Switch Theme:

01101110 01100101 01110111 00100000 01110011 01110100 01110101 01100110 01100110 admech  [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
Fixture of Dakka





 the_scotsman wrote:
A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.


I don't think that's the right take. The lancer doesn't need to be in danger close to get a buff to damage. On top of that the lancer can take T8 as well as T5 W4. What happens when a speeder or AB can't get within 12"? Those shots aren't anything special.

A Lancer is a counter-deploy that can hang back and pop in and out of firing lanes going after mid range up through tough targets. It will kill two ABs 48% of the time ( one 43% ). Meanwhile a MM out of half would kill two 5% of the time ( and one 37% ). Even in half it becomes only 14% and 47%. It also a fair bit more against knights that MM in half range.

Is it better than 3 to 4 attack bikes? Well, those probably need to go up in cost a bit, but I bet with good play that tank would take them out before they can bracket it most of the time. Marines are going to find out that MM aren't going to cut it when everything else can walk out from behind cover and ice their current anti-tank with ease.

DA excluded from analysis.

TLDR; people are overly fearful of using vehicles

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/13 23:19:09


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Skitarii were the mobile faction.
Cult Mechanicus had an easily accessible Deep Strike Formation.
You'll never let this nonsense go, will you?

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Skitarii were the mobile faction.
Cult Mechanicus had an easily accessible Deep Strike Formation.
You'll never let this nonsense go, will you?

Remind me again, which codex's units had Tireless Advance? Was it Skitarii or Cult Mechanicus?

"Cult and Skitarii are part of the same overall faction!", you'll constantly come into threads trying to start crap. Never once has that been a disputed fact. I'll even grant you that apparently they were meant to be considered "one big faction" or whatever the hell James Hewitt's commentary was about it.

It doesn't change that my point still stands. Cult Mechanicus' units? They weren't mobile. They weren't meant to be. The mobility in that book came from the Holy Requisitioner formation, which granted Deep Strike to a Dominus and 2-3 units of Kataphron Breachers.

Skitarii had that mobility in spades. Everything could get Tireless Advance via a Battle Maniple or the Skitarii Maniple Detachment. Scout moves for everyone!

So, TLDR:
Skitarii had movement shenanigans while Cult didn't. My statement is correct and you're just, as usual, trying to pick fights.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Your mistake is thinking that they're meant to be two different armies. They were not. They were never intended to be that way either. We've had someone who worked on the rules at the time they were made tell us this. And yet you still go on and on about it every chance you get.

That's what I'm getting at.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/14 00:33:12


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Your mistake is thinking that they're meant to be two different armies. They were not. They were never intended to be that way either. We've had someone who worked on the rules at the time they were made tell us this. And yet you still go on and on about it every chance you get.

That's what I'm getting at.


Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
Except there's no one getting their panties in a twist about GW putting Deathwing units in the Dark Angel Codex.

Kan is (eternally) upset because GW put out a Skitarii book and a Cult Mechanicus book (for entirely - confirmed - corporate reasons, not because they were meant to be separate armies) and he liked one and disliked another, and hated it when a new AdMech book came out that combined the two split lists.

It's not even slightly similar to your attempted comparison.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

Let's just leave the Deathwing out of this. They are just minding their own business protecting the Imperium.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
Except there's no one getting their panties in a twist about GW putting Deathwing units in the Dark Angel Codex.

Kan is (eternally) upset because GW put out a Skitarii book and a Cult Mechanicus book (for entirely - confirmed - corporate reasons, not because they were meant to be separate armies) and he liked one and disliked another, and hated it when a new AdMech book came out that combined the two split lists.

It's not even slightly similar to your attempted comparison.

Sure, sure. That's why.

It totally isn't, as I've repeatedly stated, because Skitarii lost all of their flavor(Doctrina Imperatives, special upgrades for the Onager Dunecrawlers, squadrons of Onagers, Scout moves, no need for an HQ) when they got combined with the Cult Mechanicus...who basically received everything that the loudmouth War Convocation scrubs complained that the Cult "needed to function competitively", and then the follow-on "Skitarii Summer" just added transports that everyone immediately started lauding for Electropriests.

Nope. Couldn't be that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/14 02:03:44


 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
Except there's no one getting their panties in a twist about GW putting Deathwing units in the Dark Angel Codex.

Kan is (eternally) upset because GW put out a Skitarii book and a Cult Mechanicus book (for entirely - confirmed - corporate reasons, not because they were meant to be separate armies) and he liked one and disliked another, and hated it when a new AdMech book came out that combined the two split lists.

It's not even slightly similar to your attempted comparison.

Eh, it kind of is, though. If the units that were formerly Skitarii lose all their advantages, then combining them is a loss. It would be like Deathwing being no different from any other Terminator squad or Crusader Squads being dropped in favor of Tactical Squads because all these Chapters are now in Codex: Space Marines.

Though, just whining because they are combined is pointless. Complaining that your old units lost their flavor at the same time they were combined with another codex, though, is valid.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Xenomancers wrote:
Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.


So Marines are still great? Good to know.

Umbros wrote:
Cawl's reroll bubble is definitely gone


[* Citation required]

Tyel wrote:
The Lancer's just got Squigbuggy problems.


Xeno inexplicably thinks it's the best thing ever?

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.


I don't think that's the right take. The lancer doesn't need to be in danger close to get a buff to damage. On top of that the lancer can take T8 as well as T5 W4. What happens when a speeder or AB can't get within 12"? Those shots aren't anything special.

A Lancer is a counter-deploy that can hang back and pop in and out of firing lanes going after mid range up through tough targets. It will kill two ABs 48% of the time ( one 43% ). Meanwhile a MM out of half would kill two 5% of the time ( and one 37% ). Even in half it becomes only 14% and 47%. It also a fair bit more against knights that MM in half range.

Is it better than 3 to 4 attack bikes? Well, those probably need to go up in cost a bit, but I bet with good play that tank would take them out before they can bracket it most of the time. Marines are going to find out that MM aren't going to cut it when everything else can walk out from behind cover and ice their current anti-tank with ease.

DA excluded from analysis.

TLDR; people are overly fearful of using vehicles



I ain't talking about Attack Bikes here, I'm talking about OTHER main battle tanks, this thing is an embarrassment.

Gladiator: 4.62w vs standard vehicles

Quadlas Predator: 5.17w vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (170)
Cons: Less durable (-1W -1T)
automatically comes with the smokescreen keyword, doesn't have to buy it for 5pts LOL.
only 48" range vs 72" that'll matter a lot.


PBC with Entropy: 7.61w vs standard vehicles
Pros: more durable (+1w, -1 damage)
Main weapon ignores LOS
cheaper (175)
cons: only 6.62 vs T8 oh noes

Tank Commander Battletank with hull lascannon: 5.43 vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (185)
Exactly as durable
Gets Tank Orders to make him deal even more damage (didn't factor that in to initial damage)
Cons: Moves exactly the same speed, but practically 5" slower since he needs to move at half speed to get good damage

Onager Dunecrawler (new datasheet) with Neutron Laser: 4.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY CHEAPER (130)
Actually more durable vs most common antitank weapons because of the invuln
does a morale thing i guess, that'll be replaced now with the smoke launchers assuming they have the new strat
Canticles>Doctrines, gets a benefit from them more turns in the game
Cons: 2" slower?

Triple Dark Lance Ravager: 6.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: 4" faster, also has fly suck it primaris loser hover tanks
again much Cheaper (140)
again, because of the invuln, actually takes more of the most standard antitank guns in the game to kill

The problem is, all the instances where you might think "aha, here's where my improved stats will come in handy!" it still gets outperformed. Let's say you're comparing to a triple dark lance ravager, but - uh oh, you're shooting Leman Russ tanks! Surely the strength ten laser destroyer will prove to be superior nope it doesn't the ravager does 5w cus 3 shots and AP-4. Oh man it looks like the enemy's got a melta gun, TOUGHNESS EIGHT HERE WE GO BABY whoops looks like the ravager still takes slightly more shots to kill because of that ding dang invuln save. Oh, and it's just a paltry SIXTY points cheaper.

You're the one who brought up the attack bike comparison - I pointed out that right there in the same role in the same codex is the lascannon predator, that old antiquated hunk of junk that basically everyone agrees the game has moved past, with it's "basically unchanged since the index" performance, and it embarrasses the shiny new btw GW always makes new models op for da moneyz Gladiator.

"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
Fixture of Dakka





Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.


I don't think that's the right take. The lancer doesn't need to be in danger close to get a buff to damage. On top of that the lancer can take T8 as well as T5 W4. What happens when a speeder or AB can't get within 12"? Those shots aren't anything special.

A Lancer is a counter-deploy that can hang back and pop in and out of firing lanes going after mid range up through tough targets. It will kill two ABs 48% of the time ( one 43% ). Meanwhile a MM out of half would kill two 5% of the time ( and one 37% ). Even in half it becomes only 14% and 47%. It also a fair bit more against knights that MM in half range.

Is it better than 3 to 4 attack bikes? Well, those probably need to go up in cost a bit, but I bet with good play that tank would take them out before they can bracket it most of the time. Marines are going to find out that MM aren't going to cut it when everything else can walk out from behind cover and ice their current anti-tank with ease.

DA excluded from analysis.

TLDR; people are overly fearful of using vehicles



I ain't talking about Attack Bikes here, I'm talking about OTHER main battle tanks, this thing is an embarrassment.

Gladiator: 4.62w vs standard vehicles

Quadlas Predator: 5.17w vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (170)
Cons: Less durable (-1W -1T)
automatically comes with the smokescreen keyword, doesn't have to buy it for 5pts LOL.
only 48" range vs 72" that'll matter a lot.


PBC with Entropy: 7.61w vs standard vehicles
Pros: more durable (+1w, -1 damage)
Main weapon ignores LOS
cheaper (175)
cons: only 6.62 vs T8 oh noes

Tank Commander Battletank with hull lascannon: 5.43 vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (185)
Exactly as durable
Gets Tank Orders to make him deal even more damage (didn't factor that in to initial damage)
Cons: Moves exactly the same speed, but practically 5" slower since he needs to move at half speed to get good damage

Onager Dunecrawler (new datasheet) with Neutron Laser: 4.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY CHEAPER (130)
Actually more durable vs most common antitank weapons because of the invuln
does a morale thing i guess, that'll be replaced now with the smoke launchers assuming they have the new strat
Canticles>Doctrines, gets a benefit from them more turns in the game
Cons: 2" slower?

Triple Dark Lance Ravager: 6.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: 4" faster, also has fly suck it primaris loser hover tanks
again much Cheaper (140)
again, because of the invuln, actually takes more of the most standard antitank guns in the game to kill

The problem is, all the instances where you might think "aha, here's where my improved stats will come in handy!" it still gets outperformed. Let's say you're comparing to a triple dark lance ravager, but - uh oh, you're shooting Leman Russ tanks! Surely the strength ten laser destroyer will prove to be superior nope it doesn't the ravager does 5w cus 3 shots and AP-4. Oh man it looks like the enemy's got a melta gun, TOUGHNESS EIGHT HERE WE GO BABY whoops looks like the ravager still takes slightly more shots to kill because of that ding dang invuln save. Oh, and it's just a paltry SIXTY points cheaper.

You're the one who brought up the attack bike comparison - I pointed out that right there in the same role in the same codex is the lascannon predator, that old antiquated hunk of junk that basically everyone agrees the game has moved past, with it's "basically unchanged since the index" performance, and it embarrasses the shiny new btw GW always makes new models op for da moneyz Gladiator.


Fair points, but the rest of the book has a lot of say in how vehicles interact within the army. PBCs need to be at that level, because DG has so little long range shooting. TC I won't comment on since that whole situation needs a rework anyway.

The Ravager is a great target for the Lancer. It will kill a Ravager in one salvo 15% of the time ( 9.7% for a las pred ). A Ravager will kill a Lancer 6% of the time. If the Lancer decided to pop smoke then that becomes 3%

Imagine four MM got a bead on it and it popped smoke. Dead 17% of the time. Ravager? 38%.

People are way undervaluing the +1 to hit and smoke. We're also only talking it's main gun. When it needs to there is a fair amount of support weapons it can toss out so it defends itself from DS pretty well. The Predator is great, but it can't be under estimated how easy it is to flub attacks especially when it picks up a -1 to hit.

Data simulated on https://www.unitcrunch.com/

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/14 12:10:05


   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





 Charistoph wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
Except there's no one getting their panties in a twist about GW putting Deathwing units in the Dark Angel Codex.

Kan is (eternally) upset because GW put out a Skitarii book and a Cult Mechanicus book (for entirely - confirmed - corporate reasons, not because they were meant to be separate armies) and he liked one and disliked another, and hated it when a new AdMech book came out that combined the two split lists.

It's not even slightly similar to your attempted comparison.

Eh, it kind of is, though. If the units that were formerly Skitarii lose all their advantages, then combining them is a loss. It would be like Deathwing being no different from any other Terminator squad or Crusader Squads being dropped in favor of Tactical Squads because all these Chapters are now in Codex: Space Marines.

Though, just whining because they are combined is pointless. Complaining that your old units lost their flavor at the same time they were combined with another codex, though, is valid.
Except that a lot of codexs lost that sort of flavor in the ensuing years. It really wasn't because of the codex fusion but because a lot of dex's lost some degree of it in the crossover in that timeline. We're only getting some of it back now in 9th it seems.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/14 12:18:43


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.


I don't think that's the right take. The lancer doesn't need to be in danger close to get a buff to damage. On top of that the lancer can take T8 as well as T5 W4. What happens when a speeder or AB can't get within 12"? Those shots aren't anything special.

A Lancer is a counter-deploy that can hang back and pop in and out of firing lanes going after mid range up through tough targets. It will kill two ABs 48% of the time ( one 43% ). Meanwhile a MM out of half would kill two 5% of the time ( and one 37% ). Even in half it becomes only 14% and 47%. It also a fair bit more against knights that MM in half range.

Is it better than 3 to 4 attack bikes? Well, those probably need to go up in cost a bit, but I bet with good play that tank would take them out before they can bracket it most of the time. Marines are going to find out that MM aren't going to cut it when everything else can walk out from behind cover and ice their current anti-tank with ease.

DA excluded from analysis.

TLDR; people are overly fearful of using vehicles



I ain't talking about Attack Bikes here, I'm talking about OTHER main battle tanks, this thing is an embarrassment.

Gladiator: 4.62w vs standard vehicles

Quadlas Predator: 5.17w vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (170)
Cons: Less durable (-1W -1T)
automatically comes with the smokescreen keyword, doesn't have to buy it for 5pts LOL.
only 48" range vs 72" that'll matter a lot.


PBC with Entropy: 7.61w vs standard vehicles
Pros: more durable (+1w, -1 damage)
Main weapon ignores LOS
cheaper (175)
cons: only 6.62 vs T8 oh noes

Tank Commander Battletank with hull lascannon: 5.43 vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (185)
Exactly as durable
Gets Tank Orders to make him deal even more damage (didn't factor that in to initial damage)
Cons: Moves exactly the same speed, but practically 5" slower since he needs to move at half speed to get good damage

Onager Dunecrawler (new datasheet) with Neutron Laser: 4.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY CHEAPER (130)
Actually more durable vs most common antitank weapons because of the invuln
does a morale thing i guess, that'll be replaced now with the smoke launchers assuming they have the new strat
Canticles>Doctrines, gets a benefit from them more turns in the game
Cons: 2" slower?

Triple Dark Lance Ravager: 6.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: 4" faster, also has fly suck it primaris loser hover tanks
again much Cheaper (140)
again, because of the invuln, actually takes more of the most standard antitank guns in the game to kill

The problem is, all the instances where you might think "aha, here's where my improved stats will come in handy!" it still gets outperformed. Let's say you're comparing to a triple dark lance ravager, but - uh oh, you're shooting Leman Russ tanks! Surely the strength ten laser destroyer will prove to be superior nope it doesn't the ravager does 5w cus 3 shots and AP-4. Oh man it looks like the enemy's got a melta gun, TOUGHNESS EIGHT HERE WE GO BABY whoops looks like the ravager still takes slightly more shots to kill because of that ding dang invuln save. Oh, and it's just a paltry SIXTY points cheaper.

You're the one who brought up the attack bike comparison - I pointed out that right there in the same role in the same codex is the lascannon predator, that old antiquated hunk of junk that basically everyone agrees the game has moved past, with it's "basically unchanged since the index" performance, and it embarrasses the shiny new btw GW always makes new models op for da moneyz Gladiator.


Fair points, but the rest of the book has a lot of say in how vehicles interact within the army. PBCs need to be at that level, because DG has so little long range shooting. TC I won't comment on since that whole situation needs a rework anyway.

The Ravager is a great target for the Lancer. It will kill a Ravager in one salvo 15% of the time ( 9.7% for a las pred ). A Ravager will kill a Lancer 6% of the time. If the Lancer decided to pop smoke then that becomes 3%

Imagine four MM got a bead on it and it popped smoke. Dead 17% of the time. Ravager? 38%.

People are way undervaluing the +1 to hit and smoke. We're also only talking it's main gun. When it needs to there is a fair amount of support weapons it can toss out so it defends itself from DS pretty well. The Predator is great, but it can't be under estimated how easy it is to flub attacks especially when it picks up a -1 to hit.

Data simulated on https://www.unitcrunch.com/


....so, why are we comparing the Lancer with -1 to hit from its 1cp stratagem and 5pt upgrade equipment and to a Ravager that ISNT using its -1 to hit stratagem that it just gets no upgrade necessary? And also still pretending that it doesn't matter that the lancer is a full SIXTY points more expensive? Also, maybe I'm setting up this website you've linked wrong somehow, but inputting the basic stats of both defenders and running them against 4 MMs in melta range shows me a 45% chance of destroying the ravager, 45% chance of destroying the gladiator, with both of them using their -1 to hit ability.

also, I get the Lancer's chance to destroy the Ravager in one shot as 4.6% (heavy 2, 2+ to hit, S10 Ap-3 D3+3) and the Ravagers (again, a 60 point cheaper unit) chance to kill the Lancer at 3.8%. Either this website isn't particularly reliable, or you're entering the stats in wrong somewhere.

The fact that the lancer has +1 to hit baked in is a NEGATIVE, not a positive. to-hit caps mean that I can stack up functionally 2 -1 to hits on the Lancer, and the Lancer can't gain a +1 to hit from any means (idk if it can at this point, but SMs have so much gak I'm not about to go digging for it in their 90 bajillion stratagems). The lancer's +1 to hit is to attempt to make up for the fact that it gets fewer shots and also incidentally can't split its fire at all like most of its competition like the predator and ravager can.

I know you love thinking that everything's got a use, everything is good and balanced and everyone throughout all of competitive play is a fool while you understand the true power of every unit, but this thing is just overcosted by a significant amount for the heat it brings to the table.

I didn't factor in the secondary weapons on the lancer because it gets to a certain point where we're comparing units that are nearly half as expensive as this damn thing just to try and find a unit that it manages to outperform in its basic function.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/14 12:39:45


"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
Fixture of Dakka





Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:

....so, why are we comparing the Lancer with -1 to hit from its 1cp stratagem and 5pt upgrade equipment and to a Ravager that ISNT using its -1 to hit stratagem that it just gets no upgrade necessary? And also still pretending that it doesn't matter that the lancer is a full SIXTY points more expensive? Also, maybe I'm setting up this website you've linked wrong somehow, but inputting the basic stats of both defenders and running them against 4 MMs in melta range shows me a 45% chance of destroying the ravager, 45% chance of destroying the gladiator, with both of them using their -1 to hit ability.

also, I get the Lancer's chance to destroy the Ravager in one shot as 4.6% (heavy 2, 2+ to hit, S10 Ap-3 D3+3) and the Ravagers (again, a 60 point cheaper unit) chance to kill the Lancer at 3.8%. Either this website isn't particularly reliable, or you're entering the stats in wrong somewhere.

The fact that the lancer has +1 to hit baked in is a NEGATIVE, not a positive. to-hit caps mean that I can stack up functionally 2 -1 to hits on the Lancer, and the Lancer can't gain a +1 to hit from any means (idk if it can at this point, but SMs have so much gak I'm not about to go digging for it in their 90 bajillion stratagems). The lancer's +1 to hit is to attempt to make up for the fact that it gets fewer shots and also incidentally can't split its fire at all like most of its competition like the predator and ravager can.

I know you love thinking that everything's got a use, everything is good and balanced and everyone throughout all of competitive play is a fool while you understand the true power of every unit, but this thing is just overcosted by a significant amount for the heat it brings to the table.

I didn't factor in the secondary weapons on the lancer because it gets to a certain point where we're comparing units that are nearly half as expensive as this damn thing just to try and find a unit that it manages to outperform in its basic function.


This 8 MM vs Ravager with -1 ( 23.6% )

Spoiler:


And vs Lancer with -1 ( 17.9% ) -- ignore the lack of name changes

Spoiler:


So a Ravager gains with a -1, which is fine. You're doing D6+2 which gets them to 47.6% Ravager and 43% Lancer, but I am counting on them not being able to come within 12".

I know you love thinking that everything's got a use, everything is good and balanced and everyone throughout all of competitive play is a fool while you understand the true power of every unit, but this thing is just overcosted by a significant amount for the heat it brings to the table.


I don't think anyone is a fool. I think a lot of people take on impressions of things through discussions and co-opt real world experience for their decision making.

I don't think everything is balanced, but I do think things are more balanced than people assume and some put too much stock in things being the "same" across armies. The heat it brings is more sufficient than people assume since they balk at it "only having two shots". A -2 mod is pretty rare these days so I don't know that it is a relevant consideration.

There is also a sense that vehicles without invulns are very vulnerable, but doesn't this math show otherwise? At least in this narrow exercise?

A Ravager scores 2 hits
A Lancer scores 1.7 hits

A Ravager wounds T8 on 4s - 1 wound
A Lander wounds T8 on 3s - 1.1 wound

A Ravager wounds T5 on 3s - 1.3 wounds
A Lander wounds T5 on 2s - 1.4 wounds

I find the Lancer sufficiently comparable in damage. I also find it at least comparably durable. We then have to wrestle with the extra 70 to 75 points, but 15 to 20 points of that is unaccounted for in damage opportunities. Could it drop 20 points? Probably pretty easily. Should you worry about "losing" 20 points when you probably would take only one? I don't think so.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






The Ravager is tough 6 and W11 - that's why you're showing such big differences from my numbers in the head-to-head matchup.

A -2 mod is uncommon? Does Dense Cover just exist nowhere on your tables? Anything that can get a -1 (anything with smoke, any flyer, anything Harlequin, many dark eldar things) plus any Dense cover, gets a -2. it doesn't come up because few units are dumb enough to be designed around an always-on +1 to hit that they rely on to be useful.

That's the main problem with the glancer - all its advantages are hyper-niche extremely uncommon situations and targets where it gets microscopic advantages. its biggest advantage is vs T5, and there just aren't that many t5 targets out there that you don't lose efficiency targeting with a min 4 damage gun. It's basically marine attack bikes, custode terminators and outriders and that's it. Custode bikes and Ork Buggies and almost all drukhari vehicles. Necrons might have some T5 stuff but, whoops its our old pal quantum shielding, making those S8 AT weapons better regardless!

It's got these tiny, niche advantages like 'oh man, if something deep strikes near me im really gonna show em what for with my 8 storm bolter shots' and 'boy those idiots bringing lascannons and multimeltas to the tabletop will sure be sorry when they want to shoot a T5 target with an invulnerable that cancels out the advantage of AP-4 and have to wound on 3s!' and 'my T8 will provide a huge durability advantage as long as nobody brings a S9 or S10 weapon to shoot tanks with!'

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/14 13:24:54


"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 gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Dysartes wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.


So Marines are still great? Good to know.

Umbros wrote:
Cawl's reroll bubble is definitely gone


[* Citation required]


It is obvious if you listen to tabletop tactics' latest videos (they are playtesters). If it isn't... it would be horsegak.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




As I see it, without minuses to hit, the Lancer has a 5/6*5/6*2/3*2/3*2/3*2/3*1/3=4.57% chance to one-shot a Ravager. Since you have to hit twice, wound twice, and both fail saves and then you need a 5+ on 2D3. The bolters etc would raise this marginally.

Whereas the Ravager has a 6.17% chance to one-shot the lancer as you can get the kill by:
3 hits, 3 wounds=(8/27*1/8)
3 hits 2 wounds, 6 damage=(8/27*3/8*1/9)
2 hits, 2 wounds, 6 damage=(12/27*1/4*1/9).
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Tyel wrote:
As I see it, without minuses to hit, the Lancer has a 5/6*5/6*2/3*2/3*2/3*2/3*1/3=4.57% chance to one-shot a Ravager. Since you have to hit twice, wound twice, and both fail saves and then you need a 5+ on 2D3. The bolters etc would raise this marginally.

Whereas the Ravager has a 6.17% chance to one-shot the lancer as you can get the kill by:
3 hits, 3 wounds=(8/27*1/8)
3 hits 2 wounds, 6 damage=(8/27*3/8*1/9)
2 hits, 2 wounds, 6 damage=(12/27*1/4*1/9).


And again - we are talking about a matchup between a unit that is in the neighborhood of *half* the point cost as our point of comparison. We are talking about a grown adult who can maybe hold his own in a karate championship if he's up against fourteen year olds.

"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
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I guess my Custodes bike list can go buh bye now.....These Las cannon's are assault 2 now, so that's fun. I mean that's funny, because 9th is silly.

I feel like the Monty Python Colonel needs to come out and do his " STOP THAT STOP THAT" bit. "We had a nice game about toy soldiers and what not, but it's all become a bit too SILLY."
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

@Daedelus: Are you arguing that the Primaris tanks are correctly priced? I'm not one to argue for buffs for anything with "Primaris" in its name, but just combare them with other sm tanks. Compare the various Gladiators to the various Sicarans or Vindicator Laser Destroyer. Compare a 365 PPM Repulsor Executioner to a 360 PPM Land Raider Achilles. The things are overpriced. It's like gw forgot they took FLY away from them.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I guess my Custodes bike list can go buh bye now.....These Las cannon's are assault 2 now, so that's fun. I mean that's funny, because 9th is silly.

I feel like the Monty Python Colonel needs to come out and do his " STOP THAT STOP THAT" bit. "We had a nice game about toy soldiers and what not, but it's all become a bit too SILLY."


I'm sure Custodian Guard will get 5 wounds or something when they get their silly update.

Sort of surprised there's not been a leak of the Robots. Maybe they are not being changed.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
@Daedelus: Are you arguing that the Primaris tanks are correctly priced? I'm not one to argue for buffs for anything with "Primaris" in its name, but just combare them with other sm tanks. Compare the various Gladiators to the various Sicarans or Vindicator Laser Destroyer. Compare a 365 PPM Repulsor Executioner to a 360 PPM Land Raider Achilles. The things are overpriced. It's like gw forgot they took FLY away from them.

Well honestly - they were overpriced to begin with - in 8th you could put them in auras though and they would put out very high damage but just about any dedicated anti tank platform or gimick could kill 1 a turn on an average roll. Without auras and with losing their shoot twice ability. Repuslors/ executioners should be in the 250 range and Gladiators should be in the 150 range. Legit 100-80 points over-costed on these things. It is a really bad look for an edition that is making claims to be "really balanced". Yeah no. It is not. There are still tiers of units - there will still be tiers of armys - with the game having a deliberate power creep through the edition - just like MTG.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/14 14:21:04


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






never change, xeno. I love it when I'm making the comparison between two units and going 'yeah, it looks like because the advantages between this 140pt unit and this 200pt unit are so small, the 200pt unit should really probably be closer to a 160pt, maybe 170pt unit.." and xeno comes in and goes

A HUNDRED POINTS OVERPRICED!!!!!111!!! MAKE THE GLANCER A ONE HUNDRED POINT TANK, GIVE IT THE SAME FIREPOWER AS A RAVAGER PLUS FREE SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGES FOR A FORTY PERCENT DISCOUNT OR MARINES ARE TRASH FOREVER!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also, the glad valiant is 50pts more expensive but at least it has enough firepower to kill god. 11.4 wounds to a standard vehicle outside of melta range - its main problem is just that there aren't that many targets big enough to warrant taking it to one-shot them. I don't know how you honestly balance the Valiant, it's either going to be wildly undercosted if you get it down in the range of a unit of 4 eradicators or wildly overcosted if it can never kill something close to its price (as it is now).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/14 14:29:30


"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
Fixture of Dakka





 the_scotsman wrote:
The Ravager is tough 6 and W11 - that's why you're showing such big differences from my numbers in the head-to-head matchup.


Oh gahd damnit.

It's got these tiny, niche advantages like 'oh man, if something deep strikes near me im really gonna show em what for with my 8 storm bolter shots' and 'boy those idiots bringing lascannons and multimeltas to the tabletop will sure be sorry when they want to shoot a T5 target with an invulnerable that cancels out the advantage of AP-4 and have to wound on 3s!' and 'my T8 will provide a huge durability advantage as long as nobody brings a S9 or S10 weapon to shoot tanks with!'


Ok, ok. No mas!


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






and hey! TIL GW actually put in YET ANOTHER bolt weapon with the glad reaper - the all-new TEMPEST BOLTER! We've hit 30 bolters folks, everyone punch your cards and bring them to warhammer world, Games Workshop now legally has to give us a free ice cream cone or grande caramel macciato or we get to sue!

"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
Fixture of Dakka





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
@Daedelus: Are you arguing that the Primaris tanks are correctly priced? I'm not one to argue for buffs for anything with "Primaris" in its name, but just combare them with other sm tanks. Compare the various Gladiators to the various Sicarans or Vindicator Laser Destroyer. Compare a 365 PPM Repulsor Executioner to a 360 PPM Land Raider Achilles. The things are overpriced. It's like gw forgot they took FLY away from them.


Not correctly priced, but not so far off and not so useless as to not be worth consideration. I do think tanks should be more imposing in the durability category, but that's a whole other detailed discussion.

Under no circumstances would I take more than one of a type and probably not more than one in total.

   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 the_scotsman wrote:
never change, xeno. I love it when I'm making the comparison between two units and going 'yeah, it looks like because the advantages between this 140pt unit and this 200pt unit are so small, the 200pt unit should really probably be closer to a 160pt, maybe 170pt unit.." and xeno comes in and goes

A HUNDRED POINTS OVERPRICED!!!!!111!!! MAKE THE GLANCER A ONE HUNDRED POINT TANK, GIVE IT THE SAME FIREPOWER AS A RAVAGER PLUS FREE SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGES FOR A FORTY PERCENT DISCOUNT OR MARINES ARE TRASH FOREVER!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also, the glad valiant is 50pts more expensive but at least it has enough firepower to kill god. 11.4 wounds to a standard vehicle outside of melta range - its main problem is just that there aren't that many targets big enough to warrant taking it to one-shot them. I don't know how you honestly balance the Valiant, it's either going to be wildly undercosted if you get it down in the range of a unit of 4 eradicators or wildly overcosted if it can never kill something close to its price (as it is now).
I was refering the the repulsors with those points. The Gladiator variants should be more like 60-40 points less. I don't think the Lancer should be 100 points...That would just be silly. I did literally state the points range they should be in. Lancer 150 - Valliant being 50 points more than a lancer should be 200. That would be a decent place for them.

The main problem with the unit is it dies to easy...T8 offers very little protection. They treat t8 like it is T10...A 5++ goes a long way though and they pretty much toss that out for free.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/14 15:04:50


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 the_scotsman wrote:
Tyel wrote:
As I see it, without minuses to hit, the Lancer has a 5/6*5/6*2/3*2/3*2/3*2/3*1/3=4.57% chance to one-shot a Ravager. Since you have to hit twice, wound twice, and both fail saves and then you need a 5+ on 2D3. The bolters etc would raise this marginally.

Whereas the Ravager has a 6.17% chance to one-shot the lancer as you can get the kill by:
3 hits, 3 wounds=(8/27*1/8)
3 hits 2 wounds, 6 damage=(8/27*3/8*1/9)
2 hits, 2 wounds, 6 damage=(12/27*1/4*1/9).


And again - we are talking about a matchup between a unit that is in the neighborhood of *half* the point cost as our point of comparison. We are talking about a grown adult who can maybe hold his own in a karate championship if he's up against fourteen year olds.

We're all at the same skill level, Jerry!

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

How about we not have a Ravager versus Lancer discussion in the Adeptus Mecahnicus thread?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: