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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Use them as a stop gap unit to plug the advance of a charging army before they can get to my gulliman and devastators - only because I don't have a better option for a unit that is both tough and deep strikes. Getting the charge off with gulliman's aura and veil of time is not difficult. What difficult is killing anything in assault once I get there.

Volume of attacks is too low.

Made even worse by an unneeded -1 to hit modifier.

All righty then, they drop out of deep strike in front of say: Ork Boyz coming to f-up Girlyman. You have an initial 20x Bolter Shots to chip a large portion of the unit away (Only strength 4 yes but you're hitting on 3s re-rolling), the math says 7 dead Boyz from shooting. You then charge with 11 S8 attacks hitting on 4s re-rolling and kill another 7 Boyz. Let's say it's a 30 Boy unit, you will lose 2 Termies and have another drop to 1 wound (maybe lose a 3rd from PK Nob). But here comes morale: on average your opponents Boy unit will lose another 10 Boyz if they don't have a Boss.

By sacrificing your Terminators you saved Girlyman and the devistators.

I wouldn't even charge the boys - my overwatch will do more damage than the powerfist vs the boys - herin lies the problem. Terms could actually be a great unit if not for power-fist tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Is Asterion forgeworld?

As a general rule I don't play with FW stuff.

That's a personal issue and not my problem. So I really don't care.

A 4+ to hit with a fist isn't bad anyway. Outside a few instances, any target worth hitting with a fist in 6/7th was only going to be hit on a 4+ anyway.

Pretty odd you don't consider the fact what you are hitting probably has a weapon that will shred your terms and isn't -1 to hit.

Such as?

harlequins?

Which deep striking in and doing 4 Bolter shots per dude (and likely either Assault Cannon or Frag CML) cant handle because? Power Fists have always been bad vs Harlequins. This hasn't changed since forever.

Plus the terminators have 2 Wounds. So wait for the next round when you have the chance to go first and you'll hopefully wound them on a 2+. They're still T3 right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you were striking Harlequins on a 4+ anyway in any previous edition.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Is that before or after the Troupe is ground to a paste from Space Marine shooting and/or (if needed) the Terminators literally wasting the entire unit?

Troupes are surprisingly resilient and fast, but you can only get so far with T3 4++. Off the side of this picture is a Starweaver to carry every single troupe or they just wouldn't make it to combat.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
I think the real question is more like why are other power weapons so cheap.

Let's take point efficiency out of the thought process for a moment.

There is an upper limit to the number of weapons on the table. I can't take 5 power swords simply because I prefer that to one power fist. So, if according to the chart below we made power swords roughly 1/3 the cost of a power fist it wouldn't make them stand out as a meaningful choice would it?

You need to label your axis. That chart is impossible to read.

 Arandmoor wrote:


You need to label your axis. That chart is impossible to read.

As noted above the axis is irrelevant. It is the ratio of the values that i'm highlighting.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:


You need to label your axis. That chart is impossible to read.

As noted above the axis is irrelevant. It is the ratio of the values that i'm highlighting.

It's not irrelevant. Your chart makes no sense.

Ratio of what? Why should I trust the numbers on a graph when I can't see what you used to produce them? *I* don't know what that chart means because you didn't label anything. I mean, the chart isn't even titled! I don't know what it's trying to display!

That chart is worthless.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Use them as a stop gap unit to plug the advance of a charging army before they can get to my gulliman and devastators - only because I don't have a better option for a unit that is both tough and deep strikes. Getting the charge off with gulliman's aura and veil of time is not difficult. What difficult is killing anything in assault once I get there.

Volume of attacks is too low.

Made even worse by an unneeded -1 to hit modifier.

Someone in the thread earlier said if power fist wasn't minute one to hit it would just be the best power weapon - well it does cost 5 times more than the other ones so...Compared to a relic blade I'd take the relic blade every-time. For the costs I'd take a MC power sword if it was an option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm running a competitive list involving Asterion and Terminators basically getting the charge more than half the time.

Mathematically speaking, the chance to make the charge is just less than half. If you have been making those charges over half of the time then you have been very lucky.

Asterion grants rerolls to charge on an aura. Chances are pretty decent.

Take Librarian - cast veil of time.

Which you get once for one unit. Hence why I use both.

I'm playing orks. Used to run bully boyz and now i'm really disappointed with power klawz. Hitting first is really not that big of a deal most of the time but the loss of +1 attack for the charge, ap2 and -1 to-hit are a big deal. Also, keep in mind that power klaw used to be vehicle killers. Now it's just not true. You need 4x the cost of the rhino in power klaw nobz to have a 50% chance of killing it.

And we're still paying 25 pts for it. Probably still a weapon of choice for squad leaders but not because it's good. It's just the best they've got. Quite a mediocre weapon.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
I think the real question is more like why are other power weapons so cheap.

Let's take point efficiency out of the thought process for a moment.

There is an upper limit to the number of weapons on the table. I can't take 5 power swords simply because I prefer that to one power fist. So, if according to the chart below we made power swords roughly 1/3 the cost of a power fist it wouldn't make them stand out as a meaningful choice would it?

Chart Detailing Angle of Weapon to Stance of Model, and it's Magical Effect On Dice Rolling: Relative Effectiveness by Phase of the Moon

There. I fixed your chart for you.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:


You need to label your axis. That chart is impossible to read.

As noted above the axis is irrelevant. It is the ratio of the values that i'm highlighting.

Context means everything, Power fists are 8:3 times better than Power Swords. What? In what context? I know for a fact that versus T2 W1 models the Power Sword is better.

 Arandmoor wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:


You need to label your axis. That chart is impossible to read.

As noted above the axis is irrelevant. It is the ratio of the values that i'm highlighting.

It's not irrelevant. Your chart makes no sense.

Ratio of what? Why should I trust the numbers on a graph when I can't see what you used to produce them? *I* don't know what that chart means because you didn't label anything. I mean, the chart isn't even titled! I don't know what it's trying to display!

That chart is worthless.

Uh...really all you need to know is that it's a measure of effectiveness. I don't know what the numbers mean, either, but I'm going to trust they were run faithfully. I'm guessing you don't go to your doctor and ask for a detailed lesson pathophysiology or get your mechanic to show you how to rebuild an engine every time your ride needs work, so maybe just take the chart for what it's worth. That is to say, it tells you PF are a lot more effective most of the time. That said, it'd be nice to know if the math used involved points costs or not.

Why don't you calculate it point-for point? Cause we can certainly say that lazcannons are better than bolters at killing ork boyz. Not point-efficient though.

MilkmanAl wrote:
Uh...really all you need to know is that it's a measure of effectiveness. I don't know what the numbers mean, either, but I'm going to trust they were run faithfully. I'm guessing you don't go to your doctor and ask for a detailed lesson pathophysiology or get your mechanic to show you how to rebuild an engine every time your ride needs work, so maybe just take the chart for what it's worth. That is to say, it tells you PF are a lot more effective most of the time. That said, it'd be nice to know if the math used involved points costs or not.

Perhaps you prefer to stay ignorant when it comes to seeing a Doctor or a Mechanic or in this case the power of power weapons but myself and many others would like to know the reasoning behind the decision made (more so if your going to a Mechanic, since your paying for it you're not going to just take their word that this is better than what you currently have).

 Arandmoor wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:


You need to label your axis. That chart is impossible to read.

As noted above the axis is irrelevant. It is the ratio of the values that i'm highlighting.

It's not irrelevant. Your chart makes no sense.

Ratio of what? Why should I trust the numbers on a graph when I can't see what you used to produce them? *I* don't know what that chart means because you didn't label anything. I mean, the chart isn't even titled! I don't know what it's trying to display!

That chart is worthless.

Ok champ.

Here's the forumla:

=$E4*((7-$D4)/6)*
IF(VLOOKUP("X",Stats!$A:$M,13,FALSE)>0,
(IF($F4>=J$2*2,0.666,IF($F4>J$2,0.5,IF($F4=J$2,0.333,IF(J$2/2>=$F4,0,0.167))))*IF(7-$H4-$G4<0,1,(1-((7-$H4-$G4)/6)))) + IF(7-3-$G4<0,1,(0.167 * (1-((7-$G4-3)/6)))),
IF($F4>=J$2*2,0.833,IF($F4>J$2,0.666,IF($F4=J$2,0.5,IF(J$2/2>=$F4,0.167,0.333))))*(1-((7-$H4-$G4)/6))
)
*$I4*100

And this is the array:



Now, regardless of the scenario if someone tells you they took two things, applied the same logic to each of them, and got a result and that the result was a visualization of said items in a thread about the effectiveness of said items...you wouldn't be able to figure it out?

If I told you it was "Average Wounds Caused over 100 rounds of combat across multiple combinations of combat variables to produce a simple, human readable figure that can be compare" how would that change the ratio of the numbers presented?

MilkmanAl wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:


You need to label your axis. That chart is impossible to read.

As noted above the axis is irrelevant. It is the ratio of the values that i'm highlighting.

It's not irrelevant. Your chart makes no sense.

Ratio of what? Why should I trust the numbers on a graph when I can't see what you used to produce them? *I* don't know what that chart means because you didn't label anything. I mean, the chart isn't even titled! I don't know what it's trying to display!

That chart is worthless.

Uh...really all you need to know is that it's a measure of effectiveness. I don't know what the numbers mean, either, but I'm going to trust they were run faithfully. I'm guessing you don't go to your doctor and ask for a detailed lesson pathophysiology or get your mechanic to show you how to rebuild an engine every time your ride needs work, so maybe just take the chart for what it's worth. That is to say, it tells you PF are a lot more effective most of the time. That said, it'd be nice to know if the math used involved points costs or not.

I don't troll for doctors on random internet message boards. I generally go to a practice or a hospital to see a doctor I was referred to by my insurance provider.

Here is a graph I found that relates the various armies to how much spaghetti they consume while on the road. It is also shaped like a rocket-ship. (https://i.imgur.com/6eol8PV.png)

Here is another graph I found that maps Slannesh paint schemes to cook-out win rates. (https://i.imgur.com/0OcFrtu.png)

Both are fake, and are about as useful as the above graph without sufficient labels or explanation. I mean, he didn't even title the damn thing. All we got was a vague "this is how effective power swords/fists are" with a bunch of pretty colored lines that go from 0 to ~180.

180 what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:


You need to label your axis. That chart is impossible to read.

As noted above the axis is irrelevant. It is the ratio of the values that i'm highlighting.

It's not irrelevant. Your chart makes no sense.

Ratio of what? Why should I trust the numbers on a graph when I can't see what you used to produce them? *I* don't know what that chart means because you didn't label anything. I mean, the chart isn't even titled! I don't know what it's trying to display!

That chart is worthless.

Ok champ.

Here's the forumla:

=$E4*((7-$D4)/6)*
IF(VLOOKUP("X",Stats!$A:$M,13,FALSE)>0,
(IF($F4>=J$2*2,0.666,IF($F4>J$2,0.5,IF($F4=J$2,0.333,IF(J$2/2>=$F4,0,0.167))))*IF(7-$H4-$G4<0,1,(1-((7-$H4-$G4)/6)))) + IF(7-3-$G4<0,1,(0.167 * (1-((7-$G4-3)/6)))),
IF($F4>=J$2*2,0.833,IF($F4>J$2,0.666,IF($F4=J$2,0.5,IF(J$2/2>=$F4,0.167,0.333))))*(1-((7-$H4-$G4)/6))
)
*$I4*100

And this is the array:



Now, regardless of the scenario if someone tells you they took two things, applied the same logic to each of them, and got a result and that the result was a visualization of said items in a thread about the effectiveness of said items...you wouldn't be able to figure it out?

If I told you it was "Average Wounds Caused over 100 rounds of combat across multiple combinations of combat variables to produce a simple, human readable figure that can be compare" how would that change the ratio of the numbers presented?

Thank you. Average wounds caused over 100 rounds of combat to X is extremely useful and easy to understand. You forgot to include that in your original post.

bleh.

Daedalus81 wrote:
If I told you it was "Average Wounds Caused over 100 rounds of combat across multiple combinations of combat variables to produce a simple, human readable figure that can be compare" how would that change the ratio of the numbers presented?

It wouldn't change the ratio but it puts the numbers in context. The problem with statistics (and most things really) is that without context they can be very easily skewed to support your argument: using the power of statistics I could quite easily say that power fists are 4.5 times better than power swords, what I did not add was that this is in the context of attacking a T8, multi wound model with a 3+ save.

"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Always ask for the context of any kind of statistic, and if they refuse to give you the context or give a very broad context then I would always be suspicious of them.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
If I told you it was "Average Wounds Caused over 100 rounds of combat across multiple combinations of combat variables to produce a simple, human readable figure that can be compare" how would that change the ratio of the numbers presented?

It wouldn't change the ratio but it puts the numbers in context. The problem with statistics (and most things really) is that without context they can be very easily skewed to support your argument: using the power of statistics I could quite easily say that power fists are 4.5 times better than power swords, what I did not add was that this is in the context of attacking a T8, multi wound model with a 3+ save.

"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Always ask for the context of any kind of statistic, and if they refuse to give you the context or give a very broad context then I would always be suspicious of them.

Well, that's why there is a list of categories at the bottom of the chart that mostly use long understood terms. I spit out a chart in a minute for visual impact not a research project.

Point taken anyway - i'll label them better in the future.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Except for sisters, who pay almost twice as much for their powerfist/chainfist analogue as other S3 units. Canoness are already woefully unloved in a faction that already has freaking Celestine. They don't need more reasons to be ignored.

There's also Inquisition, but that subfaction's already screwed to the point of near unplayability as it is, so having all their equipment being overcosted isn't even close to the first of their problems.

And plasma guns for scions. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean they aren't doing and aren't aware.

Cannoness Eviscerators come with 4 attacks that hit on 2s.
Space marines get 1 or 2 attacks that hit on 3s.

Perhaps that has something to do with it?

Except it doesn't, because Canoness eviscerators are also -1, so they hit on 3+. And the Canoness is more akin to a captain, not a Mook Marine.

So the SM Eviscerators hit on 4s. There's still a +1 difference between the Marine and Canoness, so maybe because Eviscerators are only on Canoness they are costed appropriately?

 Fafnir wrote:


Except it doesn't, because Canoness eviscerators are also -1, so they hit on 3+. And the Canoness is more akin to a captain, not a Mook Marine.

Yes that is true and we're in agreement that she should see a point reduction. GW didn't forget to cost some weapons differently and Sisters in general is my primary point here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarbossDakka wrote:


So the SM Eviscerators hit on 4s. There's still a +1 difference between the Marine and Canoness, so maybe because Eviscerators are only on Canoness they are costed appropriately?

Not totally. A better comparison would be a captain with chainfist which is basically a non-random eviscerator. But I can't say if a chainfist is more or less points from it's effectiveness simply because it can be accessed only by a more expensive model.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarbossDakka wrote:


So the SM Eviscerators hit on 4s. There's still a +1 difference between the Marine and Canoness, so maybe because Eviscerators are only on Canoness they are costed appropriately?

Not totally. A better comparison would be a captain with chainfist which is basically a non-random eviscerator. But I can't say if a chainfist is more or less points from it's effectiveness simply because it can be accessed only by a more expensive model.

But then you're comparing different weapons, which isn't really gonna give us a good answer. Either way, can't SM Captains take Eviscerators? Because if that's the case than yeah, I see where you're coming from with SoB Eviscerators. I don't know why, but I'm pretty sure they costed Storm Shields seperately for characters and individuals in the SM army composition, but didn't do that for any other weapon.

I've been working on a web app that takes weapons versus specified targets, literally rolls dice, and determines the outcome. This chart is 100,000 rounds of attacks with each weapon against a rhino from a full squad - so 10 attacks each round. It doesn't assume D3 damage to be 2 - it will roll a D3 there as well.

I'll make the app available once I polish it enough, but for this example it should be easy to see some advantages of the power fist come to light.

But you can't count the power fist as an expected wounds of 2, that assumes that it's always hitting something that has 3+ wounds.

For instance, if you're fighting a 2 wound model, you have a 2/3 chance to slay him outright, and a 1/3 chance to not. You can't deal 3 damage to him.

The point is, the expected damage in this case is actually lower than 2, because you can't deal more than 2. So while over 100 swings it looks like you are dealing a lot of damage with the fist, that assumes that you can actually deal 3 damage to your target.

In an example:

Model with power fists hits and wounds a squad of terminators, twice, and they fail their saves. You have a 5/9 chance to kill 1 terminator, and a 4/9 chance to kill 2 terminators. The expected actual wounds done is 3.1, not 4.


EDIT - not referring to the Rhino scenario. Just in the general case of computing damage as before.

Daedalus81 wrote:
I've been working on a web app that takes weapons versus specified targets, literally rolls dice, and determines the outcome. This chart is 100,000 rounds of attacks with each weapon against a rhino from a full squad - so 10 attacks each round. It doesn't assume D3 damage to be 2 - it will roll a D3 there as well.

I'll make the app available once I polish it enough, but for this example it should be easy to see some advantages of the power fist come to light.

See now that's a proper, informative graph!

 Marmatag wrote:

EDIT - not referring to the Rhino scenario. Just in the general case of computing damage as before.

I'll do up a 1/2/3w scenario set when I get back anyway!

 Marmatag wrote:
In an example:

Model with power fists hits and wounds a squad of terminators, twice, and they fail their saves. You have a 5/9 chance to kill 1 terminator, and a 4/9 chance to kill 2 terminators. The expected actual wounds done is 3.1, not 4.


EDIT - not referring to the Rhino scenario. Just in the general case of computing damage as before.

But its also worth pointing out that 2 of those 5 would still wound one of the other terminators. So that the given example the results would be 3/9 inflict 2 wounds, 2/9 inflict 3 wounds, and 4/9 inflict 4 wounds. Although this example is mostly a fun thought experiment as it is based around a single target with assumed variables.

I having played around with it in a couple of games think the current power fist is appropriately price for its effectiveness. And another thing worth pointing out is that a lot of the other weapons lost the usual +1 attack for having a pistol, a good reason for making them cheaper.

 koooaei wrote:
I'm playing orks. Used to run bully boyz and now i'm really disappointed with power klawz. Hitting first is really not that big of a deal most of the time but the loss of +1 attack for the charge, ap2 and -1 to-hit are a big deal. Also, keep in mind that power klaw used to be vehicle killers. Now it's just not true. You need 4x the cost of the rhino in power klaw nobz to have a 50% chance of killing it.

And we're still paying 25 pts for it. Probably still a weapon of choice for squad leaders but not because it's good. It's just the best they've got. Quite a mediocre weapon.

This is all I'm saying - paying 20 points for a mediocre weapon isn't exactly what I want to do with any unit. Hence - powerfist are bad.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
I'm playing orks. Used to run bully boyz and now i'm really disappointed with power klawz. Hitting first is really not that big of a deal most of the time but the loss of +1 attack for the charge, ap2 and -1 to-hit are a big deal. Also, keep in mind that power klaw used to be vehicle killers. Now it's just not true. You need 4x the cost of the rhino in power klaw nobz to have a 50% chance of killing it.

And we're still paying 25 pts for it. Probably still a weapon of choice for squad leaders but not because it's good. It's just the best they've got. Quite a mediocre weapon.

This is all I'm saying - paying 20 points for a mediocre weapon isn't exactly what I want to do with any unit. Hence - powerfist are bad.

Except they aren't bad and I proved you wrong, yet you haven't responded to my points.

Fists with a reroll buff are really good versus hard to kill units. A couple of hits don't amount to much but a bunch clear out.

 Primark G wrote:
Fists with a reroll buff are really good versus hard to kill units. A couple of hits don't amount to much but a bunch clear out.

Reroll buffs are trivially easy for marines to hand out, too. Hell, my 1st and 10th is built around them. And if I wanted I could make those units' powerfists hit at strength 10, too.