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.

Players always ask "is x unit good?" or "is Y upgrade bad?" They receive answers, which are usually, on the whole, pretty solid and correct. But I feel that there should be a better way of framing the discussion.

In many cases, threads become dominated by discussions over how a unit excels in a particular area, or fails in another, which enhances or limits it's overall value. A classic example of this, and the motivation for my thread, was this discussion on whirlwinds: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/381585.page

Now, it's hard to argue that there are ways a skilled player can use whirlwinds successfully. But... most players seem to acknowledge that they're still not a great unit, no matter how cleverly they can be used.

The answer of course, is that "quality," how "good" a unit is, is pretty ill defined. I think that good players know what it is intrinsically, but I'm hoping to articulate it a bit so that more players can understand what makes a good 40k unit "good."

Unit quality has many dimensions, but there are three that I feel are most important.

The first is the range of targets that the unit can realistically hurt. You can shoot a heavy bolter at a land raider, or a lascannon at termagants, but the former can't do any damage at all, while the latter will often do less damage than a bolter. The more things that the unit can target with a straight face, the more useful it is.

The second, not shockingly, is how much damage the unit will generally do to that range of targets. This will vary, of course, but even two weapons designed for roughly the same task will have very different effectiveness. Compare the lascannon to the melta gun: both are anti-tank weapons, but the lascannon is better against things 6+ inches away, while the melta game is far more effective against things close in.

I focus on realistic chances of damage because it's easier, although you could certainly think of the first axis as the total range of targets in 40k: unit types, armor values, armor save ranges, toughness values, cover, range, line of sight, etc. The second axis is how effective the unit is against every single one of those targets. So the Devilfish is actually really good against light infantry out of line of sight, but poor against all ranges of armor. It doesn't always make sense to include every single target type in every analysis (lootas are very bad against monoliths... ok?) but the overall idea is to create a (clearly estimated) two dimensional graph, with the total area increasing based on either a unit being very good against some targets, or decent against a bunch. This combination of utility and effectiveness is essentially how "powerful" a unit is.

The first axis, though, is weighted, with more length given to common targets (AV11, MEQs, non-MEQ in cover), and far less to rare targets (mulit-wound toughness 3 models, 2+ armor with FnP)

So, with this in mind, we can see why the autocannon (and similar weapons like lootas and hive guard) are so valuable: they are very good against one of broadest targets: rhinos.

Likewise, anything with missiles is good because they are really good against two broad ranges: AV10-12, and MEQs. They also are pretty damn decent against hordes.

So, why aren't missile launchers ubiquitous? At least, outside of Space Wolves? The answer lay in the third dimension: cost. Every unit and upgrade has a cost associated with it, both in terms of points spent (actual costs), and other options passed up (opportunity cost). So, even a "free" upgrade like trading BP/CCW for a bolter has a cost: the value of whatever you give up. Once you start spending points on a unit, you not only give up whatever else in the army you could buy with those points, but also the other choices in the FOC slot.

So, you add a third dimension, and now your blob area gains thickness. The lower the cost, the greater the cost dimension runs. A low cost troop is simply more valuable than a pricey heavy support option.

This explains why space wolf long fangs are a top notch unit, BA devastators are very good, while codex: SM devs are decent. Roughly the same unit, but the lower the cost, the better they become.


This process clearly has both subjectivity and regional variation built in. If you have three nid players at your shop, MCs become a larger target band, making weapons that excel against those more powerful, increasing their quality despite no change in cost or effectiveness.

Subjectivity comes in because we all rate the prevalence and discern the bands of targets a little differently. The classic example is the meltagun: easily the most effective weapon against high AV, but how common is high AV at close range? If you can get within close range, that changes the situation, but there's a reason meltas are more common on speeders and in pods, and less common paired with lascannons (even though both are great against armor!)

So, when you look at an upgrade, consider all three factors. Compare lascannons to Missile launchers in a space marine tactical squad. Both are equally effective against MEQs, but the LC is better against AV, dramatically better against 2+ saves, and substantially worse against hordes. As a free upgrade, I think it's a no-brainer. But... at 10pts? Look at the opportunity cost: 10pts buys a combi-melta. The over all quality of the tactical squad with ML is higher than the LC. Now, if you're list can't use those 10pts, and the Opportunity cost drops? Well, than the value goes up, as does the quality.

This analysis doesn't include a lot of factors, such as ability to score, buffs given to other units, the value of disruption, the ability to be a sacrificial unit, etc. But as an analysis of "line" units that are expected to fight, I think this should give some insight into why some units are superior to others.

A nice starting point. It's a very broad area, and your final sentence makes brief mention of some very important factors, too.

Yeah, it's clearly a rough expression so far of the idea. I don't want to oversell the quantitative aspect, as it's still pretty subjective, but I think that realizing that quality isn't a single dimension is a good first step.

I worry that all I'm doing is telling good players what they already know.

I fully agree to your core thought. However, all your dimensions still center around damage and I think that other uses of a unit have to be considered as well. Take pinning for example: if I manage to pin a unit it loses a full turn. This allows me to bring my cc units into position, to bring more distance between my shooters and that unit or to just unload anther turn of fire onto it. While the pinning unit itself may have not inflicted much damage it might have enabled my other units to do so in a better way. An example from my view is the Eldar Night Spinner. The unit itself will not win you a game, but it can greatly assist in doing so e.g. by keeping enemy cc units away from you for a longer time.

Murenius wrote:I fully agree to your core thought. However, all your dimensions still center around damage and I think that other uses of a unit have to be considered as well. Take pinning for example: if I manage to pin a unit it loses a full turn. This allows me to bring my cc units into position, to bring more distance between my shooters and that unit or to just unload anther turn of fire onto it. While the pinning unit itself may have not inflicted much damage it might have enabled my other units to do so in a better way. An example from my view is the Eldar Night Spinner. The unit itself will not win you a game, but it can greatly assist in doing so e.g. by keeping enemy cc units away from you for a longer time.

The problem with pinning is that it isn't anything even remotely reliable. Most armies have a LD of 8-10, making failed pinning checks quite rare. This is especially true of assault squads, which almost always are LD9 or fearless. How are you going to value something that just doesn't happen all that often, especially since most armies can't bring a large number of weapons that can kill a model (to trigger the pin check) and have enough separate platforms to force multiple checks?

In the case of the nightspinner, its real use it forcing difficult terrain tests on its target. The dangerous terrain stuff can be ignored (with resulting slight casualties). Most skilled players will just laugh it off and accept it as the price of doing business.

Those were just examples for effects influencing the enemy without killing it. After all you could even see "place a cheap unit in the way of the enemy to keep him killing it for a turn or two while the more important units do their job unmolested" as such a use for a unit. Hell, any unit soaking fire without killing any other unit can be valuable. That's all I wanted to point out, not the use of individual effects

Ah, a better example might have been the use of infiltration units to block scout movements, or the use of cheap skimmers to block the movement of even land raiders (try to ram it, it will dodge. Try to kill it, it turbo boosted).

Ah yes, thanks, those are more efficient examples of what I meant

Thank you, Polonius. I've only been playing a few months now and this is one of the more intelligent and informative ways to value a unit I've found.

Not to say that there aren't others, but this is very helpful.

So, why aren't missile launchers ubiquitous? At least, outside of Space Wolves?

Missile Launcher dev squads and havoc squads are worth their cost in points. It's not dev squads and havoc squads that are over priced, it's long fangs that are underpriced. They work great against transports, light mech, medium mech, MEQ, 3 wound MEQ HQ units, any other 3 wound model with T4, and are one of the best possible solutions for when dealing with T6 3+ MC. Dev squads are a good solid HS choice. The only reason missles launchers are not ubiquitous outside a space puppies list is players get hung up on the fact that space wolves get them even cheaper.

A fourth dimension is survivability:

For instance 10 CSM with 2 plasma rifles costs in @180 points. But a chaos player has two other options that are easily available - death guard where you can field 7 with 2 plasma rifles for around the same cost and gain T5 and FNP or say 2 obliterators for a little less and have 2+/5++ armor and two wounds.

If you know your opponent is going to pack a lot of S8 and AP 2 stuff the death guard is the wrong choice and then probably the oblits. OTOH if you are expecting a lot of volume of fire, the FNP and T5 is probably worth its weight in gold.

I think there's definitely a dimension being left out. Namely: Survivability.

A squad of IG Vets might have an a high chance of damaging their intended target, for very little cost, but if they're footslogging, they'll never get the chance.

You could say that the cost of a chimera should be included, but then you're talking about two different unit, once that costs about a 100 and the other that costs about 170. Without survivability factored in, then according to the cubic formula, the vets outside of a chimera should be superior.

Edit: Ninja'd

A no-brainer example of survivability is the proliferation of
Assault Terminators.

On paper, standard termies should be better, access to CML & Assault Cannons as well as 8-10 stormbolter shots and they still pack a punch with all the power fists. However for same or cheaper cost you get the added effects of thunderhammer hits and most importantly the 3++ save of the stormshield. With the proliferation of S8+ AP2 shots in most armies due to anti-vehicle needs, the 3++ save of an assault terminator trumps the added ranged lethality of standard terminators.

On paper, standard termies should be better, access to CML & Assault Cannons as well as 8-10 stormbolter shots and they still pack a punch with all the power fists.

Why? This is warhammer 40k. The quickest way to win a gunfight is to bring a knife. Assault terminators have a bigger knife.

Seriously though, and this is something I did not see in the original post is a major consideration: Durability. The opposite of your OP. Breaching a door with the best marksman and rifle in the universe means absolutely nothing if he takes two rounds to the aorta before he can fire it.

This is why people choose ATs over tactical terminators. It isn't that the firepower is bad, it's the 5++ save that tactical terminators get stuck with. 5++ is not a reliable save, and it gets less so when there are multiple incoming wounds or null zone effects in play. When you consider the fact that power weapons and rending effects are showing up on more and more common units, and in quantity, the picture gets even worse. Another matter is that by default you cannot NOT have a power fist. You are stuck with a poor invulnerable save, an environment rich in armor ignoring weaponry, and in CC the lowest initiative possible on a very expensive model. This is a recipe for disaster.

You will notice that with armies like Deathwing and Loganwing, it is frequently a mix and match of the previously mentioned stormshield terminators to provide durability, and the heavy terminator weapons for their offensive capability.

On top of all of this, is the land raider. It has mobility and this almost totally covers the shortcomings of a 100% assault terminator squadron (Lack of reach). 24 inch range on the majority of tactical terminators firepower, versus a 20 inch CC threat range out of the land raider, that will hit much harder when it arrives. You could of course pop TacTs out of the raider and shoot for additional range...but rarely has that sort of thing been an issue. 24/48 is really not that bad.

This isn't just an example of increased durability causing a "no-brainer" pick situation. This is an example of a situation where one choices "advantages" become superfluous in almost every situation due to increased durability, AND comparable reach, AND a target spectrum at least as wide.

schadenfreude wrote:

So, why aren't missile launchers ubiquitous? At least, outside of Space Wolves?

Missile Launcher dev squads and havoc squads are worth their cost in points. It's not dev squads and havoc squads that are over priced, it's long fangs that are underpriced. They work great against transports, light mech, medium mech, MEQ, 3 wound MEQ HQ units, any other 3 wound model with T4, and are one of the best possible solutions for when dealing with T6 3+ MC. Dev squads are a good solid HS choice. The only reason missles launchers are not ubiquitous outside a space puppies list is players get hung up on the fact that space wolves get them even cheaper.

I don't have a problem with your assertion that vanilla Marine Dev squads are a solid choice. I do have a problem with your argument in the beginning of the paragraph. It seems to me that you're treating the value of a point as something absolute. Point costs are prices, and absolute prices are inherently meaningless; relative prices are all that matter. As an example, suppose the US government decided to add 3 zeroes to the value of all US money tomorrow, including cash, bank accounts, the value of stocks, everything. Nothing material has changed. The dollar in your pocket is now worth $1000, but still buys the same amount of stuff. Since (point) prices in 40k seem to decrease over time, it's probably more accurate to say that vanilla Devs are overpriced than Long Fangs are underpriced, as the Space Wolves codex is newer, and thus more closely reflects the likely price level for the next few years than the old C:SM.

As for the original post, as I see it, the arguments over unit quality stem from the inherent difficulty of reducing a multi-dimensional vector of unit attributes (Profile, weapons, cost, special rules, etc.) onto general quality, which is a one-dimensional thing. This is always going to be tough, because such mappings (in Economics, we call them utility functions) need to satisfy very few conditions to be considered rational. Even if we only care about winning, there's enough uncertainty as to what strategies lead to winning (due to different metas, different playstyles, etc.) for agreement to be difficult. To really have an objective argument, the participants need to agree on a lot of assumptions, which is difficult, and the assumptions probably won't hold anyway.

Math nerd point: Calling the orignal poster's model a cubic model is a misuse of notation. A cubic model would imply that unit quality is a cubic polynomial in unit attributes, that is, it is a polynomial with the highest order terms being of exponent 3.

So, why aren't missile launchers ubiquitous? At least, outside of Space Wolves?

They are, just not on devastators. For 30 points more than 4 ML devs, I get a pair of typhoon speeders. These get 4 ML shots a turn. They can also move. They cannot be locked in combat by a lone termagant. They provide even better anti infantry firepower in the form of 4 frag missiles and 6 heavy bolter shots. The additional 30 points for their mobility and additional potential firepower make them well worth it.

You are correct, in a vacuum 4 ML devs are a solid choice, you are also correct in that the costs are compared to what else you could buy with the FOC slot. In the case of codex and BA, the predators and vindicators offer a very comparable amount of firepower, with advantages lumped on...such as the ability to move and fire -something.-

It might be more useful to simplify the model even further.

Making the model composed of:

1. Offensive Value
This would include the range of targets, how capable the unit is at taking out those targets, and how easy it is to get the unit into a position to engage it's target. You'd be essentially rolling Range of Viable Targets, and Damage to Intended Target into the same value.

2. Defensive Value
How tough a unit is to be destroyed or countered. It could include things like how tough it is to actually kill the unit and abilities that make it easier to avoid unwanted enemy engagements. This could include not only wounds toughness and cover saves, but things that allow you to stay out of range like long ranged weapons or high maneuverability.

3. Cost
This could be describe as multiple factors as well. There isn't just the point cost in the army list but the opportunity cost. One elite choice might be really good, but I have to consider the other elite choice that I might want to put in that same slot.

Certain factors might fit into more then one category. For example a fast vehicle can not only close with the enemy quickly, it can also get away from the enemy quickly if it needs too.

And the model would only be capable of determining the value of a unit in a relative vacuum. It might tell you that a Vendetta is an excellent choice, but a vendetta might be a very inappropriate choice if you're running a an all foot list.

Excellent musings. A quality thread.

SOFDC wrote:

So, why aren't missile launchers ubiquitous? At least, outside of Space Wolves?

They are, just not on devastators. For 30 points more than 4 ML devs, I get a pair of typhoon speeders. These get 4 ML shots a turn. They can also move. They cannot be locked in combat by a lone termagant. They provide even better anti infantry firepower in the form of 4 frag missiles and 6 heavy bolter shots. The additional 30 points for their mobility and additional potential firepower make them well worth it.

You are correct, in a vacuum 4 ML devs are a solid choice, you are also correct in that the costs are compared to what else you could buy with the FOC slot. In the case of codex and BA, the predators and vindicators offer a very comparable amount of firepower, with advantages lumped on...such as the ability to move and fire -something.-

10/10/10 vehicles with that kind of firepower in a squadron are glass cannons. Experienced players will quickly gun them down.

BA dev squads can gain FNP from a nearby priest, and they are less expensive than codex ML.

Devs definitely have their downsides, but they have their upsides too.

The only stand out all stars I see in a codex chapter are the null zone librarian, TH/SS termies, and Vulcan. Most of the units in the book are useful, but few units stand out as exceptional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrEconomics wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

So, why aren't missile launchers ubiquitous? At least, outside of Space Wolves?

Missile Launcher dev squads and havoc squads are worth their cost in points. It's not dev squads and havoc squads that are over priced, it's long fangs that are underpriced. They work great against transports, light mech, medium mech, MEQ, 3 wound MEQ HQ units, any other 3 wound model with T4, and are one of the best possible solutions for when dealing with T6 3+ MC. Dev squads are a good solid HS choice. The only reason missles launchers are not ubiquitous outside a space puppies list is players get hung up on the fact that space wolves get them even cheaper.

I don't have a problem with your assertion that vanilla Marine Dev squads are a solid choice. I do have a problem with your argument in the beginning of the paragraph. It seems to me that you're treating the value of a point as something absolute. Point costs are prices, and absolute prices are inherently meaningless; relative prices are all that matter. As an example, suppose the US government decided to add 3 zeroes to the value of all US money tomorrow, including cash, bank accounts, the value of stocks, everything. Nothing material has changed. The dollar in your pocket is now worth $1000, but still buys the same amount of stuff. Since (point) prices in 40k seem to decrease over time, it's probably more accurate to say that vanilla Devs are overpriced than Long Fangs are underpriced, as the Space Wolves codex is newer, and thus more closely reflects the likely price level for the next few years than the old C:SM.

As for the original post, as I see it, the arguments over unit quality stem from the inherent difficulty of reducing a multi-dimensional vector of unit attributes (Profile, weapons, cost, special rules, etc.) onto general quality, which is a one-dimensional thing. This is always going to be tough, because such mappings (in Economics, we call them utility functions) need to satisfy very few conditions to be considered rational. Even if we only care about winning, there's enough uncertainty as to what strategies lead to winning (due to different metas, different playstyles, etc.) for agreement to be difficult. To really have an objective argument, the participants need to agree on a lot of assumptions, which is difficult, and the assumptions probably won't hold anyway.

Math nerd point: Calling the orignal poster's model a cubic model is a misuse of notation. A cubic model would imply that unit quality is a cubic polynomial in unit attributes, that is, it is a polynomial with the highest order terms being of exponent 3.

There are multiple criteria to measure the quality of a unit, here are my top 10:

1)Cost
2)Firepower
3)CC killing power
4)Durability when shot
5)Durability in CC
6)Vulnerability to common weapons in the meta, or lack thereof
7)Speed, or lack thereof
8)Ability of the controlling player to use the unit to it's fullest potential, or lack thereof.
9)Ability of the other side to exploit weaknesses of the unit, or lack of weaknesses
10)Force multiplier

In the end the final measure of quality is everything combined relative to the unit's point cost. I completely disagree with your dismissal of cost and the primary measurement of a unit's quality, and economic principles are not always the most relevant theories to apply to 40k. A player's supply of points is finite, and no economic principle will give a player more or less points. The closest you can argue to players getting more or less points would be to say that if points were a currency then codex creep has it in a deflation cycle; the same number of points will buy more in next year's codex. I would however argue that 6 out of 7 of the 5th ed codex are top tier competitive in a tournament, and the only book regarded as a slacker is tyranids (which I believe is still competitive). GW appears to be attempting to bring all 5th ed codex in line with other 5th ed codex, and while the codex creep of the initial 5th ed books seemed downright shocking it has slowed to the point where early 5th ed books like IG are still competitive with new 5th ed books like DE or GK. GW learned a bitter lesson from WHFB when an out of control codex creep made vampire counts and chaos deamons unstoppable to the point where tournaments had to implement comp rules and many players quit WHFB.

Anyhow points are absolute. Both sides always have equal access to the same number of points, and the seven 5th ed books are well balanced when played against each other.

10/10/10 vehicles with that kind of firepower in a squadron are glass cannons. Experienced players will quickly gun them down.

And? Largely immobile, CC inept weapons teams like devastators are squads that are begging to be podded, outflanked, or otherwise rushed. You pick your poison and take your chances. For me, the extra 30 points to position the weapons on the fly to deny opponents models a cover save is well spent.

Back in ye olde times where devastator firepower was a bit more effective due to flimsier vehicle damage tables, and 5+ or 6+ cover being the norm, as well as when they were priced according to their performance, I was an advocate of them. I cannot say that the premium for foot based heavy weapons still holds my attention.

I really like this way of thinking. It puts you in the right frame of mind when picking units to take.

schadenfreude wrote:

So, why aren't missile launchers ubiquitous? At least, outside of Space Wolves?

Missile Launcher dev squads and havoc squads are worth their cost in points. It's not dev squads and havoc squads that are over priced, it's long fangs that are underpriced. They work great against transports, light mech, medium mech, MEQ, 3 wound MEQ HQ units, any other 3 wound model with T4, and are one of the best possible solutions for when dealing with T6 3+ MC. Dev squads are a good solid HS choice. The only reason missles launchers are not ubiquitous outside a space puppies list is players get hung up on the fact that space wolves get them even cheaper.

Yet before the SW book was released Dev squads weren't common. And Mech was still dominant then.

SOFDC wrote:

10/10/10 vehicles with that kind of firepower in a squadron are glass cannons. Experienced players will quickly gun them down.

And? Largely immobile, CC inept weapons teams like devastators are squads that are begging to be podded, outflanked, or otherwise rushed. You pick your poison and take your chances. For me, the extra 30 points to position the weapons on the fly to deny opponents models a cover save is well spent.

Back in ye olde times where devastator firepower was a bit more effective due to flimsier vehicle damage tables, and 5+ or 6+ cover being the norm, as well as when they were priced according to their performance, I was an advocate of them. I cannot say that the premium for foot based heavy weapons still holds my attention.

You're totally correct when you say you pick your poison and take your chances. They can not move and fire, and are prime targets for assault units to bumrush. If your opponent has outflanking units the only deployment option for devs is in the center of the board. Fast ML are not that great at denying infantry cover saves because it doesn't work when they are inside area terrain, but they are exceptionally good at getting pristine side armor shots on vehicles like IG 12/10/10 and SM 13/11/10.

As a full disclosure I actually use havocs instead of devs, so my chaos army doesn't even have the option for a typhoon, but I prever devs/havocs anyways for the following reasons. Dev squad weaknesses can be turned into an asset, because they are immobile and suck in CC the opposing side becomes very predictable. It's very easy to read that they will send in a CC unit to attack the devs, and predictable attacks become easy to lay traps. The weaknesses of dev squads actually turns them into a great asset as bait, and the overall effectiveness of the unit is determined by the player that controls the dev more than the opponent. Typhoons on the other hand have strengths that can be turned into a liability. Typhoons are so amazingly good against IG or tank spamming BA (3 Baal + 3 preds or vindies) that when going up against an army where they would be the most effective they become even more likely to be shot down. Typhoons have far more potential than dev squads, but reaching their full potential requires your opponent to make target priority mistakes with their long ranged firepower. I never want that ball to be in the opponents court, and always assume my opponent will play a flawless game. That's just me however, and I will admit when it comes to playing my 40k armies I'm a total control freak that does everything in my power to make the win or loss of a game dependent on my in game decisions, not my opponents.

This graph would be very complex, and you'd probably want to separate it by codex, but I like this line of thinking and analysis.

Taking all variables into account would make this metric very complex and hard to calculate. As a player it is more about being aware of all factors, having a rough estimate of each one's impact and then use your gut feeling to come to an overall decision. The human brain is very efficient in doing so if you have some experience to base your decisions on. Sure, it might be wrong in some situations, but I think all together you'll be better off than someone just building their army lists by kill potential.

SOFDC wrote:

On paper, standard termies should be better, access to CML & Assault Cannons as well as 8-10 stormbolter shots and they still pack a punch with all the power fists.

Why? This is warhammer 40k. The quickest way to win a gunfight is to bring a knife. Assault terminators have a bigger knife.

Seriously though, and this is something I did not see in the original post is a major consideration: Durability. The opposite of your OP. Breaching a door with the best marksman and rifle in the universe means absolutely nothing if he takes two rounds to the aorta before he can fire it.

This is why people choose ATs over tactical terminators. It isn't that the firepower is bad, it's the 5++ save that tactical terminators get stuck with. 5++ is not a reliable save, and it gets less so when there are multiple incoming wounds or null zone effects in play. When you consider the fact that power weapons and rending effects are showing up on more and more common units, and in quantity, the picture gets even worse. Another matter is that by default you cannot NOT have a power fist. You are stuck with a poor invulnerable save, an environment rich in armor ignoring weaponry, and in CC the lowest initiative possible on a very expensive model. This is a recipe for disaster.

You will notice that with armies like Deathwing and Loganwing, it is frequently a mix and match of the previously mentioned stormshield terminators to provide durability, and the heavy terminator weapons for their offensive capability.

On top of all of this, is the land raider. It has mobility and this almost totally covers the shortcomings of a 100% assault terminator squadron (Lack of reach). 24 inch range on the majority of tactical terminators firepower, versus a 20 inch CC threat range out of the land raider, that will hit much harder when it arrives. You could of course pop TacTs out of the raider and shoot for additional range...but rarely has that sort of thing been an issue. 24/48 is really not that bad.

This isn't just an example of increased durability causing a "no-brainer" pick situation. This is an example of a situation where one choices "advantages" become superfluous in almost every situation due to increased durability, AND comparable reach, AND a target spectrum at least as wide.

Agreed. It is a no brainer to choose 3++ over 5++ saves. The standard termie: 1 hvy wpn+ 4 to 5 stormbolters + 5 powerfists. assault termies: No ranged + Thunderhammer + 3++ stormshield. The survivability granted by 3++ saves trumps all the ranged firepower that termies can grant. Deathwing will proliferate stormshields and have a CML thrown in to boot. Only SW termies will not field stormshield termies because the cost is prohibitive.

There's been some great responses, and I'll try to answer more completely later, but I'll make a few points now.

I think that durability is fairly overrated as a seperate dimension of unit quality, for several reasons. The first is that no aspect of a unit correlates more with cost than durability. The second is the sweeping changes to effective durability that 5th edition introduced.

In 4th edition, victory point denial was a valid and often successful tactic. Even objective games used victory points, so keeping a unit alive was often more important than anything else. That's less true in 5th, as keeping a unit alive is now a direct factor in KP games, and obviously only living units can claim objectives. In shooting, the durability of all armored units has gone way up, while non-vehicle units have seen their durability narrow. By that, I mean that very commmon 4+ cover saves make IG nearly as durable from shooting as marines. Durability is a big deal in combat, but that's simply effectivness against a target. TH/SS termies aren't great because they survive to get to combat, they're great because in combat most attacks bounce off.

As an example, compare six TH/SS terminators to a full 30 man ork boy squad. Both are roughly the same cost, and as units (not models) their durability is hard to really rate. For example, it would take 31 bolter hits to kill the boys out of cover, but 31 bolter hits would still kill on average 5 of the 5 termies. In cover, the termies die to bolter fire first. Flamers wipe out boys enmasse and do little to termies, but 18 lascannon hits will only slow down the ork boys while they wipe out the termies.

I'm not saying that durablity isn't an independent factor, but once you chalk up HtH durability as part of effectivness against target, you're left with a pretty minor factor, IMO.

Limiting the preference for assault terminators over tactical termiantors to durability is short sighted, I think. ATs are the best pound for pound close combat unit against elite squads. Tactical terminators are pretty decent at lots of stuff, but not effecient at anything.

Polonius wrote:There's been some great responses, and I'll try to answer more completely later, but I'll make a few points now.

I think that durability is fairly overrated as a seperate dimension of unit quality, for several reasons. The first is that no aspect of a unit correlates more with cost than durability. The second is the sweeping changes to effective durability that 5th edition introduced.

In 4th edition, victory point denial was a valid and often successful tactic. Even objective games used victory points, so keeping a unit alive was often more important than anything else. That's less true in 5th, as keeping a unit alive is now a direct factor in KP games, and obviously only living units can claim objectives. In shooting, the durability of all armored units has gone way up, while non-vehicle units have seen their durability narrow. By that, I mean that very commmon 4+ cover saves make IG nearly as durable from shooting as marines. Durability is a big deal in combat, but that's simply effectivness against a target. TH/SS termies aren't great because they survive to get to combat, they're great because in combat most attacks bounce off.

As an example, compare six TH/SS terminators to a full 30 man ork boy squad. Both are roughly the same cost, and as units (not models) their durability is hard to really rate. For example, it would take 31 bolter hits to kill the boys out of cover, but 31 bolter hits would still kill on average 5 of the 5 termies. In cover, the termies die to bolter fire first. Flamers wipe out boys enmasse and do little to termies, but 18 lascannon hits will only slow down the ork boys while they wipe out the termies.

I'm not saying that durablity isn't an independent factor, but once you chalk up HtH durability as part of effectivness against target, you're left with a pretty minor factor, IMO.

Limiting the preference for assault terminators over tactical termiantors to durability is short sighted, I think. ATs are the best pound for pound close combat unit against elite squads. Tactical terminators are pretty decent at lots of stuff, but not effecient at anything.

Agreed wounds enter into the picture as well as the ability to wound select(thinking ork nobz) or multi-wound creatures or T5 or whatever. But durability is still a key component.
7 death guard with 2 plasma rifles for @200 points or 5 chosen with 5 plasma rifles. The chosen have a damage potential but will have their firepower significantly reduced by random fire. (6 wounds means 2 dead on average versus 6 wounds on deathguard resulting in 1 dead - not even speaking to the T5 effect of less wounds.

A unit of standard terminators is going to be able to affect almost as large a number of targets equally to assault termies. In fact standard termies should be able to affect their target through firing to soften it up. The problem is as an elite HTH the Assault Termies are far superior because they can pull out 3++ saves. If you are knowingly facing a lot of power weapons that are going to force invulnerable saves 3++ is so far superior to 5++ the assumed balance in offensive capabilities (with a small plus to standard termies) is cancelled out by survivability.

But you also bring up a legitimate point - wounds count, toughness counts, weapon skill counts, armor save and invulnerable save all count in survivability. While 5th edition has lessened the importance of armor with proliferate cover saves, it still is important in chosing and utilizing your units effectively.

Another point is the synergy applied to a farseer guide doom or fortune or the positive offensive use of Null Zone or Warp Time. Looked at in a vacuum most eldar stuff looks and feels lackluster but insert a doom and a guide and suddenly that unit of dire avengers are real killers or through a nullzone up and start unloading fire onto demons. These exponentially make choices better.

schadenfreude wrote:

There are multiple criteria to measure the quality of a unit, here are my top 10:

1)Cost
2)Firepower
3)CC killing power
4)Durability when shot
5)Durability in CC
6)Vulnerability to common weapons in the meta, or lack thereof
7)Speed, or lack thereof
8)Ability of the controlling player to use the unit to it's fullest potential, or lack thereof.
9)Ability of the other side to exploit weaknesses of the unit, or lack of weaknesses
10)Force multiplier

In the end the final measure of quality is everything combined relative to the unit's point cost. I completely disagree with your dismissal of cost and the primary measurement of a unit's quality, and economic principles are not always the most relevant theories to apply to 40k. A player's supply of points is finite, and no economic principle will give a player more or less points. The closest you can argue to players getting more or less points would be to say that if points were a currency then codex creep has it in a deflation cycle; the same number of points will buy more in next year's codex. I would however argue that 6 out of 7 of the 5th ed codex are top tier competitive in a tournament, and the only book regarded as a slacker is tyranids (which I believe is still competitive). GW appears to be attempting to bring all 5th ed codex in line with other 5th ed codex, and while the codex creep of the initial 5th ed books seemed downright shocking it has slowed to the point where early 5th ed books like IG are still competitive with new 5th ed books like DE or GK. GW learned a bitter lesson from WHFB when an out of control codex creep made vampire counts and chaos deamons unstoppable to the point where tournaments had to implement comp rules and many players quit WHFB.

Anyhow points are absolute. Both sides always have equal access to the same number of points, and the seven 5th ed books are well balanced when played against each other.

I see your point about Codex creep, I agree with you, and I hope you continue to be correct. This still implies that C:SM Devs are overcosted, because the IG/BA/SW codices are the new baseline.

Regarding the absoluteness of a point value, what I'm saying is this: Suppose GW decided to double all point costs. Everything in every codex costs twice as much as it used to. Presumably, 'Ard Boyz would now have a 5000 point limit, standard games would be 4000 points, etc. Has anything changed? A Space Marine still costs 2.5 Ork Boyz. There isn't anything sacred about Space Marines costing 16 points.

Finally, I agree that everything on your top 10 list is relevant. The difficulty is distilling that down to a single number, which is what discussions about unit quality essentially try to do. How do you trade off durability when shot against CC ability? Would you pay more in points for a unit that's easy to use? These are difficult things to agree on, so it makes it tough to have objective arguments.

MrEconomics wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

There are multiple criteria to measure the quality of a unit, here are my top 10:

1)Cost
2)Firepower
3)CC killing power
4)Durability when shot
5)Durability in CC
6)Vulnerability to common weapons in the meta, or lack thereof
7)Speed, or lack thereof
8)Ability of the controlling player to use the unit to it's fullest potential, or lack thereof.
9)Ability of the other side to exploit weaknesses of the unit, or lack of weaknesses
10)Force multiplier

In the end the final measure of quality is everything combined relative to the unit's point cost. I completely disagree with your dismissal of cost and the primary measurement of a unit's quality, and economic principles are not always the most relevant theories to apply to 40k. A player's supply of points is finite, and no economic principle will give a player more or less points. The closest you can argue to players getting more or less points would be to say that if points were a currency then codex creep has it in a deflation cycle; the same number of points will buy more in next year's codex. I would however argue that 6 out of 7 of the 5th ed codex are top tier competitive in a tournament, and the only book regarded as a slacker is tyranids (which I believe is still competitive). GW appears to be attempting to bring all 5th ed codex in line with other 5th ed codex, and while the codex creep of the initial 5th ed books seemed downright shocking it has slowed to the point where early 5th ed books like IG are still competitive with new 5th ed books like DE or GK. GW learned a bitter lesson from WHFB when an out of control codex creep made vampire counts and chaos deamons unstoppable to the point where tournaments had to implement comp rules and many players quit WHFB.

Anyhow points are absolute. Both sides always have equal access to the same number of points, and the seven 5th ed books are well balanced when played against each other.

I see your point about Codex creep, I agree with you, and I hope you continue to be correct. This still implies that C:SM Devs are overcosted, because the IG/BA/SW codices are the new baseline.

Regarding the absoluteness of a point value, what I'm saying is this: Suppose GW decided to double all point costs. Everything in every codex costs twice as much as it used to. Presumably, 'Ard Boyz would now have a 5000 point limit, standard games would be 4000 points, etc. Has anything changed? A Space Marine still costs 2.5 Ork Boyz. There isn't anything sacred about Space Marines costing 16 points.

Finally, I agree that everything on your top 10 list is relevant. The difficulty is distilling that down to a single number, which is what discussions about unit quality essentially try to do. How do you trade off durability when shot against CC ability? Would you pay more in points for a unit that's easy to use? These are difficult things to agree on, so it makes it tough to have objective arguments.

As is what is the goal of your army. Close combat, resiliency and objective/KP denial, firepower, manueverability.

As an example an eldar wave serpent can be considered for manuever and objective/kp denial but it suffers on firepower for the points it costs and in and of itself it does not go in tune with close combat.
A dark eldar really can never look at resiliency as an option flickerfields to improve it but no really tough unit. OTOH firepower and manueverability are almost a given. This kind of highlights the advantage of the SM/SW/BA player as he can compete on all four layers. He may not be the best at any given one of them but overall he can compete on all four.