Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here is my analysis of special CC weapons against dreads:

Note*Relevent damage table results (RDTR) include stunned-exploded. Note that the average number of destroyed or exploded results is much worse (and significantly worse against the ironclad)

RDTR is calculated:
(number of attacks) (chance to hit) (chance to glance) (chance to obtain stunned-immobilized) + (number of attacks) (chance to hit) (chance to pen) (chance to obtain stunned-exploded)

Without assaulting:
(2) (3/6) (1/6) (3/6) + (2) (3/6) (2/6) (5/6) =18/216 +60/216 = 78/216 = 0.36 RDTR per phase

You assaulting it:
(3) (3/6) (1/6) (3/6) + (3) (3/6) (2/6) (5/6) =27/216 +90/216 = 117/216 = 0.54 RDTR per phase

Against Ironclads its even worse (AV 13 + extra armor means stunned are no longer RDTR)

Without assaulting:
(2) (3/6) (1/6) (2/6) + (2) (3/6) (1/6) (4/6) = 12/216 + 24/216=36/216=0.17 RDTR per phase

You assaulting it:
(3) (3/6) (1/6) (2/6) + (3) (3/6) (1/6) (4/6) = 18/216 + 36/216=54/216=0.25 RDTR per phase

A powerfist can expect averages of 0.25 RDTR on assault and 0.17 RDTR otherwise against an Ironclad, and 0.54 RDTR when assaulting and 0.36 RDTR otherwise against AV 12 dreads.

The average RDTR is low enough that I would not want to stay in combat even with a power fist against a dread. Dreads do no move faster than your infantry, so you almost never have to be in assault with them unless you want to.

Dread vs tacticals

Normal with 2 attacks
assaulting: 3*3/6*5/6=1.25 per phase
otherwise: 2*3/6*5/6=0.83 per phase

Ironclad:
assaulting: 4*3/6*5/6=1.67 per phase
otherwise: 3*3/6*5/6=1.25 per phase

Just to show some additional data:

Single krak grenade RDTR vs dread:
(1) (1/6) (1/6) (3/6) = 3/216= 0.01 RDTR per phase

Melta bomb RDTR vs dread (glances can wreck)
(1) (1/6) (3/36) (4/6) + (1) (1/6) (30/36) (6/6) =432/46656 +6480/46656 = 0.15 RDTR per phase

Melta bomb RDTR vs Ironclad (glances can wreck)
(1) (1/6) (4/36) (3/6) + (1) (1/6) (26/36) (5/6) =216/46656 +4680/46656 = 0.10 RDTR per phase

Conclusion: No CC weapons offer a great chance to deal a single RDTR to a dreadnought in any given phase. The figures above include stunned results as those at least remove a single attack from the dreadnought. Note that Ironclads come with extra armor, and therefore stunned results are irrelevant to them. Even a power fist is not going to be much help against Ironclads, while providing at least a reasonable chance to eventually destroy a normal AV 12 dread.

Neither of these options are good enough, as the dread is going to be cheaper than a 10 man tactical squad. In the end your best bet is to use combat tactics to retreat from the combat, or have a unit with multiple power fist weapons come and dig the unit out.


edit: Tried to come up with formula for calculating what % of RDTR are actually wrecked or exploded, but formula was wrong. Perhaps I will revisit it later.

It's not great against Dreadnoughts, but its a hell of a lot better than leak grenades.

Monster Rain wrote:It's not great against Dreadnoughts, but its a hell of a lot better than leak grenades.

That's the point. There is no tactical squad solution against Dreads in CC . Therefore you strategy shouldn't be to provide slightly better odds at winning, but rather to avoid that fight altogether.

What I am trying to refute is the idea that you take power fists or melta bombs to fight dreads in CC.

Not just Dreads, no one is saying that it's great to take them because you'll pwnzilla Walkers like it ain't no thang.

It just gives you a shot and makes your tac squad just a bit more "ready for anything."

I sometimes take Fists, depending on the list I'm playing against.

And by no means are they useless. If your opponent runs his T4/T3 hero in, or if you can catch him in the assault (Farseers, caught a Shas'o once, Chaos Sorcerers, etc.) If you can land a hit/wound and if they fail their save unless they have EW or something similar they're dead. In addition, it DOES help you take out walkers like Kanz, Wraithlords, Sentinels, etc.

Rare occurences? Maybe. But it happens. Not every gamer in the local meta will immediately see it and laugh as they counter/avoid your silly PF sarge.

And why would you charge? REALLY? I assume then that throughout the tons of games you've played you've never, ever found it advantageous to Assault? Y'know, not when there's a mob of boyz and you want to deny them Furious Charge, or say, a squad of Battlesuits that are in range of your outflanking tactical. I assume none of these are the moves any competent player would ever make...

Being more ready for a losing battle is the same as being less ready for a losing battle; odds are that you're still going to lose. Better to avoid the losing battle in the first place (or have a rule that lets you exit it...).

Nurglitch wrote:Being more ready for a losing battle is the same as being less ready for a losing battle; odds are that you're still going to lose. Better to avoid the losing battle in the first place (or have a rule that lets you exit it...).

Again, we are assuming that our opponent is also competent and not playing directly into our hands.

Monster Rain wrote:Not just Dreads, no one is saying that it's great to take them because you'll pwnzilla Walkers like it ain't no thang.

It just gives you a shot and makes your tac squad just a bit more "ready for anything."

And I didn't say you were saying you'll pwnzilla walkers. I said it would improve your odds, but not to the point that you can expect to win.

Tactical squads can't be ready for anything. They can handle a wide variety of situations, perhaps moreso that almost any other unit.

Overestimating the capacity of your units is a good way to put them in situation they will lose in.

I'm just trying to offer show what results you should expect, and thus what you should plan for. Planning for rare occurrences and not most occurrences is a good way to lose most games, but win the rare games.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Being more ready for a losing battle is the same as being less ready for a losing battle; odds are that you're still going to lose. Better to avoid the losing battle in the first place (or have a rule that lets you exit it...).

Again, we are assuming that our opponent is also competent and not playing directly into our hands.

And playing this way is underestimating your opponent.

I'd rather plan for the good player than for the poor player. I can probably beat the poor player anyways, no need to target him/her.

Monster Rain:

Sure, but as the Prisoner's Dilemma shows, the smart thing to do with a competent opponent is to go with the option that has the highest return and lowest cost no matter what your opponent does, rather the cost/benefit of any particular action.

Exactly. Take chess as an example as all the results of moves are exact and can be calculated to what WILL happen rather than what is probable.

At a given point, you come to a decision between 2 moves.

1)You can set up a trap that has one single way for your opponent to get out of it, but if they find it you lose. If they don't you win.
2)You can make a safe move that makes your position better, but does not necessarily force your opponent into any trap or offer them a winning move.

You should always choose the 2nd option, because you set yourself up to lose if they find the answer in the first option.

40k is a bit different because chance can swing any result. Even the worst mistake can be winning if the dice work out. Even the best move possible can fail if the dice don't work.

Therefore instead of having perfectly calculable results of what will happen, you have calculable results of what is probable to happen.

The better players make decisions based on what is likely to happen, and make the best move. Hoping to win the lottery is a poor way to becoming rich. Most people who are rich are rich because of high percentage wagers, not long shots.

Dracos wrote:Exactly. Take chess as an example as all the results of moves are exact and can be calculated to what WILL happen rather than what is probable.

In chess just as in 40k a unit is only as useful as its return. In chess I'll happly sacrifice a queen to take a pawn if it means I'll be able to win. Throwing a tactical squad at an uber tough close combat unit may seem a mistake but if i can remove that threat for a turn or two that allows me focus my fire power else where and come back to them. By give the unit a powerfist some unwinable fights just become difficult.

Dracos is right. besides the security blanket factor power fists are next to useless against dreads. which has been said more than once on this thread....
AF

Tri wrote: In chess just as in 40k a unit is only as useful as its return. In chess I'll happly sacrifice a queen to take a pawn if it means I'll be able to win. Throwing a tactical squad at an uber tough close combat unit may seem a mistake but if i can remove that threat for a turn or two that allows me focus my fire power else where and come back to them. By give the unit a powerfist some unwinable fights just become difficult.

Very true, a unit is only as useful as its return. What you are describing about chess though is the infinite value of the king. Of course you are going to sacrifice as many pieces, regardless of which, to take the king. The scenario I'm taking about is where you sacrifice your queen, and all moves but a single one move after your sacrifice leads to you winning. But if your opponent finds that single move then you just lose your queen and gain nothing. On the other hand, if you are losing anyways, it might be worth the try.

40k has similar scenarios. Sure, you could throw your tactical squad at the terminator unit. Some permutations of doing this allow you to win. Most don't. Doing so is normally setting yourself up to fail. Therefore, you should only do it when you are in a position that it is your best chance (as in all other options have even LESS chance of allow you to win). Pre-planning for taking the likely losing scenario is pre-planning to likely lose.

Dracos wrote:40k has similar scenarios. Sure, you could throw your tactical squad at the terminator unit. Some permutations of doing this allow you to win. Most don't. Doing so is normally setting yourself up to fail. Therefore, you should only do it when you are in a position that it is your best chance (as in all other options have even LESS chance of allow you to win). Pre-planning for taking the likely losing scenario is pre-planning to likely lose.

You don't pre-plan to loose. You assume that there will be time when when that unit will have to die for the good of the army and make sure it goes out fighting. When you actually play you now have the option of send ether a squad that will be quickly over whelmed or one that will last longer; then its down to you to make a judgment call how to use it.

As for the terminators, If a unit is going to be charged any way you might as well be the one doing the charging. At least that way they don't move forward (as much), can't shoot you first and don't get the extra attack

in either case your unit dies. if you bought them a powerfist it just hurts that much worse.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:in either case your unit dies. if you bought them a powerfist it just hurts that much worse.
AF

We play a game of IF's. Its nice to have as many options as possible, some times the lone guards man will win combat and cause them to fall back. In one scenario we have no fist in the other we do (I'm talking in general not the bloody guardsman); the odds are much more infavour of those with then without.
End of the day the power fist needs only to make the enemy act differently, If it kills a terminator, wounds a monstrous creature or even the holy grail of killing an Independent character its more then served it purpose.
You don't like getting into combat with you tactical squads, thats fine it how you play. Personally I feel that's a wast. You take meltas even though you may never see an enemy vehicle worth shooting with it (rhinos don't count if you're within melta range its done its job) and you take fists for when you need the extra power in combat.

I think a Sternguard Veteran is more useful against a lone Guardsman than a Powerfist on a Tactical Squad....

Nurglitch wrote:I think a Sternguard Veteran is more useful against a lone Guardsman than a Powerfist on a Tactical Squad....

True, but the tougher the opponent becomes the more the favorability skews to the fist.

And the less favorable being in combat with a tactical marine becomes

Nurglitch wrote:I think a Sternguard Veteran is more useful against a lone Guardsman than a Powerfist on a Tactical Squad....

Even as i read that back I knew some one would go there ...

Tri wrote:Its nice to have as many options as possible, some times the lone guards man will win combat and cause them to fall back. In one scenario we have no fist in the other we do (I'm talking in general not the bloody guardsman); the odds are much more infavour of those with then without.

Of course someone would go there. It undermines your general point and shows its major flaw: Spending 25pts to maginally increase the close combat potential of a shooting-based squad is not a worthwhile investment.

All add that the tougher the close combat opponent, the more advantage there is to investing in the Sternguard Veteran. Two shots wounding on 2+ at 12" or one shot at 24" beats the heck out of two/three attacks at I1 in close combat. Particularly against T7+ enemies...

Nurglitch wrote:Of course someone would go there. It undermines your general point and shows its major flaw: Spending 25pts to maginally increase the close combat potential of a shooting-based squad is not a worthwhile investment.

So you're say the roll of the tactical squad is purely shooting, never to assault and only to be assaulted if things go wrong? That completely ignores the fact they are good, not amazing, at everything including assaulting.

Nurglitch wrote:All add that the tougher the close combat opponent, the more advantage there is to investing in the Sternguard Veteran. Two shots wounding on 2+ at 12" or one shot at 24" beats the heck out of two/three attacks at I1 in close combat. Particularly against T7+ enemies...

As i said before build you're army and see whats left.

I regularly assault with mine.

I'm generally pleased with the result. Particularly with the powerfist. Denying those Boyz or Berserkers a charge can make a huge difference.

Sanctjud wrote:T3 stuff with 5+ or worse armor, a combination of both or just one of them.
Guants, Guards, Eldar, etc.

2/3 of the above are Meched up though........

ahem... We are not equivalent. We are superior to monkeighs in all things. Only Guardians are close to GEQ and they are fluffwise and tablewise rarely used... okay that arrogant snobbery taken care of (just staying in character here), back to the OP...

My take on sarge though: Hidden powerfist is always a good idea. I like to trick them out with a meltabomb too if I don't have points for a PF. It's cheap enough that it doesn't make much difference if it doesn't get used, but really useful if you happen to run into a Land Raider.

Other than that... bolter and chainsword, keep it simple keep it cheap. Really the only two upgrades I ever pay for in my Marine lists are a PF or a Mbomb.

The role of tactical squads is primarily shooting, with secondary assaulting when the target is equal or lesser strength in assault. Because of this, the power fist encourages you to put the marines in situations assault the wrong targets. Power weapons work best against equal toughness (other MEQs). However, in those battles simply shooting then assaulting will normally be enough anyways.

Tri

you said: we play a game of IF's. Its nice to have as many options as possible
The way you're talking about power fists it's like you get them for free. At 25 a piece if you take 4 of them you've spent 5% of your total points allocation in a 2000 point game. Since by your own admission all they do is insure against fairly unlikely situations, you're basically going into battle with 95% of your force vs 100% of theirs. This is not a good start..... Anyway it's aggression, risk taking, and boldness that win games. If you build your list with the idea of protecting against losing in mind, you're already setting yourself up to fail.


you said: End of the day the power fist needs only to make the enemy act differently
that's what I'm saying though. It's not going to effect the opponent's judgment if he understands that power fists are marginal. If he doesn't, then you're going to pwn him
anyway, fist or no, so again, why buy it?


you said: You take meltas even though you may never see an enemy vehicle worth shooting with it (rhinos don't count if you're within melta range its done its job)
I take melta weapons in order to destroy whole categories of enemy targets: they're very effective against vehicles, monstrous creatures, and heavy infantry. It has such broad application that I'm not playing to the what-if's when I take it. I'm playing to the probably's. I've played a game before when my meltaguns didn't have a worthwhile target but let me tell you not often. Compare that to your reasoning for taking power fists: "A walker might assault me in close combat." Honestly which is more likely?

AF

When have i said they only "insure against fairly unlikely situations"? They for fill most of the rolls that power weapons do; in addition they for fill other rolls as well.

In a 2000 points game having 4 would be absolutely fine ... If you end up with 100pts spare after building your list. Also spending 5% on upgrades doesn't sound bad at all. Though I can think of three or four other things that i might also take, so say 3 Power fists.

And generally lists that will use full tactical squdws will have 3... so that works out to thre fists
_________

As far as I can see, the issue to take a fist or not depends on what you will do with the tactical squad and what you will do when they encounter a situaion that is unfavorable to them.

I am advocating an all-comers situations as I do not tailor my list, in addition, I perfonally like to have every squad able to handle all kinds of situations, and the fist does that for me. I am not too concered with the % it can be done, I only care that it can be done.

5 pages people, with some drama.
Bottom line: if you have extra points, go for it.
If the tacticals are generally used as close range support, I'd suggest fists. If the tacticals will be combat squadding alot, don't go for it.

Combat Tactics has a risk/reward mechanism as well, as it will be rare to get the most out of it, so CT as an reason o not take a fist is a weak one IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition, depending on the gaming group, forge world is allowed.
This means the introduction of Lucius Drop Pods (The dread pod IIRC). Certainly we can assume meching up and hopeing the metal boxes don't break to be one answer.

Uhhhhhhh..... You mean you normally have 100 points to spare after making your list.......?
Ok never mind agree to disagree.
AF

If you put 3 fists in the army, that is 75 points where you could have a HF/MM speeder. I will always get more use out of the speeder.

Saying that you 'don't care how often a unit is successful in its mission (the %) as long as it is in the realm of possibility' is appalling. That statement both makes no sense, and does not support your side of the debate. Melta bombs can take out vehicles, and normal attacks can possibly kill anything else your tacticals would be in assault with. Right there according to your "as long as its possible, I don't care about the chance" statement supports the idea that you would only take melta bombs, not power fists.

I think people who take power fists take them because they think they are cool (which in concept, they are), not for any strategically logical reason. I have yet to see someone put forth a logical reason to take them, taking opportunity cost into account.