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.

 Blaggard wrote:
Peregrine: So 1 shot at BS1 is the same as 2 Shots at BS1?

No, but as much as GW sucks at game balance they aren't stupid enough to give you a choice of one shot, or two shots. You have a choice between one powerful shot, or two weaker shots. The multi-shot weapon is more likely to hit, but less likely to do anything when it does. The single-shot weapon is less likely to hit, but when it does it is more likely to kill the target.

And this is a mathematical fact:

Average damage (weapon 1) = P(to-hit) * P(to-wound/pen for W1) * P(not-saved for W1) * (# of shots for W1)

Average damage (weapon 2) = P(to-hit) * P(to-wound/pen for W2) * P(not-saved for W2) * (# of shots for W2)


If AVG1 = AVG2 * X (IOW, 2 is X times better than 1) then you can just divide both sides by P(to-hit), the BS factor and you get the exact same result. Set BS to anything you want, remove it entirely, the answer is exactly the same. Weapon 2 will still be X times better than weapon 1 whether it's BS 1 or BS 10.

Or, to bring it back to the topic, weapons that have a higher rate of fire are not better than weapons with a lower rate of fire when the maths makes those shots have a equal chance to do damage when it comes to snap firing.

If we're snap firing 1 melta or 2, 2's gonna be better. If we snapfire a single lasgun, 2's gonna be better. If we snapfire a AC at a incoming horde, it's gonna be better than snap firing a LC at the incoming horde.

I was thinking about adding a bit about price, but I decided to do this instead.

If AVG1 = AVG2 * X (IOW, 2 is X times better than 1) then you can just divide both sides by P(to-hit), the BS factor and you get the exact same result. Set BS to anything you want, remove it entirely, the answer is exactly the same. Weapon 2 will still be X times better than weapon 1 whether it's BS 1 or BS 10.

Fully aware, but the wording earlier made it seem like "1 melta snapfiring is just as good as 2 melta's snapfiring". If you were to have said "a weapon that snapfires a single shot is as effective as a weapon that fires multiple shots but the end result is the same chance of an effect happening, it doesn't matter if there's more shots, the end effect is going to be averagely the same" I wouldn't have asked.

 Blaggard wrote:

Or, to bring it back to the topic, weapons that have a higher rate of fire are not better than weapons with a lower rate of fire when the maths makes those shots have a equal chance to do damage when it comes to snap firing.

If we're snap firing 1 melta or 2, 2's gonna be better. If we snapfire a single lasgun, 2's gonna be better. If we snapfire a AC at a incoming horde, it's gonna be better than snap firing a LC at the incoming horde.

I was thinking about adding a bit about price, but I decided to do this instead.

Ok, now you are either just being stubborn or trolling. Yes, snap firing an autocannon at an incoming horde is better than snap firing a lascannon at that horde. But guess what, firing an autocannon REGULARLY at that horde is better than firing the Lascannon regularly at that horde. And guess what, the difference between snap-firing the autocannon and snap-firing the lascannon amounts to the exact same reduction in performance. Snap firing 100 autocannons at an infinite swarm of enemies causes 33 fewer casualties than shooting them regularly. Snap firing lascannons at that same infinite horde also also causes 33 fewer casualties than normal shooting would. You are entirely missing the point that the ability to snap fire doesn't magically make multi-shot weapons like the autocannon better than a single shot weapon like the lascannon.

I think the argument is

Firing 100 lascannons snap-shot=100 dice rolls

Firing 100 autocannons snap-shot= 200 dice rolls

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
I think the argument is

Firing 100 lascannons snap-shot=100 dice rolls

Firing 100 autocannons snap-shot= 200 dice rolls

It's a stupid argument. See my previous post about why it's stupid.

Yeah but it sounds like it's an argument about the same thing, just said differently.

It was a different argument. I was thinking 2 shots of the weapon A > 1 shot of weapon A, they were thinking 2 shots of Weapon A <=> 1 shot of weapon B.
No differentiation was made between Weapon A and B until I asked peregrine whether 2 shots wasn't better than 1.

RegalPhantom wrote:
You are entirely missing the point that the ability to snap fire doesn't magically make multi-shot weapons like the autocannon better than a single shot weapon like the lascannon.

I am not. I misread what was said earlier. I know that BS is a constant and there is no logarithmic scale going on.
When this subtopic was first being talked about no-one differentiated because different strengths and different APs. Some people instantly thought "Oh, multishot is a AC and single shot is a LC" yet I thought "Oh, multishot is 2 shots, single shot is 1 shot, of the same weapon".
Every explanation up until specific weapons were mentioned did not say that we were discussing 2 entirely different weapons. That is why I changed Ail's quote.

This is getting crazy

I'm amazed no-ones posted for 2 days. Save yourself.

I htink all IG tactics boil down to is spamming stuff. Spamming scoring units, spamming HWs, spamming SWs, spamming tanks, spamming air. Without spam, what are we?

When in doubt, throw more men at it. If it doesn't work, throw more men at it.

Anyone still uses the Primaris Psyker? At what level is he recommendable? (If any at all.)

I use him at 500 pts. I've been thinking of putting him in a power blob with biomancy but the whole power blob thing don't work so good no more.

I wonder about 50 conscripts and biomancy PP though...

 Blaggard wrote:
I'm amazed no-ones posted for 2 days. Save yourself.

I htink all IG tactics boil down to is spamming stuff. Spamming scoring units, spamming HWs, spamming SWs, spamming tanks, spamming air. Without spam, what are we?

Cannon fodder.

Anyways, I pretty much find this is the case. Whenever I try to take a balanced approach I end up doing poorly.

What do people think of the Reconnaissance Special ops the Stormtroopers can have?

I know Airborne Assault sounds the most advantageous, but you can always land in difficult terrain without having to roll for Dangerous terrain sounds advantageous enough.

AA is still better. Having only 12" from the board edge to get stuff into melta range isn't nearly as good as anywhere on the board. The reward greatly outstrips the risk.

The only time I've done outflanking stormtroopers was with flamer stormies against a GK player with coteaz and warpquake everywhere.

 Ailaros wrote:

Vhaine wrote: Snap shots aren't great but getting 2 of them is definately better then 1.

Snap shooting effects all weapons equally. Multi-shot weapons don't suddenly become better or worse as your BS changes.

Yeah, but cheaper weapons it's better because you aren't "wasting" so many points.

Yeah if you go melta. Plasma stormtroopers can always allow themselves to be more distant form their target so you got a little more, and can always help survival in the long run (and diverting fire)

sehguhdier wrote:Yeah, but cheaper weapons it's better because you aren't "wasting" so many points.

But better weapons are still better.

You won't always be snap firing, and when you do, I'd much rather have a weapon that has a serious chance of actually DOING something if I manage a 6 to hit.

When is cost too much for a weapon, ail?

 Blaggard wrote:
When is cost too much for a weapon, ail?

Well, I'm no Ailaros

But as far as I see it, and I think he will agree, it's less about direct "this weapon costs too much" and moreso "this weapon costs too much for what it does."

Guard weapons generally are priced rather well, with a few exceptions;

Heavy flamer for 20 points? No. 10 points would be reasonable, 15 would even be reasonable if it was guaranteed that you could get it into combat every game.

Missile launcher would be fine at 10 points, because it fills a similar niche to the autocannon, and with similar effectiveness.

Everything else is pretty good, and for the most part it comes down to carrier tax, and what other functions the carriers will be filling.

 Ailaros wrote:

sehguhdier wrote:Yeah, but cheaper weapons it's better because you aren't "wasting" so many points.

But better weapons are still better.

You won't always be snap firing, and when you do, I'd much rather have a weapon that has a serious chance of actually DOING something if I manage a 6 to hit.

Yep, also true. And when you fire lascannons you can make a cool laser noise!

Blaggard wrote:When is cost too much for a weapon, ail?

No. At least, not per se.

If there's anything I've learned over my time playing 40k, it's there is no substitute for effectiveness. Either that land raider is dead, or it isn't. Either that barge lord walks, or he skims in a HP5 vehicle with an S10 weapon that he doesn't have to get out to use. Etc. In the end, you can think of 40k as the amount of damage you do over time. Everything you damage now doesn't damage you later, and so forth. As such, with the exception of claiming and holding objectives, the only thing that's important is how much damage that you do, and how quickly you do it.

As such, cost isn't nearly the first thing I consider when I look at a weapon. Everything I look at first has to do with a weapon's effectiveness, because that's the only thing that actually matters. Cost only shows up at the end of the list-building process, which is when I start to look at things like efficiency, as it can sometimes be possible to wring a little bit more effectiveness out of a list by changing things around in order to get more or better guns.

So yes, there are some things that are egregious offenders of cost-per-killy, but in the end, my complaint is about the lack of killy, not the high price tag. That said, efficiency is a poor substitute for effectiveness. You should only care about how much something costs in the lens of how to make a list as a whole hit your opponent earlier, harder, and more often.

Which, of course, is why I come down on the lascannon side of lascannon v. autocannon and on the meltagun side of melta v. plasma. If you have to spend a few extra points, or make some other concessions in order to kill your opponent's stuff before it has a chance to do something, then so be it. The extra little sacrifice is going to be nothing compared to when your entire strategy falls apart because something that you needed to kill didn't die, or didn't die fast enough.

One of my experiences around here is that the majority of players are SM players, and they are right in your face turn one.

It occurs to me that ST squads dropping in behind the lines wouldn't really be that effective because all of his vehicles have mostly deposited their cargo by turn 2, and they aren't really in his own deployment zone anymore. I am beginning to doubt my idea of using a barrage heavy force also. Since most of what I would be firing at is probably in my own lines unless I get lucky on turn one with firing. And even then, I still have doubts about what Griffons can do to vehicles. Basilisks might be better, because they might be able to guarantee the death of those vehicles, but still, it seems to me they would end up mostly firing direct during every game.

Thoughts?

Well, if your opponent likes to rush you, they are likely to have objectives in their deployment zone held by some kind of minimal troop choice. These make perfect targets for STs and barrage, although you probably don't want to use too much. Just enough to harass and knock them off the objectives, maybe pick up linebreaker with STs.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
One of my experiences around here is that the majority of players are SM players, and they are right in your face turn one.

It occurs to me that ST squads dropping in behind the lines wouldn't really be that effective because all of his vehicles have mostly deposited their cargo by turn 2, and they aren't really in his own deployment zone anymore. I am beginning to doubt my idea of using a barrage heavy force also. Since most of what I would be firing at is probably in my own lines unless I get lucky on turn one with firing. And even then, I still have doubts about what Griffons can do to vehicles. Basilisks might be better, because they might be able to guarantee the death of those vehicles, but still, it seems to me they would end up mostly firing direct during every game.

Thoughts?

If you largely face armies that get in your face; Medusas.

Simply the best option.

Are the medusas part of a plastic kit or are they FW only still?

FW only, although not hard to convert from a basilisk I imagine.

 Trickstick wrote:
FW only, although not hard to convert from a basilisk I imagine.

Buy a Bassy, hack off the narrow part of the barrel, then put a piece of plastic piping over the thicked barrel for a rough and ready conversion.

Trickstick wrote:Well, if your opponent likes to rush you, they are likely to have objectives in their deployment zone held by some kind of minimal troop choice. These make perfect targets for STs and barrage, although you probably don't want to use too much. Just enough to harass and knock them off the objectives, maybe pick up linebreaker with STs.

Yeah, I was going to say, stormies and barrage weapons make a lot of sense. Plus, basilisks still work against stuff right in front of you. They're just a bit less accurate, is all.

Medusas, basilisks and stormtroopers would all be good options here, depending on the specifics of your meta.

Well, Griffons are FW only at this point. Either way, I'd have to ebay it or buy from FW.

Well, and a griffon would be crazy easy to convert. While other artillery pieces have all these extra tubes and flanges and widgets, the griffon really is little more than a tube.

Go to the hardware store and get a piece of plasticard (to make the side walls that the griffon has, and a bit of aluminum tubing (or get some plasticard tubing from amazon), and just stick a couple of regular guys on the back, and you'll be good.