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.

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't change it at all. It just means that in your play group, it's not very important to even bother doing the MathHammer, since no one is really trying to field a good list.

This may be what GW intends, but I have never found a group that rolls like this.

Actualy it does. becouse here most of the time 3+ Armor means something along with cover.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't understand your aversion to math.

My aversion is to Mathhammer ONLY.
It you use Mathhammer to see how something works and then take it out to test your Math, then it is proven, not theory.

No, Mathhammer is always correct.
Mathhammer means Grey Hunters are better than Crusaders. Mathhammer wins, regardless of your 'experience'.

Then I must live on a difrent plane of existance than the rest of you.

By Mathhamer Blood Claws can never work on the table, but with a Wolf Priest I have made them worth taking on occasion.

And now as I will now sound like a Broken Record: I also live in a Flyffy Lets Have Fun Fisrts Envoroment and that varible changes the MathHammer Equasion more than you think.

I agree with the guy above me. And no, it doesn't change Mathhammer, you're just using gak units against other gak units.

A 3+ save still functions 66% of the time. By "mean something" you mean that you aren't being forced to save as often as I do. The static number in question is the number of marines on the table. You are suffering sustainable casualties, I am suffering unsustainable casualties.

If you are only forced to take say 18 saves, that's only 6 failures. Your failure RATE is the same as mine. Except that I'm being forced to take 50+ saves against say Eldar. That's upwards of 17 failures. I'm losing 17 marines a turn vs your 6. That's why it "means something" in your games. You aren't better at rolling than I am. You are rolling fewer dice. Your opponents are pulling punches.

is every discussion on this site based on tournament relevancy? are we in a tournaments tactics site? Is everyone here a WAAC player?

any time it comes to a discussion of how units work or how an army works, it seems that is the case. You get the waac players to come out and say something like "this army (or unit or HQ) is terrible, never run it, run this net list instead"

I thought we were in 40k general discussion, for general discussion, not for tournament tactics.

 Icculus wrote:
is every discussion on this site based on tournament relevancy? are we in a tournaments tactics site? Is everyone here a WAAC player?

any time it comes to a discussion of how units work or how an army works, it seems that is the case. You get the waac players to come out and say something like "this army (or unit or HQ) is terrible, never run it, run this net list instead"

I thought we were in 40k general discussion, for general discussion, not for tournament tactics.

And we're saying that BT isn't a good army because if you play to win you're gimping yourself by playing them. My opponents won't have fun if they're curb-stomping me because GW can't balance their game. Discussing power level is completely moot if you're not going to use said power level to its fullest extent. If it works for you, fine, good for you, but please realize that it's because your opponents are pulling punches, not because the army is somehow fine.

I just don't understand these posters. This is like going into a Starcraft forum and saying "Terrans have no problems at all against Protoss in the late game as long as the Protoss don't build any Colossi! Terrans are OP!"

Almost all Protoss players use Colossi vs terrans.

 Icculus wrote:
is every discussion on this site based on tournament relevancy? are we in a tournaments tactics site? Is everyone here a WAAC player?

any time it comes to a discussion of how units work or how an army works, it seems that is the case. You get the waac players to come out and say something like "this army (or unit or HQ) is terrible, never run it, run this net list instead"

I thought we were in 40k general discussion, for general discussion, not for tournament tactics.

It comes down to your local meta at where you play. If your local metta is fairly laid back with mostly casual fluff and fun lists then you wont see much of a difference when a mediocre Eldar list plays a mediocre Black Templar List. The full strengths of the each codex inst' brought to bear so the results won't deviate as much.

As you get into more competitive play, people will rely on the best units and spam the most cost effective choices. You'll start to see game start to deviate towards the stronger codex since the weaker codex won't have the tools to compete.

People who play in different casual settings will say everything is fine while people who play in competitive settings will see the out right imbalance.

If someone new is interested in playing Black Templars it's good that they know where the codex stands and why. That's what this thread has done.

I wouldn't say it exactly like that. I'm from a casual group but that doesn't mean that I haven't noticed it. The problem is, it is more difficult to create a mediocre Eldar list than a mediocre BT list. This inevitably will come to forefront some time or another because, sense casual, we just deploy what he like and on occasion that can inbalance the game. For example, I tried to play a Berzerker list at a low point level. The eldar's combination of extreme mobility and pseudo-rending absolutely annihilated me. Not because he was playing with a cheap list (no jetseer and only one serpent) but just because his units were more optimal. And try and play CSM Tzeentch. Simply put, you won't be having a mediocre army. It will always be sub-par simply because a +1 to your invuln is mostly worthless when that means for the vast majority of units that is a 6+ invuln.

That being said, you are correct that in casual fields such imbalances and disparities will be less common as less individuals are likely to spam waveserpents, screamerstar, etc. There's still a chance somebody could unintentionally go waveserpent spam (I mean come on it is hard not to . Your bloody transport is the op unit! Arrgh how dare you use transports that help you be mobile and stuff aaaargh). Doesn't mean they won't be there but aye you are correct.

Rustican wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
is every discussion on this site based on tournament relevancy? are we in a tournaments tactics site? Is everyone here a WAAC player?

any time it comes to a discussion of how units work or how an army works, it seems that is the case. You get the waac players to come out and say something like "this army (or unit or HQ) is terrible, never run it, run this net list instead"

I thought we were in 40k general discussion, for general discussion, not for tournament tactics.

It comes down to your local meta at where you play. If your local metta is fairly laid back with mostly casual fluff and fun lists then you wont see much of a difference when a mediocre Eldar list plays a mediocre Black Templar List. The full strengths of the each codex inst' brought to bear so the results won't deviate as much.

As you get into more competitive play, people will rely on the best units and spam the most cost effective choices. You'll start to see game start to deviate towards the stronger codex since the weaker codex won't have the tools to compete.

People who play in different casual settings will say everything is fine while people who play in competitive settings will see the out right imbalance.

If someone new is interested in playing Black Templars it's good that they know where the codex stands and why. That's what this thread has done.

^This

 Anpu42 wrote:

Rustican wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
is every discussion on this site based on tournament relevancy? are we in a tournaments tactics site? Is everyone here a WAAC player?

any time it comes to a discussion of how units work or how an army works, it seems that is the case. You get the waac players to come out and say something like "this army (or unit or HQ) is terrible, never run it, run this net list instead"

I thought we were in 40k general discussion, for general discussion, not for tournament tactics.

It comes down to your local meta at where you play. If your local metta is fairly laid back with mostly casual fluff and fun lists then you wont see much of a difference when a mediocre Eldar list plays a mediocre Black Templar List. The full strengths of the each codex inst' brought to bear so the results won't deviate as much.

As you get into more competitive play, people will rely on the best units and spam the most cost effective choices. You'll start to see game start to deviate towards the stronger codex since the weaker codex won't have the tools to compete.

People who play in different casual settings will say everything is fine while people who play in competitive settings will see the out right imbalance.

If someone new is interested in playing Black Templars it's good that they know where the codex stands and why. That's what this thread has done.

^This

So essentially what we've been saying all along? Wut?

Icculus wrote:is every discussion on this site based on tournament relevancy? are we in a tournaments tactics site? Is everyone here a WAAC player?

any time it comes to a discussion of how units work or how an army works, it seems that is the case. You get the waac players to come out and say something like "this army (or unit or HQ) is terrible, never run it, run this net list instead"

I thought we were in 40k general discussion, for general discussion, not for tournament tactics.

A WAAC player would smuggle his Grimaldus into his opponents army case and then have him banned from the store for stealing. Because he wants to win at all cost. No one involved here would do that, so please stop throwing around insults at people who play the game in a way you don't approve.

A single space marine will always be better than a single ork boy, no matter how fluffy you are playing. Even if the ork sometimes kills the marine, the marine still is better. No amount of meta, fluff or forging of narratives will change that. This extends to entire units, choices and armies.

Rustican wrote:
As you get into more competitive play, people will rely on the best units and spam the most cost effective choices. You'll start to see game start to deviate towards the stronger codex since the weaker codex won't have the tools to compete.

I mostly agree with you, I just want to chip in that spam is a phenomenon cause by bad internal balance, rather than competitiveness.

I used to play Warcraft3 on a very high level, and when the game was brand new, spam was the thing to do. Spam huntresses, spam casters, spam ancients of war, spam footmen, spam siege weapons, spam dryads, etc. You basically picked one or two units and spammed as much as you could until your population cap was full. Some time after the add-on hit (and multiple patches) this started soften. Suddenly people started adding support units to their spam, then you had have some fast or high ranged elements to quickly eliminate those support units, up to the point where most armies pretty much built one or two of everything to make up their army. It took Blizzard three years of constant balance iterations to get this far, and in the end Warcraft3 was one of the most balanced RTS I've ever played.

If GW actually had made their rules in a way to reward players who build a diverse army, spam would be much less of a problem. If the riptide wouldn't be awesome at killing every single type of model in the game to pieces, spamming it would be a lot less attractive.

Martel732 wrote:
A 3+ save still functions 66% of the time.

To which I can unfortunately only say "if only"

Assuming your dice actually have the same chance of rolling any given number, the chance is four out of six.

The chance of 66.66% does not mean that four of your six marines will make their save. That's not how statistics work.

Indeed, the difference between a raw probability and expectation.

Expectation is a much better way to look at these things than the basic mathammer mostly used...

 Jidmah wrote:
Assuming your dice actually have the same chance of rolling any given number, the chance is four out of six.

The chance of 66.66% does not mean that four of your six marines will make their save. That's not how statistics work.

Yes, I'm aware it's a Gaussian distribution. Over many, many games this becomes pretty much true.

I just had a thought; part of the issue with CT:BT is that there's no good force multiplier HQ. Eldar have Farseers, Tau have Buffmanders, Daemons have Heralds, DA and SW have Divination Librarians and so on. BT only gets Chaplains and SCs to fill this role, and even if Helbrecht helps he's overpaying for his supposed melee capability (which is rather rubbish). In the old Codex Chaplains worked as force multipliers because they interacted with Righteous Zeal, now they're meh at best.

While we're on the subject of Helbrecht, why is Rogal Dorn's sword S: User AP3? If not AP2 then at least make it a Relic Blade.

 Icculus wrote:
is every discussion on this site based on tournament relevancy? are we in a tournaments tactics site? Is everyone here a WAAC player?

This coming from a guy who cares enough about winning to track W/L/D record in his signature.

 Icculus wrote:
is every discussion on this site based on tournament relevancy? are we in a tournaments tactics site? Is everyone here a WAAC player?

any time it comes to a discussion of how units work or how an army works, it seems that is the case. You get the waac players to come out and say something like "this army (or unit or HQ) is terrible, never run it, run this net list instead"

I thought we were in 40k general discussion, for general discussion, not for tournament tactics.

Yes, because effectiveness always boils down to competitive play and tournaments.

Talking about effectiveness as though its in a casual environment where you deliberately gimp yourself is frankly laughable.

And please stop throwing the term WAAC around, because you have no idea what it means.

WAAC: No, you can't see that unit. Oh, but I have this rule! (Doesn't exist.) Are you sure that heavy weapon in your squad can shoot through the other members of it? You're a micron out from claiming that objective!

Competitive: I enjoy winning, I play to present as big a fair challenge as possible to my opponent.