Switch Theme:

Are Obliterators worth their new points cost?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Are Obliterators worth their new points cost?
Absolutely, they were undercosted for their firepower, now with mellee OMG, OP now 12% [ 26 ]
Balanced all around 42% [ 93 ]
Underwhelming 35% [ 79 ]
Garbage, won't field them now. 11% [ 25 ]
Total Votes : 223
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Aelyn wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I'm comparing it to the most-equivalent unit configuration. There's only a 45 point cost difference between 3 newblitz and 6 oldblitz and no difference in fire output. There's 6 less wounds. This is a roughly equivalent unit composition.

Comparing 2 newblitz to 3 oldblitz are also roughly comparable units, with a similar price point [35 points difference], same number of shots, and similar number of wounds.

Obliterators aren't continous, they're discrete. You cannot field 5 oldblitz [or at the ridiculous, a unit of 4.3 models]. It's also important to compare units in equivalent use-cases, because an efficieny comparison between a Grot and a Warlord Titan are essentially meaningless.

Thats how the comparison targets are chosen, buy choosing what I judged to be the most similar possible oldbliterator configuration.

Anyway, long story short, because the new, stronger unit stretches the value you get out of buffs onto them, there's a notable buff at the point of overflow, where you only have 1 unit of newbliterators, but need 2 units of oldbliterators to achieve the same effect. In short, the real buff was increased squad size.

Okay, but again, you didn't actually state the assumptions being used to get to your figures. I now realise that your graph was talking specifically about Slaaneshi Obliterators which get Endless Cacophony played on them - this was not mentioned in your first post, and only tangentially mentioned in the second post.

It also makes your graph useless to me, as I would run them in a Nurgle Epidemius force.

It's also worth mentioning that - since you're comparing one unit to two - you've tacitly ignored the additional flexibility gained by having two units, but have taken into account the reduced impacts of buffs. Again, this is not stated anywhere.

See how your message can be muddied if you don't make your assumptions explicit?


A couple of counterpoints:
1: Why would I, or anyone who cares about a absolutely minuscule 5% change in efficiency, care about their effectiveness in uncommon [or at least non-optimal] cases. It's a fairly safe assumption that an arriving Obliterator battery will be receiving Endless Cacophony, because they're generally going to be both the most powerful unit available for it and the unit best positioned to take advantage of the stratagem.

2: The extension of buffs applies whether or not you're Slaanesh or Nurgle. Nurgle's stratagem is also more useful on the newblitz, because you're both bringing back more firepower from the ressurection function, and with 4 wounds per model there's a lot more room for a model be wounded but not dead and get a lot of benefit from the healing effect, so the point that the larger unit It's much harder to quantify mathematically, though.

3: It's A: impossible to quantify the additional tactical flexibility, B: the newbliterator changes allow greater strategic flexibility in the unit tasking during the planning stages, and C: the loss of tactical flexibility is, in this case, moderately marginal. The most notable case is one in which target 2 or 3 is zoned out from the other targets, so the extra firepower you brought in your unit becomes overkill [or directed at a target of opportunity] and you need another unit available to present threat to the other target. This is a moderately common case, and a fairly serious one if you're relying on that, but it's also possible to strategically pre-empt it, or to use tactics to overcome it.


I can make a new, more detailed plot if you want, because this one doesn't account for everything, but I at least percieve most of the un-accounted for things generally working in the favor of the newbliterators.

Also, I think I went over most of my assumptions in the long response. I even mention Cacophony, and that I felt it's a safe assumption that obliterators will receive Cacophony, but not a reasonable assumption that you're also going to be spend you CP re-rolls on their stat rolls, or that you're going to invest in a MoP to buff them psychically.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/03 17:55:51


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
2 old units did 36 with Endless Cacophony.

What about those of us that DON'T run Slaanesh?

Which is the problem with costing units like they always have a Strategem active. Why is the Strategem not priced like it'll be used on Obliterators instead?


Because then it's miscosted for use on a CSM squad or whatever else you want to use it for.

There exists no static price points (A, B, C) such that
-A is the cost for a 3man Oblit squad
-B is the cost of 3 CSM
-C is the cost of Cacophony

Such that [A, B, A+B, A+C] are all fair.

Except such Strategems, let's be honest here, aren't gonna be used on Chaos Marines. Nobody is gonna use the attacking twice Strategem for Chaos Marines for example, and it's already priced like it'll be used on...basically anything else.
Should Chaos Marines with Chainswords be priced like they can attack twice in a row?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
2 old units did 36 with Endless Cacophony.

What about those of us that DON'T run Slaanesh?

Which is the problem with costing units like they always have a Strategem active. Why is the Strategem not priced like it'll be used on Obliterators instead?


Because then it's miscosted for use on a CSM squad or whatever else you want to use it for.

There exists no static price points (A, B, C) such that
-A is the cost for a 3man Oblit squad
-B is the cost of 3 CSM
-C is the cost of Cacophony

Such that [A, B, A+B, A+C] are all fair.

Except such Strategems, let's be honest here, aren't gonna be used on Chaos Marines. Nobody is gonna use the attacking twice Strategem for Chaos Marines for example, and it's already priced like it'll be used on...basically anything else.
Should Chaos Marines with Chainswords be priced like they can attack twice in a row?

So your proposed solution is to "streamline" the design space, such that only trivial options are left?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
2 old units did 36 with Endless Cacophony.

What about those of us that DON'T run Slaanesh?

Which is the problem with costing units like they always have a Strategem active. Why is the Strategem not priced like it'll be used on Obliterators instead?


Because then it's miscosted for use on a CSM squad or whatever else you want to use it for.

There exists no static price points (A, B, C) such that
-A is the cost for a 3man Oblit squad
-B is the cost of 3 CSM
-C is the cost of Cacophony

Such that [A, B, A+B, A+C] are all fair.

Except such Strategems, let's be honest here, aren't gonna be used on Chaos Marines. Nobody is gonna use the attacking twice Strategem for Chaos Marines for example, and it's already priced like it'll be used on...basically anything else.
Should Chaos Marines with Chainswords be priced like they can attack twice in a row?

So your proposed solution is to "streamline" the design space, such that only trivial options are left?

In many ways, the game could be more complicated, but it could be streamlined as well.

First and foremost, units NEED to be priced on their own merits, and not with buffers, as we can't assume the buffers exist at all times. When buffers exist, be it in auras and Strategems, they can then be priced depending on what they're buffing.
For example, it isn't like Chapter Master Special Characters are priced like they're buffing Tactical Marines all the time. Rather, they're priced like they're buffing Typhons or something. That's why, while I think it's really expensive, the Chapter Master Strategem is technically fair. However, why are we to assume all the Tactical Marines in your army are under these buffers? Should we price them like they naturally reroll 1's to hit or all to hit?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

It's really difficult to make that case though because many SM units were nerfed because of Guilliman, not because they stood on their own. Assault Cannons were nerfed for everyone - Grey Knights, Space Wolves, etc - because of their strength in a Guilliman gunline in early 8th edition.

This is also why balance is generally discussed around optimal scenarios, and when we discuss tournament placings we look at the top-tier of participants.

Balance is not a question of how poorly you can use a unit, but by how well it can perform if used properly.

Your jump pack, storm shield, meltagun captain pays the same price for his storm shield as my jump pack, storm shield, thunder hammer captain. One is a useless pile of crap, one is really good. Should the stormshields be differently costed because i have subpar options available to me?


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Spoiler:
Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
2 old units did 36 with Endless Cacophony.

What about those of us that DON'T run Slaanesh?

Which is the problem with costing units like they always have a Strategem active. Why is the Strategem not priced like it'll be used on Obliterators instead?


Because then it's miscosted for use on a CSM squad or whatever else you want to use it for.

There exists no static price points (A, B, C) such that
-A is the cost for a 3man Oblit squad
-B is the cost of 3 CSM
-C is the cost of Cacophony

Such that [A, B, A+B, A+C] are all fair.

Except such Strategems, let's be honest here, aren't gonna be used on Chaos Marines. Nobody is gonna use the attacking twice Strategem for Chaos Marines for example, and it's already priced like it'll be used on...basically anything else.
Should Chaos Marines with Chainswords be priced like they can attack twice in a row?

So your proposed solution is to "streamline" the design space, such that only trivial options are left?

In many ways, the game could be more complicated, but it could be streamlined as well.

First and foremost, units NEED to be priced on their own merits, and not with buffers, as we can't assume the buffers exist at all times. When buffers exist, be it in auras and Strategems, they can then be priced depending on what they're buffing.
For example, it isn't like Chapter Master Special Characters are priced like they're buffing Tactical Marines all the time. Rather, they're priced like they're buffing Typhons or something. That's why, while I think it's really expensive, the Chapter Master Strategem is technically fair. However, why are we to assume all the Tactical Marines in your army are under these buffers? Should we price them like they naturally reroll 1's to hit or all to hit?

Then you completely missed the point.

"First and foremost, units NEED to be priced on their own merits"
Set points values for units [A, B] such that they're fair. Let's assume that's viable.

"When buffers exist, be it in auras and Strategems, they can then be priced depending on what they're buffing."
So how do you now set the price of upgrade/buff/whatever [C], such that [A+C] and [B+C] are also fair?
Your argument is that you don't; you price it such that it's "fair" for the better of the two. Let's assume [A] is the stronger of the two. So, if [A+C] is comparable in points:value to [A] or [B] (or anything else out there), then [B+C] is, by your direction, overcosted.

So now we get to:
"Should we price them like they naturally reroll 1's to hit or all to hit?"
It doesn't matter. Per above, it is not possible to price them fairly under your stipulations.

Note that I'm not saying I can't figure out a way. I'm saying, based on the assumptions above, a way cannot exist.
   
Made in gb
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I can make a new, more detailed plot if you want, because this one doesn't account for everything, but I at least percieve most of the un-accounted for things generally working in the favor of the newbliterators.

Also, I think I went over most of my assumptions in the long response. I even mention Cacophony, and that I felt it's a safe assumption that obliterators will receive Cacophony, but not a reasonable assumption that you're also going to be spend you CP re-rolls on their stat rolls, or that you're going to invest in a MoP to buff them psychically.

Okay, again, you're completely missing my point.

I'm not saying that your assumptions are wrong, inappropriate, or invalid. (I'm also not saying they're right, appropriate, or valid - that's another question entirely.)

All I'm saying is that producing a graph with minimal explanation and saying:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The short answer is that you're getting a better unit for units of 1 or 3 Obliterators, but it's less efficient to run 2, which happens to be the number in the box.

can be highly misleading to anyone who doesn't know what your assumptions are. Without that information, your graph is worse than useless - it's actively misleading.

You still haven't explained how you actually get the numbers you've claimed, either, though I grant you've described (some of?) the principles that underpin the assumption - including your own, subjective, assessment of what is a reasonable comparison unit. It's not possible to assess how accurate they are or how applicable the graph is without understanding what it's saying, and that requires knowledge of the assumptions.

For example, by having just one buffed oldblit unit as the comparison point for the 2-man newblit unit but relying on two oldblit units, only one of which is buffed, as the baseline for the 3-man newblit unit, you're moving the efficiency of the baseline, which is artificially inflating the comparative efficiency of three newblits. That's not reflected on the graph, and that kind of misleading conclusion is exactly why I challenged the graph in the first place instead of taking it at face value.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/03 22:04:07


 
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Aelyn wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I can make a new, more detailed plot if you want, because this one doesn't account for everything, but I at least percieve most of the un-accounted for things generally working in the favor of the newbliterators.

Also, I think I went over most of my assumptions in the long response. I even mention Cacophony, and that I felt it's a safe assumption that obliterators will receive Cacophony, but not a reasonable assumption that you're also going to be spend you CP re-rolls on their stat rolls, or that you're going to invest in a MoP to buff them psychically.

Okay, again, you're completely missing my point.

I'm not saying that your assumptions are wrong, inappropriate, or invalid. (I'm also not saying they're right, appropriate, or valid - that's another question entirely.)

All I'm saying is that producing a graph with minimal explanation and saying:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The short answer is that you're getting a better unit for units of 1 or 3 Obliterators, but it's less efficient to run 2, which happens to be the number in the box.

can be highly misleading to anyone who doesn't know what your assumptions are. Without that information, your graph is worse than useless - it's actively misleading.

You still haven't explained how you actually get the numbers you've claimed, either, though I grant you've described (some of?) the principles that underpin the assumption - including your own, subjective, assessment of what is a reasonable comparison unit. It's not possible to assess how accurate they are or how applicable the graph is without understanding what it's saying, and that requires knowledge of the assumptions.

For example, by having just one buffed oldblit unit as the comparison point for the 2-man newblit unit but relying on two oldblit units, only one of which is buffed, as the baseline for the 3-man newblit unit, you're moving the efficiency of the baseline, which is artificially inflating the comparative efficiency of three newblits. That's not reflected on the graph, and that kind of misleading conclusion is exactly why I challenged the graph in the first place instead of taking it at face value.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at?


Actually, that's the point of it. You can't buff any units after the first, which is exactly why it's more efficient to field 3 newblitz versus 6 oldblitz. You can't keep fielding buffed obliterator units, you can only buff one, so the ability to consolidate 1.5 units into one winds up benefiting the unit in the form of improved buff efficiency. And it's not particularly useful to compare 3 newblitz to 3 oldblitz, because it's a fairly drastically different level of power and commitment from the unit. If you want to add power in the past, you would have needed to buy a whole another unit of obliterators, who wouldn't benefit from various buffs, while now you can add an extra man to get that whole extra units worth of firepower [and then some, and save a few points while you're at it]

I also think I've described the math enough to reconstruct it similarly. It's a weighted average of it's scores in defense, shooting, and cost [(2*shooting+1*defense+3*cost)/6]. Each subscore is a weighted average of the percent change of its various components [Newshots/Oldshots, or New Chance to be Wounded/Old Chance to be Wounded]. I described this process in detail in the first response post.


I acknowledge that I didn't describe the graph at first. I made it a long time ago, and didn't care a whole lot to go into gratuitous detail. The most important assumptions were listed at the top, that cost mattered a lot, shooting mattered less than the cost, and survivability was pretty far last [with melee and movement being entirely irrelevant]

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/04/04 00:57:43


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




The Void

I compared the firepower of Havocs and Oblits in the tactica thread and found that it actually comes out about right with the Oblits at 115 pts.

Spoiler:
I'm running Oblits at the shadowspear price of 115pts, and their weapon with average rolls. So Str8, ap-2, D2.



The main comparison to make is Oblits vs Reaper Chain Cannons, as those are both 24" range. And funnily enough, we see that point for point, the reaper is more efficient against everything, but especially against horde infantry. This is mainly because of the cost difference. The Oblit is ~3x the cost of the Chain Cannon Havoc.

Autocannons are even cheaper. You get the whole squad of 4x autocannons and 1x champ for 5pts less than a single Oblit! And they also actually meet or beat the Obliterator in efficiency per point in almost every area, although which areas changes a bit with re-roll 1's to hit. With re-roll 1's to hit and wound, they are exactly the same vs the tanks.

The Lascannon is behind on infantry and slightly ahead on the tanks, with the difference increasing once the re-rolls are introduced.

So in pure offensive power, the havocs actually come in ahead for the most part. But of course, this comparison actually has more to it because of how different these units are. On the surface of it, we can notice that for the price of 3 Oblits, we can afford 10 Chain Cannon Havocs. But of course, those would be split into 3 squads, only one of which can benefit from VotLW or Shoot Twice. Oblits have the biggest benefit from strats because they let you concentrate the most shooting power into a single squad.

Also note that I used average, middle of the road rolls for the Oblits. If they rolled worse it would perform worse against some targets, but not necessarily vs all of them. If they had only str7 instead of 8, that wouldn't change anything vs the Guardsmen. And Ap-1 wouldn't change anything vs the Boyz. If they roll D1, they lose out on a lot vs tanks.

And how about Defense? The Oblits are 4 wounds per 115. Chain Cannon havocs are ~3.5, and autocannons are ~5. But the Obliterator has 2+ Armor, which effectively doubles its durability over the havoc vs AP0. And the Invul of 5++ doubles it vs AP-3 (plasma.) They are vulnerable to high Damage weapons, but between the armor and invul, they are still much more durable per point than the Havocs. And that's before you consider that they can get Daemon Keyword defensive buffs, and are easier to benefit with defensive buffs that target a single unit. And they have a nice melee weapon. And Deep Strike.

So overall, Oblits are the superior unit, even at the shadowspear price point. But a lot of that is due to strats and buffs that will be in short supply. So you should fill a full unit of Oblits, but you may want to consider Havocs instead of a second unit of Oblits. After all, you can get 3 squads of Autocannon havocs for the cost of 3 Oblits! And they have the 48" range going for them.


And if you compare Oblits and Combi-Plasma terminators, they come out at about equivalent at 115pts as well.
(Reposting from a B&C thread.)

Spoiler:
I've been thinking about the relationship between Obliterators and Comb-Plasma terminators. These two units are surprisingly comparable it turns out, but with some differences of course.

3 combi plasma+chainaxe terminators is 114pts, 1 oblit is 115. So same cost.

The combi-plasma overcharge profile is comparable to Fleshmetal guns, on average. Fleshmetal guns have the random element, but can perform better. Overcharged plasma always has ap-3, and guaranteed D2, so that's a slight edge. Oblits can benefit from the Devastation Battery and get re-roll wounds of 1's vs vehicles, so edge to them on that. And of course, overcharge plasma needs buffs/auras to make it safe to use. But both these units are high enough investment that they'll probably have it either way.

The oblit always has 6 shots, the terminators only get that in rapidfire range. But the terminators also get bolter shots. Bolter+regular plasma is better vs hordes than fleshmetal guns by a decent amount, which helps make up for the range.

The terminators have twice as many attacks. Compared to the chainaxe, the oblit has an extra strength and Dd3. The terminators can spend a few extra points to improve their weapons beyond what the oblits can get. Terminators solid win here.

They have the same saves, but the Terminators have 2 more wounds for the same price, and are less vulnerable to d3 and higher weapons. But you need to deal twice as many wounds to the oblits to reduce their firepower. The oblits have the daemon keyword and so can get some extra buff synergy, and T5. So that all about evens out. Oblits win if you have a MoP upping their invul save.

The terminators have 1" more move. Both deep strike.

3 oblits is equivalent to 9 terminators, but the terminators can go to 10, meaning you're packing a little bit more points into the squad to take advantage of buff and strats. But you need to worry about morale at that size.

So overall, these units seem to measure up to each other very fairly. They both share the role of being high cost, high firepower units that will get a lot out of buff stacking. The oblits do it better as mid field units taking advantage of their range. Their CC will mostly not get used except in self defense. The terminators have the edge as a pressure unit that's going to move into close range and force your opponent to deal with it.

If you run both, your opponent will have no idea what to shoot.


So I don't know if they'll stay 115pts, but that price seems to be internally consistent with their two most comparable units. So i won't be surprised if it doesn't change.
If we didn't have the strats we do, I think they'd need to go down to the 90-100 range. But currently they could cost 130 and would still be an autoinclude in most lists.

Always 1 on the crazed roll. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Yea, 115 seems to much on the first glance as a standalone unit, but if you look at what you can do with em with a proper setup it still seems very much worth it.

Alpha Legion Slaneesh Oblits with a Reroll for the Damage Dice and VotLW firing twice with prescience and Lord Rerolls just brutal amount of firpower and will reliably delete 2 Targets in Range every shooting phase, and is a very good answer to knights and other hard targets.

So yea, even for 350+ Points i will still take them, at least the one squad.
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





stormcraft wrote:
Yea, 115 seems to much on the first glance as a standalone unit, but if you look at what you can do with em with a proper setup it still seems very much worth it.

Alpha Legion Slaneesh Oblits with a Reroll for the Damage Dice and VotLW firing twice with prescience and Lord Rerolls just brutal amount of firpower and will reliably delete 2 Targets in Range every shooting phase, and is a very good answer to knights and other hard targets.

So yea, even for 350+ Points i will still take them, at least the one squad.


Again if propperly Set up.
All non Slaanesh obliterators are not as usefull as the Chart above, all non AL units are in the same boat, renegades Oblits don't even get VotLW.

I doubt it is healthy to balance around maximum efficient buff application for pts, instead gw should have taken a look at cacophony, etc.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maybe GW doesn't want people to play with non AL non slanesh oblits? It could be true.
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




The Void

Not Online!!! wrote:
stormcraft wrote:
Yea, 115 seems to much on the first glance as a standalone unit, but if you look at what you can do with em with a proper setup it still seems very much worth it.

Alpha Legion Slaneesh Oblits with a Reroll for the Damage Dice and VotLW firing twice with prescience and Lord Rerolls just brutal amount of firpower and will reliably delete 2 Targets in Range every shooting phase, and is a very good answer to knights and other hard targets.

So yea, even for 350+ Points i will still take them, at least the one squad.


Again if propperly Set up.
All non Slaanesh obliterators are not as usefull as the Chart above, all non AL units are in the same boat, renegades Oblits don't even get VotLW.

I doubt it is healthy to balance around maximum efficient buff application for pts, instead gw should have taken a look at cacophony, etc.


Yeah, it's an annoying situation. They kind of have to balance around the maximum efficient buff application at the moment though. If it's balanced without counting VotLW and Cacophony then when those are used, it'd be busted.

At this point I'm getting a bit tired of those strats forcing Chaos into monobuilds. Cacophony should be a 1CP strat restricted to Noise Marines. VotLW can stop existing as a strat, and come back as a trait or something that provides re-roll wounds of 1. Units that were busted with Cacophony can go down in points cost or something. In other words, take away the ability to turn 1 unit into a giant FU button, but make everything else slightly more powerful to compensate.

Always 1 on the crazed roll. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Yea, that would require an actual redesign of the Codex, and GW just made it absolutely clear they have no desire to do so.
So we are stuck with the codex we have, and in that context the price is alright.
100 would be better imho, but i will still take them at 115

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/04 06:27:36


 
   
Made in gb
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Actually, that's the point of it. You can't buff any units after the first, which is exactly why it's more efficient to field 3 newblitz versus 6 oldblitz...

Okay, I think we're talking at cross purposes.

What I was trying to say (and I'm not sure if you realise it or not) is that your graph, especially combined with your original commentary, looks like it's saying something about the new Obliterators, but that the message is not representative of the actual efficiency of different builds. This is because you have a straight line for the baseline (i.e. comparative efficiency of the "equivalent" number of old Obliterators) despite the fact the the efficiency of old Obliterators is nonlinear. So the graph is functionally useless to anyone deciding whether to take Obliterators now or trying to figure out how to build them.

If the point you were trying to make all along was "two units (of oldblits) are less efficient than one, thanks to buffs", then the graph was an extremely oblique, not to mention misleading, way of saying it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I also think I've described the math enough to reconstruct it similarly. It's a weighted average of it's scores in defense, shooting, and cost [(2*shooting+1*defense+3*cost)/6]. Each subscore is a weighted average of the percent change of its various components [Newshots/Oldshots, or New Chance to be Wounded/Old Chance to be Wounded]. I described this process in detail in the first response post.

But I know that you made assumptions regarding the Mark of Chaos, the use of Endless Cacophony, and the appropriate comparison point. I wouldn't have realised the point about one unit of Oldblits vs two and the use of Endless Cacophony if I hadn't raised the challenge about the graph and seen your comment about comparing 2:3 new : old but 3:6 new : old (which only makes sense thanks to Cacophony) and your throwaway line about not assuming Cacophony for a single Newblit. That was all vital context to interpreting the graph. (You also didn't explain how you calculated survivability except in high-level terms, but I grant you that's relatively insignificant)

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I acknowledge that I didn't describe the graph at first. I made it a long time ago, and didn't care a whole lot to go into gratuitous detail. The most important assumptions were listed at the top, that cost mattered a lot, shooting mattered less than the cost, and survivability was pretty far last [with melee and movement being entirely irrelevant]

I disagree both that those are the most important assumptions and with your comparative weightings, but yes, at least you did try to put some context around your post. Not nearly enough to evaluate your message with a critical eye and derive useful information, but some.

Either way, I think we understand each other now, and I see no point in discussing it further.
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






On paper just looking at their stats they're not a good unit for their cost. Some of you are downplaying or missing a few things here though and its leading people to believe they are way too expensive.

1. Their weapons are 24" so short range (this means their melee isn't negligible). They're designed to be used short range.
2. They can natively deep strike. This is massive, you can drop them wherever you like with the enemy in range of their guns (that are assault so suffer no negs to hit). Then charge another unit. This mitigates their 4" movement stat.
3. They have a 2+, 5++, T5 and 4W so they are durable.
4. Their fleshmetal guns aren't random. They always have a minimum of str 7 up to 9, their AP is between 1 and 3 which is kind of a wash against many targets you want to fire their weapons at and they're damage is D3 which is pretty standard for their weapon type too. Probably the biggest weakness of their weapon is the D3 damage.
5. Their melee profile is pretty decent and could definitely be used to finish something off.

Add access to stratagems that allow the unit to fire twice and we can see why their cost is such.

Personally I'd drop them in the midfield every game T2 and unload into a pesky vehicle. I don't think I'd use cacophony on them (there are probably better units for that) and I'd try to charge another unit to keep them alive/tie something up.
   
Made in gb
Horrific Howling Banshee




I like them at 115. They're an option without being THE option for Chaos Heavy Support. I'll run a couple of them as either distraction carnifexs for my rhinos or deepstriking trouble shooting.

Everyone crying they're worse now, the unit WAS good, STILL is good and whilst pricy the cost should stay above 100 minimum in my opinion.

Now GW go buff my DAMN vindicators and stop making my Iron Warriors friend cry.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Space Marine





For me, I just feel like a three-man squad of obliterators shouldn't be 48 points more expensive than a land raider. Something about that just doesn't feel right.
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




London UK

A lot of the points on both sides of this argument are completely valid. The points for what they now give are pretty close to balanced.

I just have a nagging feeling that they are a little bit worse now because at 195 points they were close to autoo include. With the new points level for 3 it feels like the points total has just tipped over into being too high to justify in the context of points availab;lity for the rest of the list.

I would hazard a guess and say most players given the choice would prefer to field the old datasheet
   
Made in il
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch






I don't understand the logic of some people here.

Some people said they were too good at 65, but are too weak at 115 and should have been 85-90.

How...does that even compute?!?
They got a 50% increase in firepower, and got a lot harder to kill.
If they would cost 85-90 they would have been EVEN STRONGER than they were.

They need to cost 97 points to remain EXACTLY as cost-efficient, with two on the drop being exactly the same as old three.
anything below 100 would have been a straight buff, to a unit that you agree was too good...

can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Aelyn wrote:

If the point you were trying to make all along was "two units (of oldblits) are less efficient than one, thanks to buffs", then the graph was an extremely oblique, not to mention misleading, way of saying it.


The point is that one unit of 3 new obliterators is more efficient than such a list used to be [you have 45 points extra to spend, if that was what you had], but one unit of 2 new obliterators is less [you have to cut 35 points to make room]. It's not useful to compare a single buffed unit of old obliterators to a single full buffed unit of new obliterators; they're at completely different levels of commitment. But its an option, and it's not a bad one now, it just may entail re-working your list somewhat to support the unit

The graph is comparative; it's plotting relative change in performance at various level of obliterator commitment. If you were running 2 units before, you're now running 1 of 3, and you've got yourself a better deal [though it's marginal, 6% is not enough to cheer over]. If you were running 1 old obliterator, it's less efficient [again, though, by a small value].

That said, the introduction of the ability to field 1 for 115 is a pretty decent option, combine with their individual survivability buffs, because someone has to kill it, and it's going to take at least some AT guns which will probably overkill it.


It seems to me that you're trying to define the change as a nerf. It's not strictly a nerf or a buff. It's a nerf if you're running 2, but a buff if you're running 1 or 3. That's really the point here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aelyn wrote:

I disagree both that those are the most important assumptions and with your comparative weightings, but yes, at least you did try to put some context around your post. Not nearly enough to evaluate your message with a critical eye and derive useful information, but some.

Either way, I think we understand each other now, and I see no point in discussing it further.


I'm curious, what do you think are the comparative weightings? Escalating cost's importance makes the degree of the buff more extreme [at 3-2-1 it's farily minor, but at 5-2-1 it's pretty observable].

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/04/04 15:09:40


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in gb
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It seems to me that you're trying to define the change as a nerf. It's not strictly a nerf or a buff. It's a nerf if you're running 2, but a buff if you're running 1 or 3. That's really the point here.

Then you are absolutely missing my point. I'm not trying to describe the change at all, I'm just challenging your graph and statements as I think they are highly misleading and not useful to people assessing the new rules.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

I disagree both that those are the most important assumptions and with your comparative weightings, but yes, at least you did try to put some context around your post. Not nearly enough to evaluate your message with a critical eye and derive useful information, but some.

Either way, I think we understand each other now, and I see no point in discussing it further.


I'm curious, what do you think are the comparative weightings? Escalating cost's importance makes the degree of the buff more extreme [at 3-2-1 it's farily minor, but at 5-2-1 it's pretty observable].

It varies depending on list qnd unit role, but if you're talking specifically about the value of the change for suicide drop units, I think it goes damage = cost > survivability > melee > move = 0. Maybe a 5/5/3/1 ratio, I don't know.

But I think that looking at it in terms of comparative changes is not a useful perspective. I'd rather look at it in absolute terms - ideally I'd want a three-dimensional scatter diagram plotting offense v defence v cost, with points showing units of different sizes with different assumptions in place.
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Aelyn wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It seems to me that you're trying to define the change as a nerf. It's not strictly a nerf or a buff. It's a nerf if you're running 2, but a buff if you're running 1 or 3. That's really the point here.

Then you are absolutely missing my point. I'm not trying to describe the change at all, I'm just challenging your graph and statements as I think they are highly misleading and not useful to people assessing the new rules.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

I disagree both that those are the most important assumptions and with your comparative weightings, but yes, at least you did try to put some context around your post. Not nearly enough to evaluate your message with a critical eye and derive useful information, but some.

Either way, I think we understand each other now, and I see no point in discussing it further.


I'm curious, what do you think are the comparative weightings? Escalating cost's importance makes the degree of the buff more extreme [at 3-2-1 it's farily minor, but at 5-2-1 it's pretty observable].

It varies depending on list qnd unit role, but if you're talking specifically about the value of the change for suicide drop units, I think it goes damage = cost > survivability > melee > move = 0. Maybe a 5/5/3/1 ratio, I don't know.

But I think that looking at it in terms of comparative changes is not a useful perspective. I'd rather look at it in absolute terms - ideally I'd want a three-dimensional scatter diagram plotting offense v defence v cost, with points showing units of different sizes with different assumptions in place.


The graph was made a while ago back when it was first debuted to observe whether it was a buff or a nerf, which is why it's comparative to oldblitz [and the answer is, it's both, though most users will be disappointed]. It's therefore strictly dependent upon whether you though oblitz were good or not.

That said, if you like suicide drops, I'd recommend breaking the unit up into singles, or just running one single. The changes are a major buff for that use case, I think.

I can make such a plot for you; however while it's easy to produce a numeric value for change in characteristics, it's slightly harder to directly quantify them with no relative point.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in gb
Possessed Khorne Marine Covered in Spikes




 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't understand the logic of some people here.

Some people said they were too good at 65, but are too weak at 115 and should have been 85-90.

How...does that even compute?!?
They got a 50% increase in firepower, and got a lot harder to kill.
If they would cost 85-90 they would have been EVEN STRONGER than they were.

They need to cost 97 points to remain EXACTLY as cost-efficient, with two on the drop being exactly the same as old three.
anything below 100 would have been a straight buff, to a unit that you agree was too good...


You're only factoring the output of damage into this, they have 1.5 x the damage output but not 1.5 x the durability in a lot of circumstances. 65 gets you 3 t4 wounds, 115 get you 4 t5 wounds.

Actually napkin maths works out they are exactly twice as durable vs bolters, but if your opponents dropping bolter shots into them 1st and foremost then something's gone wrong.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/04 17:26:49


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I think oblits are pretty balanced now. And honestly more appealing to me. Especially considering they can fight a bit better have T5 and have a higher damage output for a maxed unit and can function msu.

3 with scourged trait looks very hard to assault and since they're fairly resilent thats typically the answer to tough shooty stuff that comes down midgame and roaches what could threaten them at range..
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't understand the logic of some people here.

Some people said they were too good at 65, but are too weak at 115 and should have been 85-90.

How...does that even compute?!?
They got a 50% increase in firepower, and got a lot harder to kill.
If they would cost 85-90 they would have been EVEN STRONGER than they were.

They need to cost 97 points to remain EXACTLY as cost-efficient, with two on the drop being exactly the same as old three.
anything below 100 would have been a straight buff, to a unit that you agree was too good...
115pts is Dread/Tank pricing, and, unless you're going all in on building your force around maximizing the Oblits, other options will outperform them. From my perspective, as an IW player running without any MoS units, the new price doesn't quite fit.

A couple quadlas Predators cost about what three newblits will. They have about the same performance against T5/6/7 tanks and monsters, the Oblits are better against infantry, the Preds are better against T8+. Both units are going to be best utilized against tough things. The Predators are sporting 22 T7 3+ wounds though against the Oblits 12 T5 2+/5++ wounds. Broadly speaking, on average, each Predator is twice as resilient (depending on the weapon, sometimes more and sometimes less) as each Newblit, so our 2 Predators have the approximate staying power of 4 Newblits with otherwise similar firepower but only cost as much as 3.

So, against the targets you really want both to go after, the Predators are more resilient, have double the range, and are better against Knight/Russ T8. The Oblits basically just have DS (which isn't by any means useless, but isnt everything either). The Predators are only 15pts more than 3 Newblits, are gonna be there for the turn 1 alpha strike, and have a greater speed to make use of (if necessary) than the Oblits once the latter are on the board.

Hence, why I think Newblits are more appropriate at 90 than 115.


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 cole1114 wrote:
For me, I just feel like a three-man squad of obliterators shouldn't be 48 points more expensive than a land raider. Something about that just doesn't feel right.


You're right. The land raider is still too expensive
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran





@Vakathi - And then compare Oblits to Helbrutes and it gets even worse.
A Helbrute with a Plasmacannon and Missile Launcher is what, 96 pts? With a Twin-Las and Missile Launcher they're what, 116 pts? I'd pick that over an Obliterator every single day.

115 ppm Oblits is only somewhat fine if you're using playing around cacaphony and stacking buffs, but far from everyone plays them this way. I refuse MoS on my Scourged-Oblits and my World Eaters can't even take MoS (not that I would take it.)



5000 pts
5500 pts
6500 pts
8500 pts
10.000 pts
 
   
Made in us
Long-Range Land Speeder Pilot






Just ran the first round of an escalation league on Saturday. At 500 points one player brought a unit of three obliterators, at the 65 point cost, and in both games they played the other player was tabled in 2 turns. I think 65 is way too low, but 115 is too much. However, even as a chaos player myself, I would rather they be 115 than 65. But that is just based on my current experience.

"Because the Wolves kill cleanly, and we do not. They also kill quickly, and we have never done that, either. They fight, they win, and they stalk back to their ships with their tails held high. If they were ever ordered to destroy another Legion, they would do it by hurling warrior against warrior, seeking to grind their enemies down with the admirable delusions of the 'noble savage'. If we were ever ordered to assault another Legion, we would virus bomb their recruitment worlds; slaughter their serfs and slaves; poison their gene-seed repositories and spend the next dozen decades watching them die slow, humiliating deaths. Night after night, raid after raid, we'd overwhelm stragglers from their fleets and bleach their skulls to hang from our armour, until none remained. But that isn't the quick execution the Emperor needs, is it? The Wolves go for the throat. We go for the eyes. Then the tongue. Then the hands. Then the feet. Then we skin the crippled remains, and offer it up as an example to any still bearing witness. The Wolves were warriors before they became soldiers. We were murderers first, last, and always!" —Jago Sevatarion

DR:80SGMB--I--Pw40k01#-D++++A+/fWD-R++T(T)DM+
 
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





Elbows wrote:
 Samuhell wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
Only a couple of internet-RAW blowhards will use that excuse. They're 115 points a model and 1-3 in a unit. The new CSM codex simply copy-pasted the old Obliterator entry, so ignore it.


Sorry to argue with you but the datasheet is the new one, the points at the back seem to be out but as it stands obliterators are 65 ppm and 3 in a unit


Sure, and people are welcome to hide behind that excuse as they always do with misprintings in books. It doesn't make them any less of a tool in my opinion.

How do you manage to always have the worst post in every thread you post in. This doesn't even seem like a typo to me, at the very least it's not definitive enough to call someone a tool for playing by the rules in their codex lol

P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: