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.

 DarthOvious wrote:
I think you summed it up better than I did. Nobody ever said that assault didn't happen at all, but assault is now a few units with ridiculous rules and combos in order to make them effective. It by no means can be considered standard.

Thank you.

Combos are actually one of the worst problems in the game right now. In one of my more recent 'SimHammer' segments I did for the 11th company podcast, I illustrated how a buff commander can increase the damage output of broadsides to vehicles by 300%.

Being able to layer special rules is extremely powerful in 40k today -- and if you look at the armies that are winning the majority of games its clear as day.

To be fair and to attempt to stay on topic SM bikers assault all the time. So while assault is not the purpose of the bikers you will almost always see assaults in a biker build.

You also don't NEED a rerollable 2++. You just need a high enough ([wounds closing on opponent]-[opponent's kills/turn])/[turns to close with all squads involved]. If this reatio leaves you enough wounds left to resolve a combat to your favor then you (barring bad luck or brilliant tactics) will successfully close into combat. Actually Labmouse42 perhaps you could refine this into a Choppa potential?

 ansacs wrote:
You just need a high enough ([wounds closing on opponent]-[opponent's kills/turn])/[turns to close with all squads involved]. If this reatio leaves you enough wounds left to resolve a combat to your favor then you (barring bad luck or brilliant tactics) will successfully close into combat. Actually Labmouse42 perhaps you could refine this into a Choppa potential?

That would make a good simhammer segment. Thanks for the idea.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
I think you summed it up better than I did. Nobody ever said that assault didn't happen at all, but assault is now a few units with ridiculous rules and combos in order to make them effective. It by no means can be considered standard.

Thank you.

Combos are actually one of the worst problems in the game right now. In one of my more recent 'SimHammer' segments I did for the 11th company podcast, I illustrated how a buff commander can increase the damage output of broadsides to vehicles by 300%.

Being able to layer special rules is extremely powerful in 40k today -- and if you look at the armies that are winning the majority of games its clear as day.

What's that 300% number relative to? Percentages in a void aren't worth much.

 Pellegrino wrote:
They're both vulnerable against helldrakes

but the iron hand ones are 16% more survivialbe against heldrakes

Ricter wrote:
What's that 300% number relative to? Percentages in a void aren't worth much.

The relative value to the starting effect from the same unit.

Adding a buff-mander to provide ignore cover and tank hunters. Gives broadsides an threefold increase in effect when killing wave serpents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Exergy wrote:

 Pellegrino wrote:
They're both vulnerable against helldrakes

but the iron hand ones are 16% more survivialbe against heldrakes

That's not enough. If your going to survive helldrakes you need to have the right tools -- ie, flyers that can help.

When I'm playing a helldrake player I'll often hide in assault against their army and then hit and run out on their turn. Its not a perfect system, but helldrakes are bad news for bikes.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Statistically speaking, if we just regard the 4+ jink save White Scars bikers get (disregarding their other CT bonuses) and compared it with the 5+ jink and 6+ FNP Iron Hands bikers get, are the latter more survivable?

According to my intuition both buffs add 16.66% extra chance of passing a die roll than vanilla SM. Except you take the White Scars die roll when rolling for jink (i.e. when you cant roll regular armor saves), while you take the Iron Hands FNP after failing either a cover save roll or an armor save roll.

it really depends,

Against AP4+ weapons, FNP is better
In combat FNP is better
against ignore cover FNP is better
when not moving or in cover, FNP is better

against str10, +1 cover save is better
against AP2-3, str3-9, not cover ignoring, +1 cover save is better.
so plasma, melta and lascannons, +1 cover save is better.

rending is varriable. str3 rending will always be AP2 if it wounds, str 7 rending will rarely be AP2.

 Exergy wrote:
against AP2-3, str3-9, not cover ignoring, +1 cover save is better.
so plasma, melta and lascannons, +1 cover save is better.

Do you have the math to back that up?

Say a bike gets hit by a Lascannon. On one hand, you have a 4+ cover save (White Scars). On the other hand, you have the 5+ cover save and if you fail this, a 6+ FNP save (Iron Hands).

@Labmouse42
Awesome, I think you could more or less predict the outcome of a fight between what I call no maneuver armies. These armies are ones like gunline IG, zerker charge, etc. ie ones where you either do not move or only move in one direction with no actual thought to your movements. Such a prediction would work out to an analysis much like a quantized energy system when as the two forces close the gap the potential (damage) increases...right, too far.

Anyways this would give a nice assault potential value. I look forward to your ideas and revelations.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Exergy wrote:
against AP2-3, str3-9, not cover ignoring, +1 cover save is better.
so plasma, melta and lascannons, +1 cover save is better.

Do you have the math to back that up?

Say a bike gets hit by a Lascannon. On one hand, you have a 4+ cover save (White Scars). On the other hand, you have the 5+ cover save and if you fail this, a 6+ FNP save (Iron Hands).

assuming it wounds
The WS biker has a 50% chance to survive as he has 4+ cover
The IH biker has a 45% chance to survive as he has 5+ cover and 6+ FNP

 Exergy wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Exergy wrote:
against AP2-3, str3-9, not cover ignoring, +1 cover save is better.
so plasma, melta and lascannons, +1 cover save is better.

Do you have the math to back that up?

Say a bike gets hit by a Lascannon. On one hand, you have a 4+ cover save (White Scars). On the other hand, you have the 5+ cover save and if you fail this, a 6+ FNP save (Iron Hands).

assuming it wounds
The WS biker has a 50% chance to survive as he has 4+ cover
The IH biker has a 45% chance to survive as he has 5+ cover and 6+ FNP

Aren't they both 50%

A 4+ cover save translates to 3 saves out of 6 = 3/6 = 0.5 = 50%

A 5+ cover save and FNP on 6+ translates to 2 saves out of six adding one save out of 6 = (2/6) + (1/6) = 0.33 + 0.17 = 0.5 = 50%

You're doing the math for combining cover saves and FNP incorrectly. Suppose he had a 2+ cover save and FNP. By your calculation, this would be (5/6) + (2/6) = 7/6, for a 117% survival rate. This is obviously not the case.

You instead need to calculate the odds of both the cover save and FNP failing, then subtract the result from 100%. You'll then get the 45% survival that labmouse calculated.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Aren't they both 50%

A 4+ cover save translates to 3 saves out of 6 = 3/6 = 0.5 = 50%

A 5+ cover save and FNP on 6+ translates to 2 saves out of six adding one save out of 6 = (2/6) + (1/6) = 0.33 + 0.17 = 0.5 = 50%

We can't just add those percentages together. Otherwise plague marines with their 3+ save and 5+ FNP would never be hurt by anything AP4 or worse

If you want to break the values down by Resilience-Per-Point (RPP) then they are the following.target Weapons RPP White Scar IG lasgun 145.45 White Scar bolter 54.54 White Scar PG 14.54 White Scar autocannon 21.82 White Scar LC 14.54 target Weapons RPP Iron Hand IG lasgun 174.55 Iron Hand bolter 65.45 Iron Hand PG 13.09 Iron Hand autocannon 26.18 Iron Hand LC 13.09
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corollax wrote:
You instead need to calculate the odds of both the cover save and FNP failing, then subtract the result from 100%. You'll then get the 45% survival that labmouse calculated.

Hey...that was Exergy, not me. Lets give credit where its due

Corollax wrote:
You're doing the math for combining cover saves and FNP incorrectly. Suppose he had a 2+ cover save and FNP. By your calculation, this would be (5/6) + (2/6) = 7/6, for a 117% survival rate. This is obviously not the case.

You instead need to calculate the odds of both the cover save and FNP failing, then subtract the result from 100%. You'll then get the 45% survival that labmouse calculated.

Ah gotcha. Because the FnP save comes after the armour save then it translates to one sixth of four sixths. i.e (1/6)*(4/6) = 0.11 = 11%

So the final result would be 33% + 11% = 44%

 DarthOvious wrote:

Corollax wrote:
You're doing the math for combining cover saves and FNP incorrectly. Suppose he had a 2+ cover save and FNP. By your calculation, this would be (5/6) + (2/6) = 7/6, for a 117% survival rate. This is obviously not the case.

You instead need to calculate the odds of both the cover save and FNP failing, then subtract the result from 100%. You'll then get the 45% survival that labmouse calculated.

Ah gotcha. Because the FnP save comes after the armour save then it translates to one sixth of four sixths. i.e (1/6)*(4/6) = 0.11 = 11%

So the final result would be 33% + 11% = 44%

yes, you only have the opportunity to make your FNP save if you fail your regular armor save. 44.444%, I was looking at it the other way, chance of death and rounded wrong.

I have just found that 6+ saves (Invuln, FNP, Cover, Armor, ect) just do not cut it, specially on small, expensive units. I like Iron Hands and the free 6+ FNP, it /is/ a roll for a Str 9 (for bikes) or less weapon if everything fails. But you can't depend on it. I mean, I heard a Ork rumor 6 months to a year ago about just giving all Orks 6+ FNP and in a Hoard army I can see it working better when your losing 5-7 guys every time a enemy force looks at you. But a typical bike list with max 25 bikes? It is to infrequent to make a difference in the long haul or to base a bike army off of it alone. Will a Iron Hands Bike army work? Sure...so would an Ultramarine bike army or a Imperial Fist Bike army. T 5 marines with a built in cover save and relentless are always good, and thus they are expensive. Some are just better at it than others.

What makes White Scars good is the total package and that is why they are the best at it. If you /want/ to make a bike army, do White Scars. But if your making a Iron Hands army, Bikes are good. I would take a squad of 5+ (or two) and I would have a Bike Captain/Libby/Chapter Master and use it as a Death Star unit. But your better off otherwise making a Mech list and having something like a Masters of the Forge in a Land Raider and Tech marines standing behind or riding in vehicles. I think Iron Hands would make a much better Land Raider spam army than a bike army.

 BlkTom wrote:
I have just found that 6+ saves (Invuln, FNP, Cover, Armor, ect) just do not cut it, specially on small, expensive units..

Its not practical to rely upon the 6+ save to save a unit.

What it does let us do is assume that the models with the 6+ FNP are roughly 1/6 more durable than the other ones. (STR 9/10 weapons being the exception)

In other words, throwing 30 Iron Hands on the table is the same durability-wise as throwing down 35 ultramarines.

Yeah, that is what I said... 6+ saves do not cut it. And I understand your point. But the fewer models you have, the smaller the impact it is going to have. Thus, it works better on a hoard list than a marine list.

If he buys expensive HQs, Terminators, Bikes, Vehicles, ect... that means fewer marines and when your down to 20 marines and they only have to kill 23, you don't even notice it. You honestly would be better off with a different Chapter Tactic (screw it, chapter tactics are now CT) at that point that gives you more fire power to make it feel offensively that your not fighting 20 marines, but 30 (due to a CT that gives twin linked to weapons for example).

Sure, he could do a Scout/speeder Army with FNP and spam guys that way, but a bike list? You might not even have 30 guys then (depending on the points played).

I just don't see 6+ FNP as worth it for the purpose of 'I am only buying this unit because the 6+ FNP puts it over the top'. It doesn't. What the IH CTs are for are mech lists and character heavy lists (mainly MotF to squeeze out every little drop out of the CTs). The FNP is the side perk, and trust me, it is a good one. Every now and then it will save a guy. But that is all it is going to do.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 BlkTom wrote:
I have just found that 6+ saves (Invuln, FNP, Cover, Armor, ect) just do not cut it, specially on small, expensive units..

In other words, throwing 30 Iron Hands on the table is the same durability-wise as throwing down 35 ultramarines.

Which translates to 70 points, the price of a heavily armed Landspeeder.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Ricter wrote:
What's that 300% number relative to? Percentages in a void aren't worth much.

The relative value to the starting effect from the same unit.

Adding a buff-mander to provide ignore cover and tank hunters. Gives broadsides an threefold increase in effect when killing wave serpents.

That original quote is more than a bit misleading, then. First, it requires the target to have cover, and a 4+ one at that. Also, Tank Hunters is significantly less valuable the lower the AV of the target (and these days, AV 10-11 seems to dominate). It also ignores the fact that the buffmander costs more than a broadside. A buffmander against, say, a Hell Talon, isn't even in the neighborhood of 300% increase, after compensating for cost.

Labmouse and Darth have the right of it. Assaulting is now the function of a handful of super elite units. Not all codices have access to these units, or anything even remotely like them. Assault in a *general* sense is dead, not for every single unit.

Though, should it be a lot harder to assault someone than it is to shoot them? There's a reason no one does it in modern times, the proliferation of powerful ranged weaponry literally killed close combat in all but the most dense battlefields. Likewise, 40,000 years in the future, even more powerful ranged weaponry is still killing it and only the fastest, most heavily armored fighters can actually get face-to-face with their enemies.

I agree with you, but units paying for assault capability should be charged less for said capabilities then. I really don't care about the meta so much as long as every codex pays the appropriate amount for capabilities based on those abilities effectiveness in the current rules set. That's why when they change editions, all points values should be updated then and there.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with you, but units paying for assault capability should be charged less for said capabilities then. I really don't care about the meta so much as long as every codex pays the appropriate amount for capabilities based on those abilities effectiveness in the current rules set. That's why when they change editions, all points values should be updated then and there.

Of course, the fact that GW declines to out out "patches" or FAQ rules immediately is disappointing.

Ricter wrote:
Also, Tank Hunters is significantly less valuable the lower the AV of the target (and these days, AV 10-11 seems to dominate). It also ignores the fact that the buffmander costs more than a broadside. A buffmander against, say, a Hell Talon, isn't even in the neighborhood of 300% increase, after compensating for cost.

Everyone's meta is different. AV 10-11 may be dominating in your FLGS.
At larger tournaments and generally across the country the biggest vehicle is a wave serpent (AV12). As such, tank hunter is extremely useful. Wave serpents also get a 4+ cover save.

A buffmander might cost more than a single broadside, but when your attaching him to 3 broadsides the value he brings is a huge advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McNinja wrote:
Though, should it be a lot harder to assault someone than it is to shoot them? .

If this game were not full of elves, orks, and magic, I would be down for 'realistic combat'. The game is centered around whats cool. Rushing up with a chainsword is pretty darn cool.

3 Velocity Tracker Broadsides with TL-HYMP + TL-SMS with 6 Missile Drones and a dual flamer buffmander wielding a drone controller (BS5 missile drones), MSSS (no coversaves i.e. no jink/evasion), PEN (tank hunters) and VRT (hit & run) is murder to any skimmer or flyer and performs great against light infantry hidden behind cover as well, not to mention that a volley of these guys can bring the pain to MCs as well.

Assaulting these guys is pretty fruitless as well, as I would also not wish to become a target of their overwatch (39 twin-linked shots + 2D3 flamer hits) and by the end of the phase they get to flee with Hit & Run anyway.

Of course, your only drawback is range...this 455 point unit is harmless beyong 36"

 Sir Arun wrote:
3 Velocity Tracker Broadsides with TL-HYMP + TL-SMS with 6 Missile Drones and a buffmander wielding a drone controller (BS5 missile drones), MSSS (no coversaves i.e. no jink/evasion), PEN (tank hunters) and VRT (hit & run) is murder to any skimmer or flyer and performs great against light infantry hidden behind cover as well, not to mention that a volley of these guys can bring the pain to MCs as well.

Oh yea. Those things gave me tons of problems at NOVA. They killed more wave serpents than small pox.

And the funny thing is Storm Ravens go down just as easily as Wave Serpents to these guys...especially if they have the misfortune to find a single markerlight on their hull.

 Sir Arun wrote:
3 Velocity Tracker Broadsides with TL-HYMP + TL-SMS with 6 Missile Drones and a dual flamer buffmander wielding a drone controller (BS5 missile drones), MSSS (no coversaves i.e. no jink/evasion), PEN (tank hunters) and VRT (hit & run) is murder to any skimmer or flyer and performs great against light infantry hidden behind cover as well, not to mention that a volley of these guys can bring the pain to MCs as well.

Assaulting these guys is pretty fruitless as well, as I would also not wish to become a target of their overwatch (39 twin-linked shots + 2D3 flamer hits) and by the end of the phase they get to flee with Hit & Run anyway.

Of course, your only drawback is range...this 455 point unit is harmless beyong 36"

Drone Controller doesn't affect Missile Drones.

Strorm ravens have better tools to kill broadsides though. Bolters to use to kill the drones, Missiles and MM to ID the broadsides.
The trick is to use the correct allocation. Make the drones take the bolter wounds first.

Serpents, on the other hand tend to be less dangerous on a per-point basis to broadsides. They can do the job, but it requires more to do it.