Martel732 wrote: Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.
Do you think that is the bench mark to aim for? Seems high. Some units have ideal targets they spike against. Ravager is one. Inceptors have a 46% return vs ravagers and 54% vs preds as well, mind you. Inceptors have >150% vs unbuffered gravis. OP?
Ravagers have a 29% return vs a RIS knight. Inceptors have 37%.
Ach! I can't access that data at work. Can anyone tell me, what exactly are the ends of the spectrum according to that data, without ITC that is?
This the result for primary factions for non-ITC:
Orks 58.48%
Deathwatch 55.29%
T'au Empire 55.20%
Ynnari 55.00%
Chaos Daemons 53.71%
Drukhari 53.65%
Imperial Knights 52.95%
Tyranids 51.93%
Asuryani 50.60%
Thousand Sons 50.13%
Adepta Sororitas 49.81%
Genestealer Cults 49.30%
Astra Militarum 48.52%
Harlequins 48.47%
Necrons 47.07%
Cult Mechanicus 46.42%
Chaos Space Marines 45.86%
Adeptus Custodes 44.53%
Death Guard 43.50%
Renegade Knights 41.19%
Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%
So, I assume that if you are going to argue Blood Angels are the worst faction based on this unbiased, objective data, then you are also going to adopt the view that astra militarum is the most middle of the road, balanced faction around?
Ach! I can't access that data at work. Can anyone tell me, what exactly are the ends of the spectrum according to that data, without ITC that is?
This the result for primary factions for non-ITC:
Orks 58.48%
Deathwatch 55.29%
T'au Empire 55.20%
Ynnari 55.00%
Chaos Daemons 53.71%
Drukhari 53.65%
Imperial Knights 52.95%
Tyranids 51.93%
Asuryani 50.60%
Thousand Sons 50.13%
Adepta Sororitas 49.81%
Genestealer Cults 49.30%
Astra Militarum 48.52%
Harlequins 48.47%
Necrons 47.07%
Cult Mechanicus 46.42%
Chaos Space Marines 45.86%
Adeptus Custodes 44.53%
Death Guard 43.50%
Renegade Knights 41.19%
Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%
So, I assume that if you are going to argue Blood Angels are the worst faction based on this unbiased, objective data, then you are also going to adopt the view that astra militarum is the most middle of the road, balanced faction around?
Probably the biggest 2 factors here are play rate and win %. This one shows the win %. AM is by far the most played faction at tournament level. I'd really need to see both of those data side by side to really make a judgement. Also - I always wonder how accurate this data is anyways. ITC uses an ap that is at least somewhat certifying. What the heck are these non ITC tournaments doing to submit results?
Martel732 wrote: Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.
Do you think that is the bench mark to aim for? Seems high. Some units have ideal targets they spike against. Ravager is one. Inceptors have a 46% return vs ravagers and 54% vs preds as well, mind you. Inceptors have >150% vs unbuffered gravis. OP?
Ravagers have a 29% return vs a RIS knight. Inceptors have 37%.
Maybe bikes are adequate. I don't know. I haven't used one yet in 8th.
So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.
Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?
How does that work?
9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.
The tournament winrates can be somewhat informative, but I'd be careful about extrapolating from them too much, as they're not necessarily terribly representative of the game as a whole. In tournament setting it is important to be able to deal with the top meta choices, whilst that is not important in a casual setting. So an army could be a powerful in general, and better than 90% of other armies, but if it can't deal with that 10% that comprises the tournament cream of the crop, it is not gonna place well. Similarly it is possible that some factions have gimmicky builds that are particularly effective against the meta choices, whilst the faction in general is not particularly powerful.
I think one way to explain it might be that someone started with a conclusion and found data to support it in an attempt to have the emotional security of having the numbers on their side. But the fact that they do not use those numbers do not modify their other preconceived conclusions would give the lie to their facade of objectivity.
So....is all this data an accurate indicator of faction strength? Or are we throwing it out?
Martel732 wrote: But none of those units can do the job for an efficient price.
A marine biker at 21 ppm kills less than 5 points of guardsmen. I guess 25% return is pretty good for a marine unit at this point.
I hurts bad that T5 means nothing vs lasguns, though.
T5 means a lot to everything else. It doesn't have to mean anything to lasguns. A bike that can stand off and keep IS at 2 shots while keeping full shots is pretty great.
That efficiency number means nothing. Here's why -
A 4 man is 104. Let them face down two squads and a CC - 110 points.
Deploy at 31" - can't be shot without MMM and even then 1 per IS
Bikes move to 19" - IS cannot move in range for 2 shots; bikes can still shoot full range - 5.9 IS die
IS move or don't - still only 2 shots; laspistols not in range and 6 are dead; 1.3 wounds are caused
At this point the bikes can perpetually maintain this distance or if the bikes wanted they can move to 5", unload, and charge.
Turn 1 6 IS die; bikes lose 1.3 wounds
Turn 2 6 IS die; bikes lose 0.7 wounds - one model down
Turn 3 bikes move to 5"; 5 IS die to shooting and 3 are left; bikes charges and finish the job
These bikes were clearly more than 25% efficient.
But even this is irrelevant, because it isn't a real scenario. A battlecannon would probably decide to take some shots at them, but with a 5+++ it might only be able to kill one.
There are a lot more layers than just "this unit maths out to xyz and isn't measuring the same as unit zzy so it's bad".
So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.
Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?
How does that work?
9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.
I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.
That's still an 83% pts return.
Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.
I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.
I never said OP. That was my idea of a good return, that's all. Marines have lots of weapons that are fantastic at killing other marines. Killing the units they need to kill, not so much.
Wouldn't it be better to just check against how many targets a unit has returns, and if it also is resilient itself, then one could check if a unit is really OP or not.
Martel732 wrote: Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.
Do you think that is the bench mark to aim for? Seems high. Some units have ideal targets they spike against. Ravager is one. Inceptors have a 46% return vs ravagers and 54% vs preds as well, mind you. Inceptors have >150% vs unbuffered gravis. OP?
Ravagers have a 29% return vs a RIS knight. Inceptors have 37%.
See this is the thing with return percentages
It has to be categorised into shooting classification and platform clarification.
Generalist weapons should probably be say 20-30%
Shooting at bad match ups should be 5-15%
Optimised targets should be 35-45%
Obviously the more fragile your platform is the more return rate you kinda need to make-up for the likelyness of being wiped off the table.
A unit having a spike vrs a single target isn't an issue aslong as it's balanced out against other weakness.
One of the many issues is Marines are up against it with a lot of under performing for their points cost options vrs a number of over performing options in other codex's.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't it be better to just check against how many targets a unit has returns, and if it also is resilient itself, then one could check if a unit is really OP or not.
Whatever metric you come up with, it'll tell you the wrong thing.
By the metric you outline here, Termies destroy Shining Spears. But that's certainly not what happens on the tabletop.
Martel732 wrote: Sure, throw it out. Don't care. You're too busy with personal attacks to consider an answer in good faith.
If disputing someone's conclusion based on a dataset by pointing out the conclusion they are not taking based on the same dataset is a personal attack I'm sorry. I don't dispute your right to feel that guard are the most op faction and BA the worst faction, you are allowed to feel that.
You just can't feel both those things at once and use that data to back it up.
So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.
Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?
How does that work?
9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.
I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.
That's still an 83% pts return.
Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.
I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.
What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.
Martel732 wrote: I never said OP. That was my idea of a good return, that's all. Marines have lots of weapons that are fantastic at killing other marines. Killing the units they need to kill, not so much.
Do drukhari typically need to kill aggressors? If aggressors are an irrelevant target for marines are they relevant for drukhari?
Are knights a relevant target? Looks like las devs have about a 65% return against knight crusaders.
I don't think that's relevant personally. Evaluating damage return in a vacuum gets pretty meaningless pretty fast.
So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.
Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?
How does that work?
9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.
I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.
That's still an 83% pts return.
Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.
I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.
Plasma devs can deal legit damage. They do however only have 5 wounds and lack mobility. The ravager has 10 wounds an invun saves and massive mobility for about the same cost. It is pretty disgusting when you really think about it. The ravager could literally never lose to plasma devs because it will always strike first against them and on the return being and Elf allows on demand -1 to hit. so...Between the 5++ and a 1/3 chance to kill yourself shooting at it. It is pretty grim.
I don't take plasma in my armies Except on very few units these day...Like plasma interceptors who at least guarantee me that I will get to suicide on the unit I want.
So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.
Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?
How does that work?
9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.
I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.
That's still an 83% pts return.
Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.
I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.
What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.
It at the very least makes you weirdly glass cannon for the way those models look.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ....xeno, my point is not to argue that plasma devs are op.
I'm just demonstrating like I said in my post that using damage return numbers to see how Good or Bad a unit is leads you to weird ass places real fast.
Plasma devs aren't op. I would even say they're terrible. But if you just look at that one weird situation. ...
So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.
Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?
How does that work?
9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.
I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.
That's still an 83% pts return.
Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.
I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.
What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.
It at the very least makes you weirdly glass cannon for the way those models look.
But can marines especially a unit with 18 inch range that needs to be stationary to maximise it's output afford to be that glass cannon?
Any unit that takes an expensive big gun is natural going to be more expensive than the same model with a basic weapon. That doesn't inherently make it a "glass cannon", unless you want to seriously argue a tau commander is a glass cannon compared to normal crisis suit.
So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.
Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?
How does that work?
9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.
I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.
That's still an 83% pts return.
Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.
I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.
What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.
It at the very least makes you weirdly glass cannon for the way those models look.
But can marines especially a unit with 18 inch range that needs to be stationary to maximise it's output afford to be that glass cannon?
Nope. It definitely can't. And that game play context of how it's abilities and mobility interact with its defenses is EXACTLY what actually shows that unit to be a bad unit.
Not one piece of what it does. The whole package.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luke_Prowler wrote: Any unit that takes an expensive big gun is natural going to be more expensive than the same model with a basic weapon. That doesn't inherently make it a "glass cannon", unless you want to seriously argue a tau commander is a glass cannon compared to normal crisis suit.
I mean, it isn't because Character is the single best defensive ability in the game bar none.
If a Tau commander didn't have character it absolutely would be.
This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.
Out of curiosity - is there a reason why people stick to using plain vanilla tactical marines in comparisons. If you want a plain vanilla marine troops unit then Intercessors are flat-out superior and bolter scouts are more flexible. The role for tactical marines is to be carrying a number of upgrades (special/heavy weapons) that the primaris dudes just don't have access to.
Or what am I missing, why are people taking basic tactical bolter squads so frequently that they are still a valid baseline for comparison?
This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.
Out of curiosity - is there a reason why people stick to using plain vanilla tactical marines in comparisons. If you want a plain vanilla marine troops unit then Intercessors are flat-out superior and bolter scouts are more flexible. The role for tactical marines is to be carrying a number of upgrades (special/heavy weapons) that the primaris dudes just don't have access to.
Or what am I missing, why are people taking basic tactical bolter squads so frequently that they are still a valid baseline for comparison?
As far as I can tell? Makes it easier to complain about guard.
Crimson wrote: Intercessors could work. They're solid. The only problem is that GW keeps handing out D2 to weapons like candy.
True problem.
However W2 is never worse than W1 and still quite often better. Similarly A2 is always either better than A1 or not relevant. Same for AP-1 with an extra 6" range, usually better. You get my drift
We can number-crunch and guardsmen will still come out looking strong for their points but it will be less skewed and it will be a far more valid comparison for use in actual games with 8th edition armies.
My experience on the table is that if you have cover for your Intercessors its a decently close match point-for-point. The guardsmen are badly out-ranged by the bolt rifle with bolter drill so they have to get across the table, which means they take casualties before they get effective and are probably not in cover all the time. 40 guardsmen vs 10 Intercessors is a horrible mis-match on planet bowling ball at 12" range but much less so in real game deployment on tables with a bit of terrain.
As you say, D2 weapons with good AP are the problem.
Crimson wrote: Intercessors could work. They're solid. The only problem is that GW keeps handing out D2 to weapons like candy.
True problem.
However W2 is never worse than W1 and still quite often better. Similarly A2 is always either better than A1 or not relevant. Same for AP-1 with an extra 6" range, usually better. You get my drift
We can number-crunch and guardsmen will still come out looking strong for their points but it will be less skewed and it will be a far more valid comparison for use in actual games with 8th edition armies.
My experience on the table is that if you have cover for your Intercessors its a decently close match point-for-point. The guardsmen are badly out-ranged by the bolt rifle with bolter drill so they have to get across the table, which means they take casualties before they get effective and are probably not in cover all the time. 40 guardsmen vs 10 Intercessors is a horrible mis-match on planet bowling ball at 12" range but much less so in real game deployment on tables with a bit of terrain.
As you say, D2 weapons with good AP are the problem.
Your playing guard why are you having issues with intercessors tank commanders with BC eat them for breakfast lunch and dinner at a rate thats not even funny.
So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.
Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?
How does that work?
9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.
I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.
That's still an 83% pts return.
Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.
I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.
What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.
It at the very least makes you weirdly glass cannon for the way those models look.
But can marines especially a unit with 18 inch range that needs to be stationary to maximise it's output afford to be that glass cannon?
Nope. It definitely can't. And that game play context of how it's abilities and mobility interact with its defenses is EXACTLY what actually shows that unit to be a bad unit.
Not one piece of what it does. The whole package.
Half a peach says GW thinks the Aggressors are in an acceptable place because Raven Guard can plant them inside 18" of the enemy before the game starts, and GW has a really bad habit of pricing units according to the best combo that GW notices they can be a part of.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Any unit that takes an expensive big gun is natural going to be more expensive than the same model with a basic weapon. That doesn't inherently make it a "glass cannon", unless you want to seriously argue a tau commander is a glass cannon compared to normal crisis suit.
I mean, it isn't because Character is the single best defensive ability in the game bar none.
If a Tau commander didn't have character it absolutely would be.
Admittedly a bad example on my part, but I still find the use of "glass cannon" in that way undermines the point of the term, a unit that's easier to kill in absolute terms that has an offensive capability that make up for other, otherwise using a relative comparison makes anything look like a glass cannon when it pays for any kind of offensive capability. And when used as a criticism against a unit (which is a lot on this site), it gives the impression of an expectation (that I would argue is unreasonable) that anything that is more expensive due to a increase in offense must also come with an increase in defense.
Martel732 wrote: W2 are worse when hit by d2 because its killing more value. Inverse ig effect.
But it is mostly a question of model cost. 2W for 40pts is really bad. 2W for 10pts is nice, and if it was 4-6pts it would be broken. Statlines can not exist in a vacuum, without point costs.
This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.
Out of curiosity - is there a reason why people stick to using plain vanilla tactical marines in comparisons. If you want a plain vanilla marine troops unit then Intercessors are flat-out superior and bolter scouts are more flexible. The role for tactical marines is to be carrying a number of upgrades (special/heavy weapons) that the primaris dudes just don't have access to.
Or what am I missing, why are people taking basic tactical bolter squads so frequently that they are still a valid baseline for comparison?
As far as I can tell? Makes it easier to complain about guard.
No probably because the marine statline has a lot and i mean alot, MORE comparaive units to it.
Which often are worse off then even tacticals.
The comparisons are typically used to try to show other units are overpowered, which is silly. We all know basic power armour units suck, so if you want to compare things to make a point other than that redundant one you should use something else. Kabalites, Firewarriors, Guardians, Ork Boyz, for example; you know the other good troops choices.
Martel732 wrote: W2 are worse when hit by d2 because its killing more value. Inverse ig effect.
But it is mostly a question of model cost. 2W for 40pts is really bad. 2W for 10pts is nice, and if it was 4-6pts it would be broken. Statlines can not exist in a vacuum, without point costs.
Losing intercessor isnt too bad, but the rest of the primaris line gives away points to 2 damage way too fast.
Yeah I know how you feel, each time a 43pts termintor dies from some dude that costs ten times less and a plasmagun, I wonder what GW was thinking when they assigned point costs in 8th ed.
Gukk said a very true thing. When the basic troop in the game costs less then 5pts, anything that costs more then 9pts has to be really good to be considered.
Martel732 wrote: Not really imo. They take up 50% more space than kabs who are also undercosted.
I disagree. What makes you say Kabalites are undercosted? Comparison to marines?
I've played Kabalites vs Guard enough to know it doesn't go well for the guard. The guard are better in some matchups, worse in others. Covering all that ground is a double edged sword, makes them easy to flank.
Martel732 wrote: If they cost 6 instead of 4 it would help a lot
Guardsmen seems fine compared to other competetive troops.
Which all cost a lot less then 10pts, it seems like good troop means being as close in cost to IG as possible.
That's a strange way to phrase it. It might be that being good troops means being sub 10 points, but phrasing it as being pointed close to guardsmen is just muddying the waters. Rippers and Nurglings are also pretty good and are greater than 10. Intercessors are not terrible either (though not in the same class as guard/kabs).
That's a strange way to phrase it. It might be that being good troops means being sub 10 points, but phrasing it as being pointed close to guardsmen is just muddying the waters. Rippers and Nurglings are also pretty good and are greater than 10. Intercessors are not terrible either (though not in the same class as guard/kabs).
both rippers and nurglings are just 3 models stuck on a single base. I have no personal view on intercessors, I can't use them, so assume you know better then me and they are good.
That's a strange way to phrase it. It might be that being good troops means being sub 10 points, but phrasing it as being pointed close to guardsmen is just muddying the waters. Rippers and Nurglings are also pretty good and are greater than 10. Intercessors are not terrible either (though not in the same class as guard/kabs).
both rippers and nurglings are just 3 models stuck on a single base. I have no personal view on intercessors, I can't use them, so assume you know better then me and they are good.
This is incorrect. Rippers and nurglings are multiwound models and work very differently to 3 cheaper models.
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
I pretty commonly play with a house rule of "front/rear armor" where you draw an imaginary line through the main body of all monster and vehicle keyword models and any attacks coming from units wholly in the front arc are resolved with +1 to standard saving throws amd any attacks coming wholly from the rear arc are resolved at -1. If there's any dispute or units are in partial arcs attacks are resolved normally.
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
I'm talking about flanking a force not à unit. So one can bring 100% of your force vs a smaller amount of theirs with out the rest of the curve being able to retaliate. This doesn't require AV.
Writing relevant flanking rules isn't extremely hard, though. In Epic Armageddon there was a cool rule for units caught in crossfires: if the formation that was shooting could draw a line into another friendly formation (within a set distance) and the target formation they were shooting at was under that line, that action hurt some extra. IIRC it caused a penalty to saves, ignored cover and stuff.
While the exact penalty for getting caught could be something different in 40k, such a system for being in a bad position is not that hard to write. Just add enough clauses for not being able to help (they are in melee, they are understrength, they are a wrong type of unit, cannot be used against Aircraft or whatevs) and presto, you have a mechanic that rewards keeping your line together and seeking openings in the opponent's.
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
I pretty commonly play with a house rule of "front/rear armor" where you draw an imaginary line through the main body of all monster and vehicle keyword models and any attacks coming from units wholly in the front arc are resolved with +1 to standard saving throws amd any attacks coming wholly from the rear arc are resolved at -1. If there's any dispute or units are in partial arcs attacks are resolved normally.
Its pretty quick and easy honestly.
Knights too? A knight in the corner would feel a little busted.
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
I pretty commonly play with a house rule of "front/rear armor" where you draw an imaginary line through the main body of all monster and vehicle keyword models and any attacks coming from units wholly in the front arc are resolved with +1 to standard saving throws amd any attacks coming wholly from the rear arc are resolved at -1. If there's any dispute or units are in partial arcs attacks are resolved normally.
Its pretty quick and easy honestly.
Knights too? A knight in the corner would feel a little busted.
Given they arn't even placing in the top 10 factions of ITC for April I think your over hyping the issue.
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
I pretty commonly play with a house rule of "front/rear armor" where you draw an imaginary line through the main body of all monster and vehicle keyword models and any attacks coming from units wholly in the front arc are resolved with +1 to standard saving throws amd any attacks coming wholly from the rear arc are resolved at -1. If there's any dispute or units are in partial arcs attacks are resolved normally.
Its pretty quick and easy honestly.
Knights too? A knight in the corner would feel a little busted.
Given they arn't even placing in the top 10 factions of ITC for April I think your over hyping the issue.
They're in sixth place win-rate-wise for ITC in April, so yeah...
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
I pretty commonly play with a house rule of "front/rear armor" where you draw an imaginary line through the main body of all monster and vehicle keyword models and any attacks coming from units wholly in the front arc are resolved with +1 to standard saving throws amd any attacks coming wholly from the rear arc are resolved at -1. If there's any dispute or units are in partial arcs attacks are resolved normally.
Its pretty quick and easy honestly.
Knights too? A knight in the corner would feel a little busted.
Given they arn't even placing in the top 10 factions of ITC for April I think your over hyping the issue.
They're in sixth place win-rate-wise for ITC in April, so yeah...
You might want to check those lists, not a single Imperial Knights list actually finished in the top four of any of the events listed on 40k stats for april or may, still a lot of people miss reporting their faction.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Win rate is not the same as placing in the top at any given tournament.
Except win rate doesn't link back to a person or a list that can be checked, i've seen atleast 4 lists claiming to be imperial Knight's but are actually imperial soup lists in aprils results.
If you can't actually check the lists or provide evidence that those figures haven't been tainted by players misrepresenting their faction that data is questionable at best.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Win rate is not the same as placing in the top at any given tournament.
Except win rate doesn't link back to a person or a list that can be checked, i've seen atleast 4 lists claiming to be imperial Knight's but are actually imperial soup lists in aprils results.
If you can't actually check the lists or provide evidence that those figures haven't been tainted by players misrepresenting their faction that data is questionable at best.
This is competitive 8th edition.
Pure lists don't exist and its about time you accept that.
Eihnlazer wrote: Pure lists are actually now a thing in competitive 40k actually, since the changes to ITC faction rating.
There are a lot of players that try to win Best In Faction and they must use pure lists to do so.
Good for them, and I think its a good change for their best in faction ranking but the 'pure' lists fighting over scraps in their own little ranking doesn't change that the top lists will be soup.
Definitely not gonna change the top 1-3 positions much, but it will change each individual factions W-L rate to a more accurate representation of their actual balance as we will see more pure lists at tournaments.
Eihnlazer wrote: Definitely not gonna change the top 1-3 positions much, but it will change each individual factions W-L rate to a more accurate representation of their actual balance as we will see more pure lists at tournaments.
Well it will do once people stop miss representing their factions when submitting lists/results.
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
I pretty commonly play with a house rule of "front/rear armor" where you draw an imaginary line through the main body of all monster and vehicle keyword models and any attacks coming from units wholly in the front arc are resolved with +1 to standard saving throws amd any attacks coming wholly from the rear arc are resolved at -1. If there's any dispute or units are in partial arcs attacks are resolved normally.
Its pretty quick and easy honestly.
Knights too? A knight in the corner would feel a little busted.
Nobody's ever tried it, but if you were a powergamer doing that with a knight I'd assume it'd have a 4++, so having a basic save of 2+ rather than 3+ would essentially only matter vs AP-1 or AP-. I would bet that the fact that all its guns would effectively have 1 less AP would offset the fact that it basically gets permacover.
Nobody's ever tried it, but if you were a powergamer doing that with a knight I'd assume it'd have a 4++, so having a basic save of 2+ rather than 3+ would essentially only matter vs AP-1 or AP-. I would bet that the fact that all its guns would effectively have 1 less AP would offset the fact that it basically gets permacover.
I was thinking a Castellan with a 2+ then being granted a 1+. That gives him a 4+ vs lascannons without spending CP (but no Cawl's so tit for tat I suppose).
Martel732 wrote: Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.
Please explain how you know this.
Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.
I pretty commonly play with a house rule of "front/rear armor" where you draw an imaginary line through the main body of all monster and vehicle keyword models and any attacks coming from units wholly in the front arc are resolved with +1 to standard saving throws amd any attacks coming wholly from the rear arc are resolved at -1. If there's any dispute or units are in partial arcs attacks are resolved normally.
Its pretty quick and easy honestly.
Knights too? A knight in the corner would feel a little busted.
Nobody's ever tried it, but if you were a powergamer doing that with a knight I'd assume it'd have a 4++, so having a basic save of 2+ rather than 3+ would essentially only matter vs AP-1 or AP-. I would bet that the fact that all its guns would effectively have 1 less AP would offset the fact that it basically gets permacover.
I just wanted to add that flanking has NEVER meant anything in 40k. The incredibly slight advantage you got from shooting at the side or rear of a vehicle has never been worth the effort to get there. Even deepstriking you didn't always bother to go for the back because it mattered less than being in a more flexible position on the board.
ERJAK wrote: I just wanted to add that flanking has NEVER meant anything in 40k. The incredibly slight advantage you got from shooting at the side or rear of a vehicle has never been worth the effort to get there. Even deepstriking you didn't always bother to go for the back because it mattered less than being in a more flexible position on the board.
Speak for yourself. having over lapping anti-tank units in different corners of the map gave enemy vehicles pause when moving up, and that's before considering melee units always hitting the rear armor.
Melee units only hit rear armor for 5E-7E, before that it was always whatever facing they made contact with. That system also resulted in vehicles being laughably easy to kill in CC.
AV usually meant Imperial gun tanks sat in back like pillboxes instead of being breakthrough units, while most transports and Xenos vehicles had identical front and side armor making such flanking largely pointless. Wave Serpents, Whirlwinds, Ravagers, Immolators, Fire Prisms, Looted Wagons, Dreadnoughts, Devilfish, Ghost Arks, Razorbacks, Falcons, Doomsday Arks, Rhinos, Raiders, Trukks, etc.
It was pretty much only non-Eldar/Necron battle tanks (Predators, Leman Russ, Hammherhead, Battlewagon) and Chimera chassis vehicles that cared most of the time about side vs front for the most part.
Vaktathi wrote: Melee units only hit rear armor for 5E-7E, before that it was always whatever facing they made contact with. That system also resulted in vehicles being laughably easy to kill in CC.
AV usually meant Imperial gun tanks sat in back like pillboxes instead of being breakthrough units, while most transports and Xenos vehicles had identical front and side armor making such flanking largely pointless. Wave Serpents, Whirlwinds, Ravagers, Immolators, Fire Prisms, Looted Wagons, Dreadnoughts, Devilfish, Ghost Arks, Razorbacks, Falcons, Doomsday Arks, Rhinos, Raiders, Trukks, etc.
It was pretty much only non-Eldar/Necron battle tanks (Predators, Leman Russ, Hammherhead, Battlewagon) and Chimera chassis vehicles that cared most of the time about side vs front for the most part.
I agree with this take.
The rear armor was larrgely never hit by units actually in the rear arc; it was struck either via the Ghostkeel formation, or via melee. And the tank's side arcs weren't very vulnerable and rarely exposed. Mostly, it served as a mechanism to force the pointing of guns a certain way.
Vaktathi wrote: Melee units only hit rear armor for 5E-7E, before that it was always whatever facing they made contact with. That system also resulted in vehicles being laughably easy to kill in CC.
AV usually meant Imperial gun tanks sat in back like pillboxes instead of being breakthrough units, while most transports and Xenos vehicles had identical front and side armor making such flanking largely pointless. Wave Serpents, Whirlwinds, Ravagers, Immolators, Fire Prisms, Looted Wagons, Dreadnoughts, Devilfish, Ghost Arks, Razorbacks, Falcons, Doomsday Arks, Rhinos, Raiders, Trukks, etc.
It was pretty much only non-Eldar/Necron battle tanks (Predators, Leman Russ, Hammherhead, Battlewagon) and Chimera chassis vehicles that cared most of the time about side vs front for the most part.
"Laughably easy" is an exaggeration, considering just bumping the vehicle mean half the attacks missed, and Imperial vehicles being up armored artillery pieces has not changed at all in 8th except now assaulting a vehicle is pointless. The unwillingness for players to push their metal boxes forward is purely psychological, not the fault of rules.
Luke_Prowler wrote: The unwillingness for players to push their metal boxes forward is purely psychological, not the fault of rules.
I think you've forgotten one major point - your vehicle pushing up can't provide fire support if the chaff unit on the other side of the table decides to punch its hull.
There are no rules that encourage you to move forward, but a huge selection of them that encourage you to stay still behind a screen of your own.
I tried to proxy Land Raiders twice, and my limited expiriance with them, is that if they try to move up the field, they become useless very fast. If they hand back they at least get to shot a few times, even if the shoting is a bit inefficient considering the points. So am not sure, if the not moving up front is just psychological.
Though there are no specific mechanics for flanking in 40K, being able to hit soft spots behind your opponent's main line has always been valuable. Moving up the side and "crossing the T" still works, too.
ERJAK wrote: I just wanted to add that flanking has NEVER meant anything in 40k. The incredibly slight advantage you got from shooting at the side or rear of a vehicle has never been worth the effort to get there. Even deepstriking you didn't always bother to go for the back because it mattered less than being in a more flexible position on the board.
Speak for yourself. having over lapping anti-tank units in different corners of the map gave enemy vehicles pause when moving up, and that's before considering melee units always hitting the rear armor.
Word. Flanking IG vehicles in particular was pretty important. You dropped that AV 14 of a Leman Russ to a 12, giving a Lascannon a 4+ to pen rather than a 6.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Melee units only hit rear armor for 5E-7E, before that it was always whatever facing they made contact with. That system also resulted in vehicles being laughably easy to kill in CC.
That depended heavily on what was attacking. Vehicles still couldn't be hurt by S3.
If the issue was a marine swinging a powerfist, well that's a fine time for a vehicle to feel vulnerable if you ask me.
Vaktathi wrote: Melee units only hit rear armor for 5E-7E, before that it was always whatever facing they made contact with. That system also resulted in vehicles being laughably easy to kill in CC.
AV usually meant Imperial gun tanks sat in back like pillboxes instead of being breakthrough units, while most transports and Xenos vehicles had identical front and side armor making such flanking largely pointless. Wave Serpents, Whirlwinds, Ravagers, Immolators, Fire Prisms, Looted Wagons, Dreadnoughts, Devilfish, Ghost Arks, Razorbacks, Falcons, Doomsday Arks, Rhinos, Raiders, Trukks, etc.
It was pretty much only non-Eldar/Necron battle tanks (Predators, Leman Russ, Hammherhead, Battlewagon) and Chimera chassis vehicles that cared most of the time about side vs front for the most part.
"Laughably easy" is an exaggeration, considering just bumping the vehicle mean half the attacks missed
That was only 5th, and you didn't need that many hits when touching rear armor, particularly with stuff like MC's where they got their full complement of attacks with 2d6 armor pen basically meaning they almosy couldn't fail to penetrate. If they didnt move they got autohit. 6E and 7E tanks got hit on WS1, and HP's meant it was trivial to kill most tanks in CC when they basically were all WS1 T6 W3 Sv- models.
Regardless, facing didn't really matter, as 95% of vehicles had rear AV10 and it just acted as an alternate T value as opposed to having anything to do with manuever or actual facing, you just needed to make base contact *somewhere*.
and Imperial vehicles being up armored artillery pieces has not changed at all in 8th except now assaulting a vehicle is pointless.
How so? It's another vector to do damage and prevent the tank from shooting for a turn.
The unwillingness for players to push their metal boxes forward is purely psychological, not the fault of rules.
No, it was a fault of the rules because anything getting into CC meant the tank was done for, especially once HP's came about, at least in previous editions. Didnt have anything to do with facings or crossfiring into different AV's, the game actively discouraged it.
Karol wrote: I tried to proxy Land Raiders twice, and my limited expiriance with them, is that if they try to move up the field, they become useless very fast. If they hand back they at least get to shot a few times, even if the shoting is a bit inefficient considering the points. So am not sure, if the not moving up front is just psychological.
I hinted at it above, but there are so many reasons to stay behind, but not many to go forward. For Land Raiders, being a shock transport is one of the key reasons to move forward. For vehicles without that role? Better to stay back if your weapons allow you, because moving forward puts you at risk of...
rapid fire plasma weapons
melta style weapons (technically any high damage weapon with a short range)
could take you out of cover
being silenced by any unit charging you
being in range of hard hitting melee units
might make it harder to benefit from LoS blocking terrain
and for a vast majority of the armoured vehicles in this game, impacts your accuracy
Vaktathi wrote: Melee units only hit rear armor for 5E-7E, before that it was always whatever facing they made contact with. That system also resulted in vehicles being laughably easy to kill in CC.
That depended heavily on what was attacking. Vehicles still couldn't be hurt by S3.
In all fairness, little else was hurt by S3 either. Yeah in theory S3 could hurt a Riptide or the like, but not really in any meaningful way. A naked Carnifex would take 144 WS3 S3 attacks to kill, a tooled up Riptide nearly 900 (assuming WS3).
If the issue was a marine swinging a powerfist, well that's a fine time for a vehicle to feel vulnerable if you ask me.
A Powefist being a threat to a vehicle was fine, nobody had an issue with that. But when a unit with free krak grenades basically autokilled any tank on an average roll just for making it into base contact, and with no threat of the tank fighting back and crushing or grinind things beneath tracks or the like, it got a wee bit silly.
Yeah, I never felt it made much sense in previous editions that a Hellhound could floor it 18" down a road, and a group of infantry could sprint into the front of this hurtling vehicle and precisely lob their grenades into the "weak spots" (rear armour justification), yet a Leman Russ that trundled a mere 1" was just as easy to take out.
Hitting the rear armour of stationary vehicles made some sense, but not vehicles moving reasonably fast (unless actually in the rear arc of course). It would've promoted more vehicle movement too if going more than, say, 3" in a turn meant melee hit the armour facings like shooting.
Vaktathi wrote: Melee units only hit rear armor for 5E-7E, before that it was always whatever facing they made contact with. That system also resulted in vehicles being laughably easy to kill in CC.
AV usually meant Imperial gun tanks sat in back like pillboxes instead of being breakthrough units, while most transports and Xenos vehicles had identical front and side armor making such flanking largely pointless. Wave Serpents, Whirlwinds, Ravagers, Immolators, Fire Prisms, Looted Wagons, Dreadnoughts, Devilfish, Ghost Arks, Razorbacks, Falcons, Doomsday Arks, Rhinos, Raiders, Trukks, etc.
It was pretty much only non-Eldar/Necron battle tanks (Predators, Leman Russ, Hammherhead, Battlewagon) and Chimera chassis vehicles that cared most of the time about side vs front for the most part.
"Laughably easy" is an exaggeration, considering just bumping the vehicle mean half the attacks missed, and Imperial vehicles being up armored artillery pieces has not changed at all in 8th except now assaulting a vehicle is pointless. The unwillingness for players to push their metal boxes forward is purely psychological, not the fault of rules.
It is a fault of the rules because:
Most importantly, tanks can't shoot effectively on the move, [despite some infantry heavy weapons units being able to just fine], meaning that the tank will sit in place to avoid being less worthwhile than it's infantry-antitank-section counterpart.
Tanks have no reason to get closer. Most of their guns can hit from here, and they have nothing that makes them more useful pushing than sitting where they are
Tanks are ridiculously vulnerable to close quarters combat, [to be fair, tanks actually are very vulnerable to infantry close assault tactics],
There's lots of reason to stay here, and no reason to go that way.
Solutions would include:
Allowing vehicles to fire while mobile. Seriously, why do claws help Havocks move and fire without penalty, while a Predator cannot?
Reducing tank vulnerability to melee. This, and the above, give the tank freedom to move, though not the incentive.
Flanking bonuses could provide the incentive to move up [to flank enemy vehicles], but it would also require tanks to become frontally resilient enough to have to be flanked to be destroyed.
Reducing the overall effectiveness of infantry antitank units [especially frontally] would probably be another good step in general for improving the game and introducing flanking, by forcing infantry to attack the side and rear weakspots of vehicles and/or conduct close assault with grenades..
Vaktathi wrote: Melee units only hit rear armor for 5E-7E, before that it was always whatever facing they made contact with. That system also resulted in vehicles being laughably easy to kill in CC.
AV usually meant Imperial gun tanks sat in back like pillboxes instead of being breakthrough units, while most transports and Xenos vehicles had identical front and side armor making such flanking largely pointless. Wave Serpents, Whirlwinds, Ravagers, Immolators, Fire Prisms, Looted Wagons, Dreadnoughts, Devilfish, Ghost Arks, Razorbacks, Falcons, Doomsday Arks, Rhinos, Raiders, Trukks, etc.
It was pretty much only non-Eldar/Necron battle tanks (Predators, Leman Russ, Hammherhead, Battlewagon) and Chimera chassis vehicles that cared most of the time about side vs front for the most part.
"Laughably easy" is an exaggeration, considering just bumping the vehicle mean half the attacks missed
That was only 5th, and you didn't need that many hits when touching rear armor, particularly with stuff like MC's where they got their full complement of attacks with 2d6 armor pen basically meaning they almosy couldn't fail to penetrate. If they didnt move they got autohit. 6E and 7E tanks got hit on WS1, and HP's meant it was trivial to kill most tanks in CC when they basically were all WS1 T6 W3 Sv- models.
Regardless, facing didn't really matter, as 95% of vehicles had rear AV10 and it just acted as an alternate T value as opposed to having anything to do with manuever or actual facing, you just needed to make base contact *somewhere*.
and Imperial vehicles being up armored artillery pieces has not changed at all in 8th except now assaulting a vehicle is pointless.
How so? It's another vector to do damage and prevent the tank from shooting for a turn.
The unwillingness for players to push their metal boxes forward is purely psychological, not the fault of rules.
No, it was a fault of the rules because anything getting into CC meant the tank was done for, especially once HP's came about, at least in previous editions. Didnt have anything to do with facings or crossfiring into different AV's, the game actively discouraged it.
I wrote up a big reply about how assault was not this guaranteed death that bullied vehicles in editions past others hold as a truism, then I remember that's not the point.
As an ork player I had to deal with leveraging str 7 and 8 weapons ranged with no special rules that helped with armor pen. So I had to *know* how to deal with armor facings, otherwise I was wasting a turn scrapping away a unit's giant abrasive wound in assault and getting double tapped as reward. It still had an effect on the game. Nor am I going to defend 6th/7th edition's lousy HP system.
Eihnlazer wrote: Definitely not gonna change the top 1-3 positions much, but it will change each individual factions W-L rate to a more accurate representation of their actual balance as we will see more pure lists at tournaments.
Well it will do once people stop miss representing their factions when submitting lists/results.
Shouldn't the faction descriptor be determined by TOs after the list has been reviewed for legality?
If the issue was a marine swinging a powerfist, well that's a fine time for a vehicle to feel vulnerable if you ask me.
A Powefist being a threat to a vehicle was fine, nobody had an issue with that. But when a unit with free krak grenades basically autokilled any tank on an average roll just for making it into base contact, and with no threat of the tank fighting back and crushing or grinind things beneath tracks or the like, it got a wee bit silly.
The word isn't "silly", the word is "awesome". Ten Tactical marines getting to a Leman Russ, planting grenades and blowing it to hell was part of a golden era for the usefulness of a basic marine. True elite generalists.
I'm not sure how many troops got Krak grenades as standard, either. It wasn't many iirc.
Edit: Remember Battlecannons evaporated marines out of cover back then, too. Exploding the tank was a nice reward after getting past that firepower. Imo the relationship felt pretty good.
Tanks should be very vulnerable to close assault by infantry.
Grenades, charges, magnetic mines, molotov cocktails, etc. are all serious threats, since up close they can be thrown into vulnerable areas on the engine, gun, tracks, and hatches disabling the vehicle. That's why infantry protection for tanks is important; an unprotected tank becomes an easy target for enemy close assault or infantry antitank teams.
Grenades, charges, magnetic mines, molotov cocktails, etc. are all serious threats, since up close they can be thrown into vulnerable areas on the engine, gun, tracks, and hatches disabling the vehicle. That's why infantry protection for tanks is important; an unprotected tank becomes an easy target for enemy close assault or infantry antitank teams.
Speaking of which, you know what could be handy? A rule similar to "heroic intervention" except in regards to infantry and tanks. If an enemy is assaulting a tank you could try to move a friendly squad in between them.
There's a little cognitive dissonance there, as infantry are usually hiding behind a tank. But the current paradigm of an infantry man stopping a battle tank from firing at the moment is also somewhat dissonant.
I wrote up a big reply about how assault was not this guaranteed death that bullied vehicles in editions past others hold as a truism, then I remember that's not the point.
As an ork player I had to deal with leveraging str 7 and 8 weapons ranged with no special rules that helped with armor pen. So I had to *know* how to deal with armor facings, otherwise I was wasting a turn scrapping away a unit's giant abrasive wound in assault and getting double tapped as reward. It still had an effect on the game. Nor am I going to defend 6th/7th edition's lousy HP system.
AV facings certainly had an effect, they could be exploited, it's just most of the time they didn't, at least in my experience, either because the only angles you'd ever see were identical (simply because most commonly used vehicles had identical front/side AV and rear armor shots were relatively rare) or because of you got into CC the facing didn't actually matter as you hit rear automatically regardless of angle of attack. Alternatively, it often wouldnt matter because dumping a grip of meltaguns in double pen range didn't find too much practical difference between something like front AV12 and side AV10 or 11.
Ork AT was in a bit of different spot from most armies, but even among their own vehicles, pretty much only the Battlewagon cared about its own facing. IG were seemingly the only army to worry a whole lot about it on any consistent basis due to having so many side AV10 units, as opposed to say Eldar or Necrons or Marines or DE where most of their vehicles all have identical front/side AV.
If the issue was a marine swinging a powerfist, well that's a fine time for a vehicle to feel vulnerable if you ask me.
A Powefist being a threat to a vehicle was fine, nobody had an issue with that. But when a unit with free krak grenades basically autokilled any tank on an average roll just for making it into base contact, and with no threat of the tank fighting back and crushing or grinind things beneath tracks or the like, it got a wee bit silly.
The word isn't "silly", the word is "awesome". Ten Tactical marines getting to a Leman Russ, planting grenades and blowing it to hell was part of a golden era for the usefulness of a basic marine. True elite generalists.
I'm not sure how many troops got Krak grenades as standard, either. It wasn't many iirc.
Edit: Remember Battlecannons evaporated marines out of cover back then, too. Exploding the tank was a nice reward after getting past that firepower. Imo the relationship felt pretty good.
the main issue was that it wasnt much harder to kill a heavy battle tank than a squad of putz guardsmen at that point (particularly if the guardsmen had any Ld support), and due to almost everything being rear AV10 regardess of it it was a Trukk, Chimera, Raider, Predator, Battlewagon, Devilfish, Ravager, Rhino, Hammerhead or Russ(with only 3 Russ variants being rear AV11), battle tanks werent any more resilient than paper transports.
Likewise, tank assaults should be dangerous things, such events in real life are often considered some of the most suicidal attacks for the infantry, and 40k unfortunately had no mechanism for infantry support aside from physical body blocking which isn't really how that should work. At least in 8E tanks can attempt to crush or grind stuff with their tracks and there's a difference between hitting a battletank and a scout vehicle or transport. IIRC Krak grenades came free or were 1ppm on every Imperial troop unit in that era, while many others had enough S4 attacks to glance stuff to death with ease once HP's came into play.
And yeah, while a battlecannon could evaporate marines out of cover, between scatter and coherency spread they weren't actually all that scary most of the time, and shooting the battlecannon meant other weapons either were not firing or were firing snapshots depending on the edition.
If the issue was a marine swinging a powerfist, well that's a fine time for a vehicle to feel vulnerable if you ask me.
A Powefist being a threat to a vehicle was fine, nobody had an issue with that. But when a unit with free krak grenades basically autokilled any tank on an average roll just for making it into base contact, and with no threat of the tank fighting back and crushing or grinind things beneath tracks or the like, it got a wee bit silly.
The word isn't "silly", the word is "awesome". Ten Tactical marines getting to a Leman Russ, planting grenades and blowing it to hell was part of a golden era for the usefulness of a basic marine. True elite generalists.
I'm not sure how many troops got Krak grenades as standard, either. It wasn't many iirc.
Edit: Remember Battlecannons evaporated marines out of cover back then, too. Exploding the tank was a nice reward after getting past that firepower. Imo the relationship felt pretty good.
the main issue was that it wasnt much harder to kill a heavy battle tank than a squad of putz guardsmen at that point (particularly if the guardsmen had any Ld support), and due to almost everything being rear AV10 regardess of it it was a Trukk, Chimera, Raider, Predator, Battlewagon, Devilfish, Ravager, Rhino, Hammerhead or Russ(with only 3 Russ variants being rear AV11), battle tanks werent any more resilient than paper transports.
Likewise, tank assaults should be dangerous things, such events in real life are often considered some of the most suicidal attacks for the infantry, and 40k unfortunately had no mechanism for infantry support aside from physical body blocking which isn't really how that should work. At least in 8E tanks can attempt to crush or grind stuff with their tracks and there's a difference between hitting a battletank and a scout vehicle or transport. IIRC Krak grenades came free or were 1ppm on every Imperial troop unit in that era, while many others had enough S4 attacks to glance stuff to death with ease once HP's came into play.
And yeah, while a battlecannon could evaporate marines out of cover, between scatter and coherency spread they weren't actually all that scary most of the time, and shooting the battlecannon meant other weapons either were not firing or were firing snapshots depending on the edition.
I think it depended greatly from edition to edition how easy tanks were to kill. In 4th edition you hit the side you charged from iirc, and skimmers were only hit on 6s, or something like that. So Ork Trucks, Leman Russes, and Devilfish wound up being quite different targets. In later editions speed had more of an effect.
As for tank assaults being dangerous. . . ehh, I chalk that one up to simplified mechanics. Also if we're taking about effective infantry, we're talking about marines and aspect warriors, in which case "real world" winds up counting for less. If you charged with Guard, it was hard to hurt a vehicle in the first place, so it just doesn't matter so much. (in at least one edition Frag could be used as S4 against a tank, so Guard would hurt a tank on a 6 to get at least some effect.)
As a marine player Battlecannons were terrifying. Certainly missing was an option, but a good hit was painful. I'm sure as a Guard player they didn't feel as effective as you'd like, but I think this mostly a matter of which faction's perspective you're coming from.
In my mind 4th edition was the last edition where it was primarily an infantry based game. Some combination of things happened in 5th that made many deployments look more like parking lots.
I think it depended greatly from edition to edition how easy tanks were to kill. In 4th edition you hit the side you charged from iirc, and skimmers were only hit on 6s, or something like that. So Ork Trucks, Leman Russes, and Devilfish wound up being quite different targets. In later editions speed had more of an effect.
absolutely, 3E and 4E were entirely different cans of worms in that respect to 5E-7E, and Skimmers were absurdly overpowered in that era in general, and dont even try to kill a 4E falcon with a powetfist, it wont happen
As a marine player Battlecannons were terrifying. Certainly missing was an option, but a good hit was painful. I'm sure as a Guard player they didn't feel as effective as you'd like, but I think this mostly a matter of which faction's perspective you're coming from.
CSM's are my second largest army so I've been on both sides. I definitely feel the threat of them, they often had a big psychological impact, but in practice they never performed all that great consistently, particularly once cover came into play. Part of thay was also that they were typically garbage against monsters, other vehicles, and T5+ units due to the old blast weapon rules.
In my mind 4th edition was the last edition where it was primarily an infantry based game. Some combination of things happened in 5th that made many deployments look more like parking lots.
5E kinda saw an increase in scale across the board that hasnt yet slowed
I wouldn't mind bringing back tank-shock personally though.
Make it a strat for 1 CP that causes a morale check with a modifier based on the size of the vehicle and if they fail it they take D3 mortal wounds and models in the path of the vehicle have to move up to 6 inch's away (ignoring unit coherency).
This lets even transports useful as it allows them to break up and scatter large infantry units.
Modifier would be based on the vehicles max wounds characteristic. less than 10 gets -1, 10-12 gets -2, 13-16 gets -3, and 17+ gets -4 to the check.
Eihnlazer wrote: I wouldn't mind bringing back tank-shock personally though.
Make it a strat for 1 CP that causes a morale check with a modifier based on the size of the vehicle and if they fail it they take D3 mortal wounds and models in the path of the vehicle have to move up to 6 inch's away (ignoring unit coherency).
This lets even transports useful as it allows them to break up and scatter large infantry units.
Modifier would be based on the vehicles max wounds characteristic. less than 10 gets -1, 10-12 gets -2, 13-16 gets -3, and 17+ gets -4 to the check.
Vehicle wounds go way higher, I'd shift the scale more.
I don't think you should be forced to move models, but that after the vehicle has moved (can tank shock your movement distance), enemy models must be removed closest to the vehicle.
I feel,Ike tank shocking a 20 grot squad, vs a squad of 20 Necron Warriors, there should be more Grots squished.
Every time a Tank moved into or out of combat with any infantry unit, it should do an auto d6 wounds at -1 AP. That would make tanks feared by lightly armoured infantry while space marines are still ok.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Every time a Tank moved into or out of combat with any infantry unit, it should do an auto d6 wounds at -1 AP. That would make tanks feared by lightly armoured infantry while space marines are still ok.
Eh. If you've got models afraid of some AP -1, you've got chaff you can afford to lose and enough bodies to prevent the tank from falling back.
Besides, that kills nearly two Marines when they get into combat and when the vehicle leaves it. That's, what, 40-50 points lost every time a marine unit wants to charge. With Guardsmen, the point loss is half that.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Every time a Tank moved into or out of combat with any infantry unit, it should do an auto d6 wounds at -1 AP. That would make tanks feared by lightly armoured infantry while space marines are still ok.
I've played a custom game where we wanted to have a mad max vehicle battle, and we instituted a rule where any vehicle with WS5+ or WS6+ could always advance and charge, and if they did so they caused 2D6 S4 AP- autohits. Making them advance created a drawback to it because typically they would not get to fire many weapons.
I think it depended greatly from edition to edition how easy tanks were to kill. In 4th edition you hit the side you charged from iirc, and skimmers were only hit on 6s, or something like that. So Ork Trucks, Leman Russes, and Devilfish wound up being quite different targets. In later editions speed had more of an effect.
As for tank assaults being dangerous. . . ehh, I chalk that one up to simplified mechanics. Also if we're taking about effective infantry, we're talking about marines and aspect warriors, in which case "real world" winds up counting for less. If you charged with Guard, it was hard to hurt a vehicle in the first place, so it just doesn't matter so much. (in at least one edition Frag could be used as S4 against a tank, so Guard would hurt a tank on a 6 to get at least some effect.)
As a marine player Battlecannons were terrifying. Certainly missing was an option, but a good hit was painful. I'm sure as a Guard player they didn't feel as effective as you'd like, but I think this mostly a matter of which faction's perspective you're coming from.
In my mind 4th edition was the last edition where it was primarily an infantry based game. Some combination of things happened in 5th that made many deployments look more like parking lots.
As a Guard, Sisters, and Space Wolves player, I was never really afraid of other guard armies with their battle cannons. Battle cannons and Basilisks targeting line infantry are a non-problem; the only unit that they really scared were Long Fangs, but even then entrenching in cover and maintaining 2" dispersal was a fairly decent recourse.
