Switch Theme:

What is GW going to do to fix the new Astra Militarum codex mess in tournaments they have created?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.
   
Made in dk
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Metalica

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.


Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Marines have tools but pay too much for them, and so run out of models too quickly.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





There is enough deep striking and speed to get through holes you make sometimes. I've had games where I couldn't and in those cases I just quickly engaged what I could so the artillery didn't pound me into dust.
Some heavy bolters and assault cannons should open some holes though through any bubble wrap, especially if you can get them a good sight line from a building or something.
A flamer armed land raider is also pretty good at removing screens and letting the troops out to engage things behind them. If you keep them pressed into a corner, then its easier to take objectives with what you have left.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 Purifier wrote:
 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.


Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.


Yes, remember folks, every guard list includes at least 100 conscripts, and every player is an expert at using them. Your opponent will never make mistakes, and would never think about running anything but the most competitive choices. If you put terrain on the table, your opponent will have nothing but conscripts, manticores, and mortar teams across the table from you. This is the nightmare world in which you live - despair!

in a competitive tournament environment, you're going to see lists like that, yes. And people are usually going to string their conscripts correctly, and position them such that you can't encircle one in the front to prevent a fallback, and cover all their tanks such that fast assault units and deep strikers can never get to them, and always hide their characters perfectly out of LOS of all snipers...usually. in a casual, normal play environment, that isn't going to be the case.

Assault is more technical to play in 8th than shooting, that is a definite fact. Shooting is an easier style to play - more stationary positioning decisions, less movement micromanagement. It's easy to screw up a charge-pile in-consolidate sequence to allow vs deny overwatch, allow vs deny fall back, and maximise the number of models available to attack. it's easy to make the wrong choice as to the first unit to attack with and leave yourself open to a counterattack interrupt. It is a lot easier to position your units to get cover, to allow for Heroic Interventions, and to protect characters if you're not planning on doing much movement with them in the game. But saying that because something is more difficult, or takes more thought, means that it is impossible is disingenuous.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





cedar rapids, iowa

 Purifier wrote:
 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.


Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.


He meant getting that leman russ into the 5+/6+ BS range, not assaulting it.

 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Norwich

Tyel wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.


Those are the same thing.

The point of mathhammer is comparing units.

Its not the case that you can go "right, 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save, 10 wounds on the target, therefore I need exactly 40 shots to kill it and this will always happen".

What you can do is calculate that 9 shots at 3+, 3+ is better than say 12 shots at 4+, 4+ for the same points. Therefore if you are facing the choice you probably want the first option unless there is some synergy to suggest otherwise.

Now in a game anything can happen. Maybe the 3+ having player is unlucky while the 4+ player rolls nothing but 6s.
Over time however this is unlikely to be repeated. Whether you play competitively or casually performance will tend towards the norm and good units will do better than bad units. Therefore if you put good units in your lists you are improving your chances to win.

Will IG win every single game now? No. Play enough and you will get bad dice. They will however win more than they lose because the odds have been skewed heavily in their favour. Much like Eldar in 7th.


No they are not the same thing, one takes statistics in a vacuum, the other admits it cannot take into account the intagible factors such as surface tension, dice weight, momentum, then you have unit position and all those other factors.
You cannot ever account for the random factors of real life, the people who swear by mathshammer always forget to take this into account, claiming that because something sucks due to maths, it must suck full stop, its bad science to not try to take as much relavant information as possible into account when making a decision.

   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Formosa wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.


Those are the same thing.

The point of mathhammer is comparing units.

Its not the case that you can go "right, 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save, 10 wounds on the target, therefore I need exactly 40 shots to kill it and this will always happen".

What you can do is calculate that 9 shots at 3+, 3+ is better than say 12 shots at 4+, 4+ for the same points. Therefore if you are facing the choice you probably want the first option unless there is some synergy to suggest otherwise.

Now in a game anything can happen. Maybe the 3+ having player is unlucky while the 4+ player rolls nothing but 6s.
Over time however this is unlikely to be repeated. Whether you play competitively or casually performance will tend towards the norm and good units will do better than bad units. Therefore if you put good units in your lists you are improving your chances to win.

Will IG win every single game now? No. Play enough and you will get bad dice. They will however win more than they lose because the odds have been skewed heavily in their favour. Much like Eldar in 7th.


No they are not the same thing, one takes statistics in a vacuum, the other admits it cannot take into account the intagible factors such as surface tension, dice weight, momentum, then you have unit position and all those other factors.
You cannot ever account for the random factors of real life, the people who swear by mathshammer always forget to take this into account, claiming that because something sucks due to maths, it must suck full stop, its bad science to not try to take as much relavant information as possible into account when making a decision.

Loaded dice are indeed a good counter to mathammer.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
How about Genestealers? They offer a 2.57 ratio, killing 93.3 points of Conscripts at cost of 240 points.

Sisters Dominions offer a 3.33 ratio, killing 18 points of Conscripts at cost of 60 points.

Boyz offer a 1.69 ratio, killing 106.668 points at cost of 180 points.


But see, the melee units aren't balanced as counters to conscripts. In fact they literally can't be balanced to be a conscript counter in this ruleset. As we saw above, str 4 AP 0 isn't particularly effective against GEQ compared to MEQ, so anything that kills conscripts effectively at that point level kills other armies even more effectively. Particularly for the melee armies, as cover can't even factor in. Genestealers being good at ripping through infantry will effect guard less than almost any other army, same with orks. For orks the unit is clearly so geared for offense as to become a glass cannon, making it impractical to actually use. Genestealers are more even, but again guard is the least effected by genestealers and will be more resistant to them than any other army in the game, so they cannot be a proper counter. It's quite literally impossible. Even massed str 3 in melee favors normal guardsmen or space marines as a target compared to conscripts, and str 4 with or without AP makes it even worse.

The dominions are more likely to be balanced towards this, as a ranged unit with AP 0 weapons cover can swing things around to favor 3+ or even 4+ heavy armies. However, in practice even against such armies the dominions are more point efficient, for example going from 2.0 to 4.2 depending if marines have cover, vs the 3.333 for conscripts.

In short, you are highlighting particularly point efficient anti infantry that is, if anything, better suited for killing anything but GEQ, but can also perform well there due to just how efficient they are offensively. This is different than a counter, which should favor GEQ as a target or at least lean as much as possible towards them. As we established technically nothing actually wants to target guard more than SM in the open, even normal guardsmen have this advantage.

For that, it needs to be ranged (so 4+/3+ armies can benefit from cover) and it needs to be str 3 AP 0. Massed str 4 AP 0 is probably the runner up, but still has to deal with improved point effectiveness vs toughness 6/7 and 4. Which is much the same reason AP isn't ideal, it can make targeting 4+-2+ saves more effective.

 Arbitrator wrote:
 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

There's a huge chunk of the fanbase who want anything that's not loyalist Space Marines to be worthless.

Remember it was only at the tail end of 7th that "CSM players still need to suffer for 3.5 being good" began to end.

I can't wait for the Tau/Eldar codex. It could be total crap, but there'll still be people insisting it needs nerfing to the dirt.


I mean, honestly if you think the guard codex is balanced and want other codices to sit at this level, you are basically saying you want to punish CSM players more. Just saying, guard being OP screws with all the released codices.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 14:46:07


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




the_scotsman wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.


Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.


Yes, remember folks, every guard list includes at least 100 conscripts, and every player is an expert at using them. Your opponent will never make mistakes, and would never think about running anything but the most competitive choices. If you put terrain on the table, your opponent will have nothing but conscripts, manticores, and mortar teams across the table from you. This is the nightmare world in which you live - despair!

in a competitive tournament environment, you're going to see lists like that, yes. And people are usually going to string their conscripts correctly, and position them such that you can't encircle one in the front to prevent a fallback, and cover all their tanks such that fast assault units and deep strikers can never get to them, and always hide their characters perfectly out of LOS of all snipers...usually. in a casual, normal play environment, that isn't going to be the case.

Assault is more technical to play in 8th than shooting, that is a definite fact. Shooting is an easier style to play - more stationary positioning decisions, less movement micromanagement. It's easy to screw up a charge-pile in-consolidate sequence to allow vs deny overwatch, allow vs deny fall back, and maximise the number of models available to attack. it's easy to make the wrong choice as to the first unit to attack with and leave yourself open to a counterattack interrupt. It is a lot easier to position your units to get cover, to allow for Heroic Interventions, and to protect characters if you're not planning on doing much movement with them in the game. But saying that because something is more difficult, or takes more thought, means that it is impossible is disingenuous.


My group has already adapted to this, sadly. It's not impossible, but my win rate is definitely lower than 7th. The SW guy has 100 conscripts. The IG guy has 200. The girlyman player has 150. They don't really make mistakes in terms of deep striking because its trivial to measure 8" between units. We want to win, and so commissars are always hidden because not hiding them is flat out dumb if your opponent has snipers. The game is NOT that complex.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 14:43:25


 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





Loaded dice are indeed a good counter to mathammer.
Congrats, that's not even remotely explicable to what he said.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




That's exactly what he implied. Mathhammer works with large sample sizes. Period. The best armies usually roll enough dice to get a good sample size every game. Marines don't, but they're not a good army, imo. If you are quadatapping conscripts, you WILL roll the average.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 14:44:43


 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





cedar rapids, iowa

 sfshilo wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.


Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.


He meant getting that leman russ into the 5+/6+ BS range, not assaulting it.

"I've had games where I couldn't and in those cases I just quickly engaged what I could so the artillery didn't pound me into dust."

Exactly, if the codex has stuff that makes this impossible to do anymore then we are all in trouble lol.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 14:44:03


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I don't know about the rest of you, but my stuff doesn't get enough turns of movement to get to the artillery before its dead or tarpitted.
   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick





I will say this: just because an outcome isn't guaranteed doesn't mean the odds aren't slanted. If I told you that you would have to roll all 6s every turn to have any chance of winning, you'd be a fool to say "so you're saying there's a chance."

However, 40k's ability to swing very heavily on the dice also means we shouldn't sweat the small stuff. If something is within +/-5% or so of typical efficiency at something, its effect will probably get lost in variance. It has an edge sure, it's even a little unfair on average, but any individual game if won't really be noticeable when the dice routinely swing outcomes by more than 50% so it's just not worth worrying about.

If something is more in the +/-10% band then its edge might be more routinely noticeable, but that is more likely to be "unit X is good/bad at Y" than "unit X is bonkers OP/unusable".

Basically while mathhammer can be useful, it's important to take it with a grain of salt and have a sense of scale. Very often the appropriate response to a small difference is "eh, close enough", not "the end is nigh!"
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Norwich

fresus wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.


Those are the same thing.

The point of mathhammer is comparing units.

Its not the case that you can go "right, 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save, 10 wounds on the target, therefore I need exactly 40 shots to kill it and this will always happen".

What you can do is calculate that 9 shots at 3+, 3+ is better than say 12 shots at 4+, 4+ for the same points. Therefore if you are facing the choice you probably want the first option unless there is some synergy to suggest otherwise.

Now in a game anything can happen. Maybe the 3+ having player is unlucky while the 4+ player rolls nothing but 6s.
Over time however this is unlikely to be repeated. Whether you play competitively or casually performance will tend towards the norm and good units will do better than bad units. Therefore if you put good units in your lists you are improving your chances to win.

Will IG win every single game now? No. Play enough and you will get bad dice. They will however win more than they lose because the odds have been skewed heavily in their favour. Much like Eldar in 7th.


No they are not the same thing, one takes statistics in a vacuum, the other admits it cannot take into account the intagible factors such as surface tension, dice weight, momentum, then you have unit position and all those other factors.
You cannot ever account for the random factors of real life, the people who swear by mathshammer always forget to take this into account, claiming that because something sucks due to maths, it must suck full stop, its bad science to not try to take as much relavant information as possible into account when making a decision.

Loaded dice are indeed a good counter to mathammer.



lol yes I suppose they would be, but you know damn well that's not what I'm talking about, metal dice are a thing, so are wooden, and mixes of both, plastic and metal numbers are also a thing, resin dice, so much variation, not to mention all the other factors.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




No one is talking about small differences in 8th. And even small differences add up. Like how nearly every weapon is better at killing marines than guardsmen on a per point basis.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Norwich

Martel732 wrote:
That's exactly what he implied. Mathhammer works with large sample sizes. Period. The best armies usually roll enough dice to get a good sample size every game. Marines don't, but they're not a good army, imo. If you are quadatapping conscripts, you WILL roll the average.


Who me? I didn't imply anything, you infered it if you are referring to my previous statement, if I'm wrong no worries, if you are talking about what I said, you have the wrong conclusion.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




"plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics "

While technically true, is only relevant in the case of mismolded or loaded dice. For practical purposes, they are random independent events.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex





Fredericksburg, Virginia

The type of dice don't change the odds of rolling a 6 unless it is weighted in favor of or against rolling a 6. Even consider imperfect dice, we can still agree that a 6 has a 1/6 chance of being rolled on average across all 6 sided dice.

I'm really confused what point you're trying to make Formosa.

6000+
2500
2000
2000
 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Veteran Marine with Psychic Potential





The only thing Mathhammer assumes are the following six givens:

1) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 1 on a six sided die.
2) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 2 on a six sided die.
3) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 3 on a six sided die.
4) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 4 on a six sided die.
5) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 5 on a six sided die.
6) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6 on a six sided die.

Anything else like surface tension and dice mass fall under undefinable variables that prevent any consistency in calculations and can easily be subverted by using properly balanced dice on a flat surface. Assuming ideal conditions is always necessary because those conditions are what we should be striving for.

Not rolling misshapen frankendice on top of a pizza.

It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







To be fair, most mathhammer assumes a lot more than that.

1) Models in the unit are in-range of the target.

2) There is no intervening terrain/firing through windows that would prevent some number (greater than 0) of models in the firing unit from shooting.

3) There are no buffs on the target unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

3) There are no buffs on the firing unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

4) Human psychology is perfect (or imperfect) and always makes the right decisions (or never makes the right decisions) in the abstract space of our minds rather than at the table actually playing.

5) Even before play begins, deployment must be assumed to be perfect for or at least irrelevant to the situation being calculated.

I'm sure there are more still...
   
Made in au
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





Perth

Sure on paper 150 points of x is more points efficient at killing 150 points of y than 150 points of z. But in a game this raaaarely happens.

For example - in the necron thread mathhammer was brought up to give the case that equal points of scarabs will do more damage to a single squad than wraiths. The math checks out and sure, they do.

But in a game 99.99 times out of 100 this wont happen. Why?

Equal points of scarabs is almost two whole squads, thats 18 bases, vs 6 on the wraiths. You know how hard it is to get 18 bases into contact with a single enemy unit enemy vs 6?

Also, scarabs are used for DS defence, so they are spread out across the board, usually as frontline meatshields. If a unit gets charged, even if you pull your slain models from the halfway across the board, you will still have models out of range of the fight, even after consolidation.

Finally, using scarabs vs wraiths as an example, sure equal points of scarabs will outdamage equal points of wraiths, but the wraiths are 12"M (ignoring all models/terrain) T5 3W 3++ vs the scarabs 10"M T3 3W 6+. You know how much easier it is to kill those scarabs vs the wraiths? Incredibly. So the likelyhood of 6 wraiths getting into combat is exponentially higher than the scarabs.

Mathhammer is good for estimating damage in a perfect world, but it doesn't take into account all the other variables that make units strong. Movement, toughness, saves, special rules, weapons etc all factor into the equation.

Mathhammer isnt the golden standard of a units efficiency, its a tool used when deciding if the unit is worth taking, but its not the only metric (as some people on these forums would have you believe).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 15:31:52


12,000
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, most mathhammer assumes a lot more than that.

1) Models in the unit are in-range of the target.

2) There is no intervening terrain/firing through windows that would prevent some number (greater than 0) of models in the firing unit from shooting.

3) There are no buffs on the target unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

3) There are no buffs on the firing unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

4) Human psychology is perfect (or imperfect) and always makes the right decisions (or never makes the right decisions) in the abstract space of our minds rather than at the table actually playing.

5) Even before play begins, deployment must be assumed to be perfect for or at least irrelevant to the situation being calculated.

I'm sure there are more still...


It doesn't have to assume that if you don't want it to. You can use it for ceilings only, if you want. If only half the unit is in range, then you halve your ceiling. But a better math hammer unit with half the unit in range is STILL better than an inferior unit that is half in range.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 Klowny wrote:
My point about math hammer has been lost. Sure on paper 150 points of x is more points efficient at killing 150 points of y than 150 points of z. But in a game this raaaarely happens.

For example - in the necron thread mathhammer was brought up to give the case that equal points of scarabs will do more damage to a single squad than wraiths. The math checks out and sure it does.

But in a game this will 99.99 times out of 100 this wont happen. Why?

Equal points of scarabs is almost two whole squads, thats 18 bases, vs 6 on the wraiths. You know how hard it is to get 18 bases into contact with the enemy vs 6?

Also, scarabs are used for DS defence, so they are spread out across the board, usually as frontline meatshields. If a unit gets charged, even if you pull your slain models from the halfway across the board, you will still have models out of range of the fight, even after consolidation.

Finally, using scarabs vs wraiths as an example, sure equal points of scarabs will outdamage equal points of wraiths, but the wraiths are 12"M (ignoring all models/terrain) T5 3W 3++ vs the scarabs 10"M T3 3W 6+. You know how much easier it is to kill those scarabs vs the wraiths? Incredibly. So the likelyhood of 6 wraiths getting into combat is exponentially higher than the scarabs.

Mathhammer is good for estimating damage in a perfect world, but it doesn't take into account all the other variables that make units strong. Movement, toughness, saves, special rules all factor into the equation.

Mathhammer isnt the golden standard of a units efficiency, its a tool used when deciding if the unit is worth taking, but its not the only metric (as some people on these forums would have you believe).


Yep, and you bet your bottom dollar every calculation of conscript offensive power is going to include FRFSRF, even though that's now a coinflip.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in dk
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Metalica

the_scotsman wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.


Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.


Yes, remember folks, every guard list includes at least 100 conscripts, and every player is an expert at using them. Your opponent will never make mistakes, and would never think about running anything but the most competitive choices. If you put terrain on the table, your opponent will have nothing but conscripts, manticores, and mortar teams across the table from you. This is the nightmare world in which you live - despair!

in a competitive tournament environment, you're going to see lists like that, yes. And people are usually going to string their conscripts correctly, and position them such that you can't encircle one in the front to prevent a fallback, and cover all their tanks such that fast assault units and deep strikers can never get to them, and always hide their characters perfectly out of LOS of all snipers...usually. in a casual, normal play environment, that isn't going to be the case.

Assault is more technical to play in 8th than shooting, that is a definite fact. Shooting is an easier style to play - more stationary positioning decisions, less movement micromanagement. It's easy to screw up a charge-pile in-consolidate sequence to allow vs deny overwatch, allow vs deny fall back, and maximise the number of models available to attack. it's easy to make the wrong choice as to the first unit to attack with and leave yourself open to a counterattack interrupt. It is a lot easier to position your units to get cover, to allow for Heroic Interventions, and to protect characters if you're not planning on doing much movement with them in the game. But saying that because something is more difficult, or takes more thought, means that it is impossible is disingenuous.


So all I have to do for Conscripts to be perfectly balanced is to assume that they either A) don't get fielded at all, or B) are played wrong.

We can end the thread on the worst argument made right there.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Martel732 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, most mathhammer assumes a lot more than that.

1) Models in the unit are in-range of the target.

2) There is no intervening terrain/firing through windows that would prevent some number (greater than 0) of models in the firing unit from shooting.

3) There are no buffs on the target unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

3) There are no buffs on the firing unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

4) Human psychology is perfect (or imperfect) and always makes the right decisions (or never makes the right decisions) in the abstract space of our minds rather than at the table actually playing.

5) Even before play begins, deployment must be assumed to be perfect for or at least irrelevant to the situation being calculated.

I'm sure there are more still...


It doesn't have to assume that if you don't want it to. You can use it for ceilings only, if you want. If only half the unit is in range, then you halve your ceiling. But a better math hammer unit with half the unit in range is STILL better than an inferior unit that is half in range.


And then you have to talk about unit sizes. 10 Marines can be in range of the Conscripts, and only 10 conscripts can be in range back. In fact, that's likely, given a certain deployment, terrain pattern, psychological priority for each player, objective placement, or other happenstance.

To say 'half this unit is in range of that target unit' doesn't necessarily mean the other unit also has only half in range, even when comparing two completely identical units. If you're not comparing identical units, then you have to take in board space, maneuverability, necessity of leaving models behind ('tails') to get buffs, initial deployment, player priorities when moving the unit, etc.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 15:33:25


 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





 Arkaine wrote:
The only thing Mathhammer assumes are the following six givens:

1) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 1 on a six sided die.
2) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 2 on a six sided die.
3) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 3 on a six sided die.
4) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 4 on a six sided die.
5) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 5 on a six sided die.
6) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6 on a six sided die.

Anything else like surface tension and dice mass fall under undefinable variables that prevent any consistency in calculations and can easily be subverted by using properly balanced dice on a flat surface. Assuming ideal conditions is always necessary because those conditions are what we should be striving for.

Not rolling misshapen frankendice on top of a pizza.


Studies have shown that untrue.

Feed the poor war gamer with money.  
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

"Mathhammer", as people use it, is a very basic form of probability analysis. It is usually just a simple expected outcome calculation. Very few people go much further, into things like standard deviations and such. Mathhammer does ok for a basic understanding but is sometimes overly relied upon without a proper understanding of how probabilities work.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Dionysodorus wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:
I am not sure that there is anything at all in the Space Marine codex that kills GEQs more efficiently than Conscripts do.


That's a pretty specific metric you got there. For example, Devourer Gaunts outpace them against GEQ.


I don't understand what you're trying to say. Like, what is this point about devourer gaunts supposed to show? My claim was that "Conscripts shoot decently".


Fair enough. But running the numbers, GEQ appear to be the only targets in which the claim about efficiency is true. (I don't have my codex with me, but it's a fun challenge) Even then, they're relying on a 12" rapid fire range (Vostroyans excepted, if I read the rumors correctly). Using Devourer Gaunts was more a point about limiting the claim to the SM codex.

I would say their anti infantry is good, but beyond that their damage output is pretty terrible, and their effective range is quite limited.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Trickstick wrote:
"Mathhammer", as people use it, is a very basic form of probability analysis.


Agreed. A fun rabbit-hole, but it's still a rabbit-role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:

Yep, and you bet your bottom dollar every calculation of conscript offensive power is going to include FRFSRF, even though that's now a coinflip.


I didn't use it, so you lose! Easy conversion though.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 15:47:57


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: