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.

morgoth wrote:


Result: lots of jinked Skimmers with 25% to 75% damage output loss, slightly less damage taken than in v6.

Is it worth it: no.

Huh? GA got a pretty good buff. Overall higher resiliency due to the new vehicle damage table along with Jink buffed to a 4++. GA should always jink if they are threatend as it's a 13% higher chance to not get any damage. You don't really lose out on anything as the GA has very poor weaponry to begin with and the passengers don't get affected by Jink either.

 Sigvatr wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Result: lots of jinked Skimmers with 25% to 75% damage output loss, slightly less damage taken than in v6.

Is it worth it: no.

Huh? GA got a pretty good buff. Overall higher resiliency due to the new vehicle damage table along with Jink buffed to a 4++. GA should always jink if they are threatend as it's a 13% higher chance to not get any damage. You don't really lose out on anything as the GA has very poor weaponry to begin with and the passengers don't get affected by Jink either.

It applies to any Jinking Skimmer.

And I expect GW will FAQ Jink to affect firing from a transport as well, so this little technicality may well be irrelevant pretty soon.

Some units get to ignore Jink, but not cover. Dark Reapers with their big flappy ears can lock onto vehicles with jink, but mostly cannot ignore cover.
So, even though jink has changed, cover is still useful.

Any while we're talking about Eldar skimmers, the Ghost Matrix upgrade is great for providing cover saves. Park in a forest or ruin, and you've got cover from all sides (if you do it right).
The Targetting Array can overcome jink, for that essential 1-shot.

Yeah it sucks a little for Hammerheads and Skyrays, but Markerlights can offset the BS negatives. The Devilfish, however, wasn't going to shoot anyway, so I'll happily Jink with my AV 12, +1 to all cover saves, fearless model with objective secured.

Ok... so for 'shooting skimmers'... IE skimmers that you are using for no other purpose than to shoot things (like fire prisms and land speeders)... the new Jink is a nerf.

Is that all you were trying to point out with this thread? I think that is pretty clear. Originally it seemed like you were saying that Wave Serpents were nerfed. That is what most people were having issues with because they're not nerfed unless you're only using them as gunboats and not the full package.

morgoth wrote:
/quote]

It applies to any Jinking Skimmer.

And I expect GW will FAQ Jink to affect firing from a transport as well, so this little technicality may well be irrelevant pretty soon.

Not sure why GW would react to the wish of one singular player? Do you have tons of money willing to share with GW? :O

Zimko wrote:
Ok... so for 'shooting skimmers'... IE skimmers that you are using for no other purpose than to shoot things (like fire prisms and land speeders)... the new Jink is a nerf.

Is that all you were trying to point out with this thread? I think that is pretty clear. Originally it seemed like you were saying that Wave Serpents were nerfed. That is what most people were having issues with because they're not nerfed unless you're only using them as gunboats and not the full package.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to point out, because there are a few trolls running around the forum pretending that the new Jink is a buff.
If you want to talk about the WS, we can do that in another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

morgoth wrote:
/quote]

It applies to any Jinking Skimmer.

And I expect GW will FAQ Jink to affect firing from a transport as well, so this little technicality may well be irrelevant pretty soon.

Not sure why GW would react to the wish of one singular player? Do you have tons of money willing to share with GW? :O

GW changed the Jink rule to make Shooting Skimmers choose between evasion and damage output.
I don't believe leaving embarked troop DPS unaffected was done on purpose, because that would result in a straight up buff to open-topped Transport Skimmers vs other Transports.
It's like saying : hey this transport is going to miss its shots because it's doing evasive maneuvers, but the troops inside it couldn't care less, they have better targeting systems than any tank out there and are impervious to the rock and rolling.

Assuming you're targeted by a single BS4 lascannon:

An AV10 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 56% of the time without jinking and 28% with jink. My advice would be to jink.

An AV12 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 33% of the time without jink and 17% with jink. Advice is to make a battlefield decision on whether survival or firepower is more important.

An AV13 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 22% of the time without jink and 11% with. Advice is take your chances and don't jink unless absolutely necessary or you have rules that benefit snap shots.

morgoth wrote:

I don't believe leaving embarked troop DPS unaffected was done on purpose, because that would result in a straight up buff to open-topped Transport Skimmers vs other Transports.
It's like saying : hey this transport is going to miss its shots because it's doing evasive maneuvers, but the troops inside it couldn't care less, they have better targeting systems than any tank out there and are impervious to the rock and rolling.

The still lasting +1 on the damage table along with the newly introduced "No Escape" definitely did not do anything to balance that out.

 minigun762 wrote:
Assuming you're targeted by a single BS4 lascannon:

An AV10 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 56% of the time without jinking and 28% with jink. My advice would be to jink.

An AV12 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 33% of the time without jink and 17% with jink. Advice is to make a battlefield decision on whether survival or firepower is more important.

An AV13 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 22% of the time without jink and 11% with. Advice is take your chances and don't jink unless absolutely necessary or you have rules that benefit snap shots.

Excellent, a bit problematic because you did not count the glancing, but there's a lot more to be said about this:

Any Shooting Skimmer that Jinks will lose 25-100% of its DPS.

For the AV10 above, 44%+28% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 44% because it would not have pen anyway, 28% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:72% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV12 above, 67%+17% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 17% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:84% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV13 above, 78%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 78% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:89% Wrong to Jink.
For an AV12 Holofield: , 67%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:78% Wrong to Jink.

The picture is incomplete because we don't have glancing hits on there, but it gives you a good idea.
On the other hand, the Lascannon will have to roll on the damage table, with an AP of 2, that's 33% equal to the Jink debuff, 16% can't move, 16% Weapon Destroyed, 16% Immobilised and 16% Explodes, meaning there are cases where it makes no difference to Jink or not, lowering slightly the % Wrong to Jink.

 some bloke wrote:
here's the thing. a waveserpent "skimmer" behind a ruin is as survivable as it ever was. a rhino sat in the middle of an empty field is as survivable as it ever was (IE not). the problem is that people have gotten so used to their skimmers being able to shout "you can't hit me, I have no wheels!" that they can't accept that a very sensible rules-change to move skimmers away from this god-class of vehicle was actually a very good one.

the new rules mean that oh no, boo-frikken-hoo, you'll have to use cover like the rest of us plebs. the difference is that when a dreadnaught drops in behind you and pops off 2 meltagun shots, you can dance out of the way.
that makes you less effective at shooting. well you should have thought of that before you put the skimmer somewhere it can be outflanked. stop thinking "point and click" and start thinking tactical wargaming.

I have images in my head of a conversation with an incompetant commander:

"Put those skimmers in the open where they can get a good shot!"
"but then they'll be shot at without any cover..."
"nonsense! they'll perform acrobatic manoeuvres to dodge every shot!"
"but won't that make it hard to aim?"
"buh? o.O"

^This.

Remember back in 5th edition where jink didn't exist and your stuff just died? Then 6th hit and let us get free cover saves in the open with no penalty.
Now? We still get those saves in the open, potentially better, but there is a penalty involved with using them. All people see is the penalty, and they completely forget about the days when their skimmers just went BOOM with no save.

Jink if you have to in order to stay alive. Don't if you have high odds of surviving the attack.
And more importantly, dust off your "old strategies" instruction book and use terrain and intervening models to mitigate even needing to jink as much as possible.

omerakk wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
here's the thing. a waveserpent "skimmer" behind a ruin is as survivable as it ever was. a rhino sat in the middle of an empty field is as survivable as it ever was (IE not). the problem is that people have gotten so used to their skimmers being able to shout "you can't hit me, I have no wheels!" that they can't accept that a very sensible rules-change to move skimmers away from this god-class of vehicle was actually a very good one.

the new rules mean that oh no, boo-frikken-hoo, you'll have to use cover like the rest of us plebs. the difference is that when a dreadnaught drops in behind you and pops off 2 meltagun shots, you can dance out of the way.
that makes you less effective at shooting. well you should have thought of that before you put the skimmer somewhere it can be outflanked. stop thinking "point and click" and start thinking tactical wargaming.

I have images in my head of a conversation with an incompetant commander:

"Put those skimmers in the open where they can get a good shot!"
"but then they'll be shot at without any cover..."
"nonsense! they'll perform acrobatic manoeuvres to dodge every shot!"
"but won't that make it hard to aim?"
"buh? o.O"

^This.

Remember back in 5th edition where jink didn't exist and your stuff just died? Then 6th hit and let us get free cover saves in the open with no penalty.
Now? We still get those saves in the open, potentially better, but there is a penalty involved with using them. All people see is the penalty, and they completely forget about the days when their skimmers just went BOOM with no save.

Jink if you have to in order to stay alive. Don't if you have high odds of surviving the attack.
And more importantly, dust off your "old strategies" instruction book and use terrain and intervening models to mitigate even needing to jink as much as possible.

1. In 5th edition you couldn't hit a Skimmer in assault. Jink totally existed by the way. Just that it affected assault rather than shoot, so you had both cover and assault immunity, which was way better than it will ever be again.
2. Nobody says it's not sensible to change the Jink rules.
3. This thread is about confirming the existence and relative impact of the nerf, not whether it made sense, was good for the game, or brought you presents for christmas.

morgoth wrote:

omerakk wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
here's the thing. a waveserpent "skimmer" behind a ruin is as survivable as it ever was. a rhino sat in the middle of an empty field is as survivable as it ever was (IE not). the problem is that people have gotten so used to their skimmers being able to shout "you can't hit me, I have no wheels!" that they can't accept that a very sensible rules-change to move skimmers away from this god-class of vehicle was actually a very good one.

the new rules mean that oh no, boo-frikken-hoo, you'll have to use cover like the rest of us plebs. the difference is that when a dreadnaught drops in behind you and pops off 2 meltagun shots, you can dance out of the way.
that makes you less effective at shooting. well you should have thought of that before you put the skimmer somewhere it can be outflanked. stop thinking "point and click" and start thinking tactical wargaming.

I have images in my head of a conversation with an incompetant commander:

"Put those skimmers in the open where they can get a good shot!"
"but then they'll be shot at without any cover..."
"nonsense! they'll perform acrobatic manoeuvres to dodge every shot!"
"but won't that make it hard to aim?"
"buh? o.O"

^This.

Remember back in 5th edition where jink didn't exist and your stuff just died? Then 6th hit and let us get free cover saves in the open with no penalty.
Now? We still get those saves in the open, potentially better, but there is a penalty involved with using them. All people see is the penalty, and they completely forget about the days when their skimmers just went BOOM with no save.

Jink if you have to in order to stay alive. Don't if you have high odds of surviving the attack.
And more importantly, dust off your "old strategies" instruction book and use terrain and intervening models to mitigate even needing to jink as much as possible.

1. In 5th edition you couldn't hit a Skimmer in assault. Jink totally existed by the way. Just that it affected assault rather than shoot, so you had both cover and assault immunity, which was way better than it will ever be again.
2. Nobody says it's not sensible to change the Jink rules.
3. This thread is about confirming the existence and relative impact of the nerf, not whether it made sense, was good for the game, or brought you presents for christmas.

1. What are you talking about? You could assault skimmers in 5th, it just became more difficult if they moved at top speed, and the only way to get a "jink" save for them back then was to go flat out and forgo your shooting all together.
2. Good, because they changed and these are the rules we play by now.
3. Didn't the new rulebook do a good job confirming this already?

1. in 5th, you had to roll 6 to hit my Skimmers, I moved exactly 12" every single turn, and that was awesome.
2. Definitely.
3. Apparently, some people still think the new Jink is a buff, so a thread is necessary so that curious players can find a reasonable resource on that topic and have at least one alternative to the "Eldar OP WS OP Jink Buff" crowd that seems to do most of the talking on that topic on DakkaDakka.

morgoth wrote:

 minigun762 wrote:
Assuming you're targeted by a single BS4 lascannon:

An AV10 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 56% of the time without jinking and 28% with jink. My advice would be to jink.

An AV12 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 33% of the time without jink and 17% with jink. Advice is to make a battlefield decision on whether survival or firepower is more important.

An AV13 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 22% of the time without jink and 11% with. Advice is take your chances and don't jink unless absolutely necessary or you have rules that benefit snap shots.

Excellent, a bit problematic because you did not count the glancing, but there's a lot more to be said about this:

Any Shooting Skimmer that Jinks will lose 25-100% of its DPS.

For the AV10 above, 44%+28% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 44% because it would not have pen anyway, 28% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:72% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV12 above, 67%+17% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 17% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:84% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV13 above, 78%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 78% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:89% Wrong to Jink.
For an AV12 Holofield: , 67%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:78% Wrong to Jink.

I think the math is a bit off here. By the same logic:
For the AV10 above 56%+72% of the time it will have been the right decision. 56% because it would have pen, 72% because it doesn't pen with the Jink, total: 128%

128% correct to jink + 72% incorrect to jink = 200%

I think you need to divide each of those totals by 2. So jinking is the wrong net decision in terms of taking a penetrating hit <50% of the time in all AV totals.

morgoth wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
landspeeders with flamers take a 100% damage nerf as well, im not complaining though.

If i have to jink i'll just flat out em somewhere they can be of use the next turn.

I don't think anyone's complaining, this thread is mostly about better understanding the implications of the Jink change, which seems to be a straight nerf to shooting skimmers

Thanks for the reminder that the new Jink is a 100% damage nerf on units using template weapons, I had forgotten about that.

It's a nerf to 1 round of shooting. If you roll your cover saves and come up with a fist full of 4's, I'd say it's a boost to shooting. Because, now your alive instead of dead.
If you want to look at the negative effect of jinking, you do need to factor in the positive effect of still being around, possibly for several more turns.
You can't math-hammer that out though, because it's going to depend on what else your opponent has to shoot, and how effectively you can take out those threats with the extra turn(s) that the improved cover save bought you.

Now if you had a high strength multiple shot long range weapon that also ignored cover, it would be a different story... oh wait, somebody does have that.

-Matt

kooshlord wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 minigun762 wrote:
Assuming you're targeted by a single BS4 lascannon:

An AV10 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 56% of the time without jinking and 28% with jink. My advice would be to jink.

An AV12 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 33% of the time without jink and 17% with jink. Advice is to make a battlefield decision on whether survival or firepower is more important.

An AV13 skimmer will take a penetrating hit 22% of the time without jink and 11% with. Advice is take your chances and don't jink unless absolutely necessary or you have rules that benefit snap shots.

Excellent, a bit problematic because you did not count the glancing, but there's a lot more to be said about this:

Any Shooting Skimmer that Jinks will lose 25-100% of its DPS.

For the AV10 above, 44%+28% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 44% because it would not have pen anyway, 28% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:72% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV12 above, 67%+17% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 17% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:84% Wrong to Jink.
For the AV13 above, 78%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 78% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:89% Wrong to Jink.
For an AV12 Holofield: , 67%+11% of the time it will have been the wrong decision. 67% because it would not have pen anyway, 11% because it pens with the Jink anyway, total:78% Wrong to Jink.

I think the math is a bit off here. By the same logic:
For the AV10 above 56%+72% of the time it will have been the right decision. 56% because it would have pen, 72% because it doesn't pen with the Jink, total: 128%

128% correct to jink + 72% incorrect to jink = 200%

I think you need to divide each of those totals by 2. So jinking is the wrong net decision in terms of taking a penetrating hit <50% of the time in all AV totals.

No. It's 56% - 28% which is 28% right, which added to 72% wrong = 100% sample size.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

It's a nerf to 1 round of shooting. If you roll your cover saves and come up with a fist full of 4's, I'd say it's a boost to shooting. Because, now your alive instead of dead.
If you want to look at the negative effect of jinking, you do need to factor in the positive effect of still being around, possibly for several more turns.
You can't math-hammer that out though, because it's going to depend on what else your opponent has to shoot, and how effectively you can take out those threats with the extra turn(s) that the improved cover save bought you.

Now if you had a high strength multiple shot long range weapon that also ignored cover, it would be a different story... oh wait, somebody does have that.

-Matt

It's a nerf to 1 round of shooting if you make use of it.
If you don't make use of it, you have the same damage output as in 6th edition and no Jink save.
If you make use of it, you have 0-75% of your damage output, and a slightly better Jink save.
If you make use of it, you have 100% chance that your opponent will target another unit because he knows you won't be doing much next turn with that one.

Trigger alert: mathhammer

No. It's 56% - 28% which is 28% right, which added to 72% wrong = 100% sample size.

I believe this to be wrong. Your example sums percentages across 2 scenarios (Jink, and didn't jink), and applies the sum as the percentage of a single scenario (wrongness of jinking). Let's expand the example:

BS 4 lascannon vs AV 10
Didn't Jink: 56% penetrated, 44% didn't.
Jink: 28% penetrated, 72% didn't.

Now lets pretend we actually fired 200 times, against a target that jinked exactly 100 shots, and got statistically proportionate results. Of these 200 shots:
Didn't Jink for 100: 56 shots penetrated, 44 shots didn't.
Jinked for 100: 28 shots penetrated, 72 shots didn't.

Using your logic:
44 would not have penetrated (with no jink), + 28 shots penetrated (with a jink) = 72 shots "Wrong to Jink" (of 200 total shots).

72 / 200 = 0.36. Or 36% of the time "wrong to jink". In a situation where you essentially toss a coin to determine if you wanna jink or not.


*EDIT: clarity


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morgoth, please note that I agree with your premise that jinking is worse in 7th than 6th for shooting skimmers. And the stats we are discussing don't consider shooting after the 1st shot at AV 10, or especially return fire in subsequent rounds. This last is most relevant to your premise, I believe.

Really? A nerf? I don't think so. Falcons became more survivable as did vypers. Now I am going to make this about wave serpents because that is what tanks I have in my army. I am one of the people who always take holofields and ghostwalk matrixes on my wave serpents. Those two upgrades make the jink save a moot point in just about every game I have played.

I get a cover save of a 4+ if I can park my serpent in a ruin and obscure 25% of the vehicle from whoever is firing at it. Holo fields bring that to a 3+. I still have full firepower from my serpent.

This kind of cover has been available in every single tournament i have attended. On the very rare occasion when i have been completely in the open, the serpent has done its job and can now deliver its payload.

The so called nerf has literally changed nothing with wave serpents if you use them properly. You rarely if ever have to jink.

With proper target priority and proper movement of your serpents, the jink just doesn't happen often enough to be a concern.

What jink has done is made Hemlock Wraithfighters and Crimson Hunters far more survivable.

Now, if something does happen where one of my serpents has to jink and you as my opponent change targets to another serpent instead of destroying the one forced to jink then in my experience it has been a very bad decision on the part of my opponent.

Live wave serpents are incredibly dangerous, wether they are snap firing or not. They are still going to be able to shoot. They still have a deadly payload. They can still Tank Shock. They can still Ram. They can move fast enough to use surround the enemy and make them break and be destroyed by the "Trapped! rule tactics.Tank shocking will still cause enemy units to be forced off of objectives. It will also bunch them up, ready for eldar wraithguard with d-scythes to come in and kill large portions of them.

In my opinion the jink is not a nerf at all, especially when looking at the big picture.

The scenario you gave of the enemy forcing all of an enemy's skimmers to jink seems unlikely considering what i have just written above. I think most people know better than to let them live.

Wave serpents can get their kink up to a 3+ with holofields or 2+ with shrouding from a nearby telepathy.

Wave serpents are objective secured unit in 7th ed. Back in 6e they could not score even with troops inside.

Eldar are regarded by many to be the most competitive 7e army with jet bikes and serpents being some of the best troops in the game .

morgoth wrote:

Let's not drift to Eldar or Wave Serpent people, this topic is Jink in 7th Edition, why it's a nerf.

You are the only person on Dakka who seems to think that Jink got nerfed in 7th.

Jink is massively buffed for three units that are now disgustingly good: Wave Serpents, which are universally regarded as OP for reasons already stated (you alone seem to think otherwise), Annihilation Barges, that don't really care about Snap Firing because when they hit you on a 6 with their bowl of twin linked shots, they get additional hits, and Command Barges that never planned on shooting at you in the first place.

What it does for Land Speeders and other skimmers, nobody really cares because nobody was complaining about OP Land Speeders in 6th edition.

Jefffar wrote:
Yeah it sucks a little for Hammerheads and Skyrays, but Markerlights can offset the BS negatives. The Devilfish, however, wasn't going to shoot anyway, so I'll happily Jink with my AV 12, +1 to all cover saves, fearless model with objective secured.

I just tried the Fish with a couple FW squads today for the first time in quite a long while. My conclusion, new edition is awesome for transports. 3+ cover save? Yes please. Can't wait until I get the chance to jink with my Barracuda and claim a 2+ cover save on a flier (assuming my opponents let me live the dream and I actually have some markerlights left by the time it shows up). Disruption pods aren't quite as broken as they were in the last codex, but they are pretty dang awesome.

Also, Skyrays got a terrible deal with the new codex anyway. Losing our ability to fire like fast vehicles was a pretty big kick in the jimmy for all our tanks. Now if you want your ray to do anything at all the only solution is to keep it stationary, short of expending ridiculous amounts of markerlights on a platform that's really not supposed to require any external marker support.

The changes to jink are a nerf that IS DESERVED!!!! I used to take constant 4+ saves on my hammerhead on top of av13 front armor that was always towards my foes. Imagine if you will, a predator tank with a 4+ invulnerable save. The irony here is the new addition actually buffed the save I can get off of jink and made it very available. I won't be using it anymore of course, since hugging cover makes for a much better option.

My devilfish are fething great at their transport and capture roles, and still do the dirty in the shooting phase, I just have to pick which I need; the vehicle there in one piece or the vehicle spitting out semi-plasma and rockets.

Skimmer cheese is dead and burried, and I piss on its grave. As far as letting open topped units have full bs, think of how the change effects Dark Eldar transports. They almost have to jink, so letting their main form of fire be maintained doesn't bother me as much since the damn things die to my fire warriors. While only putting out anti infantry dakkaspam. Considering that they trade random exploding on the damage table for the ability to fire infantry spam, I'm none too bothered.

Always use cover shenanigans, though shenanigans isn't the best term since keeping your vehicles behind cover but for weapons is a staple of mechanized warfare.

The jink change is not a buff nor a nerf.

Some gain from it, some lose from it.

The biggest losers are the guys with blast guns, line guns, etc (anything you cant snap-fire). the biggest winners are the "i don't care about shooting" guys and the TLtesla necron things.

Anything that is twin-linked and low BS took a small hit, nothing major. anything high BS non-twin-linked took a big hit.

Repends on the skimmer really.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Jink is not cover (at least I saw no indication it was 'As cover' but I'm still reading the rules) so the cover save is an either/or situation. since most of the time you'll have a 5+, jink is better.

Ignore cover weapons sadly don't cut it agasint jink in that case.

You may want to be more familiar with the rules before quoting them wrong and trying to correct others with bad info.

kooshlord wrote:
Trigger alert: mathhammer

No. It's 56% - 28% which is 28% right, which added to 72% wrong = 100% sample size.

I believe this to be wrong. Your example sums percentages across 2 scenarios (Jink, and didn't jink), and applies the sum as the percentage of a single scenario (wrongness of jinking). Let's expand the example:

BS 4 lascannon vs AV 10
Didn't Jink: 56% penetrated, 44% didn't.
Jink: 28% penetrated, 72% didn't.

Now lets pretend we actually fired 200 times, against a target that jinked exactly 100 shots, and got statistically proportionate results. Of these 200 shots:
Didn't Jink for 100: 56 shots penetrated, 44 shots didn't.
Jinked for 100: 28 shots penetrated, 72 shots didn't.

Using your logic:
44 would not have penetrated (with no jink), + 28 shots penetrated (with a jink) = 72 shots "Wrong to Jink" (of 200 total shots).

72 / 200 = 0.36. Or 36% of the time "wrong to jink". In a situation where you essentially toss a coin to determine if you wanna jink or not.


*EDIT: clarity


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morgoth, please note that I agree with your premise that jinking is worse in 7th than 6th for shooting skimmers. And the stats we are discussing don't consider shooting after the 1st shot at AV 10, or especially return fire in subsequent rounds. This last is most relevant to your premise, I believe.

You're still wrong... let me explain:

44% of the time there is no danger, so Jinking is a bad thing.
56% of the time however, there is danger, so Jinking should be a good thing.
Unfortunately, since Jink is considered a 50% save, Jink will only protect you 28% of the time (half of 56%) and not protect you the other 28% (half of 56%), which means you took a debuff for no reason.

Together, Jink is a bad idea 72% of the time because it results in getting a debuff although danger is not real 44% of the time or danger could not be avoided another 28% of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Really? A nerf? I don't think so. Falcons became more survivable as did vypers. Now I am going to make this about wave serpents because that is what tanks I have in my army. I am one of the people who always take holofields and ghostwalk matrixes on my wave serpents. Those two upgrades make the jink save a moot point in just about every game I have played.

I get a cover save of a 4+ if I can park my serpent in a ruin and obscure 25% of the vehicle from whoever is firing at it. Holo fields bring that to a 3+. I still have full firepower from my serpent.

This kind of cover has been available in every single tournament i have attended. On the very rare occasion when i have been completely in the open, the serpent has done its job and can now deliver its payload.

The so called nerf has literally changed nothing with wave serpents if you use them properly. You rarely if ever have to jink.

With proper target priority and proper movement of your serpents, the jink just doesn't happen often enough to be a concern.

What jink has done is made Hemlock Wraithfighters and Crimson Hunters far more survivable.

Now, if something does happen where one of my serpents has to jink and you as my opponent change targets to another serpent instead of destroying the one forced to jink then in my experience it has been a very bad decision on the part of my opponent.

Live wave serpents are incredibly dangerous, wether they are snap firing or not. They are still going to be able to shoot. They still have a deadly payload. They can still Tank Shock. They can still Ram. They can move fast enough to use surround the enemy and make them break and be destroyed by the "Trapped! rule tactics.Tank shocking will still cause enemy units to be forced off of objectives. It will also bunch them up, ready for eldar wraithguard with d-scythes to come in and kill large portions of them.

In my opinion the jink is not a nerf at all, especially when looking at the big picture.

The scenario you gave of the enemy forcing all of an enemy's skimmers to jink seems unlikely considering what i have just written above. I think most people know better than to let them live.

I think you don't understand this game, and will feel the pain as soon as somebody actually switches targets against you, which is by very far the smartest and best strategy against Wave Serpent in 7th edition and provably so.

Nobody said WS were turned to gak or became useless, and if you like to spend another 10 points for GW matrixes and your boards have space for 4+ WS in Ruins where you want them, good for you bro.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Wave serpents can get their kink up to a 3+ with holofields or 2+ with shrouding from a nearby telepathy.

Wave serpents are objective secured unit in 7th ed. Back in 6e they could not score even with troops inside.

Eldar are regarded by many to be the most competitive 7e army with jet bikes and serpents being some of the best troops in the game .

Not talking about Eldar, talking about how 7th ed Jink change is a nerf to shooting Skimmers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Let's not drift to Eldar or Wave Serpent people, this topic is Jink in 7th Edition, why it's a nerf.

You are the only person on Dakka who seems to think that Jink got nerfed in 7th.

Jink is massively buffed for three units that are now disgustingly good: Wave Serpents, which are universally regarded as OP for reasons already stated (you alone seem to think otherwise), Annihilation Barges, that don't really care about Snap Firing because when they hit you on a 6 with their bowl of twin linked shots, they get additional hits, and Command Barges that never planned on shooting at you in the first place.

What it does for Land Speeders and other skimmers, nobody really cares because nobody was complaining about OP Land Speeders in 6th edition.

Go read my first post in this thread, then discuss on that when you understand its contents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The changes to jink are a nerf that IS DESERVED!!!! I used to take constant 4+ saves on my hammerhead on top of av13 front armor that was always towards my foes. Imagine if you will, a predator tank with a 4+ invulnerable save. The irony here is the new addition actually buffed the save I can get off of jink and made it very available. I won't be using it anymore of course, since hugging cover makes for a much better option.

My devilfish are fething great at their transport and capture roles, and still do the dirty in the shooting phase, I just have to pick which I need; the vehicle there in one piece or the vehicle spitting out semi-plasma and rockets.

Skimmer cheese is dead and burried, and I piss on its grave. As far as letting open topped units have full bs, think of how the change effects Dark Eldar transports. They almost have to jink, so letting their main form of fire be maintained doesn't bother me as much since the damn things die to my fire warriors. While only putting out anti infantry dakkaspam. Considering that they trade random exploding on the damage table for the ability to fire infantry spam, I'm none too bothered.

Always use cover shenanigans, though shenanigans isn't the best term since keeping your vehicles behind cover but for weapons is a staple of mechanized warfare.

Yes, that nerf is probably deserved, and cover always was better in any edition so it doesn't change the whole world.
DE transports have a 5++ , they're a very special case. And their infantry has Haywire blasters, very special case again.

Anyway, let's just stay on topic and focus on the extent of the impact of that nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
The jink change is not a buff nor a nerf.

Some gain from it, some lose from it.

The biggest losers are the guys with blast guns, line guns, etc (anything you cant snap-fire). the biggest winners are the "i don't care about shooting" guys and the TLtesla necron things.

Anything that is twin-linked and low BS took a small hit, nothing major. anything high BS non-twin-linked took a big hit.

Depends on the skimmer really.

There's a whole explanation saying all Skimmers lose between 25%-100% of their firepower for Jinking, explaining the impact of that change on enemy tactics, mobility and overall resilience, and that's all you can come up with ?
Even for Necrons it's a nerf, albeit small.

morgoth wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Wave serpents can get their kink up to a 3+ with holofields or 2+ with shrouding from a nearby telepathy.

Wave serpents are objective secured unit in 7th ed. Back in 6e they could not score even with troops inside.

Eldar are regarded by many to be the most competitive 7e army with jet bikes and serpents being some of the best troops in the game .

Not talking about Eldar, talking about how 7th ed Jink change is a nerf to shooting Skimmers.

Alrightie then.

Wave serpents=better
Annihilation barges=better
Ghost arks=better
Fish o Fury=better

Sky rays=about the same. They usually hide out of LOS anyways.
Land speeder storms=about the same. Gain some and lose some, their main job is to stay alive as an objective secured unit and transport scouts.

Land speeders=worse
Hammerheads=worse
Fire Prisms=worse

So the most important skimmers for Eldar, Tau, and Necrons got better and the less important skimmers got worse. Sure 7th ed screwed with the internal balance of 3 codex, but the external balance is now better.

lets look at it this way, based not on mathhammer but the general way this works. as mathhammer only works when applied en-masse like kooshlord used with 200 lascannons, it's generally quite irrellevant.

if you jink and save it, you lose X% damage output for 1 turn.

if you don't jink, the shot gets through and explodes you, you lose 100% damage output, mobility, threat level, and LOS blocking capabilities of the vehicle for all subsequent turns.

using mathhammer about a single lascannon shot basically says "statistically it won't hit, so don't jink". I should use the same logic with my battlewagons and reverse them up the field, because by mathhammer none of his guns, individually, should hit. as anyone who's played warhammer in the real world knows, though, individual lascannons can hit. they can one-shot a landraider, given a good roll. that's why a savvy player uses cover.

frankly though, if you put your skimmer in clear view of a lascannon, don't expect sympathy when you complain about jink being worse.

 schadenfreude wrote:
=better

Yes, well, maybe you want to bring some logic to back up your conclusions, something that we can use to understand your complex point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
lets look at it this way, based not on mathhammer but the general way this works. as mathhammer only works when applied en-masse like kooshlord used with 200 lascannons, it's generally quite irrellevant.

if you jink and save it, you lose X% damage output for 1 turn.

if you don't jink, the shot gets through and explodes you, you lose 100% damage output, mobility, threat level, and LOS blocking capabilities of the vehicle for all subsequent turns.

using mathhammer about a single lascannon shot basically says "statistically it won't hit, so don't jink". I should use the same logic with my battlewagons and reverse them up the field, because by mathhammer none of his guns, individually, should hit. as anyone who's played warhammer in the real world knows, though, individual lascannons can hit. they can one-shot a landraider, given a good roll. that's why a savvy player uses cover.

frankly though, if you put your skimmer in clear view of a lascannon, don't expect sympathy when you complain about jink being worse.

Then you take my Eldar Mech, I take your army, I force you to jink all of your things, and I table you.

morgoth wrote:

Then you take my Eldar Mech, I take your army, I force you to jink all of your things, and I table you.

I'll take that challenge up. you bring my orks, and I'll bring mech eldar. here's how it'll go:

Morgoth: "My lootas are shooting at that waveserpent, do you want to jink?"

me: "Well, as I'm a clever player and have put my vehicle in cover behind a ruin, no, I don't need to."

and that response would be the same regardless of what army you brought against me if I had mech eldar.

so in reality, it's not a nerf, it's just changed, and you have to put some thought into your actions rather than relying on simply being able to survive anything by virtue of being a few feet off the ground.

and I have played my armies against mech eldar, and forced all 4 waveserpents to jink for the first 3 turns. by turn 4, the rest of his army (oh look, list synergy rather than reliance on one type of unit) had focussed on the lootas and the threat was gone! turn 4 he still had 2 waveserpents left which promptly ruined me. and I only killed 2 of them because I had a trukk-rush and charged in with powerklaws and 44 S4 attacks. so please don't claim that jinking will cause you to be tabled. it's a ludicrous assumption based on people trying to run a 6th edition army in 7th, with 6th edition tactics. any normal vehicle left in the open has less chance of survival than a skimmer. a skimmer in 6th in the open has less chance of survival than a skimmer in 7th. it isn't a nerf. in terms of survivability, skimmers are twice as durable than non-skimmers. but a skimmer in cover is as durable as a non-skimmer in cover.

tactics dear boy, tactics.