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.

Lets not devolve back in to the BA discussion, lol, we all know BA suck.

IMO, a BA should smack down both Tac Marines and GH on the charge.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Lets not devolve back in to the BA discussion, lol, we all know BA suck.

IMO, a BA should smack down both Tac Marines and GH on the charge.

Oh, but GH are fair remember? So I should have a chance even with BA, right?

Okay dokey. I'll get a C:SM TAC list then. It wont' be White Scars because I don't use White Scars.

So I take it no one plays with tactics and cover, this how you get you Assault Units Melee, at least around here.

Yes we do play a different game.
When I am fighting Space Marines they don’t Assault me, they use the Superior Range of their Heavy Weapon to just kill off my Grey Hunters.
Vs. Guard, the same.
Orks either rush me in Battle Wagons or move from terrain piece to terrain piece until they get close enough to Assault me.
Nid do the same; except for the Podded DoM [Have not fought the 6e Nids yet]

We also don’t SPAM things, other than Genestealers and Ork Mobs.

On average I get to use my Counter Attack once per game per unit at most even vs. Orks and Nids.

Okay how about this IH list: Nice and generic

Chapter Master
Artificer
Super Shield
Power Fist
Bike
Combi-grav

Bike Squad
2 more
Combi-grav
Grav gun X 2
Attack Bike
Multi melta

Scouts
Sniper Rifles
Camo cloaks
Melta bomb

Scouts
Landspeeder Storm
Meltabomb

Tactical Squad
Rhino
Dozer Blade
Melta gun
Combi-melta

Scouts
Sniper Rifles
Camo cloaks
Melta bomb

TFC

Ironclad Dreadnought
Drop pod
Heavy Flamer

Assault Squad
2 X Flamer
Melta bombs
Drop pod

Tactical Squad
Drop pod
Meltagun
Combi-melta
Meltabomb

Stormraven
Sponsons
Extra armor

Cent devs
3 X grav cannons



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So I take it no one plays with tactics and cover, this how you get you Assault Units Melee, at least around here.

Yes we do play a different game.
When I am fighting Space Marines they don’t Assault me, they use the Superior Range of their Heavy Weapon to just kill off my Grey Hunters.
Vs. Guard, the same.
Orks either rush me in Battle Wagons or move from terrain piece to terrain piece until they get close enough to Assault me.
Nid do the same; except for the Podded DoM [Have not fought the 6e Nids yet]

We also don’t SPAM things, other than Genestealers and Ork Mobs.

On average I get to use my Counter Attack once per game per unit at most even vs. Orks and Nids.

Cover doesn't matter against things like scatter lasers.

What superior range? What are you talking about? The single heavy weapon from tac squads? That's laughable firepower.

Martel732 wrote:
What superior range? What are you talking about? The single heavy weapon from tac squads? That's laughable firepower.

Well for some reason things like Las-Cannons kill at least one Marine a turn and Plasma Cannons 1-2 a Turn. Even with cover it still come out to an average of 2 Models aver 3 Turns.
So I have the choice of constantly loose Grey Hunter Models to sniping, or divert my Long Fang/Land Speeder fire to kill off Tactical Squads rather than big thing like Dreadnaughts, Predators or Devastator Squads.
Ignoring them and by the time his Assault Squads/Vanguard Vets getting there having about 4-7 Models left by Turn 5, where it is the most important.
Moving my Grey Hunters to go after his Tactical Squads opening myself to more fire.

When I am playing my Space Marines, I find my Tactical Plasma Cannons kill a lot of models and Transports.
My Heavy Bolters also kill at lot of models and even glance the occasional Transport when I have nothing else to shoot at.

So I find them useful.

On point costs... its really a laughable issue. People want x amount of points to be able to kill Y amount of points. Those who shout the word "fair" the most usually want X to equal Y.

They call that fair. You know who had this? Blizzards Warcraft. Not warcraft 2, or warcraft 3. In warcraft an Ogre hit with x damage, a knight hit with x damage and both had y hit points. Whom ever struck first won. It always was that way (assuming no spell buffs). This is why in the original game, the humans were the stronger faction. The damage bonus to archers was more significant than regeneration for trolls. The bonus to damage that Ogurs could do, could not overcome the regen in hit points that Paladins could produce. The damage from death coil (not enough to kill high hit point units), was insignificant to loosing entire models (regardless of hit points) to poly morph. Then blizzard realized that, and in Warcraft II they added random damage ranges. Suddenly the game became more tactical. It wasn't about hitting first, it was now about hitting with more.

And that what a lot of people here are forgetting. In an average SW army there are 30 to 40 grey hunters... on average, with a two point boost in points that is 60 to 80 extra points. You know what that is worth? 1 hammernator. One typhoon, one TWC. If you really think that taking away 1 of these things is going to sway the battle into more fair. You are sadly mistaken. Especially since just like Warcraft 2, random damages mean everything.

80 points is only 1/23 of an 1850 point. Considering the possibility that you can loose 100s of points to sweeping advance (for some armies), mishaps, exploding vehicles, gets hot, dangerous terrain, perils, really bad reserve rolls to some extent, etc. with just a few bad die rolls, you really think a two point change in GH is going to matter? Hell a first turn alpha strike can put you 200 points in the hole just for the simple task of showing up.

This is why X against X doesn't work in getting you the win. 40K has always been about X,Y, and Z vs. A and B. You cant win the game by trading equal points. In order to actually win the game dominantly there has to be at some point a massive point shift. Either due to poor/good planing, bad/good die rolls, or just plain bad/good luck (depending on which side of the battle you end up on).

You think that you can quantify it, you think that you can math hammer it out. And believe me, I'm a huge fan of math hammer. I like to know what should happen. But then my D6 turn on me and it doesn't. And like I said before, I've never won against Necrons. Ever. But since they are not my only opponent, maybe my lucky die rolls went off against that seemingly easy win against that ork army yesterday and now I'm paying back the Karma police when I just happen to be facing against my nemesis Necrons.

So yeah, I brought 600 - 800 points of Grey Hunters, that is not even half of my 1850 point list, and everything else (save long fangs) is more expensive than anything an SM army can bring of equivalent nature. Maybe its not Grey Hunters that are kicking your butt, but I'm bringing my entire army to the game, and I'm very much going to try to get that massive point shift through overloading the odds and beating the D6 failure. Yes there are some units that have overwhelming advantages for seemingly smaller points, but have you noticed over the years that small point shifts don't seem to matter? Can you really tell me that tactical marines that have floated between 14 and 16 points over 4 different codexs have significantly changed because of those points or is it the unique and army wide special rules that have actually made the difference. Ever notice that the things that really get shelved or brought off the shelf are things that see massive point shifts like 5 - 9 points per infantry model or 30-50 points when talking about vehicles.

If you want to kill my 220 point Grey Hunter unit, you had better bring over 300 points to the fight because even if they cost 240 points (17 points each) because its still going to take that much firepower to make that overwhelming victory.

And above all, the #1 tactic that has been repeated over and over and over. Play to your own strengths not the other guys. Stop trying to destroy that Predator tank with Grot Blasters. And if Grey Hunters are kicking your butt in assault, then by all that is holy, stop assaulting them. Every army in the game has the ability to not assault them.

I can always win against my 8 yr old son in a tickle fight. Every time. I would imagine taking those same tickling skill into battle with an MMA fighter would be a very bad idea. I might just have to figure out a different battle plan.

 Jayden63 wrote:
On point costs... its really a laughable issue. People want x amount of points to be able to kill Y amount of points. Those who shout the word "fair" the most usually want X to equal Y.

They call that fair. You know who had this? Blizzards Warcraft. Not warcraft 2, or warcraft 3. In warcraft and ogre hit with x damage, a knight hit with x damage and both had y hit points. Whom ever struck first won. It always was that way (assuming no spell buffs). Then blizzard realized that, and in Warcraft II they added random damage ranges. Suddenly the game became more tactical. It wasn't about hitting first, it was now about hitting with more.

And that what a lot of people here are forgetting. In an average SW army there are 30 to 40 grey hunters... on average, with a two point boost in points thats 60 to 80 extra points. You know what that is worth. 1 hammernator. One typhoon, one TWC. If you really think that taking away 1 of these things is going to sway the battle into more fair. You are sadly mistaken. Especially since just like Warcraft 2, random damages mean everything.

80 points is only 1/23 of an 1850 point. Considering the possibility that you can loose 100s of points to sweeping advance (for some armies), mishap, exploding vehicles, gets hot, dangerous terrain, perils, etc. with just a few bad die rolls, you really think a two point change in GH is going to matter? Hell a first turn alpha strike can put you 200 points in the whole just for the simple task of showing up.

This is why X against X doesn't work. 40K has always been about X,Y, and Z vs. A and B. You cant win the game by trading equal points. In order to actually win the game dominantly there has to be at some point a massive point shift. Either due to poor planing, bad/good die rolls, or just plain bad luck.

You think that you can quantify it, you think that you can math hammer it out. And believe me, I'm a huge fan of math hammer. I like to know what should happen. But then my D6 turn on me and it doesn't. And like I said before, I've never won against Necrons. Ever. But since they are not my only opponent, maybe my lucky die rolls went off against that seemingly easy win against that ork army yesterday and now I'm paying back the Karma police when I just happen to be facing against my nemesis Necrons.

So yeah, I brought 600 - 800 points of Grey Hunters, thats not even half of my 1850 point list, and everything else (save long fangs) is more expensive than anything an SM army can bring of equivalent nature. Maybe its not Grey Hunters that are kicking your butt, but I'm bringing my entire army to the game, and I'm very much going to try to get that massive point shift through overloading the odds and beating the D6 failure.

If you want to kill my 220 point Grey Hunter unit, you had better bring over 300 points to the fight because even if they cost 240 points (17 points each) because its still going to take that much firepower to make that overwhelming victory.

And above all, the #1 tactic that has been repeated over and over and over. Play to your own strengths not the other guys. Stop trying to destroy that Predator tank with Grot Blasters. And if Grey Hunters are kicking your butt in assault, then by all that is holy, stop assaulting them. Every army in the game has the ability to not assault them.

I can always win against my 8 yr old son in a tickle fight. Every time. I would imagine taking those same tickling skill into battle with an MMA fighter would be a very bad idea. I might just have to figure out a different battle plan.

All of this is true. My Grey Hunters hardly ever kill their points. What does all of my Killing are my Long Fangs, Land Speeders, Lone Wolves and Wolf Scouts.
My 170 points of Lone Wolves regularly take out 200-300 points and without risking Kill Points
My Land Speeders usually net about half the Transports and Dreads on the Table, My Long Fangs take out the other half.
My Would Scouts clear out the backfield of Devastators and other Long Range Fires Support.
My Grey Hunters [unless I am Podding in] sit back and hold my Objectives while protecting my Long Fangs.

This might be why I don’t see Counter Attack as Over Powered, because I hardly ever get to use it unless I am fighting Orks or Nids and then it helps keep alive.

They call that fair. You know who had this? Blizzards Warcraft. Not warcraft 2, or warcraft 3. In warcraft an Ogre hit with x damage, a knight hit with x damage and both had y hit points. Whom ever struck first won. It always was that way (assuming no spell buffs). This is why in the original game, the humans were the stronger faction. The damage bonus to archers was more significant than regeneration for trolls. The bonus to damage that Ogurs could do, could not overcome the regen in hit points that Paladins could produce. The damage from death coil (not enough to kill high hit point units), was insignificant to loosing entire models (regardless of hit points) to poly morph. Then blizzard realized that, and in Warcraft II they added random damage ranges. Suddenly the game became more tactical. It wasn't about hitting first, it was now about hitting with more.

Hrm...You might actually want to know about a games meta before talking about it. As bloodlusted ogres were far superior to knights in every way.

Once the Orcs have completed their Fortress, Altar of Storms, and have researched Ogre-Magi and Bloodlust then that is when the ground battle turns in favor of the Orcs. Bloodlusted Ogres do three times the damage of a fully upgraded Paladin. Bloodlusted Ogres can also quickly and easily break their way into enemy defenses and tear down Towers. Paladins receive Healing but this can often only help them after a battle is finished.

Some argue the Humans require much more strategy than the Orc player. The Orc player often needs and builds only Bloodlusted Ogres, while the Human player has and needs all sort of spell combinations, units and strategies to counter the Orc threat. A Human victory over Orcs that reached the Fortress/Bloodlust stage is often something to brag about because of the skill level and strategy required.

Generally the ogre's were far enough the most powerful thing that humans had to deal with. Which is amusing considering your stance on GH.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What superior range? What are you talking about? The single heavy weapon from tac squads? That's laughable firepower.

Well for some reason things like Las-Cannons kill at least one Marine a turn and Plasma Cannons 1-2 a Turn. Even with cover it still come out to an average of 2 Models aver 3 Turns.
So I have the choice of constantly loose Grey Hunter Models to sniping, or divert my Long Fang/Land Speeder fire to kill off Tactical Squads rather than big thing like Dreadnaughts, Predators or Devastator Squads.
Ignoring them and by the time his Assault Squads/Vanguard Vets getting there having about 4-7 Models left by Turn 5, where it is the most important.
Moving my Grey Hunters to go after his Tactical Squads opening myself to more fire.

When I am playing my Space Marines, I find my Tactical Plasma Cannons kill a lot of models and Transports.
My Heavy Bolters also kill at lot of models and even glance the occasional Transport when I have nothing else to shoot at.

So I find them useful.

Lasannons do not kill /at least one marine a turn/.
It's a 3+ to hit, then a 2+ to wound, then you're probably getting a 5+ cover save if you're not stupid.
That's not at least one marine a turn.
Plasma cannon has a 33% chance of a direct hit.
Then 2+ to wound.
Then 5+ cover.
And it's probably only hitting 2-3 models if you've spaced them correctly.
So no, they're not that viable. You ask what you can do against tactical squads? Advance until you're in boltgun range and then use your 2 plasma guns to completely obliterate them. Also you seem to forget SMs can't fire their heavies when they move, they can only snapshot. So basically what you're saying is, in the games you play against Space Marines you have an entire Tactical Squad that is completely stationary, sitting there firing lascannon shots at you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

They call that fair. You know who had this? Blizzards Warcraft. Not warcraft 2, or warcraft 3. In warcraft an Ogre hit with x damage, a knight hit with x damage and both had y hit points. Whom ever struck first won. It always was that way (assuming no spell buffs). This is why in the original game, the humans were the stronger faction. The damage bonus to archers was more significant than regeneration for trolls. The bonus to damage that Ogurs could do, could not overcome the regen in hit points that Paladins could produce. The damage from death coil (not enough to kill high hit point units), was insignificant to loosing entire models (regardless of hit points) to poly morph. Then blizzard realized that, and in Warcraft II they added random damage ranges. Suddenly the game became more tactical. It wasn't about hitting first, it was now about hitting with more.

Hrm...You might actually want to know about a games meta before talking about it. As bloodlusted ogres were far superior to knights in every way.

Once the Orcs have completed their Fortress, Altar of Storms, and have researched Ogre-Magi and Bloodlust then that is when the ground battle turns in favor of the Orcs. Bloodlusted Ogres do three times the damage of a fully upgraded Paladin. Bloodlusted Ogres can also quickly and easily break their way into enemy defenses and tear down Towers. Paladins receive Healing but this can often only help them after a battle is finished.

Some argue the Humans require much more strategy than the Orc player. The Orc player often needs and builds only Bloodlusted Ogres, while the Human player has and needs all sort of spell combinations, units and strategies to counter the Orc threat. A Human victory over Orcs that reached the Fortress/Bloodlust stage is often something to brag about because of the skill level and strategy required.

Generally the ogre's were far enough the most powerful thing that humans had to deal with. Which is amusing considering your stance on GH.

When did this threat become about warcraft?

 Anpu42 wrote:
So I take it no one plays with tactics and cover, this how you get you Assault Units Melee, at least around here.

You're dodging my question. What do you think happens to a Crusader Squad when it comes into contact with a Genestealer Squad, seeing as Crusaders can't have CCW/BP and Bolter/Shotgun at the same time?

When did this threat become about warcraft?

Probably should've explained it better, my point was that some people can't really 'see' balance too well, and believe the balance to be different when in reality it's far stronger than he may believe.

It's why some may see GH as on par with Tacticals, though at the same time it may help that most SW I see play exclusively SW so have never actually used tactical squads.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What superior range? What are you talking about? The single heavy weapon from tac squads? That's laughable firepower.

Well for some reason things like Las-Cannons kill at least one Marine a turn and Plasma Cannons 1-2 a Turn. Even with cover it still come out to an average of 2 Models aver 3 Turns.
So I have the choice of constantly loose Grey Hunter Models to sniping, or divert my Long Fang/Land Speeder fire to kill off Tactical Squads rather than big thing like Dreadnaughts, Predators or Devastator Squads.
Ignoring them and by the time his Assault Squads/Vanguard Vets getting there having about 4-7 Models left by Turn 5, where it is the most important.
Moving my Grey Hunters to go after his Tactical Squads opening myself to more fire.

When I am playing my Space Marines, I find my Tactical Plasma Cannons kill a lot of models and Transports.
My Heavy Bolters also kill at lot of models and even glance the occasional Transport when I have nothing else to shoot at.

So I find them useful.

You must play in a place with magical dice if you have Lascannons are killing "at least one Marine a turn". Even without cover the average is 0.556, so only slightly better than 1 marine every 2nd turn even with no cover. If you have cover, that drops to 0.37, so in a 6 turn game if it fires every turn at units in cover, it will on average only kill 2 models the entire game.

And weren't you saying earlier that the WGPL isn't great because you lose the free special weapon when you want to ride in a transport? So I'm assuming all your GH are in drop pods or rhinos. Move forward, disembark, shoot. Once you're within 24", plasma guns are more effective at killing MEQ than Lascannons because the plasma gun can move without having to snap fire.

Plasma Cannons are nice on Tac squads, but mean you can't move and shoot anymore. I do like Heavy Bolters, but lets not over state their value, against a MEQ they'll kill less than 1 marine every 2nd turn and against an AV11 vehicle, on average they'll only get 1 glance every 3 rounds of firing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
This might be why I don’t see Counter Attack as Over Powered, because I hardly ever get to use it unless I am fighting Orks or Nids and then it helps keep alive.

This is what I don't like about GH. They have an ability that is useless against someone shooting at you and holy crap it's powerful against an army that actually tries to charge you. Especially if the poor sucker charging you has less Ini than you (Orks).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

They call that fair. You know who had this? Blizzards Warcraft. Not warcraft 2, or warcraft 3. In warcraft an Ogre hit with x damage, a knight hit with x damage and both had y hit points. Whom ever struck first won. It always was that way (assuming no spell buffs). This is why in the original game, the humans were the stronger faction. The damage bonus to archers was more significant than regeneration for trolls. The bonus to damage that Ogurs could do, could not overcome the regen in hit points that Paladins could produce. The damage from death coil (not enough to kill high hit point units), was insignificant to loosing entire models (regardless of hit points) to poly morph. Then blizzard realized that, and in Warcraft II they added random damage ranges. Suddenly the game became more tactical. It wasn't about hitting first, it was now about hitting with more.

Hrm...You might actually want to know about a games meta before talking about it. As bloodlusted ogres were far superior to knights in every way.

Once the Orcs have completed their Fortress, Altar of Storms, and have researched Ogre-Magi and Bloodlust then that is when the ground battle turns in favor of the Orcs. Bloodlusted Ogres do three times the damage of a fully upgraded Paladin. Bloodlusted Ogres can also quickly and easily break their way into enemy defenses and tear down Towers. Paladins receive Healing but this can often only help them after a battle is finished.

Some argue the Humans require much more strategy than the Orc player. The Orc player often needs and builds only Bloodlusted Ogres, while the Human player has and needs all sort of spell combinations, units and strategies to counter the Orc threat. A Human victory over Orcs that reached the Fortress/Bloodlust stage is often something to brag about because of the skill level and strategy required.

Generally the ogre's were far enough the most powerful thing that humans had to deal with. Which is amusing considering your stance on GH.

This is proof positive that personal experances very greatly. I played the hell out of Warcraft. Lan parties galore. I almost never lost as a human once I figured out their strengths. Bloodlust never did the sheep they turned into any good. Or the hail of incoming +3 arrows damage arrows. It was my experance that Orcs had the same issues as Orks do now. You have to get close to hurt stuff and everyones magic is better than yours.

And maybe thats another problem with space wolves. There are maybe 15 people actively talking in this thread, we each have our own SW history and apparently it is very different from one another in serveral cases. Probably why its been heated. Each of our personal experances is just not showing up in what the other guy is saying.

Yes I play is a magical land where my opponent hits with his Las-Cannons 90% and I fail my 5+ Save 90% of the time.

Why is it every time I describe what happens to me I get arguments about what has happened to me.

No I was not dodging a question Fine, I did not relies I hade to quantify exactly the Weapons load out
If they have Bolt Guns/Shotguns: A bunch of the Stealers die before they reach them due to the 24” Boltguns and a number die from the large volume of over watch fire and a bunch of the remaining Models get to attack do to the numbers of the Crusader squad.
Bolt Pistol/CCW: Not as many Genestealers die to weight of fire and the Overwatch leaving ony a few of the Crusaders left to die under the weight of the Rending claws.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
This is what I don't like about GH. They have an ability that is useless against someone shooting at you and holy crap it's powerful against an army that actually tries to charge you. Especially if the poor sucker charging you has less Ini than you (Orks).

So you just described the balancing factor about Grey hunter in less wounds than me.

 Jayden63 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

They call that fair. You know who had this? Blizzards Warcraft. Not warcraft 2, or warcraft 3. In warcraft an Ogre hit with x damage, a knight hit with x damage and both had y hit points. Whom ever struck first won. It always was that way (assuming no spell buffs). This is why in the original game, the humans were the stronger faction. The damage bonus to archers was more significant than regeneration for trolls. The bonus to damage that Ogurs could do, could not overcome the regen in hit points that Paladins could produce. The damage from death coil (not enough to kill high hit point units), was insignificant to loosing entire models (regardless of hit points) to poly morph. Then blizzard realized that, and in Warcraft II they added random damage ranges. Suddenly the game became more tactical. It wasn't about hitting first, it was now about hitting with more.

Hrm...You might actually want to know about a games meta before talking about it. As bloodlusted ogres were far superior to knights in every way.

Once the Orcs have completed their Fortress, Altar of Storms, and have researched Ogre-Magi and Bloodlust then that is when the ground battle turns in favor of the Orcs. Bloodlusted Ogres do three times the damage of a fully upgraded Paladin. Bloodlusted Ogres can also quickly and easily break their way into enemy defenses and tear down Towers. Paladins receive Healing but this can often only help them after a battle is finished.

Some argue the Humans require much more strategy than the Orc player. The Orc player often needs and builds only Bloodlusted Ogres, while the Human player has and needs all sort of spell combinations, units and strategies to counter the Orc threat. A Human victory over Orcs that reached the Fortress/Bloodlust stage is often something to brag about because of the skill level and strategy required.

Generally the ogre's were far enough the most powerful thing that humans had to deal with. Which is amusing considering your stance on GH.

This is proof positive that personal experances very greatly. I played the hell out of Warcraft. Lan parties galore. I almost never lost as a human once I figured out their strengths. Bloodlust never did the sheep they turned into any good. Or the hail of incoming +3 arrows damage arrows. It was my experance that Orcs had the same issues as Orks do now. You have to get close to hurt stuff and everyones magic is better than yours.

And maybe thats another problem with space wolves. There are maybe 15 people actively talking in this thread, we each have our own SW history and apparently it is very different from one another in serveral cases. Probably why its been heated. Each of our personal experances is just not showing up in what the other guy is saying.

The problem is in most cases quite a few people have mathhammer and actual major tournament experience backing them up.

There's a BIG difference between anecdotes, and things that are known.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


The problem is in most cases quite a few people have mathhammer and actual major tournament experience backing them up.

There's a BIG difference between anecdotes, and things that are known.

No there isn't. What happens in a tourniment 1000 miles away or even next door doesn't effect my perception in the slightest. Because nothing that happened there effected anything that happened in my own basement. In my world Humans were the most powerful army. It was proven game after game after game. And when it came to having fun with the game, my world is the only one that mattered. And math hammer goes straight out the window once dice imperfectly balanced dice are thrown on uneaven playing surface. And yeah, with a thousand throws you might actually get the math hammer results your looking for. However, a single game is only 5 turns and maybe 200 throws. And if you get the low end or the high end, your perception of the units will greatly change as all those other dice throws that even out the curve happen on different dates on different opponents.

Just like your gaming experance is the only one that should matter to you. And if in your world GH are kicking your ass, then yeah, I can perfectly see where you would think they are having a problem. Sadly only one company actually makes the product that has been giving people two very different experances, so whatever changes are made or not made will effect each of us differently. Thats why we can only ask for things that we like to see. I'm glad I'm not in charge of reading all those complaints. Because somewhere, someone is hoping that Iron Priests get a huge nerf because the one guy who uses them in his gaming group always seems to make the unit a feel like a powerhouse.

 Jayden63 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


The problem is in most cases quite a few people have mathhammer and actual major tournament experience backing them up.

There's a BIG difference between anecdotes, and things that are known.

No there isn't. What happens in a tourniment 1000 miles away or even next door doesn't effect my perception in the slightest. Because nothing that happened there effected anything that happened in my own basement. In my world Humans were the most powerful army. It was proven game after game after game. And when it came to having fun with the game, my world is the only one that mattered.

Just like your gaming experance is the only one that should matter to you. And if in your world GH are kicking your ass, then yeah, I can perfectly see where you would think they are having a problem. Sadly only one company actually makes the product that has been giving people two very different experances, so whatever changes are made or not made will effect each of us differently. Thats why we can only ask for things that we like to see. I'm glad I'm not in charge of reading all those complaints. Because somewhere, someone is hoping that Iron Priests get a huge nerf because the one guy who uses them in his gaming group always seems to make the unit a feel like a powerhouse.

Then why even argue if you don't even want to look at math-hammer? Why balance anything at all except for how powerful it 'feels'? Because there's no way to balance at all in that manner, except y'know, actual fact, rather then anecdotes.

 Jayden63 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


The problem is in most cases quite a few people have mathhammer and actual major tournament experience backing them up.

There's a BIG difference between anecdotes, and things that are known.

No there isn't. What happens in a tourniment 1000 miles away or even next door doesn't effect my perception in the slightest. Because nothing that happened there effected anything that happened in my own basement. In my world Humans were the most powerful army. It was proven game after game after game. And when it came to having fun with the game, my world is the only one that mattered.

Just like your gaming experance is the only one that should matter to you. And if in your world GH are kicking your ass, then yeah, I can perfectly see where you would think they are having a problem. Sadly only one company actually makes the product that has been giving people two very different experances, so whatever changes are made or not made will effect each of us differently. Thats why we can only ask for things that we like to see. I'm glad I'm not in charge of reading all those complaints. Because somewhere, someone is hoping that Iron Priests get a huge nerf because the one guy who uses them in his gaming group always seems to make the unit a feel like a powerhouse.

The difference being that half the anecdotes you've got on "your" side is from people who've admitted that they're not playing optimized lists in the first place. Same with your Humans example; just because no one in your meta won with Ogres doesn't mean that the overall trend was for Ogres to be stronger (if that is indeed the case, I wouldn't know, just going with the example).

 Anpu42 wrote:
Yes I play is a magical land where my opponent hits with his Las-Cannons 90% and I fail my 5+ Save 90% of the time.

Why is it every time I describe what happens to me I get arguments about what has happened to me.

No I was not dodging a question Fine, I did not relies I hade to quantify exactly the Weapons load out
If they have Bolt Guns/Shotguns: A bunch of the Stealers die before they reach them due to the 24” Boltguns and a number die from the large volume of over watch fire and a bunch of the remaining Models get to attack do to the numbers of the Crusader squad.
Bolt Pistol/CCW: Not as many Genestealers die to weight of fire and the Overwatch leaving ony a few of the Crusaders left to die under the weight of the Rending claws.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
This is what I don't like about GH. They have an ability that is useless against someone shooting at you and holy crap it's powerful against an army that actually tries to charge you. Especially if the poor sucker charging you has less Ini than you (Orks).

So you just described the balancing factor about Grey hunter in less wounds than me.

That's NOT balance!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jayden63 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

They call that fair. You know who had this? Blizzards Warcraft. Not warcraft 2, or warcraft 3. In warcraft an Ogre hit with x damage, a knight hit with x damage and both had y hit points. Whom ever struck first won. It always was that way (assuming no spell buffs). This is why in the original game, the humans were the stronger faction. The damage bonus to archers was more significant than regeneration for trolls. The bonus to damage that Ogurs could do, could not overcome the regen in hit points that Paladins could produce. The damage from death coil (not enough to kill high hit point units), was insignificant to loosing entire models (regardless of hit points) to poly morph. Then blizzard realized that, and in Warcraft II they added random damage ranges. Suddenly the game became more tactical. It wasn't about hitting first, it was now about hitting with more.

Hrm...You might actually want to know about a games meta before talking about it. As bloodlusted ogres were far superior to knights in every way.

Once the Orcs have completed their Fortress, Altar of Storms, and have researched Ogre-Magi and Bloodlust then that is when the ground battle turns in favor of the Orcs. Bloodlusted Ogres do three times the damage of a fully upgraded Paladin. Bloodlusted Ogres can also quickly and easily break their way into enemy defenses and tear down Towers. Paladins receive Healing but this can often only help them after a battle is finished.

Some argue the Humans require much more strategy than the Orc player. The Orc player often needs and builds only Bloodlusted Ogres, while the Human player has and needs all sort of spell combinations, units and strategies to counter the Orc threat. A Human victory over Orcs that reached the Fortress/Bloodlust stage is often something to brag about because of the skill level and strategy required.

Generally the ogre's were far enough the most powerful thing that humans had to deal with. Which is amusing considering your stance on GH.

This is proof positive that personal experances very greatly. I played the hell out of Warcraft. Lan parties galore. I almost never lost as a human once I figured out their strengths. Bloodlust never did the sheep they turned into any good. Or the hail of incoming +3 arrows damage arrows. It was my experance that Orcs had the same issues as Orks do now. You have to get close to hurt stuff and everyones magic is better than yours.

And maybe thats another problem with space wolves. There are maybe 15 people actively talking in this thread, we each have our own SW history and apparently it is very different from one another in serveral cases. Probably why its been heated. Each of our personal experances is just not showing up in what the other guy is saying.

Anpu has admitted to not making competitive lists, nor playing against them. If neither party is trying to win, how is that a valid experience?

I'm not against math hammering anything. Try to make it balance on math, I'm good with that, I'm not argueing against it. In fact most of my posts promote what happens by using math because that is what should happen.

However, what I'm also saying is that when it actually comes down to throwing dice all that effort might not make a bit of difference thanks to the randomness of dice and the enviorment that your playing. So people who are usually on the negative side of the experance want to over compensate into the negative, not because the numbers say too but rather because their experances actually using the dice show things worse off then they really are.

I Loath Mathhammer
I Love Mathhammer + Play Testing

 Jayden63 wrote:
I'm not against math hammering anything. Try to make it balance on math, I'm good with that, I'm not argueing against it. In fact most of my posts promote what happens by using math because that is what should happen.

However, what I'm also saying is that when it actually comes down to throwing dice all that effort might not make a bit of difference thanks to the randomness of dice and the enviorment that your playing. So people who are usually on the negative side of the experance want to over compensate into the negative, not because the numbers say too but rather because their experances actually using the dice show things worse off then they really are.

..And so those who aren't promoting space wolves arent the 'biased' ones then? They might be biased against the fact they've never played optimized lists, never played actual strong games, player skill might have been a heavy factor, luck might've been on their side...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
They might be biased against the fact they've never played optimized lists, never played actual strong games, player skill might have been a heavy factor, luck might've been on their side...

Not by choice of either Player, Not in Years, By Choice, Usualy, Always...

 Jayden63 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


The problem is in most cases quite a few people have mathhammer and actual major tournament experience backing them up.

There's a BIG difference between anecdotes, and things that are known.

No there isn't. What happens in a tourniment 1000 miles away or even next door doesn't effect my perception in the slightest. Because nothing that happened there effected anything that happened in my own basement. In my world Humans were the most powerful army. It was proven game after game after game. And when it came to having fun with the game, my world is the only one that mattered. And math hammer goes straight out the window once dice imperfectly balanced dice are thrown on uneaven playing surface. And yeah, with a thousand throws you might actually get the math hammer results your looking for. However, a single game is only 5 turns and maybe 200 throws. And if you get the low end or the high end, your perception of the units will greatly change as all those other dice throws that even out the curve happen on different dates on different opponents.

Just like your gaming experance is the only one that should matter to you. And if in your world GH are kicking your ass, then yeah, I can perfectly see where you would think they are having a problem. Sadly only one company actually makes the product that has been giving people two very different experances, so whatever changes are made or not made will effect each of us differently. Thats why we can only ask for things that we like to see. I'm glad I'm not in charge of reading all those complaints. Because somewhere, someone is hoping that Iron Priests get a huge nerf because the one guy who uses them in his gaming group always seems to make the unit a feel like a powerhouse.

5 games is 1000 throws. You're telling me that the dice won't average out over 1000 throws? So we can't use 5 games of data to determine something's average capabilities?

Lets say they do average out over five games. Unless your actively tracking what does what, how do you know it actually averaged out? Your squad wiffs on one game, but then slaughters something else the next game. That sounds average. But what if all the wiffing happened against low T and WS units, and the slaughter happened against high T and high SV units. In either case can you really say what is average or was it luck?

Those 1000 throws have to happen against the same variables. Change just one of them half way through and you get an imperfect set. The change might not actually mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but it could be huge. So in other words one game vs CSM and another vs guard really doesn't tell you anything from a stastical standpoint.

This is why for people who these statiistics actually matter run samples of hundreds of thousands on really expensive computers, so that any varables that might happen can be tracked and quantified.

Do you want to track 100,000 dice rolls just to see if GH really need a 2 point bump in cost?

Math-hammer is fun, its quick and dirty and helps try to prove a point. But actual statisticical probablity is long, repetitive, and sucks the life out of your afternoon. It would not be a good idea not to think they are the same thing.

"Do you want to track 100,000 dice rolls just to see if GH really need a 2 point bump in cost? "

I depends on how sick I am of getting run over by SW, I suppose. To be honest, it's usually much easier to resolve these things with army swap. It usually only takes a couple games for people to get a new level of clarity. Anpu even admits he hasn't faced SW since 2nd ed. I faced BA two months ago.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Yes I play is a magical land where my opponent hits with his Las-Cannons 90% and I fail my 5+ Save 90% of the time.

Why is it every time I describe what happens to me I get arguments about what has happened to me.

Because what happens to you personally is irrelevant. That's not how games are balanced. Games are balanced based on what is most likely to happen.

I guess because of my line of work, I tend to not see playing as something separate to mathammer. Playing is just the practical application of the math. Perhaps the math people use is not developed enough to encompass an entire game, but that doesn't mean mathammer is flawed, it means the application of it is flawed.

When I read something like "Last game my Assault Cannon killed 6 marines in 3 rounds of shooting!", I don't think "oh, Assault cannons kill 6 marines in 3 rounds of shooting", I think "Well you had a 6.38% chance of killing 6+ Marines". When you say Lascannons kill 1 marine per turn, I think that only has a 5% chance of happening over the course of 5 rounds of shooting.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Yes I play is a magical land where my opponent hits with his Las-Cannons 90% and I fail my 5+ Save 90% of the time.

Why is it every time I describe what happens to me I get arguments about what has happened to me.

Because what happens to you personally is irrelevant. That's not how games are balanced. Games are balanced based on what is most likely to happen.

I guess because of my line of work, I tend to not see playing as something separate to mathammer. Playing is just the practical application of the math. Perhaps the math people use is not developed enough to encompass an entire game, but that doesn't mean mathammer is flawed, it means the application of it is flawed.

When I read something like "Last game my Assault Cannon killed 6 marines in 3 rounds of shooting!", I don't think "oh, Assault cannons kill 6 marines in 3 rounds of shooting", I think "Well you had a 6.38% chance of killing 6+ Marines". When you say Lascannons kill 1 marine per turn, I think that only has a 5% chance of happening over the course of 5 rounds of shooting.

Let's give an example that everyone can relate to.
MY MANDRAKES KILLED 2 SQUADS OF TERMINATORS LAST GAME!

What a mathammer player thinks: Wow that was very lucky
What a non-competetive player thinks: Wow! They should do that every game then!

Anpu, you are a non-competetive player. Please stop making statements on balance when you hate mathammer. Mathammer is mathammer, it is flawless, that's the point of mathammer. It can't be argued with because it is maths, it's what will statistically happen so stop using anecdotes to describe how balanced some units are.

The individual games that you reference Anpu are called "outliers". Yes, you might have experiences different than the mathhammer occasionally, but that lascannon does not kill a marine every time it fires. It only has a 66% chance of even hitting to begin with. Come on, you know better than that.

Martel732 wrote:
The individual games that you reference Anpu are called "outliers". Yes, you might have experiences different than the mathhammer occasionally, but that lascannon does not kill more than one marine every time it fires. It only has a 66% chance of even hitting to begin with. Come on, you know better than that.

Fixed that for you.