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.

SilverAlien wrote:

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.

I wasn't meaning to, I was just explaining what the argument was for people who thought it was a 16% increase over base wounds and, particularly those who thought two gave a 32% increase. I was just correcting the bad maths, I didn't express an opinion on whether it was better.

The closest I got was pointing out that on a 10 wound model as compared to a one wound model you have a magnification of the effect. Not that over a large number of trials you get a different effect, but that you get more trials on that one model, so you are more likely to get a result nearer the average. This increases reliability and predictability, which can be useful. It is also different to a squad with the same number of wounds as the squad loses firepower with each casualty so the swinginess of the single trial on a model by model basis is relevant.

Is the increased cost of the venerable worth it? No idea, I don't play marines. I don't even know their cost or wounds (I used 10 in my example because it is easy to see how the maths works and it was an example). There would need to be a further analysis done to determine if that cost is worth it. I would look at increased longevity of firepower compared to a similar dread, so how many extra turns of shooting could you expect. I'm guessing if you compared 3 dreads to 3 venerables, then compare this with and without the IH tactic and ask the question with regards to preservation of firepower and/or weapons required to remove it would be a more useful comparator. I don't have the data to do that at this time and as such have no strong opinion on whether venerables are better or not. I just don't like people to be using poor maths when thinking about things, so I provided the correct values.

I might look up the stats and work it out at some point as an academic exercise. Only if I have time though, not strongly motivated to do so as I don't play marines.