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.

With everything in mind (Chapter Tactics, Warlord Traits, Relics and Stratagems), and not just the CT's, Ravenguard went from a solid #1 to a laughably solid #1.

Their CT is probably the best, their Warlord Trait is good, their Relic is good and synergises with their trait, and their stratagem is good eventough it has no synergy with their CT.

Salamanders however, still have the (imo) second best CT, but got one of the the shorter ends of the stick when it comes to the rest of the chapter-specific thingys:

Their Relic is "meh". +1T isn't all that in 8th, and as a defensive item it's outperformed by both The Shield Eternal and the Armour Indomitus.

Their Warlord Trait is also crap compared to many of the others. +1S again isn't all that in 8th, and since you add modifiers after doubling, you get S9 Fists/TH's which are barely better than S8. Their Relicblade becomes S7...yay?

Flamecraft is nice, and has potential, but on a unit with 1-2 Flamers it won't do much on average.
On 1 flamer, shooting something with T4, you'll go from 1,75 wounds average to 2,33 wounds average.
On 2 flamers, shooting something with T4, you'll go from 3,5 wounds average to 4,67 wounds average.
...yay?
The only time I'd consider it worth spending 1 CP on Flamecraft is when you got several flamers (like in a command squad, 5) or when you go from wounding something on 6+ to 5+.
Otherwise you're probably better of spending that CP on the Hellfire(?)-stratagem which actually synergises with their CT, giving a reroll to that one important shot.

Is there a consolidated list of all the new stuff somewhere? I can't seem to find info on most of the relics.

I will say I'm not sure any of the chapter specific warlord traits matter unless you can double up or something, I think some AoS armies have mechanics like that. The chapter specific ones just aren't that good by comparison, excepting maybe ultramarines which could be good depending entirely on how it works with stratagems used before the battle and multi cp stratagems. If it only works during the battle and you can only get a single cp back regardless of how many spent per strat, it'd be merely okay imo.

The relics I have seen similarly seem low impact for a single per army. They aren't awful, but I've yet to see anything I'd consider essential. The aura boosting helmet is the only one that looks particularly interesting, not sure if that's chapter specific or generic though.

do we have a list of point reductions and increases ?

SilverAlien wrote:

The relics I have seen similarly seem low impact for a single per army. They aren't awful, but I've yet to see anything I'd consider essential. The aura boosting helmet is the only one that looks particularly interesting, not sure if that's chapter specific or generic though.

The Shield Eternal is pretty bonkers on a Bike-Captain with the Warlord Trait that grants +1W 6+ FNP.

He moves 14" and for defense he has T5, 7(!) Wounds, a 3++, 6+ FNP and any multiwound attack he suffers is halved, so at the most he can suffer 3 wounds from Damage D6 attacks, 2 wounds from Damage D3 attacks, and 1 wound from Damage 2 attacks. Heck, even a Shadowsword can't kill him in one hit.

Add a Thunder Hammer or Relic Blade and he's pretty killy as well, especially since he has his reroll-aura.

Edit: That Helmet is also chapter specific, it's for Black Templars only.

 MinscS2 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

The relics I have seen similarly seem low impact for a single per army. They aren't awful, but I've yet to see anything I'd consider essential. The aura boosting helmet is the only one that looks particularly interesting, not sure if that's chapter specific or generic though.

The Shield Eternal is pretty bonkers on a Bike-Captain with the Warlord Trait that grants +1W 6+ FNP.

He moves 14" and for defense he has T5, 7(!) Wounds, a 3++, 6+ FNP and any multiwound attack he suffers is halved, so at the most he can suffer 3 wounds from Damage D6 attacks, 2 wounds from Damage D3 attacks, and 1 wound from Damage 2 attacks. Heck, even a Shadowsword can't kill him in one hit.

Add a Thunder Hammer or Relic Blade and he's pretty killy as well, especially since he has his reroll-aura.

Edit: That Helmet is also chapter specific, it's for Black Templars only.

Shield eternal and those honor guard type things that take wounds for you are going to interact like insane.

take a 6 wounder from a lascannon... nope 3. let me start eating these on my honor guard. seems like the best way to deal with shield eternal is to just bury him in # of shots.

Yes, small arms fire will be probably be the best counter to him, since he doesn't have a 2+ Armoursave, and it bypasses both his 3++ and TSE.

Still, making 7 wounds go trough a 3+/6++ on a character with T5 will take quite afew boltershots.

But is that needed or even useful now? Sure you take a ton of punishment to kill, but with just the wound and the 6+ you weren't exactly in danger so long as you keep your warlord in range of his troops, boosting them with his aura.

SilverAlien wrote:
But is that needed or even useful now? Sure you take a ton of punishment to kill, but with just the wound and the 6+ you weren't exactly in danger so long as you keep your warlord in range of his troops, boosting them with his aura.

Troops can be killed or the Captain has drove of to kill something on his own/capture an objective.

He's not exactly a pushover in CC with a Thunderhammer, so sometimes it's a waste to not use his profile in combat.

Well, they gave a full reveal of the IH Stratagem "Machine Empathy". Definitely not good. One model, before the attack phase, one cp. Does nothing to make up for the CT. No way I can get enough CP to make this useful for me. I don't think a mostly Dread army would even work well. A case of too few models and not enough dakka anyway.

Before I opened the thread and not looking at who posted last, I thought to myself "I wonder if it is going to be the IH guy complaining about every single thing about his army again".

That said, I do agree though that the Machine Empathy stratagem is pretty garbage.

Do chapter tactics pertain to flyers?

 perilsensitive wrote:
Before I opened the thread and not looking at who posted last, I thought to myself "I wonder if it is going to be the IH guy complaining about every single thing about his army again".

That said, I do agree though that the Machine Empathy stratagem is pretty garbage.

I dont even play iron hands and kinda feel bad. they honestly got the most lack luster kit

not aweful. a 6+ ward save is nothing to sneeze at. its just not all that flashy.

usmcmidn wrote:
Do chapter tactics pertain to flyers?

i dont think anything else came up but so far no. all chapter tactics apply to infantry bikes and dreads.

I dont even play iron hands and kinda feel bad. they honestly got the most lack luster kit

not aweful. a 6+ ward save is nothing to sneeze at. its just not all that flashy.

While it isn't the worst CT imo, it is near the very bottom. I don't know how they would do the IH ability to make it flashy. My main issue is it isn't a CT I can build my army around to make the most of. It is too unreliable, and outside of two units one that is Forge World, it can't be modified or buffed. I am glad I didn't get what the BT got. It wouldn't be so bad if the CT buffed all vehicles. It would certainly be something I could sorta use by using as many dreads and vehicles as possible. As is, IH can't even take dreads in the heavy slot anymore. To even consider using the Stratagem I feel I would want at least 12 cp. I just can't figure out a list that will work and give 9 cp let alone 12. If the CT was a 5+ I think it would make things just resilient enough that they could accomplish things. I feel while the IF CT is situational and the fortification part useless for 99% of games, their bolter drill will probably make up for it. More shots seems to end up being better than slightly more accurate shots. If the IH stratagem worked on at least 3 vehicles at a time it would be something you would use.

Or maybe 6+ to all IH models and Infantry, dreads and bikes can move and shoot heavy weapons without taking the penalty. Then you could use the Stratagem for a vehicle.

I think the IH CT can be built around, by making your army tank heavy with some troops (tacticals or scouts) backing them.

I'm not saying it is super flashy, but it makes the IH better at the two things you actually want your troops to do in a tank heavy list. It makes them better objective holders by being harder to kill (and now that obj secured is back they have a real role there). It also makes them better at keeping things away from your tanks, by lasting longer against enemy melee and deepstrike units, which means more time for your tanks to fire unmolested.

They may not be top tier, but the CT is exactly what you'd want in a vehicle heavy list, which is fluffy for the IH. The strategem is garbage though, sadly.

 NorseSig wrote:

I dont even play iron hands and kinda feel bad. they honestly got the most lack luster kit

not aweful. a 6+ ward save is nothing to sneeze at. its just not all that flashy.

While it isn't the worst CT imo, it is near the very bottom. I don't know how they would do the IH ability to make it flashy. My main issue is it isn't a CT I can build my army around to make the most of. It is too unreliable, and outside of two units one that is Forge World, it can't be modified or buffed. I am glad I didn't get what the BT got. It wouldn't be so bad if the CT buffed all vehicles. It would certainly be something I could sorta use by using as many dreads and vehicles as possible. As is, IH can't even take dreads in the heavy slot anymore. To even consider using the Stratagem I feel I would want at least 12 cp. I just can't figure out a list that will work and give 9 cp let alone 12. If the CT was a 5+ I think it would make things just resilient enough that they could accomplish things. I feel while the IF CT is situational and the fortification part useless for 99% of games, their bolter drill will probably make up for it. More shots seems to end up being better than slightly more accurate shots. If the IH stratagem worked on at least 3 vehicles at a time it would be something you would use.

Or maybe 6+ to all IH models and Infantry, dreads and bikes can move and shoot heavy weapons without taking the penalty. Then you could use the Stratagem for a vehicle.

I am not sure if you realize you can only use the stratagem on one vehicle per turn. If not, i'm not sure what you want all of those CP for? I definitely think the IH got the worst of the CT. At least you can build an army around the BT's CT if you really want to. The IH CT is just too random to be that useful in a normal marine list with small squads that are likely to get evaporated with or without it. It is better on Primaris, i think, but not as good as the RG CT or the IF warlord trait, so all in all i can't see too many reasons to bring IH vs the other options.

Their relic is actually pretty okay. though, and I'm not sure i know what their warlord trait is yet...does anyone know that? Edit: never mind, it is also pretty terrible, lol.

MarkM wrote:
With the exception of the RG Stratagem (which happens before the first turn aka outside of a Phase) all of them are X CP for one unit, once per phase.

So RG get the best CT and Strat?

If you watch the video you can easily pause and screen print.

From the text, once can argue the IF stratagem is not limited to one unit, unless that has been clarified somewhere.

General Hobbs wrote:

MarkM wrote:
With the exception of the RG Stratagem (which happens before the first turn aka outside of a Phase) all of them are X CP for one unit, once per phase.

So RG get the best CT and Strat?

If you watch the video you can easily pause and screen print.

From the text, once can argue the IF stratagem is not limited to one unit, unless that has been clarified somewhere.

What makes you think that?

The rule is quoted here, the emphasis mine:

"Use this stratagem just before an Iron Hands Vehicle attacks in the Shooting phase. Until the end of the phase that vehicle can ignore the penalties..." etc

Seems pretty clear it is a single, specific vehicle.

I think he meant one vehicle per turn, and didn't realize that there is a global rule about no repeat stratagems. Just guessing though.

jcd386 wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:

MarkM wrote:
With the exception of the RG Stratagem (which happens before the first turn aka outside of a Phase) all of them are X CP for one unit, once per phase.

So RG get the best CT and Strat?

If you watch the video you can easily pause and screen print.

From the text, once can argue the IF stratagem is not limited to one unit, unless that has been clarified somewhere.

What makes you think that?

The rule is quoted here, the emphasis mine:

"Use this stratagem just before an Iron Hands Vehicle attacks in the Shooting phase. Until the end of the phase that vehicle can ignore the penalties..." etc

Seems pretty clear it is a single, specific vehicle.

Go back and slowly reread what I posted.

Uh, the Iron Hands chapter tactics are obviously intended to be used with Dreadnought armies. Venerable Dreadnoughts especially will be very difficult to kill with multiple FNP rolls.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Uh, the Iron Hands chapter tactics are obviously intended to be used with Dreadnought armies. Venerable Dreadnoughts especially will be very difficult to kill with multiple FNP rolls.

It's literally no different than the other units which gain it. It's the same increase in longevity. It benefits dreadnoughts no more than any other unit. I do not understand why people keep insisting it is more useful with venerable dreadnoughts. It isn't. It's the exact same. Saying it is "more reliable" just illustrates an absolute failure to understand the basics of probability.

It's a solid chapter tactic which negates 1/6 wounds, that is useful for every single unit that has it.

SilverAlien wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
Uh, the Iron Hands chapter tactics are obviously intended to be used with Dreadnought armies. Venerable Dreadnoughts especially will be very difficult to kill with multiple FNP rolls.

It's literally no different than the other units which gain it. It's the same increase in longevity. It benefits dreadnoughts no more than any other unit. I do not understand why people keep insisting it is more useful with venerable dreadnoughts. It isn't. It's the exact same. Saying it is "more reliable" just illustrates an absolute failure to understand the basics of probability.

It's a solid chapter tactic which negates 1/6 wounds, that is useful for every single unit that has it.

You are right. But with a 1W model you only have one shot to prove that CT useful; you may be lucky or not. While on Dreadnoughts (models with many wounds) it is more likely to average the negation of a 1/6 of wounds.
You can argue that for the the price of Dreadnoughts you can field many marines; but that is a different story (on average across your army of many marines, you should also average the negation of 1/6 wounds but partial losses on 1W models can affect leadership tests... etc)

So a bit of maths to explain the better on venerables thing.

If you have a single 6+ FnP you have a 5/6 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 20% 1/(5/6) = 6/5 = 1.2. You would need, on average, 12 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

If you have 2 6+ FnP you have a 25/36 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 44%! 1/(25/36) = 36/25 = 1.44. You need, on average, 14.4 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

So the second FnP has a greater effect than the first, giving more effective wounds. If you have a model with more wounds this effect is magnified, because of the all or nothing nature of losing your last wound.

I would also point out that the addition of a second FnP does not give the 16.6% increase in survivability mentioned by many (a different measure to average wounds % required to kill) if it did, then it would be an effective 48% increase in wounds. Probabilities are not additive.

Drager wrote:
So a bit of maths to explain the better on venerables thing.

If you have a single 6+ FnP you have a 5/6 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 20% 1/(5/6) = 6/5 = 1.2. You would need, on average, 12 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

If you have 2 6+ FnP you have a 25/36 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 44%! 1/(25/36) = 36/25 = 1.44. You need, on average, 14.4 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

So the second FnP has a greater effect than the first, giving more effective wounds. If you have a model with more wounds this effect is magnified, because of the all or nothing nature of losing your last wound.

I would also point out that the addition of a second FnP does not give the 16.6% increase in survivability mentioned by many (a different measure to average wounds % required to kill) if it did, then it would be an effective 48% increase in wounds. Probabilities are not additive.

Good explanation, thanks!

Drager wrote:
So a bit of maths to explain the better on venerables thing.

If you have a single 6+ FnP you have a 5/6 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 20% 1/(5/6) = 6/5 = 1.2. You would need, on average, 12 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

If you have 2 6+ FnP you have a 25/36 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 44%! 1/(25/36) = 36/25 = 1.44. You need, on average, 14.4 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

So the second FnP has a greater effect than the first, giving more effective wounds. If you have a model with more wounds this effect is magnified, because of the all or nothing nature of losing your last wound.

I would also point out that the addition of a second FnP does not give the 16.6% increase in survivability mentioned by many (a different measure to average wounds % required to kill) if it did, then it would be an effective 48% increase in wounds. Probabilities are not additive.

I agree with this, but before this gets misinterpreted and misapplied by other people I want to add:

This is really just a specific case of how, in terms of the absolute number of additional shots you need to kill something, you get more out of a percentage increase in durability on things that already took a lot of shots to kill. Venerable dreads are harder to kill than regular dreads and so giving them an additional 6+ FNP is a larger absolute increase in what it takes to kill them (though the same percentage increase). Likewise a squad of 10 marines gets twice as much out of a 6+ FNP than a squad of 5 marines, but obviously this isn't really a reason to take the squad of 10 marines over the squad of 5 marines -- it costs twice as much.

So, first, it's still pretty silly to talk like IH venerable dreads are really durable on the basis of this. Obviously what people care about is something more like how durable things are for their cost. An IH venerable dread has an effective 11.5 wounds, compared to a non-IH ven dread with 9.6 and a regular dread with 8. They're still in the neighborhood of 15 points per wound on a multi-wound model (making them very vulnerable to things like lascannons). Razorbacks remain far more durable for their cost.

Second, it's actually because venerable dreads are relatively fragile that the IH tactic is valuable on them. The main drawback of the two defensive tactics -- the Raven Guard and Iron Hands ones -- is that unless your entire army has the Tactic your opponent will often have the option to shoot something that doesn't benefit from it. If you bring a quad-las Predator and a venerable dread, your opponent is just going to shoot the Predator. But dreadnoughts are actually pretty fragile for their cost. A venerable dread is paying 18 points per effective wound without the IH tactic, which is actually quite a lot. Regular dreads are paying 19. Many of the non-flyer vehicles people are using are 15 or even lower (many transports are more like 10). So in a typical Marine list the dreadnoughts are a priority target, because they're actually very fragile relative to their shooting. The IH tactic makes them more durable relative to all of the stuff in your list without the tactic, but even then they might still be something that your opponent starts shooting at very early on. Though it's still not the case that the venerable dread benefits noticeably more than a regular dread -- going only off of their point costs, a regular dread is a more tempting target than a venerable dread and so is actually the one that benefits most from the protection (it's the one that your opponent will want to shoot).

 MinscS2 wrote:
With everything in mind (Chapter Tactics, Warlord Traits, Relics and Stratagems), and not just the CT's, Ravenguard went from a solid #1 to a laughably solid #1.

Their CT is probably the best, their Warlord Trait is good, their Relic is good and synergises with their trait, and their stratagem is good eventough it has no synergy with their CT.

Salamanders however, still have the (imo) second best CT, but got one of the the shorter ends of the stick when it comes to the rest of the chapter-specific thingys:

Their Relic is "meh". +1T isn't all that in 8th, and as a defensive item it's outperformed by both The Shield Eternal and the Armour Indomitus.

Their Warlord Trait is also crap compared to many of the others. +1S again isn't all that in 8th, and since you add modifiers after doubling, you get S9 Fists/TH's which are barely better than S8. Their Relicblade becomes S7...yay?

Flamecraft is nice, and has potential, but on a unit with 1-2 Flamers it won't do much on average.
On 1 flamer, shooting something with T4, you'll go from 1,75 wounds average to 2,33 wounds average.
On 2 flamers, shooting something with T4, you'll go from 3,5 wounds average to 4,67 wounds average.
...yay?
The only time I'd consider it worth spending 1 CP on Flamecraft is when you got several flamers (like in a command squad, 5) or when you go from wounding something on 6+ to 5+.
Otherwise you're probably better of spending that CP on the Hellfire(?)-stratagem which actually synergises with their CT, giving a reroll to that one important shot.

If i'm honest, while i think the Raven Guard, with all things combined, are very very good, i don't think they are at the top.

The thing with the Raven Guard chapter tactic, is that it not only doesn't synergies well with their stratagem, but it will also only be useful against certain armies. Tau for example will hate this with the majority of their units, but their spammed commanders deep striking in with crisis suits won't care. Orks, tyranids, khorne etc won't care about the CT at all, guard will just cry.
Our stratagem. Now, this is extremely useful, but, extremely risky to use. If you know that the only way your opponent is getting first turn is via a seize, then, this is fantastic. If however, you need to seize in order to go first then suddenly the things you deploy via the stratagem need to be extremely well placed or they will probably die first turn. That said - there is still the idea of a distraction carnifex unit of TH/SS termies 9" away, where the opponent uses everything to kill them, or they survive and go on a rampage.
The relic - i don't really care about. If i wanted that kind of buff i'd just take Shrike. Sure he is more points, but he does way more than an other JP character will do. Plus, who needs the advance part if you are either deep striking in, or using the stratagem to deploy?
The warlord trait is nice.

When we consider what the Ultramarines get overall, then they have a lot more to give. +1 Ld is always useful, especially if you want bigger squads or as an additional save guard against some of the psychic powers. Their warlord trait is just insane as well. Getting command points back, is fantastic, especially when you are starting with 6-8. Their relic... Lol. DTW and a free 3++? And the re-rolls to hit stratagem is always useful, if not "stand out amazing".

As for the Salamanders, their CT is also super strong. 4 "CP" re-rolls per squad per turn is fantastic. A squad with a captain and/or a lieutenant nearby is suddenly doing a lot! Sure, it massively promotes the spam of plasma instead of melta or flamers, but, it's still fanastic. I'd also argue that the relic is very strong as well. Bolters now need 5's to wound. Lascannons now need 3's to wound instead of 2's. If you are on a bike or with gravis armour, suddenly things like assault cannons need 4's to wound. So so so much more survivable, especially if you then pair it with a stormshield. Their warlord trait, not too thrilling, but again, useful. Wounding marines on 3's with a power sword is tasty. Still, might be better taking one of the generic ones. Again, the stratagem has to be built around, but, how about a super powered Landraider Redeemer?

Just some thoughts.

Yeah I wasn't very clear in my post about the 12 cp thing. I kinda missed a portion of my thought. Blame it on lack of sleep due to extra hours at work and helping with some volunteer stuff with the fires in my state (helping with some local donations). While I can only use the Stratagem once I can use other general stratagems too unless I read things wrong. I want to have at least 3 to 4 cp available to use per turn for the first 3 to 4 turns. Critical rerolls (offensive and defensive), ect. I WISH I could use Machine Empathy multiple times in a turn. One vehicle just doesn't amount to much.

Drager wrote:
So a bit of maths to explain the better on venerables thing.

If you have a single 6+ FnP you have a 5/6 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 20% 1/(5/6) = 6/5 = 1.2. You would need, on average, 12 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

If you have 2 6+ FnP you have a 25/36 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 44%! 1/(25/36) = 36/25 = 1.44. You need, on average, 14.4 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

So the second FnP has a greater effect than the first, giving more effective wounds. If you have a model with more wounds this effect is magnified, because of the all or nothing nature of losing your last wound.

I would also point out that the addition of a second FnP does not give the 16.6% increase in survivability mentioned by many (a different measure to average wounds % required to kill) if it did, then it would be an effective 48% increase in wounds. Probabilities are not additive.

Oh sweet Jesus. No. Everyone who quoted this saying it made sense, please stop.

Let me see if I can explain this: you are not getting more mileage out of this, you are misapplying basic probability.

A dreadnought or any normal 10 wound unit with a 6+ fnp takes 12 wounds to kill on average. With two fnp rolls of 6+ it takes 14.4. That is correct.

So the venerable dreadnought is going from 12 wounds to kill to 14.4 wounds to kill. That's a 20% increase yes, 2.4/12=.2. A normal squad or dreadnought with 10 wounds goes from 10 to 12 which is also a 20% (2/12=.2) increase.

The 6+ fnp blocks 1/6 wounds which is a 20% boost to the number of wounds required to kill the unit. Getting 2.4 wounds from a venerable dread is not it being more efficient, it's simply a venerable dreadnought already has a higher effective wounds than a 10 man SM squad. It will gain the same as any 12 wound squad would. This doesn't make it better on the dreadnought, you are gaining the same relative boost for both units. The only way it could be more efficient is if it payed a lower cost for the 12 effective wounds than most models, which it doesn't.

SilverAlien wrote:

Drager wrote:
So a bit of maths to explain the better on venerables thing.

If you have a single 6+ FnP you have a 5/6 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 20% 1/(5/6) = 6/5 = 1.2. You would need, on average, 12 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

If you have 2 6+ FnP you have a 25/36 chance of taking a wound (for each unsaved wound) this means you have an increase in effective wounds of 44%! 1/(25/36) = 36/25 = 1.44. You need, on average, 14.4 successful wounds to down a 10 wound model.

So the second FnP has a greater effect than the first, giving more effective wounds. If you have a model with more wounds this effect is magnified, because of the all or nothing nature of losing your last wound.

I would also point out that the addition of a second FnP does not give the 16.6% increase in survivability mentioned by many (a different measure to average wounds % required to kill) if it did, then it would be an effective 48% increase in wounds. Probabilities are not additive.

Oh sweet Jesus. No. Everyone who quoted this saying it made sense, please stop.

Let me see if I can explain this: you are not getting more mileage out of this, you are misapplying basic probability.

A dreadnought or any normal 10 wound unit with a 6+ fnp takes 12 wounds to kill on average. With two fnp rolls of 6+ it takes 14.4. That is correct.

So the venerable dreadnought is going from 12 wounds to kill to 14.4 wounds to kill. That's a 20% increase yes, 2.4/12=.2. A normal squad or dreadnought with 10 wounds goes from 10 to 12 which is also a 20% (2/12=.2) increase.

The 6+ fnp blocks 1/6 wounds which is a 20% boost to the number of wounds required to kill the unit. Getting 2.4 wounds from a venerable dread is not it being more efficient, it's simply a venerable dreadnought already has a higher effective wounds than a 10 man SM squad. It will gain the same as any 12 wound squad would. This doesn't make it better on the dreadnought, you are gaining the same relative boost for both units. The only way it could be more efficient is if it payed a lower cost for the 12 effective wounds than most models, which it doesn't.

A 20% increase on a value already gaining a percentage increase is a greater increase from the base value. It is in fact, as I said, a 44% increase. Everything I said was true. You are also correct in your explanation, but, honestly, you are repeating what I said after saying no.

Drager wrote:
A 20% increase on a value already gaining a percentage increase is a greater increase from the base value. It is in fact, as I said, a 44% increase. Everything I said was true. You are also correct in your explanation, but, honestly, you are repeating what I said after saying no.

Because you seemed to be saying it was overall better/more efficient. If that wasn't the intent my apologies.