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.

I thought Kill Points were one of the balancing mechanisms for vehicles, particularly transports. It's fine to mech up, but mech armies usually put more KPs on the table and can lose a game where they do more damage to their opponent, but that damage is concentrated in fewer KP-giving units.

Yes, and the chances of rallying? What I' saying is I'm not too sure the chances of say forcing a MSU sized unit or even two units shooting at 20 boys, (6+ and have to get past the fearless, hence my comment about ATSKNF/like) at the end of the day, it's never a 'great chance' to blow up a vehicle with a single shot - 2/3, str 8 against 4= 4+ no AP1 obviously, so a 1/3 gives an eleven percent chance to 'kill' an AV12 vehicle.

As I said I'm actually interested in the chances of shooting at a unit forcing a morale check and forcing a fall-back, and considering them destroyed.

More so again, one's footies, rarely move further than 24" over two turns - with an assault move at the end and a 6 included. Where it would be unusual for something that is a delivery truck to move less than 12+6+2+6+6=32"
Which is a damn side further, but odds on, will all the transports and like in the world make it to their foes more often than all the foot sloggers of the world - I'm going to say indubitably - which means, really, that vehicle are more survivable in comparision not in a bubble

It's not a "great" chance, and yet, it's still a chance. The chance of not breaking for a Boyz squad that isn't reduced below 10 is 100%. The chance for a Marine squad to rally after taking that many casualties and not flee off the board is pretty damn high, too.

Melissia wrote:It's not a "great" chance, and yet, it's still a chance. The chance of not breaking for a Boyz squad that isn't reduced below 10 is 100%. The chance for a Marine squad to rally after taking that many casualties and not flee off the board is pretty damn high, too.

@ the itallics, uh, pretty damn high hey, are you ignoring ATSKNF? And the auto regroup that provides?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, if one compares the number of turns of 'essential shooting' to 'remove a unit' and if one units could fufill their most effecitive role - before odds on going 'bye' - if indeed an 11% chance on each of two turns won't be worse than the actual chances of a squad going "By Bye Buy" over the same amount o time it will take them to get where they want to be.

Otherwise, what you're saying is we should all be foot-slogging, no?

Unless I'm mixing rules from previous editions, I'm fairly certain you can still make Marines flee off the board with repeated tank shock ^.^

You cannot flee off the board through tank shock.

However you CAN make marines fail their auto-regroup by not letting them take it. Simply walking them off the board with a tank does it, or anything being within 6" when they come to rally.

Kilkrazy wrote:Zoanthropes are good against Land Raiders, if they can get within 18 inches range.

Assuming there is no psychic defense, they can viable. For a bit more than half the cost of a LR Tyranids can sometimes take out one LR and give up 2 KP--with Zoanthropes in a pod. Without the pod they will almost never make it within range.

With any kind of psychic defense they are a joke, and psychic defenses are about as rare as Landraiders, from my experience.

In my experience playing various strategy games, I've always found that the best unit to spam will always depend on the type of map you are playing. The best type of map is one that promotes variety by allowing more units and strategies to be viable.

If you play on dense multi level Necromanda terrain, with lots of narrow streets, and walk ways; Tanks would be awful. They couldn't move anywhere, they couldn't go fast, they couldn't get LoS to things creeping up on them (or anything much else). They would just be sitting ducks for Jump infantry and infiltrating nasties like Genestealers.

If you were to play on a board made of Space Hulk type corridors, vehicles would be even worse (if they could even deploy). Jump infantry might not be that good either.

If you play on an empty table... Well obviously tanks are going to have a field day, it's the exact role tanks were invented for.

I do find that most games of 40k I've seen and played away from home, do not have enough terrain in my opinion, but I have no idea why.

Maybe it's because people try to get their battlefields looking like the ones in GW photos. Which are built for display rather than for a fun balanced game. Maybe it's because people just don't have enough terrain, or they don't have enough of the right kind of terrain, or just lack the imagination to build an anything other than ruins and bunkers map...

I could certainly understand how not having enough terrain could be an issue at tournaments, with so many players and games needing it at once. At such an event it might be easy to end up with battlefields only sparingly covered. Is it any surprise then that tanks seem to have so much success in those environments?

I think alot of the terrain issues come from not wanting to be screwed or screw the opponent by terrain placement.

Thick terrain on a table is harder to gauge whether you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
But when you have say 3 pieces per half of table, its easier to tell.

I like to have a ton out, but at the same time, if I have a Land Raider or my opponent does, it will influence the layout we create.
Also, if I have Horde orks, and he has Mech guard, we have opposing views on what is good terrain.

It is true that most of the time most tables are very empty of terrain, especially if you play at a GW shop.

I don't have it front of me at the moment, but if iirc the rulebook is pretty clear about the amount of terrain recommended as the % of the total board space. As well as how that should be divided between LoS-blocking & Non Los-Blocking.

kirsanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Zoanthropes are good against Land Raiders, if they can get within 18 inches range.

Assuming there is no psychic defense, they can viable. For a bit more than half the cost of a LR Tyranids can sometimes take out one LR and give up 2 KP--with Zoanthropes in a pod. Without the pod they will almost never make it within range.

With any kind of psychic defense they are a joke, and psychic defenses are about as rare as Landraiders, from my experience.

It depends on the defence.

Shadow in the Warp will disrupt a lot of psychers.

I was refering to hoods, eldar silliness, runic weapons, et al.

Psychic defense--things that stop the (bs3) to-hit roll from occuring; nothing SitW has any bearing on.

(Also mystics, for a bit, but that is an afterthought)

Kilkrazy wrote:
It depends on the defence.

Shadow in the Warp will disrupt a lot of psychers.

Unless those psykers happen to be in what? A vehicle. Where they are 100% immune to shadow in the warp.

SumYungGui wrote:Unless those psykers happen to be in what? A vehicle. Where they are 100% immune to shadow in the warp.

its mystifying how quickly these arguments spiral completely out of control, and when the opposing side is about to lose their grip, they pull off an amazing feat of mental gymnastics and wdge things in that have very little bearing in the inital situation into a new foot hold. saw a very nice nugle list earlier in the army lists forum. contianed 3 rhinos at most. rest is infantry and that army scares me more than any mech list could. It is a very rock solid sledge hammer list.

Mellisa had it right in her last post. a chance is still a chance. probability is on your side whe shooting a vehicle, you only have to down it once, its not a necron it wont get back up and maul you. and comapring shooting amriens to shooting orks is like comapring apples and oranges. orcs get alot more infantry than amrines do breaking one squad of orks is nsjothing in comparison to breaking one squad of marines.

Voodoo: so what land raiders are to powerful becasue they carry shiled weilding termis, that couldnt be due to the fact that shiled got more powerful bu providing a 3+ invul all the time instead of a 4+ in cc only could it? plus in the states vehicles got WAy more expensive money wise. i remebr my 3rd land raiders being $50 now they are $62, the price on alot of stuff went up dramaticly, defilers are the same cost as land raiders monitarily wise. if i am gonna pay that much for something i would most defiently prefer it not be utterly vunerable every turn.

Killrazy: yes zotes are another good couunter.

So i end with this i'm tired of writing these long winded posts, and acctualy putting my thoughts down and being hammered back with mathmatics, another reason that mech became popular is that a few peole tried it out did okay with it then everyone jumpe don the band wagon and now thats mostly all you see. but the simple point is play what you want and have fun. when yous top having fun stop playing take a break and come back alter and try it again. if its still not anymore fun it probaly won't be for a very long time. every game goes tyhrough periods like this. developers have to keep it intresting for new players. So what vehicles are strong now, whats the big deal is the lsit unbeatable? no then whast the problem, dont think you should ever be challenged and should be handed every victory becasue you think yoour army is the best? just have fun and relax. thats all i have left to say on this topic. Peace out.

BS4 for zoeys....

Oops.

Good call. Thank you, nosferatu1001.

Oddly, I am pretty sure I added that with my afterthought as well.

I do not think that changes much, however.

I like them a lot, but they are simply not reliable for what they are needed against.

ChrisCP wrote:A single 'Shot' or shot, as in, yes a whole unit needs to shoot at the same thing, but if any mathhammer entusiasts would take up the challenge...

Say, a Long fans squad shooting at a battle wagon+KFF , comparied to say 12 boys with nob + boss pole. Or some others... If they don't have ATSKNF then maybe if one considers "Falling back" we may indeed be able to refute your assertion Melissa!

never Fear Math is here!

I am not going to do long fangs vs either because Long Fangs are skewingly OP(they can fire at both simultaneously) in this sense.

but i will do a Single guard unit with only a lascannon.

9 guardsmen(2 from the 10 man squad become a lasgun Crew):

1 lascannon Shot at the BW front AV:50% hits, 16.666% of those penetrate(8.333 total to Pen so far), 50% of those are ignored via KFF(4.166% to penetrate), of the damaging penetrates 33.333% destroy the BW(1.388% chance to destroy).

1 lascannon and 1 lasgun shots vs unit: 50% hit, 33.333% of the lasgun, 83.333% of the Lascannon wound(16.666% and 41.666% respectively), 16.666% of lasguns are saved, 0% of lascannons(2.777% of Lasguns kill, 41.666% of Lascannons kill).

Apply those numbers to the number of shots and we get 41.666% of 1 Dead Ork with the Lascannon Shot no matter the Range. 22.222% of one ork killed at >12"-24", and 47.222% of a dead ork @ < or = 12".

Conclusion:1 Ork Dies to 2 lascannon shots(roughly, still a 16.667% chance to survive the incoming shot), and 1 ork dies to every 36 las shots.

Whereas the battle wagon is destroyed by roughly 72 lascannon Shots

The Ork Boyz should take 3 lascannon PI squads Firing all weapons for 6-7 turns to destroy (not in Rapid Fire Range)

The BW should take 6 Lascannons 6 turns to get destroyed (can be done wit 2 HW Squads)

5 long Fang missiles would take about half as long to kill both units(the Boyz may take less time depending on Model spacing)

long time lurker, had to come out of hiding for this.

Have to ask, in relation to this tread.

1. Transports too good for the points? or all the bonuses that come with them? or the inf inside?

ie: I think IG vets counting as troops with 4 special weapons (counting as troops ) that can fire all specials in a chimeria too much.

2. Battle tanks too good? For me I have no problems as you pay a signifcant amount of more points vs a rhino/whatever.

3. A 4+ cover save too good for a tank?

skrulnik wrote:I think alot of the terrain issues come from not wanting to be screwed or screw the opponent by terrain placement.

Thick terrain on a table is harder to gauge whether you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
But when you have say 3 pieces per half of table, its easier to tell.

I like to have a ton out, but at the same time, if I have a Land Raider or my opponent does, it will influence the layout we create.
Also, if I have Horde orks, and he has Mech guard, we have opposing views on what is good terrain.

It is true that most of the time most tables are very empty of terrain, especially if you play at a GW shop.

Well then, take turns placing terrain. My friend and I used to do this. We'd set up the table for the day, each taking turns to place 1 peice of terrain each. Then, over the day, we'd keep the table the same, and take turns playing from different sides of the board. That way, if either of us actually managed to screw the other over on terrain placement, we'd cop that problem in the next game.