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.

Martel732 wrote:
Then they should clearly be charged for BS 4+ output. Not what they are now.

The mistake with marines does get repeated many times in other codices, and this is proof. Xenos are just more insulated, because not every unit ends up being tainted by one miscosting. It's just a unit no one uses.

Another example: There are LOADS of HQ's being charged for melee stats you never want them to use, and it just bloats their point costs.

Even elite codices like Eldar have a lot of terrible entries. But again, their units are more insulated.

Tac marines suck, so assault marines suck, and the upgrades to those, vanguards suck. Inherited suckitude. Dark reapers are very distinct from banshees. And banshees definitely suck.

Given the current marker light table why don't marker lights just auto hit?

They aren't super crazy like in 7th

That's a good point. It would be nice if the table wasn't :

1) reroll 1s
2) something
3) something
4) something
5) +1 BS!

Martel732 wrote:
That's a good point. It would be nice if the table wasn't :

1) reroll 1s
2) something
3) something
4) something
5) +1 BS!

My friend suggested this. It'd be major incentive to give the "sarge" a ML. Gives the unit reroll 1s

Granted like most people he's blind by his own bias, so I don't know if this would be too much or not

If you look at competitive tau lists they basically make use of two things to get around how goofy MLs are:
1. Use units that are good even with just 1, see commanders, firewarriors, and riptides
2. Use a vanguard of se'cea firesight marksmen which are character bs3+ MLs and cheap as chips

When you consider the cost of the above solutions you can understand why tau competitive lists are pretty predictable, ~850 points of riptides, ~450 of commanders, ~210 of FWs does not leave much space for messing around with anything else.

Its made worse by Tau anti armor options being weeeird, you have this thing where every classic armor buster is kinda crap since they rely on low volume of fire high ap random damage shots, which in the current invuln and knight meta is garbo. You end up with two choices, take the units that are good enough to stand on their own without support, or take units that are inherently unreliable and hyper dependent on combining every possible buff. This of course leads to riptide wings and firewarrior castles, which are reliable because they use weight of shots, which in turn makes them dreadful to play and play against.

The amount of X<6 shots, AP -4, d6 damage "anti-tank" guns that litter codexes untouched is another problem, probably beyond CA's scope.

Rockfish wrote:
If you look at competitive tau lists they basically make use of two things to get around how goofy MLs are:
1. Use units that are good even with just 1, see commanders, firewarriors, and riptides
2. Use a vanguard of se'cea firesight marksmen which are character bs3+ MLs and cheap as chips

When you consider the cost of the above solutions you can understand why tau competitive lists are pretty predictable, ~850 points of riptides, ~450 of commanders, ~210 of FWs does not leave much space for messing around with anything else.

Its made worse by Tau anti armor options being weeeird, you have this thing where every classic armor buster is kinda crap since they rely on low volume of fire high ap random damage shots, which in the current invuln and knight meta is garbo. You end up two choices, take the units that are good enough to stand on their own without support, or take units that are inherently unreliable and hyper dependent on combining every possible buff. This of course leads to riptide wings and firewarrior castles, which are reliable because that use weight of shots, which in turn makes them dreadful to play and play against.

Yup. Spot on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The amount of X<6 shots, AP -4, d6 damage "anti-tank" guns that litter codexes untouched is another problem, probably beyond CA's scope.

Like melta? Yeah...

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also if any one is curious reference points used are ogryns, armigers and batyle sisters (hence why they are unchanged) I originally ised marines as the mathematical base but you can imagine the problems that caused as marines are stupidly over priced

So gendoikari87, your points cost are based on the premise that Ogryns, Armigers, and Battle Sisters are properly valued but no other units are? I see why your results are so strange. I doubt very many people will agree with these as the best three basis points for determine point cost of all unit.

Karol wrote:
Well D6 isn't that great to be honest. Flat d3 or 4 would be much better.

Well, that'd depend on what end of the attack your on.
You hitting me? Yeah, you go ahead & roll that D3.
Me hitting you? I'm using the D6.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well D6 isn't that great to be honest. Flat d3 or 4 would be much better.

Well, that'd depend on what end of the attack your on.
You hitting me? Yeah, you go ahead & roll that D3.
Me hitting you? I'm using the D6.

Pretty sure he means flat damage 3/4

I wish random damage was done away with tbh, it makes anti tank so unreliable.

Sir Heckington wrote:
I wish random damage was done away with tbh, it makes anti tank so unreliable.

Onagers handled this really well - D6 damage with a minimum of 3. Still had room for swingy damage but you knew a baseline that could be relied upon.

I wish other more AT dedicated weapons had a similar rule (like Lascannons, Brightlances etc).

Straight_Memer wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well D6 isn't that great to be honest. Flat d3 or 4 would be much better.

Well, that'd depend on what end of the attack your on.
You hitting me? Yeah, you go ahead & roll that D3.
Me hitting you? I'm using the D6.

Pretty sure he means flat damage 3/4

Eh. If it's just straight 3 or 4 damage I'd still choose the d6 roll as being better. I'm fine with gambling on doing 4+damage. And I'm absolutely fine with you botching a roll against me & only doing 1 or 2. I have no objections to sitting at 2 wounds & surviving a d6 roll.

Sir Heckington wrote:
I wish random damage was done away with tbh, it makes anti tank so unreliable.

Random damage has a place in the game, it separates anti tank weapons from anti elite weapons. Damage 2 or 3 is an anti elite weapon, while damage d3 is an anti tank. When shooting at a profile with 12 wounds having damage 2 or d3 does not make much nof a difference, but when shooting at a target with 2 or 3 wounds your firepower is drastically diminished.

Spoletta wrote:

Random damage has a place in the game, it separates anti tank weapons from anti elite weapons. Damage 2 or 3 is an anti elite weapon, while damage d3 is an anti tank. When shooting at a profile with 12 wounds having damage 2 or d3 does not make much nof a difference, but when shooting at a target with 2 or 3 wounds your firepower is drastically diminished.

d3 damage has a lower average number of shots needed to kill a 3 wound unit than flat 2 does.

Flat multidamage is generally better for hitting high wound targets, because the amount of shooting required to kill it can be more easily quantified, and therefore less overkill needs to be dedicated to it.

For example, I have five lascannons, assuming they autohit and autowound for ease of argument, how many do I HAVE to shoot at a 12 wound model to guarantee that I will kill it? The real answer is 12, but since I only have 5 shots I will need to use all five.

Now imagine that they do a flat 3, which is below average. Now the answer is a definitive 4.

PuppetSoul wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Random damage has a place in the game, it separates anti tank weapons from anti elite weapons. Damage 2 or 3 is an anti elite weapon, while damage d3 is an anti tank. When shooting at a profile with 12 wounds having damage 2 or d3 does not make much nof a difference, but when shooting at a target with 2 or 3 wounds your firepower is drastically diminished.

d3 damage has a lower average number of shots needed to kill a 3 wound unit than flat 2 does.

Flat multidamage is generally better for hitting high wound targets, because the amount of shooting required to kill it can be more easily quantified, and therefore less overkill needs to be dedicated to it.

For example, I have five lascannons, assuming they autohit and autowound for ease of argument, how many do I HAVE to shoot at a 12 wound model to guarantee that I will kill it? The real answer is 12, but since I only have 5 shots I will need to use all five.

Now imagine that they do a flat 3, which is below average. Now the answer is a definitive 4.

D3 damage is the same average number to skill as 2 damage. D3 has the potential to be better or worse.

And two lascannons can kill that model as well. You have just as much chance to roll 2 6s as you do 2 1s. Flat damage is certainly more reliable and should come at greater point cost.

I find D6 damage weapons infuriating. Something like a lascannon, entropy cannon, maybe even krak missile, should be 2D3 damage.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
I wish random damage was done away with tbh, it makes anti tank so unreliable.

Onagers handled this really well - D6 damage with a minimum of 3. Still had room for swingy damage but you knew a baseline that could be relied upon.

I wish other more AT dedicated weapons had a similar rule (like Lascannons, Brightlances etc).

I know this probably sounds bad... but maybe vehicles should actually have some kind of Damage Reduction? Not all of them, but most with T8+ and some with T7.

Like say a Land Raider has a [-1 to damage taken, full damage from Anti-Vehicle type weapons] then we could move all these useless weapons to said category.

Tyel wrote:
If everything else remained the same Kabs going to 8 would have a very token impact on DE. Its not as if you bring along 100 of them.

Um... One of my standard DE lists is 3 units of 20, and three units of 10 in transports. That's 90, so pretty close.

PuppetSoul wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Random damage has a place in the game, it separates anti tank weapons from anti elite weapons. Damage 2 or 3 is an anti elite weapon, while damage d3 is an anti tank. When shooting at a profile with 12 wounds having damage 2 or d3 does not make much nof a difference, but when shooting at a target with 2 or 3 wounds your firepower is drastically diminished.

d3 damage has a lower average number of shots needed to kill a 3 wound unit than flat 2 does.

Flat multidamage is generally better for hitting high wound targets, because the amount of shooting required to kill it can be more easily quantified, and therefore less overkill needs to be dedicated to it.

For example, I have five lascannons, assuming they autohit and autowound for ease of argument, how many do I HAVE to shoot at a 12 wound model to guarantee that I will kill it? The real answer is 12, but since I only have 5 shots I will need to use all five.

Now imagine that they do a flat 3, which is below average. Now the answer is a definitive 4.

But a d3 damage weapon has a chance in 3 of not killing a 2 wound model. Sure flat damage is always better, but you pay for it (usually), so shooting a flat damage weapon at a tank is tipically less efficient (yes, yes i know...dissies).

 cuda1179 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If everything else remained the same Kabs going to 8 would have a very token impact on DE. Its not as if you bring along 100 of them.

Um... One of my standard DE lists is 3 units of 20, and three units of 10 in transports. That's 90, so pretty close.

Well if you take 200 less points than your opponents for the next couple weeks maybe you’ll be ahead of the curve lol.

Things that won't happen:

Aeldari will not receive a nerf significant enough to knock them off the top spot.
Necrons and Grey Knights will not receive any points decreases sufficient to make them competitive

Thing that will happen:

GW will continue amend things to limit alpha strikes as much as possible

Spoletta wrote:


But a d3 damage weapon has a chance in 3 of not killing a 2 wound model. Sure flat damage is always better, but you pay for it (usually), so shooting a flat damage weapon at a tank is tipically less efficient (yes, yes i know...dissies).

Now I don't know about other armies, which seem to drip in d2 weapons with low ap. But in GK there are very few weapons that do more then 1d. they are often on the same model, aka easy to kill, so having those being random damage dealers is bad, because you really don't want your only semi ok unit do 1-2 wounds in melee.

And two lascannons can kill that model as well. You have just as much chance to roll 2 6s as you do 2 1s. Flat damage is certainly more reliable and should come at greater point cost.

Ok, but that is range, and often armies that can have lascannons can spam them in enough numbers to kill stuff. When you do d6D in melee, it is a huge problem. The extra wounds don't over spill, so you will almost never charge a chaff unit with something like a GMNDK, so the chance that the thing your trying to kill can hit you back is rather large. rolling a 1 on dmg can mean losing a game in a single roll, and GK have enough of those already.

Eh. If it's just straight 3 or 4 damage I'd still choose the d6 roll as being better. I'm fine with gambling on doing 4+damage. And I'm absolutely fine with you botching a roll against me & only doing 1 or 2. I have no objections to sitting at 2 wounds & surviving a d6 roll.

No idea about other armies, but for a GK army random dmg doesn't seem to be better. And yeah I understand tha other people having bad rules for their armies is ok. I learned it already.

No idea about other armies, but for a GK army random dmg doesn't seem to be better. And yeah I understand tha other people having bad rules for their armies is ok. I learned it already.

He isn't talking about armies tho but about statistics, a d6 always will statistically give you an average result of 3.5 therefore he is willing to risk the higher results for some lower results. Ergo he is willing to gamble because the average dmg is regarded for the price of the weapon - reliabily value.

If I had a large Tau list I'd like to experiment without markerlights. Have a couple of characters to put on some reroll 1s and that's it.

I see a lot of players fire say 10 marker lights only to not get their 5 hits and it seems like a real waste of points when they could have taken more fire warriors/whatever. Also its fairly easy to gun down pathfinders/drones to the point where you can't get 5 hits.

Ideally D6 damage weapons should be D4+2 damage. I'd like a general rule that allowed you to replace D6 shots and D6 damage with 2D3 if you want.

Putting 5 markers on a target is not that hard actually. You need 3 markers that hit on 2+. If the first one hits you put an average of 3 ML with the stratagem, and the other 2 lights now hit on rerollable 2+ even if they moved. Sure it worrks on a single unit at a time, but that's how Tau have always done things, focusing down one thing at a time.

The real problem for Tau is overcoming hit penalties, since they are a BS4+ faction, but it's not like competitively speaking Tau are having problems right now.

This is why we need to move to D12 so there is a middle ground between BS3+ and BS4+

 alextroy wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also if any one is curious reference points used are ogryns, armigers and batyle sisters (hence why they are unchanged) I originally ised marines as the mathematical base but you can imagine the problems that caused as marines are stupidly over priced

So gendoikari87, your points cost are based on the premise that Ogryns, Armigers, and Battle Sisters are properly valued but no other units are? I see why your results are so strange. I doubt very many people will agree with these as the best three basis points for determine point cost of all unit.

its better than fething marines, got any better options?