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.

LOL at the notion one can overinflate what Doom does.

Bharring wrote:
Wait, let me get this straight:
Warden Knight, unbuffed does 10 damage/round to a WK
WK, unbuffed does 7.7 damage/round to a WK

Add reroll wounds and Jinx, and we're at WK suddenly does 34 damage/round, by your numbers? For an increase of 4.4x?

First, lets look at doom. You have it *more than double* the damage. Is that realistic? Lets look at numbers:
To-Wound : Increase
2+ : 16%
3+ : 33%
4+ : 50%
5+ : 66%
6+ : 100%

So, the highest possible effect of Doom, outside special rules, is a +100% increase in damage. And that requires 6s to wound. There is no way you're seeing 172% increased damage from Doom in this scenario - you're just overinflating what Doom does. Which is very common here.

How about Jinx's impact?
Original Sv : Change
2+ : 100%
3+ : 50%
4+ : 33%
5+ : 20%
6+ : 16%
7+ : 0%

Jinx only does +100% damage against an otherwise-unmodified (read: AP0) save.

So, best case for Doom + Jinx, is when hitting a 2+ Sv target with a weapon S that's half the target's T. Which is not what's happening here.

That's what I get for using online tools instead of doing it myself longhand

However the issue I was trying to show still shows even with the correct maths.

How on earth do you correctly cost a model that can see it's damage more than doubled for 46% of it's point's cost?
I don't know , but it highlights that you especially can't compare it's point's to a unit with no access to comparable buffs?

Conversely, how on earth do you correctly cost a model that can see it's damage taken halved for 0 points?

More specifically on the WK, I forget what AP the Suncannon and it's fists are, but lets pretend 0. We're then seeing a 33% increase in damage from Doom, and a 50% increase from Jinx. At *best*, you're looking for less than double damage, assuming they both go off.

Then you're assuming Doom and Jinx. Yes, each one is more likely than not. They're both 80% likely, assuming reroll (CP for Jinx). So a 64% chance for both. More specifically, weighted improvements: Doom gives a 33% 80% of the time, for a 26% increase. Jinx gives a 50% increase 80% of the time, for a 40% increase. Net improvement is only 75%.

So your complaint is that it's unfair that paying 46% more points can increase the WK's damage to the IK, assuming we forget any AP the WK has, by 75%. Because IK can, at best, increase it's durability by only *double* for CP. How does that make sense?

(What are the WK's AP values again?)

I believe they are all Ap-3

Doom alone on a farseers own rerolls is over 85% probability of success.
Jinx with CP is 80% success.
Combined probability is 50% without CP and 68% with.

But you can't just multiply percentages upon percentages when it effects saves etc with multiple damage weapons.
It's the right percentage of failed saves on but doesn't account for the multiple damage.

Maths is on the previous page but just to make it clear I also used the more expensive jetbike farseer and warlock, and am giving the knight a FNP trait.

Regardless of what you might think i'm trying to be as open as possible to explain why GW might actually have a reason for the points costs.

But to answer your question about halving damage, I'm going to assume your talking about a 3++ which doesn't actually scale across all weapons only if your already on your invulnerable save.

So its a 50% reduction for CP sounds OP but lets compair it to some other CP shenanigans

How about fire and fade for 100% less damage unless you ignore LOS.
Or -2 to hit for 50% reduction against BS3+ and a 66% reduction against BS 4+?
Or the really cheese tastic -3 to hit for 75% reduction against BS 3+ and a 100% reduction against BS 4+

You actually *can* straight up multiply them. A 10% chance to do 50 more damage is a flat 5 damage average. The math is rather simple.

FnP is a flat % modifier, because it impacts every wound individually. They each have the same independent chance of not being felt.

Thus an X% increase in failed saves, if not biased to different types, is a flat X% increase in damage taken.

But let's get back to the numbers.

AP-3 means you're taking a 5+ vs shooting and 6+ for melee. So Jinx is only a 20% buff to shooting and a 16% to CC.

The -2 to hit, you're getting that from Alaitoc and... cheating? No inherent -1 to hit. No LQR. No Conceal. So if you're at BS -2, they are cheating.

It was only the shooting I was responding to as being AP-3.
The chances of reaching CC knight on knight I don't really see as being realistic.
It was more i wanted to see what the fists did, they appear wierdly pointless when feet exsist.

Sorry I didn't explain that in a way that was remotely conveyed what I ment. Simple maths is simple, accurate ratio maths at the level that some mathhammer represents isn't as simple, it's very susceptible to rounding.
Adding multiple damage tends to amplify rounding, becuase rounding errors get worse when you add additional calculations steps.

-1 to save rolls isn't a constant percentage due to the interactions of Ap and invulnerable saves, which is dependent upon the weapon stats.
It can turn a 3+ into a 4+ and a 5++ into a 6++, depending on Ap.

Same with a 3+ and a 5++ vrs a 3+ and a 3++ doesn't half all damage it depends on thr Ap of the weapon. It's not halfing the damage of Ap0 & Ap-1 and MW.

I'm not talking about a-2 to hit knight, it's more that is the only thing that does have a flat damage reduction against almost all weapons.

The only weapon dependent thing that can effect - to hit percentage is automatically hitting weapons. Which are

 Blackie wrote:

Cynista wrote:
IMO T8 is too common in general. It should be reserved for the truly notoriously durable vehicles and nothing else. Land Raiders, Monoliths etc. I also agree that thematically Knights should only get the 5++ at best but hey, they gotta sell them big robots right?

Too common? Tipycally the armies with T8 models have just 2-3 units available with that value of T, some of them usually not competitive. Drukhari don't have a single T8 model.

Yes too common. Rather than 2-3 units per army, I'd rather see only around 6-7 units in the whole game be T8 and not every army should have one. Some factions, like Dark Eldar, are supposed to be delicate and lightly armoured. I think that Toughness and armour saves should reflect the durability of the model's armour, or sturdyness of the body. The size of the model should be reflected in the wounds and for the most part this is consistent but there are some outliers. When I see a standard Knight I don't think T8 like I would with a Baneblade. When I see a Wraithlord I definitely don't think T8

Drukhari don't have T8 models. Just a two T6 dudes (talos and cronos) than can be T7 under the buff of the haemys, both aren't supposed to be delicate and lightly armoured.

Armoured drukhari stuff is actually T5 or T6 with a 4+ save.

Cynista wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Cynista wrote:
IMO T8 is too common in general. It should be reserved for the truly notoriously durable vehicles and nothing else. Land Raiders, Monoliths etc. I also agree that thematically Knights should only get the 5++ at best but hey, they gotta sell them big robots right?

Too common? Tipycally the armies with T8 models have just 2-3 units available with that value of T, some of them usually not competitive. Drukhari don't have a single T8 model.

Yes too common. Rather than 2-3 units per army, I'd rather see only around 6-7 units in the whole game be T8 and not every army should have one. Some factions, like Dark Eldar, are supposed to be delicate and lightly armoured. I think that Toughness and armour saves should reflect the durability of the model's armour, or sturdyness of the body. The size of the model should be reflected in the wounds and for the most part this is consistent but there are some outliers. When I see a standard Knight I don't think T8 like I would with a Baneblade. When I see a Wraithlord I definitely don't think T8

With the changes to the rules, there no need to be limited to a cap of 10 for stats.
We already have a decent number of things breaking the S10 barrier, but very very few that have broken T10.

Imagine if the game actually scaled toughness to the models.

The problem there is a the D6 nature of the game.

I think D6 design is fine (or at least can be done well) and honestly D6s are far more convenient to obtain and read.
You can also make them smaller thus get more of them.
That just the nature of them being a cube.

The problem with the D6 method for 8E is that they are holding too closely to "legacy" S & T values.
Imagine what the game would look like with the same D6 system and To-wound chart, but:
-GEQs stayed at the "baseline" S3/T3
-MEQs were S5/T5 with Bolter equivalents S5
-Bikes would therefore be T6
-Rhino equivalents became T8
-Aeldari tanks remained T7 with the lighter vehicles having a mix of T5/T6
-Knights and LRs were T9, etc
-Meltas & Lascannons were S10

And so on. Just a slight up-scale on a handful of very common weapons/units and you get more granularity with the D6 system.
Currently, many issues are because too many units are in the T3/T4 range only, with the vast majority of vehicles being T7.
I like it better than prior editions, but is we just "stretch" the scale a bit more, it creates opportunities for units to be tougher than they are now, while allowing weapons that are supposed to be good against them be good against them.

-

 Galef wrote:
I think D6 design is fine (or at least can be done well) and honestly D6s are far more convenient to obtain and read.
You can also make them smaller thus get more of them.
That just the nature of them being a cube.

The problem with the D6 method for 8E is that they are holding too closely to "legacy" S & T values.
Imagine what the game would look like with the same D6 system and To-wound chart, but:
-GEQs stayed at the "baseline" S3/T3
-MEQs were S5/T5 with Bolter equivalents S5
-Bikes would therefore be T6
-Rhino equivalents became T8
-Aeldari tanks remained T7 with the lighter vehicles having a mix of T5/T6
-Knights and LRs were T9, etc
-Meltas & Lascannons were S10

And so on. Just a slight up-scale on a handful of very common weapons/units and you get more granularity with the D6 system.
Currently, many issues are because too many units are in the T3/T4 range only, with the vast majority of vehicles being T7.
I like it better than prior editions, but is we just "stretch" the scale a bit more, it creates opportunities for units to be tougher than they are now, while allowing weapons that are supposed to be good against them be good against them.

-

I... hmm.. I actually like this idea a lot. It really would add more nuance to the system whilst keeping it simple and in practice, more or less the same.

Thematically I could get behind a Knight being T8, if Baneblades and Monolith's were T9.

The Wave Serpent having lower toughness than the Rhino is silly. But the Predator could have a higher toughness than the Wave Serpent.

Rhinos are "cheap METAL BAWKSES", who by their cheapness make Marines more tactical.

Yes, I realise that Rhinos and Preds are just as tough right now. That's a problem.

Melta and Lascannons need to be bigger threats. But their Strength isn't a huge drawback currently. Bumping them to S10 will give them what, 33% more firepower vs the really-big stuff? Spreading out the toughness/strength table could be interesting, but it's the invulns and spiraling killiness that's drowning them out.

It makes less sense that T is more or less 'capped' at 8 in the current scheme of things of 8th ed.

It would be interesting to see T bumped up to 9 or 10, and bump up S of certain weapons accordingly, so that it creates more niche for a true anti-armor weapons.

In line with the above, the W scaling needs to be adjusted as well. Two or three lucky shots from meltas should be able to cripple/blow up vehicles, not the current EXTREMELY lucky shots (multiple 6D shots) required.

The problem is that, the further T goes up, the more Lasguns outperform medium anti-tank weapons at killing the big stuff, though.

Bharring wrote:
The problem is that, the further T goes up, the more Lasguns outperform medium anti-tank weapons at killing the big stuff, though.

Sigh... Guards are always the problem, eh?

Pretend I said Lasblasters or Poison or Kroot Rifles or somesuch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"6s always wound" means that expanding at the high end past the point where the low end wounds on 6s makes the unit more resilient to the middle and upper end, but does not make it any more resilient to the low end.

Bharring wrote:
The Wave Serpent having lower toughness than the Rhino is silly. But the Predator could have a higher toughness than the Wave Serpent.

Rhinos are "cheap METAL BAWKSES", who by their cheapness make Marines more tactical.

Yes, I realise that Rhinos and Preds are just as tough right now. That's a problem.

Melta and Lascannons need to be bigger threats. But their Strength isn't a huge drawback currently. Bumping them to S10 will give them what, 33% more firepower vs the really-big stuff? Spreading out the toughness/strength table could be interesting, but it's the invulns and spiraling killiness that's drowning them out.

You're right, of course. I was just throwing out examples of how increased S and T across the board could introduce much more nuance to the current system, while retaining the use of D6s, which are far more convenient to obtain and use in large amounts.
D8s, D12s, etc are really only practical for single or very few rolls at a time. This is why they make ideal wound counters, but not great for rolling in a system like 40K that could require handfuls of dice.

The current system is trying to pack too many differing durabilities into too few characteristics. And as a consequence, we have Knights take can be too hard to take out with anti-vehicle weaponry and Marines that seemingly die as fast as Guardsmen

-

What really needs expanded is the number of wounds or damage eqch model can take, if infantry had 1 to 10 wounds light tanks 10 to 20 mediums 20 to 30 heavys 30 to 40 and super heavys 50 to 100 wounds you could actually scale a lasgun at 1d as weak against vehicals while a lascannon etc anti tank could do 10-20 damage over killing all infantry but makes bringing the right weapons more worthwhile, especially if it's stacked with expanded T values.

Ice_can wrote:
What really needs expanded is the number of wounds or damage eqch model can take, if infantry had 1 to 10 wounds light tanks 10 to 20 mediums 20 to 30 heavys 30 to 40 and super heavys 50 to 100 wounds you could actually scale a lasgun at 1d as weak against vehicals while a lascannon etc anti tank could do 10-20 damage over killing all infantry but makes bringing the right weapons more worthwhile, especially if it's stacked with expanded T values.

Yeah, I also agree with this.
Id rather see T stay mostly as-is, but heavier infantry and Tanks get more wounds.
Marines get 2W base, Primaris, Temies & Bikes can have 3 etc. Vehicles can get 25% or so more wounds too.
But with this I'd also like to see more set Damage values on weapon like Lascannons, Missiles, Meltas to better represent that these are SUPPOSED to take out big targets. None of this d6 Damage nonsense. Lascannons could be flat damage 4 or even 5, for example, with Meltas being Damage 3/6, with the higher being the damage at half range.

So everything has more wounds vs small arms fire, but high damage weapons are guaranteed to be higher damage, thus making them do what they are supposed to be for

-

The fact Lascannons don't have set damage is super silly to me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The fact Lascannons don't have set damage is super silly to me.

I think 3+1d3 would be reasonable.

4-6 damage seems okay to me. Of course, that does lead to EVEN MORE shooting dominance...

All D6 damage weapons should be D4+2 or 2D3 but that's not gonna happen with GW rules.

I'd rather the Lascannon and Melta classes (Bright/Dark lances and similar included) went to 2d6. These are supposed to be very expensive, one-shot-a-round weapons that, if it connects, does massive damage. Currently, they average less damage than a Plasma Gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, in a vaccum, this is offtopic: LasCannons and Melta Guns are often less anti-Knight weapons than small arms (Boltguns, Lasguns).

*Thats* a problem.

Bharring wrote:
I'd rather the Lascannon and Melta classes (Bright/Dark lances and similar included) went to 2d6. These are supposed to be very expensive, one-shot-a-round weapons that, if it connects, does massive damage. Currently, they average less damage than a Plasma Gun.

Plasma guns are massively undercosted though. 11 ppm could be ok if they didn't have the overcharged profile and natural 1 ALWAYS inflicts a mortal wound on the bearer, regardless of the re-roll.

I may like 2D6 lascannons but of course they should cost twice their price, so 50pts each. At the moment the lascannon doesn't seem to be overpriced or underperforming at all at 25 points.

The Imperial Knight stratagem that lets them assault after running is also stupidly OP especially on an Atropos.

 Riddick40k wrote:
The Imperial Knight stratagem that lets them assault after running is also stupidly OP especially on an Atropos.

I just bought a Knight Gallant that I'm gonna use as house Terryn... they roll 2D6 discard lowest for running, 3D6 discard lowest for assaulting... Hello average 25" charge range!

Yep, Full Tilt is the worst strat in that book. That and the "explode on a 4+" one... combined they're nothing shy of fekkin stupid

and, now I know what Terryn does, I am actually terrified of the first time I run into one of those armies. They make it to my lines, I'm screwed.

And the Tradition is going to make it even easier to get there...

I think It'd help my enjoyment of the game with Knights if they had a 4" move, d6" charge, and no movement stratagems.

Because Knights are apparently super fast and agile...

Make some weapons do more damage vs titantic units. If the hammerhead railgun did flat 6 +2 mortal vs titantic, for example, this would help the issue a lot. And reduce invulns by 2.