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.

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Though with Split Fire on everything, doesn't that kind of even out?

ERJAK wrote:
You could kill a tank with an AXE before, why is doing it with a gun suddenly crazy? Or have tanks always had a secret weakness to axes i didn't know about...

You could if you had sufficient strenght. But S4 axe ain't killing land raider any more likely than S4 bolter.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

If there ever was a reason for removing armor facings, AV and hull points, there it is.

Selective "realism" is great when only one punching bag unit type suffers from all the resulting drawbacks, I guess.
It's particularly amazing when Dreadknights and Riptides are somehow MCs and not vehicles when the Penitent Engine and the Dreadnought are.

Agreed, but this was not so much a problem of the ruleset, but idiotic Codex design. Dreadknight, Riptide and Wraithknight should have been Walkers from the start, end of story. They could have been say AV12 all around Walkers, to remove facing issue from a model which doesn't have a clear visual facing, but vehicles nevertheless. People always harped how "MC's are overpowered" but hardly anyone thought that before they began adding OP Monstrous creatures to the game. They just as well might have classed them as "Infantry" and we would have complained that "Infantry is OP"...

And I never thought Wraithlord overpowered in 5th edition. It was decent unit and that was that. It was basically a walker which could not be stunned or immobilized. It died to same weapons as other Walkers, it wasn't an issue.

The real issue with the last generation of "Machines" Monstruous creatures, is that they where too good at shooting.

i mean Dreadknight with that ridiculous 12 shots cannon?..., same for Riptides.

It is a HUGE gap between the old school MC's like Carnis and stuff and Walkers who had ONE maybe TWo weapons in some cases that had at best 2 to 4 Shots, where at the time the Psyflemen Dread was considered the best shooter with his 4 AC shots a turn.

Then came the riduculous bullcrap.

honestly a Dreadknight wiht a one shot or even a 2 shot gun, is waaay less scary for my models then the one that can shoot 12 times with ONE weapon and ignore my armors, and while a powerfull cannon on a vehicle had a chance to be destroyed or at least shaken to interupt the barrage, giving a MC 12shots weapons that is immune to anything short from death and LoS blocking terrains, thats what was the groin kicker.

That 12 shot gun is S4. With AP-. And have to have Force casted.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Though with Split Fire on everything, doesn't that kind of even out?

Answered by others

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...

On average? sure.

But when it comes to overshooting a target, MSU is more likely to soak up more damage than needed compared to full squads.

So Marines would Dreads on 5+ now, rather than 6+.

Yeah, Dreads should be T8.

 Hollow wrote:
Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.

But the concepts of small-arms and anti-tank weapons aren't abstract, so even when talking about fictional weaponry it shouldn't be too hard to determine what would be realistic in context/universe.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...

On average? sure.

But when it comes to overshooting a target, MSU is more likely to soak up more damage than needed compared to full squads.

Not if you simply choose not to fire more weapons at them than was needed to kill them. I could simply choose my average number of shots required to take them done and throw the rest at another target.

If there isn't anything else to shoot at, then the shots aren't wasted anyway. Considering you will probably get bonuses to accuracy or extra shots and more than likely a boost to morale the trade-off is really a preference of playstyle.

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?

I mean I can give you a summary:

"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...

If 4 heavy bolter unit is stupid enough to fire at both units rather than one then GREAT! That just helps the MSU...Either way MSU wins. You concentrate fire to MSU and MSU is more survivable than big unit. You split and MSU is still more survivable.

Only time new split fire really helps bigger unit is when you can split so that overkill doesn't happen but even that doesn't change it to horde's favour. It just lessens the gap a bit.

The fact 4 HB isn't enough to wipe out 5 men squad in one go is precicely proof you shouldn't split because concentration of fire is what you should be doing. 1-2 casualties to one unit is worse than concentrated to one unit barring some special edge cases(say scenario is one where you need to have units with more than X models left and enemy has multiple units just in that line...)

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...

On average? sure.

But when it comes to overshooting a target, MSU is more likely to soak up more damage than needed compared to full squads.

Not if you simply choose not to fire more weapons at them than was needed to kill them. I could simply choose my average number of shots required to take them done and throw the rest at another target.

If there isn't anything else to shoot at, then the shots aren't wasted anyway. Considering you will probably get bonuses to accuracy or extra shots and more than likely a boost to morale the trade-off is really a preference of playstyle.

Excellent point. As we all know, the average number of wounds/shots is an absolutely reliable number that never varies from the average as calculuated, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?

I mean I can give you a summary:

"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."

To be fair, it will be more like:

"Rough Riders? Yeah, we've heard they suck at charges, despite being a charge-oriented unit. Don't worry, they're going to be great when the hit the enemy front lines! And Ogryns? Yeah, despite the fluff suggesting they're extremely durable, experience tells us they aren't. Hey, guess what!?! In the new edition, we've made them worth taking!

While they don't really give us much in terms of HOW they address the changes, I think you can at least admit that the Chaos leaks suggest that GW is minimally knowledgeable of the difficulties facing the worst* of the model range.

*subjective, obviously.

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Split the attacks between the 2 x 5 units and now both have to take battleshock tests, potentially risking additional casualties to fleeing.
As they are smaller, every loss takes a greater percentage away and also reduces the number of attacks coming from each MSU.

The real test, of course, will be the Pyrovore.

Will they fix it? Can they fix it? Should it be abandoned in favour of something with a less dopey name?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?

I mean I can give you a summary:

"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."

I hope you were looking for a job with Warhammer Community, because I think you are exactly what they are looking for!

 privateer4hire wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Split the attacks between the 2 x 5 units and now both have to take battleshock tests, potentially risking additional casualties to fleeing.
As they are smaller, every loss takes a greater percentage away and also reduces the number of attacks coming from each MSU.

Use math to show your work.

2 losses, and you're either ignoring the losses (2 MSU 5 units) or potentially taking 1 model loss through battleshock (10 man unit or both losses on the same 5 unit model)

Either way, you aren't losing the awesomesauce Heavy/special weapon slot.

More losses, you're losing more in the 10 man unit than you are in the 5 man unit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?

I mean I can give you a summary:

"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."

It just didn't get old. Have you exalt!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The real test, of course, will be the Pyrovore.

Will they fix it? Can they fix it? Should it be abandoned in favour of something with a less dopey name?

They should just erase that rules entry and give the Pyrovore miniature to the Biovore rules. And burn all the Biovore miniatures!

They said :

Warhammer Community wrote:
We’ll be back in a few days to hear from Reece about the Astra Militarum.

So it will be a day or two from now

I'm really trying to hate it because GW deserves all of the hate they fething earned, but there is a glimmer of something.

tneva82 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
You could kill a tank with an AXE before, why is doing it with a gun suddenly crazy? Or have tanks always had a secret weakness to axes i didn't know about...

You could if you had sufficient strenght. But S4 axe ain't killing land raider any more likely than S4 bolter.

Celestine's S5 sword kills land raiders pretty well. They should ask her where they got it made.

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Yea, I guarantee that you guys are missing a big piece of the picture. MSU is not likely to win you games.

There is also ablative wounds. If the 5 man unit has a meltagun, and takes 5 casualties it loses said meltagun. A 10 man unit with 2 can take 5 casualties, lose 3 more due to morale, and still have meltagun on the table.

That is a win for large units as well.

As I said, the difference will (more than likely) be primarily how you want to play, not a guaranteed bonus for MSU as opposed to large units. The only serious difference was the chance at overkill and once they allowed you to divide fire however you wanted that problem went right out the window.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
There is also ablative wounds. If the 5 man unit has a meltagun, and takes 5 casualties it loses said meltagun. A 10 man unit with 2 can take 5 casualties, lose 3 more due to morale, and still have meltagun on the table.

That is a win for large units as well.

As I said, the difference will (more than likely) be primarily how you want to play, not a guaranteed bonus for MSU as opposed to large units. The only serious difference was the chance at overkill and once they allowed you to divide fire however you wanted that problem went right out the window.

Well..in the first scenario you forgot that you'd have 2 units of 5. So you'll still have a meltagun on the table.

There really is no downside to MSU except transport I guess. Though if you're admech then you don't care since somehow, even though you produce the damn things, you don't have any.

There is downside to MSU in that:
Survivability of the individual units
Potentially more battleshock tests (will be mitigated in high Ld units, admittedly)
If they follow AoS unit construction, you don't get as many special weapons unless you invest in fully-stocked squads.
Sure, you may get 1 special weapon but the 10 man squad will get 2 and possibly more.

 Galas wrote:
They should just erase that rules entry and give the Pyrovore miniature to the Biovore rules. And burn all the Biovore miniatures!

I would be totally fine with this.

The "MSU Advantage" is heavily based on two things:
1)The Leadership of the Unit
2)The Point Cost difference between the Single and MSU units

Based on the often 4 Model Lost to a Single Unit, 2 Models lost on 2 Different Units we find the maximum models lost to be:
Leadership /Single Unit / 2 MSU
8 / 2 / 0
7 / 3 / 2
6 / 4 / 4
5 / 5 / 6

As you can see, the advantage reduces as the leadership reduces. Also, MSU assumes the cost difference between the single unit and the two MSU are close. At what point level does the "MSU" advantage disappear? GW could easily eliminate the advantage by making the base unit more expensive while additional models are less expensive.

For example, MSU Advantage is high if 5 Tactical Marines in one squad cost 80 Points while increasing 10 marines in the Squad Cost 160. It is much lower if the first 5 Tactical Marines cost 100 points while getting the squad up to 10 still cost 160.

Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Yea, I guarantee that you guys are missing a big piece of the picture. MSU is not likely to win you games.

Oh golly, I sure am glad you've had the exclusive chance to play garbage loads of 8th and are using all that experience to tell us what will work.
Wait.

 alextroy wrote:
The "MSU Advantage" is heavily based on two things:
1)The Leadership of the Unit
2)The Point Cost difference between the Single and MSU units

Based on the often 4 Model Lost to a Single Unit, 2 Models lost on 2 Different Units we find the maximum models lost to be:
Leadership /Single Unit / 2 MSU
8 / 2 / 0
7 / 3 / 2
6 / 4 / 4
5 / 5 / 6

As you can see, the advantage reduces as the leadership reduces. Also, MSU assumes the cost difference between the single unit and the two MSU are close. At what point level does the "MSU" advantage disappear? GW could easily eliminate the advantage by making the base unit more expensive while additional models are less expensive.

For example, MSU Advantage is high if 5 Tactical Marines in one squad cost 80 Points while increasing 10 marines in the Squad Cost 160. It is much lower if the first 5 Tactical Marines cost 100 points while getting the squad up to 10 still cost 160.

Yes, this works this way because you get to subtract your leadership twice if there are two units. You also roll twice, but as long as leadership is greater than 3.5 the advantage is MSU.

 Bulldogging wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
There is also ablative wounds. If the 5 man unit has a meltagun, and takes 5 casualties it loses said meltagun. A 10 man unit with 2 can take 5 casualties, lose 3 more due to morale, and still have meltagun on the table.

That is a win for large units as well.

As I said, the difference will (more than likely) be primarily how you want to play, not a guaranteed bonus for MSU as opposed to large units. The only serious difference was the chance at overkill and once they allowed you to divide fire however you wanted that problem went right out the window.

Well..in the first scenario you forgot that you'd have 2 units of 5. So you'll still have a meltagun on the table.

There really is no downside to MSU except transport I guess. Though if you're admech then you don't care since somehow, even though you produce the damn things, you don't have any.

In the large squad you would still have 2. Losing models from larger squads grants greater versatility in regards to weapons lost etc. Then there is also the inherent bonuses to larger units to increase their effectiveness that are almost guaranteed to be involved in this game. When a 20 man unit of guardsmen get to fire one more shot with their lasguns than 2 ten man units it mitigates the slight advantage granted for MSU. (Simply an example drawn from similar ranged horde units from AOS)

One advantage to big squads is ablative wounds for your special weapons that do all the leg work! But yeah, msu is probably the way to go.