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.

I would definitely convert...daemonhosts' actual models are expensive.

 Paradigm wrote:
I'm more than happy to use CC units, the thoughts that CC is dead is another internet phenomenon I have yet to see evidenced.

In the vein, demonhosts are looking pretty cool, even just as a conversion task. The only problem is that I seem to be running out of troop slots. Not got the codex handy and can't remember what they can do, but do the buffs they roll apply to the whole unit? If so, then that could be great, if not, then it's a book-keeping nightmare waiting to happen

As a final note on the SM thing, I'd be taking at least 20-30, which I've found to be plenty for allies, and as I'll be using rhinos and/or pods, I imagine they'll do pretty well. I'm not worried about that side of the army to be honest, as I've played them for years and know the ins and outs of them by now. On the other hand, I've never used Inquisition stuff, so that's a whole new world.

Erm, as far as i remember the Daemonhosts buffs are personal, with the exception of I think the 1 or 2 shooting attacks on the list, and maybe there was one or two that through a debuff on enemy units. Don't forget double FOC at 2k points if you intend on going that far, 4 inquisitors could be rather funny, though if you intend to use them under the GK rules/depending on how the new inquisition book goes don't forget your coteaz tax.

On the subject of inquisitors actually, i'd say don't be afraid to take some of the crazier stuff too. The plasma syphon and that thing that gives you better shooting at psykers springs to mind.

ductvader wrote:I would definitely convert...daemonhosts' actual models are expensive.

Of course. This whole project is just one massive modelling oddesy, so I very much doubt there will be a single stock model in the whole army!

doc1234 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
I'm more than happy to use CC units, the thoughts that CC is dead is another internet phenomenon I have yet to see evidenced.

In the vein, demonhosts are looking pretty cool, even just as a conversion task. The only problem is that I seem to be running out of troop slots. Not got the codex handy and can't remember what they can do, but do the buffs they roll apply to the whole unit? If so, then that could be great, if not, then it's a book-keeping nightmare waiting to happen

As a final note on the SM thing, I'd be taking at least 20-30, which I've found to be plenty for allies, and as I'll be using rhinos and/or pods, I imagine they'll do pretty well. I'm not worried about that side of the army to be honest, as I've played them for years and know the ins and outs of them by now. On the other hand, I've never used Inquisition stuff, so that's a whole new world.

Erm, as far as i remember the Daemonhosts buffs are personal, with the exception of I think the 1 or 2 shooting attacks on the list, and maybe there was one or two that through a debuff on enemy units. Don't forget double FOC at 2k points if you intend on going that far, 4 inquisitors could be rather funny, though if you intend to use them under the GK rules/depending on how the new inquisition book goes don't forget your coteaz tax.

On the subject of inquisitors actually, i'd say don't be afraid to take some of the crazier stuff too. The plasma syphon and that thing that gives you better shooting at psykers springs to mind.

Double FOC certainly opens up a lot more options, both in troops and HQ, and multi-inquisitors will be fun. It'll be a long time before I get that far, though. The Inq codex supposedly works as a standalone, so I'm not too worried about having to take Coteaz.

Great and helpful advice so far everyone, thanks! Keep it coming.

Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

Opinion.

I and many others have run warriors with increased armor to great effect.

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

I appreciate the armour is expensive, but all the firepower in the world is useless if they are getting blown off the board in seconds. With IG I'll happily pay for carapace as it doubles the survivability against AP5 small arms like gauss, bolters and pulse weapons. The same is true here, if the squad is going on the front lines then it's probably getting armour. But as I say, I'm probably bringing allies for my front-line bolter troops anyway.

I'm considering running a unit of laspistol acolytes just to hold an objective out of LOS, no point in taking guns that never get used.

 Paradigm wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

I appreciate the armour is expensive, but all the firepower in the world is useless if they are getting blown off the board in seconds. With IG I'll happily pay for carapace as it doubles the survivability against AP5 small arms like gauss, bolters and pulse weapons. The same is true here, if the squad is going on the front lines then it's probably getting armour. But as I say, I'm probably bringing allies for my front-line bolter troops anyway.

I'm considering running a unit of laspistol acolytes just to hold an objective out of LOS, no point in taking guns that never get used.

4+ is where its at...And don't count those warriors out for assault...that's 3 attacks a piece on the charge if you keep your stock weapons...I once surprised an ork player with 12 of these guys hammerhanded by an inquisitor and rad grenades.

Super cheap objective holder that can dish some pain.

 ductvader wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

Opinion.

I and many others have run warriors with increased armor to great effect.

Of course it's my opinion, lol, what else would it be?

Anyway, a person can run a massively overcosted HQ (due to too many upgrades) and have it work well for them, but that doesn't mean it is efficient pointswise.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

I appreciate the armour is expensive, but all the firepower in the world is useless if they are getting blown off the board in seconds. With IG I'll happily pay for carapace as it doubles the survivability against AP5 small arms like gauss, bolters and pulse weapons. The same is true here, if the squad is going on the front lines then it's probably getting armour. But as I say, I'm probably bringing allies for my front-line bolter troops anyway.

I don't know man, giving them all armor just makes them into troops that aren't a good deal cost wise. Why try to make them cost almost as much as a space marine when they'll still perform much worse than one?

If you are running Coteaz, you can take them as elites too.

Carapace is probably a waste, it "doubles survivability against bolters/pulse rifles/shuriken/flamers" but you could just bring 2x more dudes, too.

Power armor definitely is a waste of points since you are still T3 (no one calls scorpions or warp spiders durable). Just put the points towards jokaero. Two give you something like a 50% chance to get improved saves.

Marines are more durable than most line infantry, but you need weight of numbers to make it count. Either massed bikes or massed tacticals is the way to go. 10 marines are easy to kill, 60+ is hard.

 Omegus wrote:
If you are running Coteaz, you can take them as elites too.

Carapace is probably a waste, it "doubles survivability against bolters/pulse rifles/shuriken/flamers" but you could just bring 2x more dudes, too.

Power armor definitely is a waste of points since you are still T3 (no one calls scorpions or warp spiders durable). Just put the points towards jokaero. Two give you something like a 50% chance to get improved saves.

Marines are more durable than most line infantry, but you need weight of numbers to make it count. Either massed bikes or massed tacticals is the way to go. 10 marines are easy to kill, 60+ is hard.

Are you sure about that first point? I thought it just moved them rather than meant you could take them in 2 squads. I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware that how almost every other FOC shift works. If not, then that' great, but at the moment I'm doubtful.

Taking 2x as many guys is probably a better option, but the problem is that with everything being troops and therefore capping at 6 slots, just upping the numbers is not really viable in some cases. I'm looking at a maximum of 72 models in troops, and if they are relying just on 5+ saves, I know from my experience with IG that that number can easily be blown away fast.

I wouldn't go with power armour, but I pay the points for carapace on IG vets and it always comes in handy, so I'll be going for that on most things that can take it (barring the naked acolyte squad that's just going to camp an objective out of LOS or at worst in very good cover (with GTG).

As I say, I'll be bringing 30 marines in transports as allies as a minimum, so as far as I'm concerned that's enough. That is based on experience, I'm not just assuming they'll make it.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Omegus wrote:
If you are running Coteaz, you can take them as elites too.

Carapace is probably a waste, it "doubles survivability against bolters/pulse rifles/shuriken/flamers" but you could just bring 2x more dudes, too.

Power armor definitely is a waste of points since you are still T3 (no one calls scorpions or warp spiders durable). Just put the points towards jokaero. Two give you something like a 50% chance to get improved saves.

Marines are more durable than most line infantry, but you need weight of numbers to make it count. Either massed bikes or massed tacticals is the way to go. 10 marines are easy to kill, 60+ is hard.

Are you sure about that first point? I thought it just moved them rather than meant you could take them in 2 squads. I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware that how almost every other FOC shift works. If not, then that' great, but at the moment I'm doubtful.

Taking 2x as many guys is probably a better option, but the problem is that with everything being troops and therefore capping at 6 slots, just upping the numbers is not really viable in some cases. I'm looking at a maximum of 72 models in troops, and if they are relying just on 5+ saves, I know from my experience with IG that that number can easily be blown away fast.

I wouldn't go with power armour, but I pay the points for carapace on IG vets and it always comes in handy, so I'll be going for that on most things that can take it (barring the naked acolyte squad that's just going to camp an objective out of LOS or at worst in very good cover (with GTG).

As I say, I'll be bringing 30 marines in transports as allies as a minimum, so as far as I'm concerned that's enough. That is based on experience, I'm not just assuming they'll make it.

FAQ states that Coteaz makes Henchmen troops only.

FAQ states that Coteaz makes Henchmen troops only.

Thought so. Cheers.

 ductvader wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

Opinion.

I and many others have run warriors with increased armor to great effect.

Anecdotal evidence.

The fact that you blanketly state that it worked well for you doesn't automatically make it a good idea. What did you play against in each game? How good was your opponent? What missions did ye play? How were the dice? These are just some of the factors that go into the experience of a game, and none of them are ever the same. I'm confident that I could beat a full 1850pts Marine list run by a 12yr old that has only bought starter boxes for his army with just two Wraithknights, but that doesn't mean I am confident I could bring them to a tournament and win with just them.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

Opinion.

I and many others have run warriors with increased armor to great effect.

Anecdotal evidence.

The fact that you blanketly state that it worked well for you doesn't automatically make it a good idea. What did you play against in each game? How good was your opponent? What missions did ye play? How were the dice? These are just some of the factors that go into the experience of a game, and none of them are ever the same. I'm confident that I could beat a full 1850pts Marine list run by a 12yr old that has only bought starter boxes for his army with just two Wraithknights, but that doesn't mean I am confident I could bring them to a tournament and win with just them.

At least we know both sides must be anecdotal.

I am perfectly okay with that.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

Opinion.

I and many others have run warriors with increased armor to great effect.

Anecdotal evidence.

The fact that you blanketly state that it worked well for you doesn't automatically make it a good idea. What did you play against in each game? How good was your opponent? What missions did ye play? How were the dice? These are just some of the factors that go into the experience of a game, and none of them are ever the same. I'm confident that I could beat a full 1850pts Marine list run by a 12yr old that has only bought starter boxes for his army with just two Wraithknights, but that doesn't mean I am confident I could bring them to a tournament and win with just them.

Neither does it make it a bad one. The variables you listed are certainly factors in list-building, but often they are more helpful that just considering units in a vacuum. I find that taking a unit in context is always more useful than just assuming the person stating/asking is playing at the most competitive levels or against the most common lists. The variables are what makes a unit good or bad, far more than pure mathematics, and vary on a player-to-player basis. Applying a 'one size fits all' mentality is not as useful in my opinion. For example, my meta is particularly low on AP3 as I'm currently one of only 2 MEQ players, and we also use a lot more LOS-blocking terrain than it seems a lot of groups use. I don't see Tau or Eldar a lot, and no Heldrakes have ever been used against me. As such, I find my marines far more durable than the internet suggests at times. This doesn't mean my 'anecdotal evidence' or experience is useless just because I don't play against those, any more than it makes anyone's advice valid just because they play a tournament. Anecdotal evidence can't just be dismissed.

So while to many increasing armour may be useless, to others it can be exceptionally helpful. On the whole, I'll take durability before firepower, as a weaker gun firing for 4 turns is better in my opinion than an amazing gun firing for one. Yes, 5-point bolter acolytes are amazing value for points offensively, but have all the durability of a small fly. That 'bang for your buck' is useless when they get off one round of shooting before dying in seconds, especially when the squad caps at 12 models (and I'm not going to rely on one Crusader to up the survivability that much). So in that case I value the added durability far more than damage-per-point efficiency. If it were IG and I could take squad of 30, then numbers would come first, but 12 T3 5+sv are far too easy to kill.

Now I'm wondering, why not pay 5 points for bolter acolytes and keep them in a chimera for the first few turns? Having never purchased carapace armor I am unsure what it costs, but it is something absurd like 8 points isn't it? Absurd relative to the base cost of the acolyte that is. Heck even if it is 6 points... 6 times 12 is way more than the cost of a chimera.

Super Newb wrote:
Now I'm wondering, why not pay 5 points for bolter acolytes and keep them in a chimera for the first few turns? Having never purchased carapace armor I am unsure what it costs, but it is something absurd like 8 points isn't it? Absurd relative to the base cost of the acolyte that is. Heck even if it is 6 points... 6 times 12 is way more than the cost of a chimera.

It is 4.

8 points for PA, Super Newb, 4 for carapace. As such, a bolter+carapace dude costs 9 points, which is more than fair in my opinion. With SB and Carapace only being 10, it's even better. Sure, putting them in chimeras is an option, but I have my GEQ mech style filled by IG, so I'd rather keep this army mostly foot-slogging. 55 points for a chimera versus 4x12 for capapace is certainly a good deal, but it's just not the direction I want this army to go in.

 Paradigm wrote:
8 points for PA, Super Newb, 4 for carapace. As such, a bolter+carapace dude costs 9 points, which is more than fair in my opinion. With SB and Carapace only being 10, it's even better. Sure, putting them in chimeras is an option, but I have my GEQ mech style filled by IG, so I'd rather keep this army mostly foot-slogging. 55 points for a chimera versus 4x12 for capapace is certainly a good deal, but it's just not the direction I want this army to go in.

Not to mention a Chimera exploding (which is not uncommon) should kill 5 of them outright...then LD8...there are definite downsides there too for a unit that just wants to score.

 ductvader wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
8 points for PA, Super Newb, 4 for carapace. As such, a bolter+carapace dude costs 9 points, which is more than fair in my opinion. With SB and Carapace only being 10, it's even better. Sure, putting them in chimeras is an option, but I have my GEQ mech style filled by IG, so I'd rather keep this army mostly foot-slogging. 55 points for a chimera versus 4x12 for capapace is certainly a good deal, but it's just not the direction I want this army to go in.

Not to mention a Chimera exploding (which is not uncommon) should kill 5 of them outright...then LD8...there are definite downsides there too for a unit that just wants to score.

Don't know if your math is right, but anyway, yes it isn't uncommon, but it is FAR less common than any unit with any guns in the game killing a chunk of your squad in a round of shooting. It would seem if a unit mostly wants to be around to score the metal 'bawk' that is the chimera would usually be a better option. Still, at least it's only 4 points for the upgrade. But going from 5 points to 9 points, almost double the cost to go from 33% saves to 50% is expensive IMHO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
8 points for PA, Super Newb, 4 for carapace. As such, a bolter+carapace dude costs 9 points, which is more than fair in my opinion. With SB and Carapace only being 10, it's even better.

SB and Carapace would be 11. Which isn't bad, but is getting too close to space marine prices. At least for me...

Super Newb wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
8 points for PA, Super Newb, 4 for carapace. As such, a bolter+carapace dude costs 9 points, which is more than fair in my opinion. With SB and Carapace only being 10, it's even better. Sure, putting them in chimeras is an option, but I have my GEQ mech style filled by IG, so I'd rather keep this army mostly foot-slogging. 55 points for a chimera versus 4x12 for capapace is certainly a good deal, but it's just not the direction I want this army to go in.

Not to mention a Chimera exploding (which is not uncommon) should kill 5 of them outright...then LD8...there are definite downsides there too for a unit that just wants to score.

Don't know if your math is right, but anyway, yes it isn't uncommon, but it is FAR less common than any unit with any guns in the game killing a chunk of your squad in a round of shooting. It would seem if a unit mostly wants to be around to score the metal 'bawk' that is the chimera would usually be a better option. Still, at least it's only 4 points for the upgrade. But going from 5 points to 9 points, almost double the cost to go from 33% saves to 50% is expensive IMHO.

12 S4 hits

x.67 chance of wounding

8 S4 wounds

x.67 chance of not surviving

5.39 failed saves

Ah, thought SB were 2 points, not 3. Still not bad, though.

And regarding the cost increase vs increase in save, the only things that really matter against are lasguns and shootas. Against the rest of the most common weapons in the game, it's the difference between having a save and not having one, which is easily worth 4 points. As I say, ideally I would just double the numbers for the same points, that's not an option thanks to the squad size limits.

Where are you finding the points for maxed out troops in carapace, and 30 allied space marines?

 Paradigm wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

Opinion.

I and many others have run warriors with increased armor to great effect.

Anecdotal evidence.

The fact that you blanketly state that it worked well for you doesn't automatically make it a good idea. What did you play against in each game? How good was your opponent? What missions did ye play? How were the dice? These are just some of the factors that go into the experience of a game, and none of them are ever the same. I'm confident that I could beat a full 1850pts Marine list run by a 12yr old that has only bought starter boxes for his army with just two Wraithknights, but that doesn't mean I am confident I could bring them to a tournament and win with just them.

Neither does it make it a bad one. The variables you listed are certainly factors in list-building, but often they are more helpful that just considering units in a vacuum. I find that taking a unit in context is always more useful than just assuming the person stating/asking is playing at the most competitive levels or against the most common lists. The variables are what makes a unit good or bad, far more than pure mathematics, and vary on a player-to-player basis. Applying a 'one size fits all' mentality is not as useful in my opinion. For example, my meta is particularly low on AP3 as I'm currently one of only 2 MEQ players, and we also use a lot more LOS-blocking terrain than it seems a lot of groups use. I don't see Tau or Eldar a lot, and no Heldrakes have ever been used against me. As such, I find my marines far more durable than the internet suggests at times. This doesn't mean my 'anecdotal evidence' or experience is useless just because I don't play against those, any more than it makes anyone's advice valid just because they play a tournament. Anecdotal evidence can't just be dismissed.

So while to many increasing armour may be useless, to others it can be exceptionally helpful. On the whole, I'll take durability before firepower, as a weaker gun firing for 4 turns is better in my opinion than an amazing gun firing for one. Yes, 5-point bolter acolytes are amazing value for points offensively, but have all the durability of a small fly. That 'bang for your buck' is useless when they get off one round of shooting before dying in seconds, especially when the squad caps at 12 models (and I'm not going to rely on one Crusader to up the survivability that much). So in that case I value the added durability far more than damage-per-point efficiency. If it were IG and I could take squad of 30, then numbers would come first, but 12 T3 5+sv are far too easy to kill.

None of this changes what are and are not competitive choices in any given army. And contrary to what you say, yes, they are mathematics, from the probability of common dice rolls to how efficient a unit is for their points. Not everybody plays this way, nor is there any requirement to, and it isn't even a better or worse way of playing, but saying what's competitive is dependent on things like the player's style is incredibly conceited. The issue you aren't seeing here is that just because something is good enough to get by in a certain situation or environment doesn't make it just good; the good stuff is what works all the time.

Also, whereas your altered meta mightn't automatically make your anecdotal evidence useless, that's only because it is already useless, just like all anecdotal evidence is useless. The apple-pie notion that everybody is right in some way just isn't true, not to mention that the real killer is that anecdotal evidence is exaggerated in some way in the majority of cases. If anecdotal evidence should always be given credibility as you suggest, then why bother with hard facts? Why make a proper argument when you can just make something up knowing that people will believe it? And that's only one of the major flaws in your notion.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Adding extra armor onto Warrior Acolytes is a TERRIBLE idea. The whole reason henchmen are good is because they are cheap. One guy with a bolter is 5 points. 5 points! And with a stormbolter 7 points. If you start throwing armor on these guys they will go from amazing points value to meh in no time flat.


PS - Don't ever take laspistol acolytes (4 points each) unless you literally don't have the points to take the bolter guys. The bolter acolytes are so much better for one more measly point.

Opinion.

I and many others have run warriors with increased armor to great effect.

Anecdotal evidence.

The fact that you blanketly state that it worked well for you doesn't automatically make it a good idea. What did you play against in each game? How good was your opponent? What missions did ye play? How were the dice? These are just some of the factors that go into the experience of a game, and none of them are ever the same. I'm confident that I could beat a full 1850pts Marine list run by a 12yr old that has only bought starter boxes for his army with just two Wraithknights, but that doesn't mean I am confident I could bring them to a tournament and win with just them.

Neither does it make it a bad one. The variables you listed are certainly factors in list-building, but often they are more helpful that just considering units in a vacuum. I find that taking a unit in context is always more useful than just assuming the person stating/asking is playing at the most competitive levels or against the most common lists. The variables are what makes a unit good or bad, far more than pure mathematics, and vary on a player-to-player basis. Applying a 'one size fits all' mentality is not as useful in my opinion. For example, my meta is particularly low on AP3 as I'm currently one of only 2 MEQ players, and we also use a lot more LOS-blocking terrain than it seems a lot of groups use. I don't see Tau or Eldar a lot, and no Heldrakes have ever been used against me. As such, I find my marines far more durable than the internet suggests at times. This doesn't mean my 'anecdotal evidence' or experience is useless just because I don't play against those, any more than it makes anyone's advice valid just because they play a tournament. Anecdotal evidence can't just be dismissed.

So while to many increasing armour may be useless, to others it can be exceptionally helpful. On the whole, I'll take durability before firepower, as a weaker gun firing for 4 turns is better in my opinion than an amazing gun firing for one. Yes, 5-point bolter acolytes are amazing value for points offensively, but have all the durability of a small fly. That 'bang for your buck' is useless when they get off one round of shooting before dying in seconds, especially when the squad caps at 12 models (and I'm not going to rely on one Crusader to up the survivability that much). So in that case I value the added durability far more than damage-per-point efficiency. If it were IG and I could take squad of 30, then numbers would come first, but 12 T3 5+sv are far too easy to kill.

None of this changes what are and are not competitive choices in any given army. And contrary to what you say, yes, they are mathematics, from the probability of common dice rolls to how efficient a unit is for their points. Not everybody plays this way, nor is there any requirement to, and it isn't even a better or worse way of playing, but saying what's competitive is dependent on things like the player's style is incredibly conceited. The issue you aren't seeing here is that just because something is good enough to get by in a certain situation or environment doesn't make it just good; the good stuff is what works all the time.

Also, whereas your altered meta mightn't automatically make your anecdotal evidence useless, that's only because it is already useless, just like all anecdotal evidence is useless. The apple-pie notion that everybody is right in some way just isn't true, not to mention that the real killer is that anecdotal evidence is exaggerated in some way in the majority of cases. If anecdotal evidence should always be given credibility as you suggest, then why bother with hard facts? Why make a proper argument when you can just make something up knowing that people will believe it? And that's only one of the major flaws in your notion.

If this game was decided solely on mathematics, with all units and decisions made based on math, then.....it sort of wouldn't be a GAME. Every "game" would be decided before it began, and this would all be pointless. Soooo, to counter your point...if math were all that mattered, why bother with the game?

That's why this game is fun. It is a good mixture of math, psychological warfare, tactics, and straight up LUCK.

You seem to have the very strange idea that math doesn't have anything to do with luck, tactics, OR games.

Perhaps you should read into game theory?

Corollax wrote:
You seem to have the very strange idea that math doesn't have anything to do with luck, tactics, OR games.

Perhaps you should read into game theory?

That is not at all what he said...

He suggests that if all decisions were based on math, the game would be decided before it began. This isn't the case, and there's an entire discipline of mathematics dedicated to studying how chance interacts with decision making. We call it game theory.

If I've misinterpreted his statement, then by all means provide clarification.

 Homeskillet wrote:
solely

Done.

Except that the statement still doesn't hold. There are lots of games, both with random chance and without, where proper mathematical understanding greatly improves your chances of success. You can play without this sort of analysis, but it diminishes your odds of victory.

Consider monopoly. I could program a computer to follow an optimized algorithm. It would not win every time, but it will win at least as often as its opponents, given a sufficiently long sample size. The outcome isn't decided, but it's positively influenced.

Are you suggesting that monopoly is not a game?