Edition Jink vs 4+ 7th Edition Jink. That is a 50% increase in resiliency due to Jink.

4+ 6th Edition Holofield Jink vs 3+ 7th Edition Holofield Jink. Its a 33% increase in in resiliency due to Jink.

Interestingly enough, Holofields are worse than they were in 6th Edition, where as while Jinking Wave Serpents are much more durable in 7th than in 6th independent of the vehicle Damage changes.


Now about scenarios, assuming Wave Serpents are now jinking all the time is erroneous. They only jink when they have to and when you feel they are threatened. Your thread makes assumptions and is biased towards specifically Wave Serpents used as Gunships and is not objective in reference to Jink as a whole.

I think you need to change your title and opening post to reflect how you feel 7th Edition is a nerf for Wave Serpents used as Gunships. Wave Serepents used as transports have actually received quite a large buff as Jinking is more beneficial to durability, they have a better vehicle Damage Table, and they often have Objective Secured.


I would strongly suggest you either remove your bias and look at Jink as a whole, or make your examination more pointed ie Jink and Wave Serpents use as Gunboats. Yes, Wave Serpents or other Skimmers used as Gunships have gotten worse at a Gunship Role with the new Jink rule, when they choose to Jink, but receive greater durability, which has a prime impact on Skimmers used as Transports ie Devilfish or Wave Serpent. Otherwise, this was a pretty useless endeavor.

Objectives:
v6: your skimmers couldn't capture or even deny objectives.
v7: you can turbo-boost across the board, capture an active objective, roll your 3+ jink, then next turn turbo-boost to whatever objective you have in your hand for that turn.

The new rules are a nerf for the killing power of wave serpents but a buff for capturing objectives. Jink itself is simply different... nerf in some ways (snap shots when used) but a buff in others (better save and available turn 1).

I believe you always try to table your opponents as you've stated in another thread. Therefore from your perspective the new Jink rules are a nerf. I personally enjoy a change that makes people play to the objectives instead of simply "KILL EVERYTHING RAWR".

I think people are missing the point with jink, Eldar have become more powerful than ever - (i.e. a) no first turn pain i.e. b) their jetbikes are simply better especially shining spears (which I have yet to try in 7th, but I bought 9 so we shall try! i.e. c) Serpents can capture objectives).

Wave Serpents behind 25% cover are unchanged - and this is the kicker - wave serpents SHOULD be in mobs.. and only the front one needs to be in cover.. you push him out, then the others hang tail (as it were) they are all in cover and whatever you pointed them at is probably mostly dead. If you have to jink simply shoot fliers next turn - no drama.

of course if you ACTUALLY want to use the wave serpent as a TRANSPORT (and not the best tank in the game) that's fine too.. 3+ is lovely... but then you'd probably keep your shield for defence until they're unloaded...

Its just Morgoth is focused solely on the Wave Serpent as a Gunboat. He is focused on one particular role for one particular unit. Despite that unit as a whole getting better, and the rule he hates, being balanced and fair across a multitude of units.

My guess is that he is just upset that his Serpent Spam Gunboat list got a bit of a nerf, instead of his Transports being the best Tank in the game. Now they are still the bets Transport in the game, and arguably one of the most cost effective Tanks in the game...

It would be nice if this thread means you can stop derailing almost every other thread I click on with this same crap. I don't even care about you being drastically wrong anymore - tired of seeing otherwise interesting threads trolled out for 4 pages because you just keep posting about Wave Serpents and denying the existence of logic in any opposing response.

That being said, many armies did not get that much worse from the jink (yours included, 3+ Wave Serpents lel). A Venom with Wyches likes the extra survivability, especially since it lets them Deepstrike and jink.

It just does not get into my head how Eldar player can seriously complain about Wave Serpents.

What's next? Necron players complaining about Nightscythes?

Jink received a SKIMMER nerf, not a flyer nerf. I love the new jink rules! For my FMCs, it is simply a better save, same penalty as before.

For skimmers, yes it is usually worse. Necrons might as well always jink, as their mathematical efficiency is pretty similar.

 Zagman wrote:

I would strongly suggest you either remove your bias and look at Jink as a whole, or make your examination more pointed ie Jink and Wave Serpents use as Gunboats. Yes, Wave Serpents or other Skimmers used as Gunships have gotten worse at a Gunship Role with the new Jink rule, when they choose to Jink, but receive greater durability, which has a prime impact on Skimmers used as Transports ie Devilfish or Wave Serpent. Otherwise, this was a pretty useless endeavor.

Ok, let's use more general numbers: every Skimmer loses about 25-70% DPS when Jinking.

That's a HUGE loss.

Even 25% less DPS for 33% Resilience is a bad deal when faced with the decision of Jinking, which as I said implies that a smart enemy will change target as soon as Jink is enabled, thereby limiting its positive effect while not changing anything to drawbacks.

That's because you're not losing just 25-70% DPS for 33% Resilience, as soon as you lose it on one Skimmer, the target moves to another Skimmer, for which you also lose 25% DPS, and so forth.

Not only may it not be worth it at all for any Skimmer losing >50% DPS, it's just horrible for everyone fielding more than one Skimmer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's not drift to Eldar or Wave Serpent people, this topic is Jink in 7th Edition, why it's a nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corollax wrote:
I know you're thinking more about Eldar than Necrons here, but remember that Necrons also get skimmers. And twin-linked tesla loses very little effectiveness when snap-fired.

Not everyone is worse off with the changes.

Everyone with shooting is worse off with the changes, including Necrons, because Jinking means your opponent switches to a non-jinked target that does not have the protection and can still lose 25-70% of its DPS.

morgoth wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

I would strongly suggest you either remove your bias and look at Jink as a whole, or make your examination more pointed ie Jink and Wave Serpents use as Gunboats. Yes, Wave Serpents or other Skimmers used as Gunships have gotten worse at a Gunship Role with the new Jink rule, when they choose to Jink, but receive greater durability, which has a prime impact on Skimmers used as Transports ie Devilfish or Wave Serpent. Otherwise, this was a pretty useless endeavor.

Ok, let's use more general numbers: every Skimmer loses about 25-70% DPS when Jinking.

That's a HUGE loss.

Even 25% less DPS for 33% Resilience is a bad deal when faced with the decision of Jinking, which as I said implies that a smart enemy will change target as soon as Jink is enabled, thereby limiting its positive effect while not changing anything to drawbacks.

That's because you're not losing just 25-70% DPS for 33% Resilience, as soon as you lose it on one Skimmer, the target moves to another Skimmer, for which you also lose 25% DPS, and so forth.

Not only may it not be worth it at all for any Skimmer losing >50% DPS, it's just horrible for everyone fielding more than one Skimmer.

I think it's fascinating, that you measure damage in a turn-based strategy game in "seconds"

Damage Per Shootingphase... No problem, its a silent P on phase anyway, silent AND invisible

I like the new Jink rules. It stimulates descision making. there are many times where an opponent wouldn't switch targets just because you jink e.g. You are sat on an objective your opponent needs, your about to disembark 10 necron warriors within 12" of your opponents super heavy, basically any time you've forced your opponents targets for him (you know like what happens when you use tactics).

I think the changes to serpents and jink in general are good but it would be nice if the crew also had to snap shoot.

7th Edition Jink, forcing Eldar to win a different way since 2014.

-Matt

7th made Eldar so much stronger even if jink arguably didn't improve (which it did)

morgoth wrote:
Everyone with shooting is worse off with the changes, including Necrons, because Jinking means your opponent switches to a non-jinked target that does not have the protection and can still lose 25-70% of its DPS.

Are you telling us that player A can select a target, player B can then Jink and player A will now simply pick another target to shoot at with his unit?

Because you'd be soooooo wrong.

Edit: As a Necron-player I am really happy with the changes to Skimmers.

I never really understood the point of threads like this.

"I think so-and-so ability/unit/wargear was nerfed!"

Ok. And?

Are you trying to convince the world to stop jinking? Because when the alternative is death... losing some damage output to stay in the realm of the living seems perfectly fine to me.

Kangodo wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Everyone with shooting is worse off with the changes, including Necrons, because Jinking means your opponent switches to a non-jinked target that does not have the protection and can still lose 25-70% of its DPS.

Are you telling us that player A can select a target, player B can then Jink and player A will now simply pick another target to shoot at with his unit?

Because you'd be soooooo wrong.

Edit: As a Necron-player I am really happy with the changes to Skimmers.

Ok, why would a decently good opponent decide to choose against a more protected target when he can shoot a less protected one and cause it to lose DPS in the process.

I have reduced the scope of the discussion to Shooting Skimmers by the way, so there is no more consideration of open-topped (which may be FAQ'd) or assault (which clearly benefit from the new Jink).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

omerakk wrote:
I never really understood the point of threads like this.

"I think so-and-so ability/unit/wargear was nerfed!"

Ok. And?

Are you trying to convince the world to stop jinking? Because when the alternative is death... losing some damage output to stay in the realm of the living seems perfectly fine to me.

The point of this thread is to have a sane discussion about whether or not the new Jink is a nerf.

Right now, for many shooting Jinkers (not FMC apparently), the alternative is conserving a lot more damage output.

Losing some damage output for an important part of your army may amount to losing the game, especially if it happens every turn.

So you think it works like this?
"I will now fire at your Ghost Ark with my lascannon."
-"I am going to Jink."
"Ooh, than I'll fire at that other unit with my lascannon!"

You can't reselect a target..

here's the thing. a waveserpent "skimmer" behind a ruin is as survivable as it ever was. a rhino sat in the middle of an empty field is as survivable as it ever was (IE not). the problem is that people have gotten so used to their skimmers being able to shout "you can't hit me, I have no wheels!" that they can't accept that a very sensible rules-change to move skimmers away from this god-class of vehicle was actually a very good one.

the new rules mean that oh no, boo-frikken-hoo, you'll have to use cover like the rest of us plebs. the difference is that when a dreadnaught drops in behind you and pops off 2 meltagun shots, you can dance out of the way.
that makes you less effective at shooting. well you should have thought of that before you put the skimmer somewhere it can be outflanked. stop thinking "point and click" and start thinking tactical wargaming.

I have images in my head of a conversation with an incompetant commander:

"Put those skimmers in the open where they can get a good shot!"
"but then they'll be shot at without any cover..."
"nonsense! they'll perform acrobatic manoeuvres to dodge every shot!"
"but won't that make it hard to aim?"
"buh? o.O"

I think you guys misunderstod him.

Once they call a jink you dont re-target the shot to another skimmer, you target the NEXT shot on another skimmer.
If it jinked, you don't need to hurry killing it as much (unless its an annibarge, then you're screwed)

The situation is really simple:

Did your opponent fire enough shots to destroy your skimmer? Yes?
Then jink so your skimmer might stay alive.


Did your opponent fire enough shots to destroy your skimmer? No?
Then don't jink so you can shoot at full power.

Unless your skimmer is an annihilation barge, in which case, you always jink and reap the benefits.

New Jink made Fire Prisms garbage but, that's the only real nerf I see.

Serpents got even better, Holofields + Jink = 3+ cover. For something which is supposed to be exposed to fire (aka Transports) this is a BIG FRIGGIN DEAL.

JBikes got better; mind you they were already the best objective thieves in the game, now made more evasive. JBikes rarely kill anyway unless it's cleanup.

Shinning Spears? A few more alive for that charge.

morgoth wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Everyone with shooting is worse off with the changes, including Necrons, because Jinking means your opponent switches to a non-jinked target that does not have the protection and can still lose 25-70% of its DPS.

Are you telling us that player A can select a target, player B can then Jink and player A will now simply pick another target to shoot at with his unit?

Because you'd be soooooo wrong.

Edit: As a Necron-player I am really happy with the changes to Skimmers.

Ok, why would a decently good opponent decide to choose against a more protected target when he can shoot a less protected one and cause it to lose DPS in the process.

I have reduced the scope of the discussion to Shooting Skimmers by the way, so there is no more consideration of open-topped (which may be FAQ'd) or assault (which clearly benefit from the new Jink).

So what is your point here? That no-one should shoot anything with jink? I don't get this at all, or how it makes jink bad.

 RancidHate wrote:

JBikes got better; mind you they were already the best objective thieves in the game, now made more evasive. JBikes rarely kill anyway unless it's cleanup.

That's why I like malstorm.
No more thivery and eldar trickery, you want points? FIGHT for them.

Kangodo wrote:
So you think it works like this?
"I will now fire at your Ghost Ark with my lascannon."
-"I am going to Jink."
"Ooh, than I'll fire at that other unit with my lascannon!"

You can't reselect a target..

No. It works like this:

-I'm going to fire at your Ghost Ark with a minimal chance to deal damage to it, with my Las cannon.
- Then I jink
- Then I'm going to fire my other las Cannon at your other Ghost Ark
- Then I guess I won't jink
- Bad luck bro, I just rolled an explode. Now I fire with my other other las cannon at your third Ghost Ark
- Then I jink
- Then I'm going to fire my other other other las Cannon at something else.

Result: lots of jinked Skimmers with 25% to 75% damage output loss, slightly less damage taken than in v6.

Is it worth it: no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RancidHate wrote:
New Jink made Fire Prisms garbage but, that's the only real nerf I see.

Serpents got even better, Holofields + Jink = 3+ cover. For something which is supposed to be exposed to fire (aka Transports) this is a BIG FRIGGIN DEAL.

JBikes got better; mind you they were already the best objective thieves in the game, now made more evasive. JBikes rarely kill anyway unless it's cleanup.

Shinning Spears? A few more alive for that charge.

This is not about Wave Serpents, it's about Shooting Skimmers and 7th ed Jink.

Holofields is a straight nerf against any Skimmer that shoots, and so far I haven't heard any valid argument against that.

landspeeders with flamers take a 100% damage nerf as well, im not complaining though.

If i have to jink i'll just flat out em somewhere they can be of use the next turn.

Eihnlazer wrote:
landspeeders with flamers take a 100% damage nerf as well, im not complaining though.

If i have to jink i'll just flat out em somewhere they can be of use the next turn.

I don't think anyone's complaining, this thread is mostly about better understanding the implications of the Jink change, which seems to be a straight nerf to shooting skimmers

Thanks for the reminder that the new Jink is a 100% damage nerf on units using template weapons, I had forgotten about that.

morgoth wrote:


Result: lots of jinked Skimmers with 25% to 75% damage output loss, slightly less damage taken than in v6.

Is it worth it: no.

Huh? GA got a pretty good buff. Overall higher resiliency due to the new vehicle damage table along with Jink buffed to a 4++. GA should always jink if they are threatend as it's a 13% higher chance to not get any damage. You don't really lose out on anything as the GA has very poor weaponry to begin with and the passengers don't get affected by Jink either.

 Sigvatr wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Result: lots of jinked Skimmers with 25% to 75% damage output loss, slightly less damage taken than in v6.

Is it worth it: no.

Huh? GA got a pretty good buff. Overall higher resiliency due to the new vehicle damage table along with Jink buffed to a 4++. GA should always jink if they are threatend as it's a 13% higher chance to not get any damage. You don't really lose out on anything as the GA has very poor weaponry to begin with and the passengers don't get affected by Jink either.

It applies to any Jinking Skimmer.

And I expect GW will FAQ Jink to affect firing from a transport as well, so this little technicality may well be irrelevant pretty soon.

Some units get to ignore Jink, but not cover. Dark Reapers with their big flappy ears can lock onto vehicles with jink, but mostly cannot ignore cover.
So, even though jink has changed, cover is still useful.

Any while we're talking about Eldar skimmers, the Ghost Matrix upgrade is great for providing cover saves. Park in a forest or ruin, and you've got cover from all sides (if you do it right).
The Targetting Array can overcome jink, for that essential 1-shot.

Yeah it sucks a little for Hammerheads and Skyrays, but Markerlights can offset the BS negatives. The Devilfish, however, wasn't going to shoot anyway, so I'll happily Jink with my AV 12, +1 to all cover saves, fearless model with objective secured.

Ok... so for 'shooting skimmers'... IE skimmers that you are using for no other purpose than to shoot things (like fire prisms and land speeders)... the new Jink is a nerf.

Is that all you were trying to point out with this thread? I think that is pretty clear. Originally it seemed like you were saying that Wave Serpents were nerfed. That is what most people were having issues with because they're not nerfed unless you're only using them as gunboats and not the full package.

morgoth wrote:
/quote]

It applies to any Jinking Skimmer.

And I expect GW will FAQ Jink to affect firing from a transport as well, so this little technicality may well be irrelevant pretty soon.

Not sure why GW would react to the wish of one singular player? Do you have tons of money willing to share with GW? :O

Zimko wrote:
Ok... so for 'shooting skimmers'... IE skimmers that you are using for no other purpose than to shoot things (like fire prisms and land speeders)... the new Jink is a nerf.

Is that all you were trying to point out with this thread? I think that is pretty clear. Originally it seemed like you were saying that Wave Serpents were nerfed. That is what most people were having issues with because they're not nerfed unless you're only using them as gunboats and not the full package.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to point out, because there are a few trolls running around the forum pretending that the new Jink is a buff.
If you want to talk about the WS, we can do that in another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

morgoth wrote:
/quote]

It applies to any Jinking Skimmer.

And I expect GW will FAQ Jink to affect firing from a transport as well, so this little technicality may well be irrelevant pretty soon.

Not sure why GW would react to the wish of one singular player? Do you have tons of money willing to share with GW? :O

GW changed the Jink rule to make Shooting Skimmers choose between evasion and damage output.
I don't believe leaving embarked troop DPS unaffected was done on purpose, because that would result in a straight up buff to open-topped Transport Skimmers vs other Transports.
It's like saying : hey this transport is going to miss its shots because it's doing evasive maneuvers, but the troops inside it couldn't care less, they have better targeting systems than any tank out there and are impervious to the rock and rolling.

Assuming you're targeted by a single BS4 lascannon:

An AV10 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 56% of the time without jinking and 28% with jink. My advice would be to jink.

An AV12 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 33% of the time without jink and 17% with jink. Advice is to make a battlefield decision on whether survival or firepower is more important.

An AV13 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 22% of the time without jink and 11% with. Advice is take your chances and don't jink unless absolutely necessary or you have rules that benefit snap shots.

morgoth wrote:

I don't believe leaving embarked troop DPS unaffected was done on purpose, because that would result in a straight up buff to open-topped Transport Skimmers vs other Transports.
It's like saying : hey this transport is going to miss its shots because it's doing evasive maneuvers, but the troops inside it couldn't care less, they have better targeting systems than any tank out there and are impervious to the rock and rolling.

The still lasting +1 on the damage table along with the newly introduced "No Escape" definitely did not do anything to balance that out.

 minigun762 wrote:
Assuming you're targeted by a single BS4 lascannon:

An AV10 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 56% of the time without jinking and 28% with jink. My advice would be to jink.

An AV12 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 33% of the time without jink and 17% with jink. Advice is to make a battlefield decision on whether survival or firepower is more important.

An AV13 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 22% of the time without jink and 11% with. Advice is take your chances and don't jink unless absolutely necessary or you have rules that benefit snap shots.

Excellent, a bit problematic because you did not count the glancing, but there's a lot more to be said about this:

Any Shooting Skimmer that Jinks will lose 25-100% of its DPS.

For the AV10 above, 44%+28% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 44% because it would not have pen anyway, 28% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:72% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV12 above, 67%+17% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 17% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:84% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV13 above, 78%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 78% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:89% Wrong to Jink.
For an AV12 Holofield: , 67%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:78% Wrong to Jink.

The picture is incomplete because we don't have glancing hits on there, but it gives you a good idea.
On the other hand, the Lascannon will have to roll on the damage table, with an AP of 2, that's 33% equal to the Jink debuff, 16% can't move, 16% Weapon Destroyed, 16% Immobilised and 16% Explodes, meaning there are cases where it makes no difference to Jink or not, lowering slightly the % Wrong to Jink.

 some bloke wrote:
here's the thing. a waveserpent "skimmer" behind a ruin is as survivable as it ever was. a rhino sat in the middle of an empty field is as survivable as it ever was (IE not). the problem is that people have gotten so used to their skimmers being able to shout "you can't hit me, I have no wheels!" that they can't accept that a very sensible rules-change to move skimmers away from this god-class of vehicle was actually a very good one.

the new rules mean that oh no, boo-frikken-hoo, you'll have to use cover like the rest of us plebs. the difference is that when a dreadnaught drops in behind you and pops off 2 meltagun shots, you can dance out of the way.
that makes you less effective at shooting. well you should have thought of that before you put the skimmer somewhere it can be outflanked. stop thinking "point and click" and start thinking tactical wargaming.

I have images in my head of a conversation with an incompetant commander:

"Put those skimmers in the open where they can get a good shot!"
"but then they'll be shot at without any cover..."
"nonsense! they'll perform acrobatic manoeuvres to dodge every shot!"
"but won't that make it hard to aim?"
"buh? o.O"

^This.

Remember back in 5th edition where jink didn't exist and your stuff just died? Then 6th hit and let us get free cover saves in the open with no penalty.
Now? We still get those saves in the open, potentially better, but there is a penalty involved with using them. All people see is the penalty, and they completely forget about the days when their skimmers just went BOOM with no save.

Jink if you have to in order to stay alive. Don't if you have high odds of surviving the attack.
And more importantly, dust off your "old strategies" instruction book and use terrain and intervening models to mitigate even needing to jink as much as possible.

omerakk wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
here's the thing. a waveserpent "skimmer" behind a ruin is as survivable as it ever was. a rhino sat in the middle of an empty field is as survivable as it ever was (IE not). the problem is that people have gotten so used to their skimmers being able to shout "you can't hit me, I have no wheels!" that they can't accept that a very sensible rules-change to move skimmers away from this god-class of vehicle was actually a very good one.

the new rules mean that oh no, boo-frikken-hoo, you'll have to use cover like the rest of us plebs. the difference is that when a dreadnaught drops in behind you and pops off 2 meltagun shots, you can dance out of the way.
that makes you less effective at shooting. well you should have thought of that before you put the skimmer somewhere it can be outflanked. stop thinking "point and click" and start thinking tactical wargaming.

I have images in my head of a conversation with an incompetant commander:

"Put those skimmers in the open where they can get a good shot!"
"but then they'll be shot at without any cover..."
"nonsense! they'll perform acrobatic manoeuvres to dodge every shot!"
"but won't that make it hard to aim?"
"buh? o.O"

^This.

Remember back in 5th edition where jink didn't exist and your stuff just died? Then 6th hit and let us get free cover saves in the open with no penalty.
Now? We still get those saves in the open, potentially better, but there is a penalty involved with using them. All people see is the penalty, and they completely forget about the days when their skimmers just went BOOM with no save.

Jink if you have to in order to stay alive. Don't if you have high odds of surviving the attack.
And more importantly, dust off your "old strategies" instruction book and use terrain and intervening models to mitigate even needing to jink as much as possible.

1. In 5th edition you couldn't hit a Skimmer in assault. Jink totally existed by the way. Just that it affected assault rather than shoot, so you had both cover and assault immunity, which was way better than it will ever be again.
2. Nobody says it's not sensible to change the Jink rules.
3. This thread is about confirming the existence and relative impact of the nerf, not whether it made sense, was good for the game, or brought you presents for christmas.

morgoth wrote:

omerakk wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
here's the thing. a waveserpent "skimmer" behind a ruin is as survivable as it ever was. a rhino sat in the middle of an empty field is as survivable as it ever was (IE not). the problem is that people have gotten so used to their skimmers being able to shout "you can't hit me, I have no wheels!" that they can't accept that a very sensible rules-change to move skimmers away from this god-class of vehicle was actually a very good one.

the new rules mean that oh no, boo-frikken-hoo, you'll have to use cover like the rest of us plebs. the difference is that when a dreadnaught drops in behind you and pops off 2 meltagun shots, you can dance out of the way.
that makes you less effective at shooting. well you should have thought of that before you put the skimmer somewhere it can be outflanked. stop thinking "point and click" and start thinking tactical wargaming.

I have images in my head of a conversation with an incompetant commander:

"Put those skimmers in the open where they can get a good shot!"
"but then they'll be shot at without any cover..."
"nonsense! they'll perform acrobatic manoeuvres to dodge every shot!"
"but won't that make it hard to aim?"
"buh? o.O"

^This.

Remember back in 5th edition where jink didn't exist and your stuff just died? Then 6th hit and let us get free cover saves in the open with no penalty.
Now? We still get those saves in the open, potentially better, but there is a penalty involved with using them. All people see is the penalty, and they completely forget about the days when their skimmers just went BOOM with no save.

Jink if you have to in order to stay alive. Don't if you have high odds of surviving the attack.
And more importantly, dust off your "old strategies" instruction book and use terrain and intervening models to mitigate even needing to jink as much as possible.

1. In 5th edition you couldn't hit a Skimmer in assault. Jink totally existed by the way. Just that it affected assault rather than shoot, so you had both cover and assault immunity, which was way better than it will ever be again.
2. Nobody says it's not sensible to change the Jink rules.
3. This thread is about confirming the existence and relative impact of the nerf, not whether it made sense, was good for the game, or brought you presents for christmas.

1. What are you talking about? You could assault skimmers in 5th, it just became more difficult if they moved at top speed, and the only way to get a "jink" save for them back then was to go flat out and forgo your shooting all together.
2. Good, because they changed and these are the rules we play by now.
3. Didn't the new rulebook do a good job confirming this already?

1. in 5th, you had to roll 6 to hit my Skimmers, I moved exactly 12" every single turn, and that was awesome.
2. Definitely.
3. Apparently, some people still think the new Jink is a buff, so a thread is necessary so that curious players can find a reasonable resource on that topic and have at least one alternative to the "Eldar OP WS OP Jink Buff" crowd that seems to do most of the talking on that topic on DakkaDakka.

morgoth wrote:

 minigun762 wrote:
Assuming you're targeted by a single BS4 lascannon:

An AV10 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 56% of the time without jinking and 28% with jink. My advice would be to jink.

An AV12 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 33% of the time without jink and 17% with jink. Advice is to make a battlefield decision on whether survival or firepower is more important.

An AV13 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 22% of the time without jink and 11% with. Advice is take your chances and don't jink unless absolutely necessary or you have rules that benefit snap shots.

Excellent, a bit problematic because you did not count the glancing, but there's a lot more to be said about this:

Any Shooting Skimmer that Jinks will lose 25-100% of its DPS.

For the AV10 above, 44%+28% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 44% because it would not have pen anyway, 28% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:72% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV12 above, 67%+17% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 17% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:84% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV13 above, 78%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 78% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:89% Wrong to Jink.
For an AV12 Holofield: , 67%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:78% Wrong to Jink.

I think the math is a bit off here. By the same logic:
For the AV10 above 56%+72% of the time it will have been the right decision. 56% because it would have pen, 72% because it doesn't pen with the Jink, total: 128%

128% correct to jink + 72% incorrect to jink = 200%

I think you need to divide each of those totals by 2. So jinking is the wrong net decision in terms of taking a penetrating hit <50% of the time in all AV totals.

morgoth wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
landspeeders with flamers take a 100% damage nerf as well, im not complaining though.

If i have to jink i'll just flat out em somewhere they can be of use the next turn.

I don't think anyone's complaining, this thread is mostly about better understanding the implications of the Jink change, which seems to be a straight nerf to shooting skimmers

Thanks for the reminder that the new Jink is a 100% damage nerf on units using template weapons, I had forgotten about that.

It's a nerf to 1 round of shooting. If you roll your cover saves and come up with a fist full of 4's, I'd say it's a boost to shooting. Because, now your alive instead of dead.
If you want to look at the negative effect of jinking, you do need to factor in the positive effect of still being around, possibly for several more turns.
You can't math-hammer that out though, because it's going to depend on what else your opponent has to shoot, and how effectively you can take out those threats with the extra turn(s) that the improved cover save bought you.

Now if you had a high strength multiple shot long range weapon that also ignored cover, it would be a different story... oh wait, somebody does have that.

-Matt

kooshlord wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 minigun762 wrote:
Assuming you're targeted by a single BS4 lascannon:

An AV10 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 56% of the time without jinking and 28% with jink. My advice would be to jink.

An AV12 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 33% of the time without jink and 17% with jink. Advice is to make a battlefield decision on whether survival or firepower is more important.

An AV13 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 22% of the time without jink and 11% with. Advice is take your chances and don't jink unless absolutely necessary or you have rules that benefit snap shots.

Excellent, a bit problematic because you did not count the glancing, but there's a lot more to be said about this:

Any Shooting Skimmer that Jinks will lose 25-100% of its DPS.

For the AV10 above, 44%+28% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 44% because it would not have pen anyway, 28% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:72% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV12 above, 67%+17% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 17% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:84% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV13 above, 78%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 78% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:89% Wrong to Jink.
For an AV12 Holofield: , 67%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:78% Wrong to Jink.

I think the math is a bit off here. By the same logic:
For the AV10 above 56%+72% of the time it will have been the right decision. 56% because it would have pen, 72% because it doesn't pen with the Jink, total: 128%

128% correct to jink + 72% incorrect to jink = 200%

I think you need to divide each of those totals by 2. So jinking is the wrong net decision in terms of taking a penetrating hit <50% of the time in all AV totals.

No. It's 56% - 28% which is 28% right, which added to 72% wrong = 100% sample size.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

It's a nerf to 1 round of shooting. If you roll your cover saves and come up with a fist full of 4's, I'd say it's a boost to shooting. Because, now your alive instead of dead.
If you want to look at the negative effect of jinking, you do need to factor in the positive effect of still being around, possibly for several more turns.
You can't math-hammer that out though, because it's going to depend on what else your opponent has to shoot, and how effectively you can take out those threats with the extra turn(s) that the improved cover save bought you.

Now if you had a high strength multiple shot long range weapon that also ignored cover, it would be a different story... oh wait, somebody does have that.

-Matt

It's a nerf to 1 round of shooting if you make use of it.
If you don't make use of it, you have the same damage output as in 6th edition and no Jink save.
If you make use of it, you have 0-75% of your damage output, and a slightly better Jink save.
If you make use of it, you have 100% chance that your opponent will target another unit because he knows you won't be doing much next turn with that one.

Trigger alert: mathhammer

No. It's 56% - 28% which is 28% right, which added to 72% wrong = 100% sample size.

I believe this to be wrong. Your example sums percentages across 2 scenarios (Jink, and didn't jink), and applies the sum as the percentage of a single scenario (wrongness of jinking). Let's expand the example:

BS 4 lascannon vs AV 10
Didn't Jink: 56% penetrated, 44% didn't.
Jink: 28% penetrated, 72% didn't.

Now lets pretend we actually fired 200 times, against a target that jinked exactly 100 shots, and got statistically proportionate results. Of these 200 shots:
Didn't Jink for 100: 56 shots penetrated, 44 shots didn't.
Jinked for 100: 28 shots penetrated, 72 shots didn't.

Using your logic:
44 would not have penetrated (with no jink), + 28 shots penetrated (with a jink) = 72 shots "Wrong to Jink" (of 200 total shots).

72 / 200 = 0.36. Or 36% of the time "wrong to jink". In a situation where you essentially toss a coin to determine if you wanna jink or not.


*EDIT: clarity


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morgoth, please note that I agree with your premise that jinking is worse in 7th than 6th for shooting skimmers. And the stats we are discussing don't consider shooting after the 1st shot at AV 10, or especially return fire in subsequent rounds. This last is most relevant to your premise, I believe.

Really? A nerf? I don't think so. Falcons became more survivable as did vypers. Now I am going to make this about wave serpents because that is what tanks I have in my army. I am one of the people who always take holofields and ghostwalk matrixes on my wave serpents. Those two upgrades make the jink save a moot point in just about every game I have played.

I get a cover save of a 4+ if I can park my serpent in a ruin and obscure 25% of the vehicle from whoever is firing at it. Holo fields bring that to a 3+. I still have full firepower from my serpent.

This kind of cover has been available in every single tournament i have attended. On the very rare occasion when i have been completely in the open, the serpent has done its job and can now deliver its payload.

The so called nerf has literally changed nothing with wave serpents if you use them properly. You rarely if ever have to jink.

With proper target priority and proper movement of your serpents, the jink just doesn't happen often enough to be a concern.

What jink has done is made Hemlock Wraithfighters and Crimson Hunters far more survivable.

Now, if something does happen where one of my serpents has to jink and you as my opponent change targets to another serpent instead of destroying the one forced to jink then in my experience it has been a very bad decision on the part of my opponent.

Live wave serpents are incredibly dangerous, wether they are snap firing or not. They are still going to be able to shoot. They still have a deadly payload. They can still Tank Shock. They can still Ram. They can move fast enough to use surround the enemy and make them break and be destroyed by the "Trapped! rule tactics.Tank shocking will still cause enemy units to be forced off of objectives. It will also bunch them up, ready for eldar wraithguard with d-scythes to come in and kill large portions of them.

In my opinion the jink is not a nerf at all, especially when looking at the big picture.

The scenario you gave of the enemy forcing all of an enemy's skimmers to jink seems unlikely considering what i have just written above. I think most people know better than to let them live.

Wave serpents can get their kink up to a 3+ with holofields or 2+ with shrouding from a nearby telepathy.

Wave serpents are objective secured unit in 7th ed. Back in 6e they could not score even with troops inside.

Eldar are regarded by many to be the most competitive 7e army with jet bikes and serpents being some of the best troops in the game .

morgoth wrote:

Let's not drift to Eldar or Wave Serpent people, this topic is Jink in 7th Edition, why it's a nerf.

You are the only person on Dakka who seems to think that Jink got nerfed in 7th.

Jink is massively buffed for three units that are now disgustingly good: Wave Serpents, which are universally regarded as OP for reasons already stated (you alone seem to think otherwise), Annihilation Barges, that don't really care about Snap Firing because when they hit you on a 6 with their bowl of twin linked shots, they get additional hits, and Command Barges that never planned on shooting at you in the first place.

What it does for Land Speeders and other skimmers, nobody really cares because nobody was complaining about OP Land Speeders in 6th edition.

Jefffar wrote:
Yeah it sucks a little for Hammerheads and Skyrays, but Markerlights can offset the BS negatives. The Devilfish, however, wasn't going to shoot anyway, so I'll happily Jink with my AV 12, +1 to all cover saves, fearless model with objective secured.

I just tried the Fish with a couple FW squads today for the first time in quite a long while. My conclusion, new edition is awesome for transports. 3+ cover save? Yes please. Can't wait until I get the chance to jink with my Barracuda and claim a 2+ cover save on a flier (assuming my opponents let me live the dream and I actually have some markerlights left by the time it shows up). Disruption pods aren't quite as broken as they were in the last codex, but they are pretty dang awesome.

Also, Skyrays got a terrible deal with the new codex anyway. Losing our ability to fire like fast vehicles was a pretty big kick in the jimmy for all our tanks. Now if you want your ray to do anything at all the only solution is to keep it stationary, short of expending ridiculous amounts of markerlights on a platform that's really not supposed to require any external marker support.

The changes to jink are a nerf that IS DESERVED!!!! I used to take constant 4+ saves on my hammerhead on top of av13 front armor that was always towards my foes. Imagine if you will, a predator tank with a 4+ invulnerable save. The irony here is the new addition actually buffed the save I can get off of jink and made it very available. I won't be using it anymore of course, since hugging cover makes for a much better option.

My devilfish are fething great at their transport and capture roles, and still do the dirty in the shooting phase, I just have to pick which I need; the vehicle there in one piece or the vehicle spitting out semi-plasma and rockets.

Skimmer cheese is dead and burried, and I piss on its grave. As far as letting open topped units have full bs, think of how the change effects Dark Eldar transports. They almost have to jink, so letting their main form of fire be maintained doesn't bother me as much since the damn things die to my fire warriors. While only putting out anti infantry dakkaspam. Considering that they trade random exploding on the damage table for the ability to fire infantry spam, I'm none too bothered.

Always use cover shenanigans, though shenanigans isn't the best term since keeping your vehicles behind cover but for weapons is a staple of mechanized warfare.

The jink change is not a buff nor a nerf.

Some gain from it, some lose from it.

The biggest losers are the guys with blast guns, line guns, etc (anything you cant snap-fire). the biggest winners are the "i don't care about shooting" guys and the TLtesla necron things.

Anything that is twin-linked and low BS took a small hit, nothing major. anything high BS non-twin-linked took a big hit.

Repends on the skimmer really.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Jink is not cover (at least I saw no indication it was 'As cover' but I'm still reading the rules) so the cover save is an either/or situation. since most of the time you'll have a 5+, jink is better.

Ignore cover weapons sadly don't cut it agasint jink in that case.

You may want to be more familiar with the rules before quoting them wrong and trying to correct others with bad info.

kooshlord wrote:
Trigger alert: mathhammer

No. It's 56% - 28% which is 28% right, which added to 72% wrong = 100% sample size.

I believe this to be wrong. Your example sums percentages across 2 scenarios (Jink, and didn't jink), and applies the sum as the percentage of a single scenario (wrongness of jinking). Let's expand the example:

BS 4 lascannon vs AV 10
Didn't Jink: 56% penetrated, 44% didn't.
Jink: 28% penetrated, 72% didn't.

Now lets pretend we actually fired 200 times, against a target that jinked exactly 100 shots, and got statistically proportionate results. Of these 200 shots:
Didn't Jink for 100: 56 shots penetrated, 44 shots didn't.
Jinked for 100: 28 shots penetrated, 72 shots didn't.

Using your logic:
44 would not have penetrated (with no jink), + 28 shots penetrated (with a jink) = 72 shots "Wrong to Jink" (of 200 total shots).

72 / 200 = 0.36. Or 36% of the time "wrong to jink". In a situation where you essentially toss a coin to determine if you wanna jink or not.


*EDIT: clarity


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morgoth, please note that I agree with your premise that jinking is worse in 7th than 6th for shooting skimmers. And the stats we are discussing don't consider shooting after the 1st shot at AV 10, or especially return fire in subsequent rounds. This last is most relevant to your premise, I believe.

You're still wrong... let me explain:

44% of the time there is no danger, so Jinking is a bad thing.
56% of the time however, there is danger, so Jinking should be a good thing.
Unfortunately, since Jink is considered a 50% save, Jink will only protect you 28% of the time (half of 56%) and not protect you the other 28% (half of 56%), which means you took a debuff for no reason.

Together, Jink is a bad idea 72% of the time because it results in getting a debuff although danger is not real 44% of the time or danger could not be avoided another 28% of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Really? A nerf? I don't think so. Falcons became more survivable as did vypers. Now I am going to make this about wave serpents because that is what tanks I have in my army. I am one of the people who always take holofields and ghostwalk matrixes on my wave serpents. Those two upgrades make the jink save a moot point in just about every game I have played.

I get a cover save of a 4+ if I can park my serpent in a ruin and obscure 25% of the vehicle from whoever is firing at it. Holo fields bring that to a 3+. I still have full firepower from my serpent.

This kind of cover has been available in every single tournament i have attended. On the very rare occasion when i have been completely in the open, the serpent has done its job and can now deliver its payload.

The so called nerf has literally changed nothing with wave serpents if you use them properly. You rarely if ever have to jink.

With proper target priority and proper movement of your serpents, the jink just doesn't happen often enough to be a concern.

What jink has done is made Hemlock Wraithfighters and Crimson Hunters far more survivable.

Now, if something does happen where one of my serpents has to jink and you as my opponent change targets to another serpent instead of destroying the one forced to jink then in my experience it has been a very bad decision on the part of my opponent.

Live wave serpents are incredibly dangerous, wether they are snap firing or not. They are still going to be able to shoot. They still have a deadly payload. They can still Tank Shock. They can still Ram. They can move fast enough to use surround the enemy and make them break and be destroyed by the "Trapped! rule tactics.Tank shocking will still cause enemy units to be forced off of objectives. It will also bunch them up, ready for eldar wraithguard with d-scythes to come in and kill large portions of them.

In my opinion the jink is not a nerf at all, especially when looking at the big picture.

The scenario you gave of the enemy forcing all of an enemy's skimmers to jink seems unlikely considering what i have just written above. I think most people know better than to let them live.

I think you don't understand this game, and will feel the pain as soon as somebody actually switches targets against you, which is by very far the smartest and best strategy against Wave Serpent in 7th edition and provably so.

Nobody said WS were turned to gak or became useless, and if you like to spend another 10 points for GW matrixes and your boards have space for 4+ WS in Ruins where you want them, good for you bro.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Wave serpents can get their kink up to a 3+ with holofields or 2+ with shrouding from a nearby telepathy.

Wave serpents are objective secured unit in 7th ed. Back in 6e they could not score even with troops inside.

Eldar are regarded by many to be the most competitive 7e army with jet bikes and serpents being some of the best troops in the game .

Not talking about Eldar, talking about how 7th ed Jink change is a nerf to shooting Skimmers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Let's not drift to Eldar or Wave Serpent people, this topic is Jink in 7th Edition, why it's a nerf.

You are the only person on Dakka who seems to think that Jink got nerfed in 7th.

Jink is massively buffed for three units that are now disgustingly good: Wave Serpents, which are universally regarded as OP for reasons already stated (you alone seem to think otherwise), Annihilation Barges, that don't really care about Snap Firing because when they hit you on a 6 with their bowl of twin linked shots, they get additional hits, and Command Barges that never planned on shooting at you in the first place.

What it does for Land Speeders and other skimmers, nobody really cares because nobody was complaining about OP Land Speeders in 6th edition.

Go read my first post in this thread, then discuss on that when you understand its contents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The changes to jink are a nerf that IS DESERVED!!!! I used to take constant 4+ saves on my hammerhead on top of av13 front armor that was always towards my foes. Imagine if you will, a predator tank with a 4+ invulnerable save. The irony here is the new addition actually buffed the save I can get off of jink and made it very available. I won't be using it anymore of course, since hugging cover makes for a much better option.

My devilfish are fething great at their transport and capture roles, and still do the dirty in the shooting phase, I just have to pick which I need; the vehicle there in one piece or the vehicle spitting out semi-plasma and rockets.

Skimmer cheese is dead and burried, and I piss on its grave. As far as letting open topped units have full bs, think of how the change effects Dark Eldar transports. They almost have to jink, so letting their main form of fire be maintained doesn't bother me as much since the damn things die to my fire warriors. While only putting out anti infantry dakkaspam. Considering that they trade random exploding on the damage table for the ability to fire infantry spam, I'm none too bothered.

Always use cover shenanigans, though shenanigans isn't the best term since keeping your vehicles behind cover but for weapons is a staple of mechanized warfare.

Yes, that nerf is probably deserved, and cover always was better in any edition so it doesn't change the whole world.
DE transports have a 5++ , they're a very special case. And their infantry has Haywire blasters, very special case again.

Anyway, let's just stay on topic and focus on the extent of the impact of that nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
The jink change is not a buff nor a nerf.

Some gain from it, some lose from it.

The biggest losers are the guys with blast guns, line guns, etc (anything you cant snap-fire). the biggest winners are the "i don't care about shooting" guys and the TLtesla necron things.

Anything that is twin-linked and low BS took a small hit, nothing major. anything high BS non-twin-linked took a big hit.

Depends on the skimmer really.

There's a whole explanation saying all Skimmers lose between 25%-100% of their firepower for Jinking, explaining the impact of that change on enemy tactics, mobility and overall resilience, and that's all you can come up with ?
Even for Necrons it's a nerf, albeit small.

morgoth wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Wave serpents can get their kink up to a 3+ with holofields or 2+ with shrouding from a nearby telepathy.

Wave serpents are objective secured unit in 7th ed. Back in 6e they could not score even with troops inside.

Eldar are regarded by many to be the most competitive 7e army with jet bikes and serpents being some of the best troops in the game .

Not talking about Eldar, talking about how 7th ed Jink change is a nerf to shooting Skimmers.

Alrightie then.

Wave serpents=better
Annihilation barges=better
Ghost arks=better
Fish o Fury=better

Sky rays=about the same. They usually hide out of LOS anyways.
Land speeder storms=about the same. Gain some and lose some, their main job is to stay alive as an objective secured unit and transport scouts.

Land speeders=worse
Hammerheads=worse
Fire Prisms=worse

So the most important skimmers for Eldar, Tau, and Necrons got better and the less important skimmers got worse. Sure 7th ed screwed with the internal balance of 3 codex, but the external balance is now better.

lets look at it this way, based not on mathhammer but the general way this works. as mathhammer only works when applied en-masse like kooshlord used with 200 lascannons, it's generally quite irrellevant.

if you jink and save it, you lose X% damage output for 1 turn.

if you don't jink, the shot gets through and explodes you, you lose 100% damage output, mobility, threat level, and LOS blocking capabilities of the vehicle for all subsequent turns.

using mathhammer about a single lascannon shot basically says "statistically it won't hit, so don't jink". I should use the same logic with my battlewagons and reverse them up the field, because by mathhammer none of his guns, individually, should hit. as anyone who's played warhammer in the real world knows, though, individual lascannons can hit. they can one-shot a landraider, given a good roll. that's why a savvy player uses cover.

frankly though, if you put your skimmer in clear view of a lascannon, don't expect sympathy when you complain about jink being worse.

 schadenfreude wrote:
=better

Yes, well, maybe you want to bring some logic to back up your conclusions, something that we can use to understand your complex point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
lets look at it this way, based not on mathhammer but the general way this works. as mathhammer only works when applied en-masse like kooshlord used with 200 lascannons, it's generally quite irrellevant.

if you jink and save it, you lose X% damage output for 1 turn.

if you don't jink, the shot gets through and explodes you, you lose 100% damage output, mobility, threat level, and LOS blocking capabilities of the vehicle for all subsequent turns.

using mathhammer about a single lascannon shot basically says "statistically it won't hit, so don't jink". I should use the same logic with my battlewagons and reverse them up the field, because by mathhammer none of his guns, individually, should hit. as anyone who's played warhammer in the real world knows, though, individual lascannons can hit. they can one-shot a landraider, given a good roll. that's why a savvy player uses cover.

frankly though, if you put your skimmer in clear view of a lascannon, don't expect sympathy when you complain about jink being worse.

Then you take my Eldar Mech, I take your army, I force you to jink all of your things, and I table you.

morgoth wrote:

Then you take my Eldar Mech, I take your army, I force you to jink all of your things, and I table you.

I'll take that challenge up. you bring my orks, and I'll bring mech eldar. here's how it'll go:

Morgoth: "My lootas are shooting at that waveserpent, do you want to jink?"

me: "Well, as I'm a clever player and have put my vehicle in cover behind a ruin, no, I don't need to."

and that response would be the same regardless of what army you brought against me if I had mech eldar.

so in reality, it's not a nerf, it's just changed, and you have to put some thought into your actions rather than relying on simply being able to survive anything by virtue of being a few feet off the ground.

and I have played my armies against mech eldar, and forced all 4 waveserpents to jink for the first 3 turns. by turn 4, the rest of his army (oh look, list synergy rather than reliance on one type of unit) had focussed on the lootas and the threat was gone! turn 4 he still had 2 waveserpents left which promptly ruined me. and I only killed 2 of them because I had a trukk-rush and charged in with powerklaws and 44 S4 attacks. so please don't claim that jinking will cause you to be tabled. it's a ludicrous assumption based on people trying to run a 6th edition army in 7th, with 6th edition tactics. any normal vehicle left in the open has less chance of survival than a skimmer. a skimmer in 6th in the open has less chance of survival than a skimmer in 7th. it isn't a nerf. in terms of survivability, skimmers are twice as durable than non-skimmers. but a skimmer in cover is as durable as a non-skimmer in cover.

tactics dear boy, tactics.

 some bloke wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Then you take my Eldar Mech, I take your army, I force you to jink all of your things, and I table you.

I'll take that challenge up. you bring my orks, and I'll bring mech eldar. here's how it'll go:

Morgoth: "My lootas are shooting at that waveserpent, do you want to jink?"

me: "Well, as I'm a clever player and have put my vehicle in cover behind a ruin, no, I don't need to."

and that response would be the same regardless of what army you brought against me if I had mech eldar.

so in reality, it's not a nerf, it's just changed, and you have to put some thought into your actions rather than relying on simply being able to survive anything by virtue of being a few feet off the ground.

and I have played my armies against mech eldar, and forced all 4 waveserpents to jink for the first 3 turns. by turn 4, the rest of his army (oh look, list synergy rather than reliance on one type of unit) had focussed on the lootas and the threat was gone! turn 4 he still had 2 waveserpents left which promptly ruined me. and I only killed 2 of them because I had a trukk-rush and charged in with powerklaws and 44 S4 attacks. so please don't claim that jinking will cause you to be tabled. it's a ludicrous assumption based on people trying to run a 6th edition army in 7th, with 6th edition tactics. any normal vehicle left in the open has less chance of survival than a skimmer. a skimmer in 6th in the open has less chance of survival than a skimmer in 7th. it isn't a nerf. in terms of survivability, skimmers are twice as durable than non-skimmers. but a skimmer in cover is as durable as a non-skimmer in cover.

tactics dear boy, tactics.

I guess that if you're playing a city in ruins table, you do have ruins left right and center.. I also think that would favor Orks immensely because no LoS = no damage until it's too late. You don't need more than 1000 points of Orks in assault to take down any 2000 points Eldar army.

If you play Orks and cannot make contact before the end of turn 3 on a 48"x72" table, well I don't know, but I think your Lootas Jinking all 4 WS for three turns gave you enough chances already.

You claim tactical superiority, yet you haven't ever played against me, and your read of the BRB did not uncover how important that nerf to Shooting Skimmers was.

The only argument you've put forward so far is "It doesn't matter if they're in cover". I think everybody agrees on that. Do you have anything else ?

oh I made contact on turn 2. the fact that I was against an eldar player who wasn't relying on waveserpents but also had a seer council and 2 wraithknights was what won it for him.

the fact that I was shooting his serpents and was lucky to get 1 hullpoint of damage through if he jinked meant that jink was worth it.

I claim tactical superiority simply because we are in the tactics forum, and all you've done is complain about how skimmers have been nerfed because their jink makes them snapfire (we won't mention that they no longer have to move to get it or that it's 4+ not 5+, though, that would detract from your argument). I have offered solutions. you based your entire strategy of tabling a mech eldar army on making me jink - I used an incredibly simple tactic to make this technique useless.

and thinking that I would be stupid enough to sit still whilst your orks were charging towards me... well, I don't know. perhaps you perceive that as an ork player I would have no Idea how to use skimmers properly, and would believe that they would magically stand up to assault.

The very act of jinking is actually liberating to a skimmer. don't believe me? here's the scenario:

1: orks fired some shots, waveserpent doesn't jink and survives with 1 HP left. it now finds itself starting the turn with orks up close, and full BS. it has the choice of staying still and firing everything, moving back 6" and firing 2 guns at full BS and 1 gun snapping, or moving back 12" and snapshooting everything. moving back will likely see it survive another turn, but will limit its damage potential. staying still will see it causing damage but being wrecked by orks. moving 6" back is a gamble on charge range.

2: orks fire at the waveserpent, it jinks and only loses 1 hullpoint. it finds itself starting the turn with orks close up. as it is already snapfiring, it moves 12" backward and fires snapshots, and survives until its next turn.

whilst I do appreciate that your skimmers are no longer godlike vehicles of nigh-untouchable all-moving all-firing terrain-ignoring super-flat-out-ing-ness, they aren't worse than before, because now they're all that, but have to choose between all-shooting and nigh-untouchable, and get the ability to park next to an objective and steal it off any non-troop enemy.

1. I'm not complaining. I'm stating a fact.

2. On a 48" x 72" table, with 2WK 4WS and 1 SeerStar, you're playing at 2500 points, half the table is full of orks, there is no avoiding anything if the Ork player doesn't want you to.

3. Go read the BRB, a WS shoots 2 weapons at full BS having moved 12", 3 if moving 6". Once again, on a 48"x72" table, 7 inch length WS and a 24" deployment zone, how many times do you think a WS can move back 12" ?

4. You don't seem to know the rules that relate to this situation. Why do you discuss the researched conclusion of someone else then ? Do you hold your opinion as more valuable than someone else's research and logical proof ?

Because of the last couple of posts I have a very graphic image of Orks swarming through a ruined city like the one in The Last Of Us, just kicking in doors and Skirmish fighting a platoon of Eldar Wave Serpents rolling through the streets, Ork mobs dragging 5 man emplacements of Dire Avengers out of their stationed vantage points in building rooms overlooking the street, while Lootas shoot down at the Serpents from window to window, and a pair of Wraith Knights just strolling through the Serpent column, evaporating anything Green that spends too long scrambling to its next vantage point.


I now want to build ruined-cityscape themed Orks.

Orks will do that to your brain.

I've been playing 40 k for 19 years and you think I don't know how to play this game? Sounds to me like you can't understand my tactics so you continue to go on and on about jink saves being worse when they are clearly not. I think the problem here is you haven't had the chance to play versus someone who knows how to run an eldar army without having to rely on serpent spam. When you do, you will find that you won't be able to make all of the skimmers jink. You won't get close enough to assult, even with Orks, and you won't table the Eldar player.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
I've been playing 40 k for 19 years and you think I don't know how to play this game? Sounds to me like you can't understand my tactics so you continue to go on and on about jink saves being worse when they are clearly not. I think the problem here is you haven't had the chance to play versus someone who knows how to run an eldar army without having to rely on serpent spam. When you do, you will find that you won't be able to make all of the skimmers jink. You won't get close enough to assult, even with Orks, and you won't table the Eldar player.

Very interesting opinion.

Do you have any facts or researched conclusions you would like to bring to this discussion ?

And somehow Morgoth got this back onto wave Serpents.... Didn't also start a thread for that....

Yes, Jinking is a nerf for offensive potential for a shooting skimmer, but while Jinking the unit gains increased resilience and can Jink turn 1. There are many fast Skimmers who benefit immensely, and the seem to get little mention. The biggest is the Devilfish, doesn't rely on shooting, and Jonks for a 3+. As a pire gunboat platform it is a moderate nerf, that can easily be mitigated by good play and utilizing cover.


Taking Jink as a whole, we should mention flyers as well, I can't think of a single flyer that thinks 7th Ed Jink is a nerf.

Morgoth, insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or makes a valid argument on using cover for Wave serpents is not acceptable. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a bad player. The GT winners I know unanimously agree Wave Serpents were buffed as awhile, despite their situational nerf.

The serial shooting at subsequent Serpents to force jinks has drawbacks as well.

#1 It's common strategy to focus fire on available targets to actually damage them. Tickling each skimmer to force a jink seems like a sure way not to kill anything while still allowing them some shooting.

#2 Most players consolidate their primary anti tank weapons to increase point efficiency. This means they are more likely to have fewer stronger primary anti tank units instead of multiple weaker units and this gives fewer opportunities to serially shoot each un-jinked skimmer.

#3 Players shouldn't be jinking the odd anti tank shoot fired by non primary anti tank weapons such as plasma guns. They do not represent a sufficient level of risk. This goes along with #2 above.

In my view, building an army to exploit the perceived nerf results in an overall weaker army than one that was built "normally"

 Zagman wrote:
And somehow Morgoth got this back onto wave Serpents.... Didn't also start a thread for that....

Yes, Jinking is a nerf for offensive potential for a shooting skimmer, but while Jinking the unit gains increased resilience and can Jink turn 1. There are many fast Skimmers who benefit immensely, and the seem to get little mention. The biggest is the Devilfish, doesn't rely on shooting, and Jonks for a 3+. As a pire gunboat platform it is a moderate nerf, that can easily be mitigated by good play and utilizing cover.


Taking Jink as a whole, we should mention flyers as well, I can't think of a single flyer that thinks 7th Ed Jink is a nerf.

Morgoth, insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or makes a valid argument on using cover for Wave serpents is not acceptable. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a bad player. The GT winners I know unanimously agree Wave Serpents were buffed as awhile, despite their situational nerf.

1. This thread is about Shooting Skimmers.
2. You have yet to bring a researched conclusion that backs your conclusion that Jink v7 is not a nerf to shooting skimmers
3. You can make a thread about the units that benefitted from the Jink Change, from open-topped skimmer Transports to Devilfish (not sure you're right on that, they also tend to fire at people) and others. It may actually help a lot of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 minigun762 wrote:
The serial shooting at subsequent Serpents to force jinks has drawbacks as well.

#1 It's common strategy to focus fire on available targets to actually damage them. Tickling each skimmer to force a jink seems like a sure way not to kill anything while still allowing them some shooting.

#2 Most players consolidate their primary anti tank weapons to increase point efficiency. This means they are more likely to have fewer stronger primary anti tank units instead of multiple weaker units and this gives fewer opportunities to serially shoot each un-jinked skimmer.

#3 Players shouldn't be jinking the odd anti tank shoot fired by non primary anti tank weapons such as plasma guns. They do not represent a sufficient level of risk. This goes along with #2 above.

In my view, building an army to exploit the perceived nerf results in an overall weaker army than one that was built "normally"

Very good.

#1 > It used to be common strategy, right now logic dictates that forcing Skimmers to Jink results in less damage output and the exact same number of shots to kill them all.
#2 > Considering most Skimmers have AV12 front, to the notable exception of our new overlords, I think you can find at least 4 S6+ shooting units in every competitive army list. It may be a strong argument against army lists that only have a couple very dangerous AV threats like say 4 Lascannons on the same platform or a unit of Fire Dragons in Melta range. Those are real world cases where the new Jink is slightly better than the old jink, undeniably better for resilience but still at a cost rather than free.
#3 > You're perfectly correct, and that means that they will not have any protection against that "not-so-dangerous-but-potentially-deadly" shooting that can be found in abundance in most competitive army lists. Where before they had a 5+ or better, for free.

I think your arguments are very good, taking them to their conclusion gives us an even better view of the big picture.

 Zagman wrote:

Morgoth, insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or makes a valid argument on using cover for Wave serpents is not acceptable. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a bad player. The GT winners I know unanimously agree Wave Serpents were buffed as awhile, despite their situational nerf.

Wave Serpents gained a massive buff, not because of the changes to Jink, but because of them now being (super) scoring.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

Morgoth, insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or makes a valid argument on using cover for Wave serpents is not acceptable. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a bad player. The GT winners I know unanimously agree Wave Serpents were buffed as awhile, despite their situational nerf.

Wave Serpents gained a massive buff, not because of the changes to Jink, but because of them now being (super) scoring.

Interesting opinion.
How does that affect the game compared to v6 ? Under which conditions does it make a difference ? What difference does it make ? How does that balance out against the Jink nerf ?
This thread is about the Jink nerf, not about Wave Serpents.

This whole thread is reminding me of a lovely proverb:

"Never try to argue with an imbecile, he'll only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Every attempt has been made to show that the change to jink is an improvement or at minimum a nominal change to the tactically minded General, but it will only fall on deaf ears.

Morgoth doesn't want a discussion,

He wants people to agree and validate him.

morgoth wrote:

You're still wrong... let me explain:

44% of the time there is no danger, so Jinking is a bad thing.
56% of the time however, there is danger, so Jinking should be a good thing.
Unfortunately, since Jink is considered a 50% save, Jink will only protect you 28% of the time (half of 56%) and not protect you the other 28% (half of 56%), which means you took a debuff for no reason.

Together, Jink is a bad idea 72% of the time because it results in getting a debuff although danger is not real 44% of the time or danger could not be avoided another 28% of the time.

Ahh, this way of explaining it made more sense to me. Thanks for being patient and going through that math with me a couple times.

morgoth wrote:

How does that affect the game compared to v6 ? Under which conditions does it make a difference ? What difference does it make ? How does that balance out against the Jink nerf ?
This thread is about the Jink nerf, not about Wave Serpents.

Right, Jink changes didn't affect Wave Serpents at all. What a naive assumption!

 Arrias117 wrote:
This whole thread is reminding me of a lovely proverb:

"Never try to argue with an imbecile, he'll only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Every attempt has been made to show that the change to jink is an improvement or at minimum a nominal change to the tactically minded General, but it will only fall on deaf ears.

Morgoth doesn't want a discussion,

He wants people to agree and validate him.

Given such proverbs can be applied at will and to anyone, I guess we should stick to facts and logic.

Do you have any fact or logic underpinning a conclusion that has anything to do with the topic of this thread ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

morgoth wrote:

How does that affect the game compared to v6 ? Under which conditions does it make a difference ? What difference does it make ? How does that balance out against the Jink nerf ?
This thread is about the Jink nerf, not about Wave Serpents.

Right, Jink changes didn't affect Wave Serpents at all. What a naive assumption!

Read before you post, that reply is to a post that started talking about Wave Serpents and the Objective Secured change that supposedly in the mind of some people balances out the Jink nerf, which is actually the topic of this thread, not the Wave Serpent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kooshlord wrote:

morgoth wrote:

You're still wrong... let me explain:

44% of the time there is no danger, so Jinking is a bad thing.
56% of the time however, there is danger, so Jinking should be a good thing.
Unfortunately, since Jink is considered a 50% save, Jink will only protect you 28% of the time (half of 56%) and not protect you the other 28% (half of 56%), which means you took a debuff for no reason.

Together, Jink is a bad idea 72% of the time because it results in getting a debuff although danger is not real 44% of the time or danger could not be avoided another 28% of the time.

Ahh, this way of explaining it made more sense to me. Thanks for being patient and going through that math with me a couple times.

I guess I could explain it better the first time. Thanks for trying to understand.

morgoth wrote:

Read before you post, that reply is to a post that started talking about Wave Serpents and the Objective Secured change that supposedly in the mind of some people balances out the Jink nerf, which is actually the topic of this thread, not the Wave Serpent.

Think before you post, that is the exact point. When we're talking about balance, we're talking about more than minor parts of a model. The jink change is a good buff to the WS because it allows it to rush for objective grabbing and get a higher amount of safety compared to what it got before - you could even sit more reliably on objectives now.

morgoth wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
I've been playing 40 k for 19 years and you think I don't know how to play this game? Sounds to me like you can't understand my tactics so you continue to go on and on about jink saves being worse when they are clearly not. I think the problem here is you haven't had the chance to play versus someone who knows how to run an eldar army without having to rely on serpent spam. When you do, you will find that you won't be able to make all of the skimmers jink. You won't get close enough to assult, even with Orks, and you won't table the Eldar player.

Very interesting opinion.

Do you have any facts or researched conclusions you would like to bring to this discussion ?

I already did. You chose to ignore it. That doesn't mean what I said was wrong. Then you chose to take it to a personal level by claiming that because i have apparently never faced an opponent who shoots only enough stuff at my skimmers to make them jink, but not enough to destroy them that somehow that makes me auto lose so obviously i must not know how to play this game.

So, I refuted your claims. Now, are you done with your silly personal attacks so you can get on with the thread topic?

 Sigvatr wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Read before you post, that reply is to a post that started talking about Wave Serpents and the Objective Secured change that supposedly in the mind of some people balances out the Jink nerf, which is actually the topic of this thread, not the Wave Serpent.

Think before you post, that is the exact point. When we're talking about balance, we're talking about more than minor parts of a model. The jink change is a good buff to the WS because it allows it to rush for objective grabbing and get a higher amount of safety compared to what it got before - you could even sit more reliably on objectives now.

Off-topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

I already did. You chose to ignore it. That doesn't mean what I said was wrong.

You quoted personal experience, I don't see how anyone could say that's wrong.

I'm looking for facts, logic, statistics, reasoning.

If you have anything like that, it could shed some light on the inadequacies of the logic and reasoning I've used to come to this conclusion.

morgoth wrote:

It's a nerf to 1 round of shooting if you make use of it.
If you don't make use of it, you have the same damage output as in 6th edition and no Jink save.
If you make use of it, you have 0-75% of your damage output, and a slightly better Jink save.
If you make use of it, you have 100% chance that your opponent will target another unit because he knows you won't be doing much next turn with that one.

It's not a nerf to one round, if the improved save keeps you alive.
If you died with the 5+ cover, or if you died with the no cover for being hit turn 1, then the new Jink rules is a billion times better. Please resolve this math:
8+D6 snap shots divided by ZERO equals what %?

You also do not have a 100% chance the opponent will target another unit. If you jink, and I score 2 hull points of damage, I may be inclined to go for the kill against the jinking serpent, vs try to make another jink. One dead forever is often better than 2 jinking now.

-Matt

Been following this for a while. This thread has thoroughly convinced me that jink is fantastic, and that my serpents are better than ever. My darkshroud also loves this stuff, considering it is just there to block charges and provide cover. I can't wait till I am forced to jink again, hell I might just jink because It is too much fun.

One MAJOR thing nobody has addressed is that you can jink while immobolized. This is kind of a big deal...

morgoth wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Read before you post, that reply is to a post that started talking about Wave Serpents and the Objective Secured change that supposedly in the mind of some people balances out the Jink nerf, which is actually the topic of this thread, not the Wave Serpent.

Think before you post, that is the exact point. When we're talking about balance, we're talking about more than minor parts of a model. The jink change is a good buff to the WS because it allows it to rush for objective grabbing and get a higher amount of safety compared to what it got before - you could even sit more reliably on objectives now.

Off-topic.

I am glad to see that you agree with me and admit having been wrong.

I think the mistake in the idea that Jink is a definitive nerf to anything is that there are assumptions in this argument.

Assumption 1.) I have multiple dangerous anti-tank units. The argument of "you jink, then I shoot something else" relies on being able to bring guns to bear on that something else. The example given was I shoot lascannon, you jink, I shoot lascannon, you jink, I shoot lascannon, you jink. Assumes that you have a bunch of seperate lascannons. Which while not impossible it is not always the case.

Assumption 2.) All your dangerous anti-tank threats have range to multiple vehicles. What if you are drop podding in Melta guns, they may not have the ability to reach all those skimmers, certainly not in melta range.

Assumption 3.) I haven't used skimmers to give cover to other skimmers. People do this all the time with smoke launchers, put a vehicle in front for cover, then jink if it is shot at, while the others get cover from the front vehicle.

Assumption 4.) There are no targets that require snap firing anyway. Oh I jinked last turn, guess I'll shoot that flyer.

Assumption 5.) No unit is more dangerous than a single lascannon. Using Lootas since they were brought up. Say a squad of 15. Well that could be 45 shots (do you roll shots before or after jink?). With 6e jink that is a dead Av12 or less skimmer almost every time, even with old jink. Now there is a reasonable chance that if you jink you survive (average 2.5 hull points of damage to AV 12.


Also not ever skimmer is fast, so moving meant possibly giving up shots to snap fire last edition anyway, now I can stay put, and still benefit from a jink save if needed, and if not, I fire everything at full bs.

Is it a small nerf, probably, but only because you actually need to make a choice about its use. Single lascannon, you weigh the importance of the skimmer and what it is going to do next turn and roll the dice.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

It's not a nerf to one round, if the improved save keeps you alive.
If you died with the 5+ cover, or if you died with the no cover for being hit turn 1, then the new Jink rules is a billion times better. Please resolve this math:
8+D6 snap shots divided by ZERO equals what %?

You also do not have a 100% chance the opponent will target another unit. If you jink, and I score 2 hull points of damage, I may be inclined to go for the kill against the jinking serpent, vs try to make another jink. One dead forever is often better than 2 jinking now.
-Matt

Divided by zero = +infinite, that's a really big number, I doubt you can get that kind of firepower on the table though.

If you died for rolling a 4, which would have kept you alive with the new Jink, and happens in 16% of the cases where you get shot and choose to Jink, the new Jink is better.
The chances of dying of a single shot (not even hit) of anti-tank weapons are relatively slim though, so you would have to calculate those chances, multiply that by 1 sixth and then consider the relative probability of that situation (jink being necessary, deciding to jink, etc.) happening.
The chances of losing 25-100% of the Skimmer's damage output in case of Jinking are of 100%.

Now, if you died for not rolling, which happens when you choose not to Jink, the v6 Jink would have protected you in 33% of those cases.

For first turn, as has been discussed in the OP, worst case defensive deployment scenario has two Skimmers in LoS, with the possibility of 4+ jink and loss of two skimmer's damage output vs the possibility of no Jink and no loss of damage output.
If you assume that there would be enough firepower to take down the two Skimmers with v6 Jink, it's also likely that with Jink, one of them still dies, and the other has reduced damage output, a third may even have been targeted because causing Jinks is a tactic now.

If you assume that there would be enough firepower to take down just one Skimmer with v6 Jink, v7 Jink wil lleave you with a half-dead WS, and two reduced damage output WS for less than the total, which results in less alpha strike than v6 Jink.

As I said in the OP, it is clear that in that case, worst case defensive deployment, the new Jink is a win.

On average, most weapons do not do one Hull Point damage per shot, it is far more likely that the Jink will be useless, as has been demonstrated with the statistics of firing a LasCannon at a Skimmer.

One dead now is not always worse than two Jinking, especially not for combos that need Alpha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I think the mistake in the idea that Jink is a definitive nerf to anything is that there are assumptions in this argument.

Assumption 1.) I have multiple dangerous anti-tank units. The argument of "you jink, then I shoot something else" relies on being able to bring guns to bear on that something else. The example given was I shoot lascannon, you jink, I shoot lascannon, you jink, I shoot lascannon, you jink. Assumes that you have a bunch of seperate lascannons. Which while not impossible it is not always the case.

Assumption 2.) All your dangerous anti-tank threats have range to multiple vehicles. What if you are drop podding in Melta guns, they may not have the ability to reach all those skimmers, certainly not in melta range.

Assumption 3.) I haven't used skimmers to give cover to other skimmers. People do this all the time with smoke launchers, put a vehicle in front for cover, then jink if it is shot at, while the others get cover from the front vehicle.

Assumption 4.) There are no targets that require snap firing anyway. Oh I jinked last turn, guess I'll shoot that flyer.

Assumption 5.) No unit is more dangerous than a single lascannon. Using Lootas since they were brought up. Say a squad of 15. Well that could be 45 shots (do you roll shots before or after jink?). With 6e jink that is a dead Av12 or less skimmer almost every time, even with old jink. Now there is a reasonable chance that if you jink you survive (average 2.5 hull points of damage to AV 12.


Also not ever skimmer is fast, so moving meant possibly giving up shots to snap fire last edition anyway, now I can stay put, and still benefit from a jink save if needed, and if not, I fire everything at full bs.

Is it a small nerf, probably, but only because you actually need to make a choice about its use. Single lascannon, you weigh the importance of the skimmer and what it is going to do next turn and roll the dice.

1) A competitive list rarely has less than three serious AT threats, and some mixed threats.
2) If you are drop-podding meltas, it's unlikely that you're short on total AT threats.
3) Of course, but that's having cover, and has been discussed and acknowledged in the OP. When Jink does not matter, there is indeed no difference.
4) Very true, flyers are a silver lining. It certainly reduces the total impact of the nerf in some situations.
5) Very well, bring other possible enemies that we can figure out how that changes.


I think you underestimate the importance of this nerf:

If being behind cover is a ton better than being in the open, where a Jink will reduce you to useless, then you have to be in cover, and have lost most of your mobility.
In addition, in every case where you choose not to jink, you effectively lose a 5+ cover save that v6 granted for free (to fast skimmers).

So we are on to shooting fast skimmers now?

1.) Plenty of competitive lists have less than 3 serious RANGED, anti tank threats. If your threats are short ranged, you lose the option of. Well I'll just shoot that other target instead, because you may not be in range to do so.

2.)See 1. Sure you are not light on total anti-tank. You are low on long range. So you may not have many options for your anti-tank to change targets once commited. Also if pods go first jink is better now.

3.)But jink does matter, because the save from jink is better than it used to be, so using that front skimmer for cover means you have one skimmer with good cover screening for the others.

4.) Yup, flyers, FMCs, Invisibility, moving a non-fast skimmer, (like an annhilation barge or ghost ark) 12" etc. There are things you can do.

Other possible enemies. SO lets look at a AV10, against say long fangs with 5 lascannons. So there is a 1.7% chance that the squad will not penetrate at all, and the squad averages 2.8 Pens.

So without jinking that is almost any skimmer dead, drops to 1.4 pens with jink. So I would say jink is the right idea.

I will also say that skimmers being scoring and denial, and some having Objective secured, is a larger buff than Jink is a nerf.

What I'm seeing concerning new jink is that peoples main view of it as a buff is that it works if you don't move.

can I get someone who does good mathhammer in here to check this over please:

the survivability of a generic AV12 skimmer with jink on the first turn, going second, deployed as far forward in an "I don't care about cover I can jink" position.

there is a 50% chance of night fighting.

a BS3 lascannon shoots at 24" range, so the skimmer gets stealth due to night fighting. these remain the same through both editions.

so we have a 50% chance to hit, followed by a 50% chance to penetrate - as it's a single shot we'll ignore a glance, as it doesn't have much of an effect.

so far a 25% chance of getting a penetrating hit.

now, in 6th edition, jink requires that you move so you don't get it. so 83% of that 25% goes through, as stealth gives you a 6+.
result in 6th edition: 20.83% of a penetrating hit. so 5 BS3 lascannons and it's going through.

over to 7th edition, jink doesn't require that you move. so if you don't jink, you have the same odds of survival - 20.83%.

if you do jink, you have a 3+ save due to night fighting. so you have 33.3% of that 25% is getting through, which is 0.083%, meaning you need 12 BS3 lascannons to get a penetrating hit.

so by this math, if you're night fighting and going second, jink is 2.4 times better than in 6th.

if you don't night-fight, in 6th you have a 25% chance of a penetrating hit on turn 1, in 7th a mere 12.5%. so only twice as good.

so averaging for the 50% chance of night fighting, it's 2.2 times better for keeping your tanks alive to be able to do anything at all in the game, ever.

Breng77 wrote:
So we are on to shooting fast skimmers now?

1.) Plenty of competitive lists have less than 3 serious RANGED, anti tank threats. If your threats are short ranged, you lose the option of. Well I'll just shoot that other target instead, because you may not be in range to do so.

2.)See 1. Sure you are not light on total anti-tank. You are low on long range. So you may not have many options for your anti-tank to change targets once commited. Also if pods go first jink is better now.

3.)But jink does matter, because the save from jink is better than it used to be, so using that front skimmer for cover means you have one skimmer with good cover screening for the others.

4.) Yup, flyers, FMCs, Invisibility, moving a non-fast skimmer, (like an annhilation barge or ghost ark) 12" etc. There are things you can do.

Other possible enemies. SO lets look at a AV10, against say long fangs with 5 lascannons. So there is a 1.7% chance that the squad will not penetrate at all, and the squad averages 2.8 Pens.

So without jinking that is almost any skimmer dead, drops to 1.4 pens with jink. So I would say jink is the right idea.

I will also say that skimmers being scoring and denial, and some having Objective secured, is a larger buff than Jink is a nerf.

1) I don't think them being ranged matters a whole lot, and unless you clump them all in one spot the options are on the table.
2) =1
3) Don't mix points !
4) A few more. nice one.

Run the numbers for the Long Fangs against AV10/12/13 12 Holo and then we can discuss the conclusion if you'd like.

This thread is not about the Wave Serpent, there's another thread for that if you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
What I'm seeing concerning new jink is that peoples main view of it as a buff is that it works if you don't move.

can I get someone who does good mathhammer in here to check this over please:

the survivability of a generic AV12 skimmer with jink on the first turn, going second, deployed as far forward in an "I don't care about cover I can jink" position.

there is a 50% chance of night fighting.

a BS3 lascannon shoots at 24" range, so the skimmer gets stealth due to night fighting. these remain the same through both editions.

so we have a 50% chance to hit, followed by a 50% chance to penetrate - as it's a single shot we'll ignore a glance, as it doesn't have much of an effect.

so far a 25% chance of getting a penetrating hit.

now, in 6th edition, jink requires that you move so you don't get it. so 83% of that 25% goes through, as stealth gives you a 6+.
result in 6th edition: 20.83% of a penetrating hit. so 5 BS3 lascannons and it's going through.

over to 7th edition, jink doesn't require that you move. so if you don't jink, you have the same odds of survival - 20.83%.

if you do jink, you have a 3+ save due to night fighting. so you have 33.3% of that 25% is getting through, which is 0.083%, meaning you need 12 BS3 lascannons to get a penetrating hit.

so by this math, if you're night fighting and going second, jink is 2.4 times better than in 6th.

if you don't night-fight, in 6th you have a 25% chance of a penetrating hit on turn 1, in 7th a mere 12.5%. so only twice as good.

so averaging for the 50% chance of night fighting, it's 2.2 times better for keeping your tanks alive to be able to do anything at all in the game, ever.

The problem is that you start from the assumption that Jinking is free, which makes it a simple survival statistics calculation, in which case the new Jink is simply 4+ over 5+ yay win.
It's not free, meaning there is a cost to it, meaning the opponent will seek to maximize those costs, which doesn't result in simple things like "twice as good", 2.2 times better and other conclusions.
There is some value in evaluating more the real impact of the first turn Jink, but it's far from being as great as per your naive analysis.

You missed that he was talking about turn 1 if you had yet to move so no jink at all in 6E.

as for My stuff.

1.) It still matters because if they were dispersed you were shooting multiple targets anyway, so the "you jink I change: think still is irrelevant in that scenario. Now if you jink with everything the result might be the same, but it is no longer a choice.

morgoth wrote:
as per your naive analysis.

oooh, and you were so close to having a civilised debate. shame on you morgoth, you're letting the side down.


I agree that snapfiring after jinking is worse than not snapfiring after jinking. however that is the only thing that's worse from jink.

What got better:
can now jink if immobilised
can now jink on turn 1
jink is a 4+ not a 5+
you can now jink if you don't move (big for a doomsday ark I can tell you, always had to buy them a skyshield)

what stayed the same:
shooting a skimmer behind cover still uses the cover save

what got worse:
you have to snapfire afterwards.

talk about suing superman because he hurt your hand when he was saving your life.

Eh....the Doomsday Ark was absolute trash before and it still is..absolute trash. If you jink with a Doomsday Ark now, you cannot fire ANY weapon as you can only Snap Fire...and blast weapons cannot be snapfired.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Eh....the Doomsday Ark was absolute trash before and it still is..absolute trash. If you jink with a Doomsday Ark now, you cannot fire ANY weapon as you can only Snap Fire...and blast weapons cannot be snapfired.

well, apart from 20 shots that are, in essence, S8 to a landraider. but besides that, no, no shots.

Eihnlazer wrote:
landspeeders with flamers take a 100% damage nerf as well, im not complaining though.

If i have to jink i'll just flat out em somewhere they can be of use the next turn.

Indeed, Landspeeders are at the losing end, while Serpents and Annihilation Barges don't lose too much.

Doesn't the doomsday ark still have the broad side guass flayers?

Beyond that though, another thing to consider is that we are leaving out that a penetrating hit is forcing you to snapshot 66% of the time (less for AP1 (33%) or 2(50%).)

So if we look back at this again.

44% of the time there is no danger, so Jinking is a bad thing.
56% of the time however, there is danger, so Jinking should be a good thing.
Unfortunately, since Jink is considered a 50% save, Jink will only protect you 28% of the time (half of 56%) and not protect you the other 28% (half of 56%), which means you took a debuff for no reason.

So lets look at the 28% of failed jink saves at AP2 for the lascannon in this case

14% (half) of those results cause you to snapfire anyway, so jinking costs nothing. (reduce 72% by 14 to 58%)
4.7% of the time you die, and thus jinking cost you nothing (if you are not alive snapfiring does not matter.) (redcue 58% by 4.7 to 53.3%)
So you are close to 50-50 for if it is a good idea. Based on that.
If you only have 1 weapon on your skimmer, then another 4.7% needs to be added, because if you lose your weapon, snapfiring is irrelevant (so 48.6%)

Then consider the 28% that you save. Half of that would leave you snapfiring anyway, so eating the damage does not guarantee full shooting.

Essentially of the 56% danger 37.3% leave you snapfiring or dead anyway (which is actually true for any AP value).

That is not to say the free save was not better for offensive power. But it is certainly not cut and dry that current jinking is always bad. The real risk is against glancing hits which don't cause damage rolls.

I would think of it this way, if you are not in cover and if a unit is likely to

a.) Glance you to death (do enough hull points on average to kill your skimmer)
b.) reliably penetrate at all(66-100% of results, may make snap firing irrelevant)

You should jink.


That is not to say you should jink against a single lascannon, but squads with say 5 lascannons, or multiple melta guns. I would jink.

Breng77 wrote:
You missed that he was talking about turn 1 if you had yet to move so no jink at all in 6E.

as for My stuff.

1.) It still matters because if they were dispersed you were shooting multiple targets anyway, so the "you jink I change: think still is irrelevant in that scenario. Now if you jink with everything the result might be the same, but it is no longer a choice.

The thing is, if you're dropping multiple pods, they're probably going to land between the Skimmers . or behind them. or one close to each potential target. So the change may even be implied by the opponent, in which case the big difference between 6th and 7th is 4+ with 25-100% damage reduction for 1T vs 5+ with nothing. I would say that if you're being meltapodded it's probably a good time to Jink and it may even be (not calculated so it remains to be seen) equal to 6th in terms of efficiency - who knows, maybe even better. Without math though... it's probably a wash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:

oooh, and you were so close to having a civilised debate. shame on you morgoth, you're letting the side down.


I agree that snapfiring after jinking is worse than not snapfiring after jinking. however that is the only thing that's worse from jink.

What got better:
can now jink if immobilised
can now jink on turn 1
jink is a 4+ not a 5+
you can now jink if you don't move (big for a doomsday ark I can tell you, always had to buy them a skyshield)

what stayed the same:
shooting a skimmer behind cover still uses the cover save

what got worse:
you have to snapfire afterwards.

talk about suing superman because he hurt your hand when he was saving your life.

A naive analysis is an analysis that ignores very obvious factors.
A non-numeric analysis like yours that blatantly ignores points I have explained is of course no better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Doesn't the doomsday ark still have the broad side guass flayers?

Beyond that though, another thing to consider is that we are leaving out that a penetrating hit is forcing you to snapshot 66% of the time (less for AP1 (33%) or 2(50%).)

So if we look back at this again.

44% of the time there is no danger, so Jinking is a bad thing.
56% of the time however, there is danger, so Jinking should be a good thing.
Unfortunately, since Jink is considered a 50% save, Jink will only protect you 28% of the time (half of 56%) and not protect you the other 28% (half of 56%), which means you took a debuff for no reason.

So lets look at the 28% of failed jink saves at AP2 for the lascannon in this case

14% (half) of those results cause you to snapfire anyway, so jinking costs nothing. (reduce 72% by 14 to 58%)
4.7% of the time you die, and thus jinking cost you nothing (if you are not alive snapfiring does not matter.) (redcue 58% by 4.7 to 53.3%)
So you are close to 50-50 for if it is a good idea. Based on that.
If you only have 1 weapon on your skimmer, then another 4.7% needs to be added, because if you lose your weapon, snapfiring is irrelevant (so 48.6%)

Then consider the 28% that you save. Half of that would leave you snapfiring anyway, so eating the damage does not guarantee full shooting.

Essentially of the 56% danger 37.3% leave you snapfiring or dead anyway (which is actually true for any AP value).

That is not to say the free save was not better for offensive power. But it is certainly not cut and dry that current jinking is always bad. The real risk is against glancing hits which don't cause damage rolls.

I would think of it this way, if you are not in cover and if a unit is likely to

a.) Glance you to death (do enough hull points on average to kill your skimmer)
b.) reliably penetrate at all(66-100% of results, may make snap firing irrelevant)

You should jink.


That is not to say you should jink against a single lascannon, but squads with say 5 lascannons, or multiple melta guns. I would jink.

Your calculations are wrong.

For the 28% failed jink saves at AP2. 33% not half, cause a snapfire anyway. You can push it from 72% to 63%.
At AP1 this would be 16% or 67% wrong, AP3 is half, 58%.

16.6% is an Explodes result, down to 58%.

Then two separate cases:
Skimmer with 2+ weapons: snapfiring and losing a weapon is worse than just losing a weapon.
Skimmer with 1 weapons: snapfiring is obviously of no consequence, push down to 53.3%

This is different depending on AP values, AP1 rolls +2 and makes Jink a lot more interesting.
On the other hand, you picked AV10, which is really the best case for Jink (interesting too that), the numbers are much worse for AV12.

Pretty epic troll going on right here; I didn't expect this to last beyond page 1

 some bloke wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Eh....the Doomsday Ark was absolute trash before and it still is..absolute trash. If you jink with a Doomsday Ark now, you cannot fire ANY weapon as you can only Snap Fire...and blast weapons cannot be snapfired.

well, apart from 20 shots that are, in essence, S8 to a landraider. but besides that, no, no shots.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhm....

...first of all...you can never shoot both sides at the same enemy. Secondly...what on earth is that Doomsday Ark doing 12'' next to a Land Raider?! Thirdly: you got, at max, 10 shots that hit at 6s...woopdiwoop. About 1-2 hits...1-2 0.17 chances to cause a glance.

Come on. The Doomsday Ark is the worst model in the entire codex and one of the worst models in the entire game.

The kit basically is a Ghost Ark kit with extra parts for custom Sentry Pylons.

morgoth wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
You missed that he was talking about turn 1 if you had yet to move so no jink at all in 6E.

as for My stuff.

1.) It still matters because if they were dispersed you were shooting multiple targets anyway, so the "you jink I change: think still is irrelevant in that scenario. Now if you jink with everything the result might be the same, but it is no longer a choice.

The thing is, if you're dropping multiple pods, they're probably going to land between the Skimmers . or behind them. or one close to each potential target. So the change may even be implied by the opponent, in which case the big difference between 6th and 7th is 4+ with 25-100% damage reduction for 1T vs 5+ with nothing. I would say that if you're being meltapodded it's probably a good time to Jink and it may even be (not calculated so it remains to be seen) equal to 6th in terms of efficiency - who knows, maybe even better. Without math though... it's probably a wash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:

oooh, and you were so close to having a civilised debate. shame on you morgoth, you're letting the side down.


I agree that snapfiring after jinking is worse than not snapfiring after jinking. however that is the only thing that's worse from jink.

What got better:
can now jink if immobilised
can now jink on turn 1
jink is a 4+ not a 5+
you can now jink if you don't move (big for a doomsday ark I can tell you, always had to buy them a skyshield)

what stayed the same:
shooting a skimmer behind cover still uses the cover save

what got worse:
you have to snapfire afterwards.

talk about suing superman because he hurt your hand when he was saving your life.

A naive analysis is an analysis that ignores very obvious factors.
A non-numeric analysis like yours that blatantly ignores points I have explained is of course no better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Doesn't the doomsday ark still have the broad side guass flayers?

Beyond that though, another thing to consider is that we are leaving out that a penetrating hit is forcing you to snapshot 66% of the time (less for AP1 (33%) or 2(50%).)

So if we look back at this again.

44% of the time there is no danger, so Jinking is a bad thing.
56% of the time however, there is danger, so Jinking should be a good thing.
Unfortunately, since Jink is considered a 50% save, Jink will only protect you 28% of the time (half of 56%) and not protect you the other 28% (half of 56%), which means you took a debuff for no reason.

So lets look at the 28% of failed jink saves at AP2 for the lascannon in this case

14% (half) of those results cause you to snapfire anyway, so jinking costs nothing. (reduce 72% by 14 to 58%)
4.7% of the time you die, and thus jinking cost you nothing (if you are not alive snapfiring does not matter.) (redcue 58% by 4.7 to 53.3%)
So you are close to 50-50 for if it is a good idea. Based on that.
If you only have 1 weapon on your skimmer, then another 4.7% needs to be added, because if you lose your weapon, snapfiring is irrelevant (so 48.6%)

Then consider the 28% that you save. Half of that would leave you snapfiring anyway, so eating the damage does not guarantee full shooting.

Essentially of the 56% danger 37.3% leave you snapfiring or dead anyway (which is actually true for any AP value).

That is not to say the free save was not better for offensive power. But it is certainly not cut and dry that current jinking is always bad. The real risk is against glancing hits which don't cause damage rolls.

I would think of it this way, if you are not in cover and if a unit is likely to

a.) Glance you to death (do enough hull points on average to kill your skimmer)
b.) reliably penetrate at all(66-100% of results, may make snap firing irrelevant)

You should jink.


That is not to say you should jink against a single lascannon, but squads with say 5 lascannons, or multiple melta guns. I would jink.

Your calculations are wrong.

For the 28% failed jink saves at AP2. 33% not half, cause a snapfire anyway. You can push it from 72% to 63%.
At AP1 this would be 16% or 67% wrong, AP3 is half, 58%.

16.6% is an Explodes result, down to 58%.

Then two separate cases:
Skimmer with 2+ weapons: snapfiring and losing a weapon is worse than just losing a weapon.
Skimmer with 1 weapons: snapfiring is obviously of no consequence, push down to 53.3%

This is different depending on AP values, AP1 rolls +2 and makes Jink a lot more interesting.
On the other hand, you picked AV10, which is really the best case for Jink (interesting too that), the numbers are much worse for AV12.

Sorry your math is wrong. The damage chart 1-4 snap fire only, 5 weapon destroyed, 6 immobilized, 7 destroyed.

So at ap 2 you are are at +1 to your roll, so that would be 1-3 or 50%,. So my numbers are right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I already stated the 2 cases. Snap fire and losing a weapon is worse, if you have multiple weapons. I also did not pick av 10 that is what you picked earlier, so I expanded it. Sure it is not as good for higher av vehicles, so essentially with the higher av your vehicle the less often you will want to jink. It is also situational, if survival trumps shooting at that point you jink.

Breng77 wrote:

Sorry your math is wrong. The damage chart 1-4 snap fire only, 5 weapon destroyed, 6 immobilized, 7 destroyed.

So at ap 2 you are are at +1 to your roll, so that would be 1-3 or 50%,. So my numbers are right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I already stated the 2 cases. Snap fire and losing a weapon is worse, if you have multiple weapons. I also did not pick av 10 that is what you picked earlier, so I expanded it. Sure it is not as good for higher av vehicles, so essentially with the higher av your vehicle the less often you will want to jink. It is also situational, if survival trumps shooting at that point you jink.

Actually, 1-3 is snap fire, 4 is snap fire + no move, I think that confused me but you're right.
The 56% pen is AV10 against a LasCannon.

I think it would be interesting to do the simulation for AV12 / AV12+ Holo vs "standard threats" including pie plates that do not allow any jink for non-targeted models, etc.

It pretty my hosed my Ravenwing army.... Skimmers and Bikes.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
It pretty my hosed my Ravenwing army.... Skimmers and Bikes.

Basically, everything that is assault or open-topped or Snap Firing anyway is buffed by the 7th Edition Jink.

For the others... it's a matter of comparing the type of damage and related %wrong for Jink, factoring in the number of turns remaining for that unit, and the 50% to 100% relative increase in durability against v6 Jink (50% is from 5+ to 4+, 100% is from 3+ to 2+, for a shrouded or stealth+holo or whatever +2 cover combination) for one turn, weighting likely damage types, etc. etc.

If you want to analyze a unit's value rather than its raw power with the new changes, you will have to first figure out what the new Jink changed exactly for your unit, and then look at the other changes from v7 that would make them more or less relevant.
Some of those changes:

Vehicles are now more resilient
This in turn means that MCs are less relevant than before in comparison to vehicles, and good AT weapons are more relevant
If your bikes or skimmers have meltas, it will weigh in the balance

The game has shifted more towards objectives:
This means that troops are more relevant than before
This in turn implies that non-troops are less relevant than before.

DTs have gained Objective Secured from the troops they transport:
This means that DTs are more relevant than before
This in turn means that anything else is less relevant than before.

If your conclusion is that all of your units are worse in raw power and no more relevant than before, yes you've been hosed

morgoth wrote:

If your conclusion is that all of your units are worse in raw power and no more relevant than before, yes you've been hosed

I'll agree with you here.

and as everything is scoring now (unless you're death company), everything is more relevant now. you don't have to be objective secured to get linebreaker, or score unmanned objectives, or simply prevent other non OS units from securing objectives.

even if we assume that scoring isn't helpful because everyone has it (like legs, for example, no use because almost everyone has them) then the only things that got nerfed are the heavy support tanks for eldar and tau (dark eldar have flicker fields and necrons love snapshooting & can't jink with a monolith). and as they have long range weaponry, you can put them behind some cover and be as good as ever, but now scoring, so better.

so yes, jink has nerfed skimmer gunships which are sat in the open. the simple solution is not to sit in the open, problem solved.

 some bloke wrote:

morgoth wrote:

If your conclusion is that all of your units are worse in raw power and no more relevant than before, yes you've been hosed

I'll agree with you here.

and as everything is scoring now (unless you're death company), everything is more relevant now. you don't have to be objective secured to get linebreaker, or score unmanned objectives, or simply prevent other non OS units from securing objectives.

even if we assume that scoring isn't helpful because everyone has it (like legs, for example, no use because almost everyone has them) then the only things that got nerfed are the heavy support tanks for eldar and tau (dark eldar have flicker fields and necrons love snapshooting & can't jink with a monolith). and as they have long range weaponry, you can put them behind some cover and be as good as ever, but now scoring, so better.

so yes, jink has nerfed skimmer gunships which are sat in the open. the simple solution is not to sit in the open, problem solved.

Actually I got it wrong on the scoring aspect favoring troops:

Before, only troops were scoring, now only troops are Objective Secured.
Before, non-troops were non-scoring, now they are scoring but not secured.

If anything it means that troops are slightly less relevant than before, because they're not the only ones to get objectives anymore, even though they do get them better.
The only clear winner there is the Dedicated Transport, which went from non-scoring to good scoring.

I still disagree on your analysis of the net impact, but since that's mostly about how you intend on using your tools, I guess the best thing is to simply keep the conclusions separate: Fast Skimmer gunboats are worse gunboats, Dedicated Transports are better tools because they're Objective Secured.

You are right on that one Morgoth. Troops couldn't be contested by non troops in 6th anyway for the most part. They got a nerf in 7th, Unless however they are both troops and transport where they got a big buff. The survivable ones the better, having skimmer speed, being able to fly over and through other units and being able to jink AV12 to 3+ with 3 HP and uncontestable is freaking amazing. Biggest buff received in 7th.

You are forgetting that before they could be contested by ANYONE, now they can only be contested by other troops, in addition flying things dont contest/score anymore so it is much harder to steal objectives from troops than anyone else. Big boost to fast OS units.

That is true

In World War 1 the mass introduction of barbed wire, trenches and the machine gun totally changed the battlefield environment. Despite this, incompetent generals still used the old tactic early on of advancing their troops at a walk in line formation. This resulted in horrendous casualties and was all due to the fact that they had tunnel vision from the old strategies and tactics.
What was learned from this lesson of history was that changes to the battlefield environment meant a change in battlefield strategy was needed.
Glean from history what you will...

morgoth wrote:

Ok, let's use more general numbers: every Skimmer loses about 25-70% DPS when Jinking.

That's a HUGE loss.

Even 25% less DPS for 33% Resilience is a bad deal when faced with the decision of Jinking, which as I said implies that a smart enemy will change target as soon as Jink is enabled, thereby limiting its positive effect while not changing anything to drawbacks.

That's because you're not losing just 25-70% DPS for 33% Resilience, as soon as you lose it on one Skimmer, the target moves to another Skimmer, for which you also lose 25% DPS, and so forth.

Not only may it not be worth it at all for any Skimmer losing >50% DPS, it's just horrible for everyone fielding more than one Skimmer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's not drift to Eldar or Wave Serpent people, this topic is Jink in 7th Edition, why it's a nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corollax wrote:
I know you're thinking more about Eldar than Necrons here, but remember that Necrons also get skimmers. And twin-linked tesla loses very little effectiveness when snap-fired.

Not everyone is worse off with the changes.

Everyone with shooting is worse off with the changes, including Necrons, because Jinking means your opponent switches to a non-jinked target that does not have the protection and can still lose 25-70% of its DPS.

A 33% increase in protection on an objective secured unit is actually VERY good trade-off in a game where 11 out of 12 missions are won mostly on objectives.

I can't believe people still argue about the Wave Serpent in a thread that is not about the Wave Serpent.

Your conclusions on the Wave Serpent depend on the use you make of that Wave Serpent, they are not mathematically provable.

Since only half the scenarios use those pesky objectives, and only a few of those objectives will be handled differently in 6th and 7th (i.e. not clearly out of reach for one army / too risky), you cannot say that the Objective Secured on transports is worth the 25-100% DPS nerf when choosing to Jink, especially for all those Skimmers that do not have Objective Secured, from the non-Fast Skimmers who appreciate the new Jink at times to the Fire Prism to WS taken for elite that will not have Objective Secured.

I can find tons of conditions in which raw power will outweigh Objective Secured, even more so in Tactical Objectives games where the opponent takes less optimal positions to try and activate/contest objectives.

Drop it, accept that the new Jink is a nerf for a lot of shooting Skimmers, and take that objective secured talk to another thread, because this one is not about that.

Well, the socalled Serpent nerf is an issue for players who started Eldar in the 6th ed. I used to play Eldar at the competitive level starting the 3rd edition. Retrospectively, the Serpent is still the best transport in the game.

The nerf of Landspeeders is much harder since its armament is not twin linked and heavy flamers become useless after jinking.

morgoth wrote:


I can find tons of conditions in which raw power will outweigh Objective Secured, even more so in Tactical Objectives games where the opponent takes less optimal positions to try and activate/contest objectives.

We are definitely sure that you can. Players with considerably more experience than you, especially players who take part in competitive tournaments, disagree. Objective Secured is a very important ability to have, and in the case of WS, you get OS along with extremely high mobility, high firepower and strong defensive abilities. WS were strong before and got even better in 7th due to the aforementioned changes.

The fact that you're an apologist that refuses to assume mere common sense doesn't really improve your position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:


The nerf of Landspeeders is much harder since its armament is not twin linked and heavy flamers become useless after jinking.

I have problems remembering the last time I even saw a Landspeeder

I used to play Eldar in 4th and 5th.

In my opinion, the Wave Serpent is infinitely better now because it's got firepower and Laser Lock.

It's a lot worse against Assault, but that's really the whole 6th/7th deal.

Retrospectively, the Serpent has always been very expensive and awesome.

The Landspeeder... when is the last time that thing was good ? It always seemed to me like a Vyper.. expensive, fragile, wtf. maybe when you get an excellent movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

We are definitely sure that you can. Players with considerably more experience than you, especially players who take part in competitive tournaments, disagree. Objective Secured is a very important ability to have, and in the case of WS, you get OS along with extremely high mobility, high firepower and strong defensive abilities. WS were strong before and got even better in 7th due to the aforementioned changes.

I don't know why you choose to underestimate my abilities or why you feel it's necessary to state it.

I don't feel its necessary for me to state my opinion of your abilities or the face you have shown.

Well, in earlier editions fast skimmers could only be hit at 6+ in cc. In the 6th ed this was compensated by making them gun boats and more durable vs shooting.

Landspeeders equipped with assault cannons (rending shots by rolling 6 to hit) were great in the 4th edition.

morgoth wrote:
I can't believe people still argue about the Wave Serpent in a thread that is not about the Wave Serpent.

That's enough hypocrisy out of you for today Mr Thread Derailer.

What's the matter, all those off-topic arguments about Wave Serpents that you started in other peoples threads coming back to bite you? People recognizing you as "that Wave Serpent TFG" and associating it to every post you make?

You have no-one to blame but yourself. Also, Wave Serpent is a skimmer and quite definitely the most relative unit to this thread. Unlike the Riptide thread you derailed and killed for example.

I'm surprised nobody has compiled a detailed report of your trolling/baiting/flaming yet, although I guess it's only a matter of time.

morgoth wrote:


I don't know why you choose to underestimate my abilities or why you feel it's necessary to state it.

I don't feel its necessary for me to state my opinion of your abilities or the face you have shown.

I belittle you because of your terrible behavior and the resulting lack of respect and because your posts lack the perspective more experienced players have.

The thread is about a nerf to shooting skimmers (to begin with: pretty much all skimmers are shooting skimmers) and you only refer to the offensive power the respective vehicles have, aka their potential damage. This is an extremely limited perspective and severly limits your capability to constructively take part in a discussion on said matter. If you want to talk about shooting skimmers, you have to take all points into consideration - and you do not do so. Therefore, your points lack substance and are void.

 Sigvatr wrote:

I belittle you because of your terrible behavior and the resulting lack of respect and because your posts lack the perspective more experienced players have.

The thread is about a nerf to shooting skimmers (to begin with: pretty much all skimmers are shooting skimmers) and you only refer to the offensive power the respective vehicles have, aka their potential damage. This is an extremely limited perspective and severly limits your capability to constructively take part in a discussion on said matter. If you want to talk about shooting skimmers, you have to take all points into consideration - and you do not do so. Therefore, your points lack substance and are void.

I... whatever.

Ok--let's get the thread back on topic (and more objective) please--consider it a general warning for all involved---next alert/inappropriate post gets a vacation from the thread.

Ryan