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.

 Smotejob wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Two units can't cast the same power in the same turn (except for Smite). Strike two, sadly.

The Astropath and Coteaz cast two different powers. Terrify & terrifying visions. Both do leadership modifications.

I missed that. That is... crazy. I'll have to look more closely at the GK powers then, I guess.

If you're in the camp that GOI doesn't count as reinforcements, then I'd rather plan to use my first turn GOI on a NDK with Gatling Psilencer/Heavy Psycannon to get the most out of that 3+ shooting. Or even better -- on a 10-man Paladin unit with 4x Psilencer 6x Storm Bolter.

I guess it comes down to what style you'd like to play. I've had most success with GK using our turn 1 alpha-strike with Draigo aura to completely decimate a flank in the psychic/shooting phase. Hence why I prefer NDK to Dreads.

A doomglaive costs 168 points, a NDK with an incinerator costs 205 (215 with a teleporter), so the NDK is a 22% (28%) more expensive.

The doomglaive deals 27% more damage in close combat and more than twice the damage by shooting (at twice the range).

The NDK is about 25% more durable against "regular" heavy fire (assault/auto cannons etc) and about 50% more against anti-amor (melta, lascanon).

These numbers are most significant when you look at how this translates in game. Against a rhino, the dreadnought averages 9.5 wounds in a turn, almost enough to destroy it by himself. The NDK averages 7 wounds, so very unlikely to destroy it without significant help. This means that the dread can consolidate into another target, the NDK will be engaged for another turn, or the vehicle will fall back and survive.

Similarly, it's low damage output means it will loose in a 1v1 fight against similar units, like close combat dreads, tyranid monsters. Assuming the dread charges, it has a hich chance of killing its target in a single blow. In the case of the NDK, he will not do enough damage, and the target will not only able to hit back on the same turn, but remain engaged and strike first next turn (and remember the dreadknight degrades with dmg). So even though theoretically the dreadknight is more durable, in practice it is often not the case.

The NDK is significantly more durable against shooting, but we come to the same defficiency. There's no use in being durable if the opponent does not shoot at you, because you are not threatening enough to deserve his attention.

Seizeman wrote:
A doomglaive costs 168 points, a NDK with an incinerator costs 205 (215 with a teleporter), so the NDK is a 22% (28%) more expensive.

The doomglaive deals 27% more damage in close combat and more than twice the damage by shooting (at twice the range).

The NDK is about 25% more durable against "regular" heavy fire (assault/auto cannons etc) and about 50% more against anti-amor (melta, lascanon).

These numbers are most significant when you look at how this translates in game. Against a rhino, the dreadnought averages 9.5 wounds in a turn, almost enough to destroy it by himself. The NDK averages 7 wounds, so very unlikely to destroy it without significant help. This means that the dread can consolidate into another target, the NDK will be engaged for another turn, or the vehicle will fall back and survive.

That's a lot of numbers. Could you please show your work?

So for all the people who dislike/don't use/don't allow FW Models this means that the NDK is still better than the (non Doomglaive) DN, right?

Gest wrote:
So for all the people who dislike/don't use/don't allow FW Models this means that the NDK is still better than the (non Doomglaive) DN, right?

If you play by that particular set of house rules, then yes, it seems so.

Gest wrote:
So for all the people who dislike/don't use/don't allow FW Models this means that the NDK is still better than the (non Doomglaive) DN, right?

Depends. Dual Autocannon ven dreads are still better at range and only 156 points. If your looking for close combat then the NDK is probably better.

As much as I enjoy Dreadnaughts and Dreadknights being evenly matched, I'm a little disappointed they they seem to both fulfill such a similar role now, both armored beatsticks who march up the field chopping and blasting away. One can deepstrike the other can jump in a stormraven. We can discuss efficiency and value for points but that's basically what it comes down to.

Ideally I think the DK should be made a bit more dynamic in the new codex, to fit a different role. Perhaps regain it's old movement stat or some sort of rule to suit it's reputation as a Greater Daemon/Big beastie slayer.

Hello there!
I've played some games in this edition and i find new libras fascinating, with 2+/3++/2++ save and 5w they are almost unkillable and motal wounds mechanics are amazeing. I was thinking about upgradeing it a little bit more. My idea was to pack a strom raven with a libra, 9 ss guys and inquisitor Cotaez. Libra with +1 ld warlord trait gives Cotaez 11 ld and he grants his ld back to liibra. If we take terrify psychic power on him we can grant enemy unit -1 ld and cancel it's overwatch. This should grant +4 bonus to contested roll of purge soul psychic power plus cotaez brings second d3 smite. What do you think about it?

The librarian is really really bad. 3 attacks with a stave (at WS3+) are awful and the GM aura is really powerful. Sacrificing all of that for 1 more wound on the smite is not even worth considering.

An apothecary costs the same as coteaz and it is about a million times better,

Seizeman wrote:
The librarian is really really bad. 3 attacks with a stave (at WS3+) are awful and the GM aura is really powerful. Sacrificing all of that for 1 more wound on the smite is not even worth considering.

An apothecary costs the same as coteaz and it is about a million times better,

It's not 1 more wound on the Smite. Our Smites are 1 damage (unless you're a Daemon then it's 3). The Librarian's Smite is 1-3 base with a potential 1-6. That's handy.

My take is that you can easily take a Librarian with an aura generator if you want to without much loss. That said, Librarians shine best in GK + Ally armies since you're putting less of a focus on auras anyway (or taking Guilliman and his 'the entire Imperium' aura).

Seizeman wrote:

Hey guys, quick question. How does an inquisitor's Unquestionable Wisdom ability interact with our Ancient's Banner? Does the offering of leadership value replace your base or modified value, or rather, do we get a leadership value of 9, then the +1 from our banner?

The two abilities don't interact, you ether use your own leadership (with the +1) or the inquisitor's one.

Why would they not? I appreciate you weighing in on this, but can I ask if there is a citation to make this evident? Unless there is, It seems there are two valid interpretations of the interaction. Again using Coteaz as an example (in this case using the +1 Ld warlord trait)

A. You add the banner bonus to your leadership and then replace the value with Coteaz' 11.

B. You replace your leadership value with Coteaz' 11 and still have the proper keywords thus gaining +1 Ld from the banner thereafter.

Lacking an order of operations, one would assume the controlling player decides in which order these things happen. Am I missing some obvious rule?

It's not 1 more wound on the Smite. Our Smites are 1 damage (unless you're a Daemon then it's 3). The Librarian's Smite is 1-3 base with a potential 1-6. That's handy.

GK smite deals 1 dmg. Regular smite deals 1d3, wich is an average of 2. Actually the average, counting the chance for 1d6, is 2.14. So ok, not 1 more wound but 1.14 (really the averages are 0.83 and 1.78 because of the chance to miss). So you gain almost an extra wound on the smite for taking a librarian. In exchange, the GM is 614% more effective in combat and has a useful aura. Just the bolter on the GM does between 0.42 and 2.12 wounds a turn. How is taking a librarian not much of a loss? It is a ridiculous loss of points. Literally any other choice in the codex is better (except for the techmarine, maybe) for its cost. And I would really like for it to not be the case, since I've been using two of them for a year, but until out codex is released they are just unplayable.

Lacking an order of operations, one would assume the controlling player decides in which order these things happen. Am I missing some obvious rule?

There is no order, because Coteaz does not let you replace anything, he just lets you use his leadership. Coteaz LD is 10. GK guy is LD 9 + 1 for the banner, so 10. So when it comes to rolling, you can either use your 10 or Coteaz's 10, your choice.

Seizeman wrote:

It's not 1 more wound on the Smite. Our Smites are 1 damage (unless you're a Daemon then it's 3). The Librarian's Smite is 1-3 base with a potential 1-6. That's handy.

GK smite deals 1 dmg. Regular smite deals 1d3, wich is an average of 2. Actually the average, counting the chance for 1d6, is 2.14. So ok, not 1 more wound but 1.14 (really the averages are 0.83 and 1.78 because of the chance to miss). So you gain almost an extra wound on the smite for taking a librarian.

This is where averages are misleading. You're paying for the potential damage and the threat it can project. Enemies inherently are more careful when facing a potential 6 mortal wounds rather than a guaranteed 1 mortal wound.

In exchange, the GM is 614% more effective in combat

And much like Nairul asked you to show your math (which we're still waiting on) you need to show your math again here too. Might as well throw in the math for the Smite calc above to while you're at it.

Seizeman wrote:

There is no order, because Coteaz does not let you replace anything, he just lets you use his leadership. Coteaz LD is 10. GK guy is LD 9 + 1 for the banner, so 10. So when it comes to rolling, you can either use your 10 or Coteaz's 10, your choice.

I guess the question is why must the banner bonus come before the use of the Inquisitor's Ld? There does not seem to be a requirement to go in that order. GK guys can and do use Coteaz Ld, and then gain the banner bonus meets all criteria just as well, right? Where is the rule that says the banner bonus comes first? You are very likely correct but I'd still like to show something on paper the next time the issue comes up in game. I rather liked the Purge Soul/Leadership trick in play and plan to use it again for shock value on other friends.

Vortenger wrote:


Why would they not? I appreciate you weighing in on this, but can I ask if there is a citation to make this evident? Unless there is, It seems there are two valid interpretations of the interaction. Again using Coteaz as an example (in this case using the +1 Ld warlord trait)

A. You add the banner bonus to your leadership and then replace the value with Coteaz' 11.

B. You replace your leadership value with Coteaz' 11 and still have the proper keywords thus gaining +1 Ld from the banner thereafter.

Lacking an order of operations, one would assume the controlling player decides in which order these things happen. Am I missing some obvious rule?

So the wording on Coteaz says you can use his leadership instead of your own. Your leadership gets a +1 to the banner, but his doesn't. So the banner doesn't apply if you use his leadership. If it did say "replace" in there, I'd agree with you that it could stack.

However, I would think that, since Coteaz is within 6" of himself, and adds 1 to his own leadership characteristic to make a total of 11, that if you were to use his leadership characteristic, the leadership characteristic you would be using would be 11. Note that it's still not YOUR leadership characteristic (for whatever given unit is "you" in this case) but it is the one you are using.

At least, that's how I parse it.

And much like Nairul asked you to show your math (which we're still waiting on) you need to show your math again here too. Might as well throw in the math for the Smite calc above to while you're at it.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is the place for me to teach you elementary mathematics. If you think I'm making up easily verifiable facts to deliberately mislead you, you are free to do your own math. There's no point in bloating the post unnecessarily.

I guess the question is why must the banner bonus come before the use of the Inquisitor's Ld? There does not seem to be a requirement to go in that order. GK guys can and do use Coteaz Ld, and then gain the banner bonus meets all criteria just as well, right? Where is the rule that says the banner bonus comes first? You are very likely correct but I'd still like to show something on paper the next time the issue comes up in game. I rather liked the Purge Soul/Leadership trick in play and plan to use it again for shock value on other friends.

Yet again, there's no order because Coteaz gives you no bonus nor modifies your leadership in any way. GK leadership and Coteaz's leadership are separate entities and don't interact in any way, you just have the option of using one or the other. With the warlord's trait it will always be 11. Either you use Coteaz's (10+1) or the GK's (9+1+1).

Seizeman wrote:

And much like Nairul asked you to show your math (which we're still waiting on) you need to show your math again here too. Might as well throw in the math for the Smite calc above to while you're at it.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is the place for me to teach you elementary mathematics. If you think I'm making up easily verifiable facts to deliberately mislead you, you are free to do your own math. There's no point in bloating the post unnecessarily.

The problem with that is that your assertion is fundamentally worthless, for multiple reasons. Firstly, we don't know what context "the GM is 614% more effective in combat" has. Melee? Shooting? Against what? A grot? Terminators? Flyers? A baneblade? Himself? Even if someone spent the effort to recreate your math to derive the same outcome, odds are I couldn't pick the same set of parameters required. Matter of fact, I recall an elementary mathematics teacher I had some 20 years ago who would have said that your work was useless because you didn't properly label your units and would have counted it wrong.

Secondly, we exist in a forum where people flippantly declare "Forge world units are mathematically overpowered compared to GW ones! I can prove it but I won't waste my time." That statement takes about three seconds to produce, but would take significantly longer to prove, for whatever 'proof' happens to mean to anyone in that situation. When proof means "whatever I feel it should mean for me to be right", proof could well be impossible.

Thirdly, you could have also simply made a mistake. I see it happen a lot around here, and I suspect you're as fallible as anyone else.

Fourthly, if you're worried about 'bloat', toss some spoiler tags around that gak. A smart guy like you can probably figure that out.

Fifthly, dude, that's kind of an unnecessarily arrogant response. You came into this world soaking wet and forcefully ejected from a vagina just like everyone else. Lose the attitude, man. Please.

 daedalus wrote:

Seizeman wrote:

And much like Nairul asked you to show your math (which we're still waiting on) you need to show your math again here too. Might as well throw in the math for the Smite calc above to while you're at it.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is the place for me to teach you elementary mathematics. If you think I'm making up easily verifiable facts to deliberately mislead you, you are free to do your own math. There's no point in bloating the post unnecessarily.

The problem with that is that your assertion is fundamentally worthless, for multiple reasons. Firstly, we don't know what context "the GM is 614% more effective in combat" has. Melee? Shooting? Against what? A grot? Terminators? Flyers? A baneblade? Himself? Even if someone spent the effort to recreate your math to derive the same outcome, odds are I couldn't pick the same set of parameters required. Matter of fact, I recall an elementary mathematics teacher I had some 20 years ago who would have said that your work was useless because you didn't properly label your units and would have counted it wrong.

Secondly, we exist in a forum where people flippantly declare "Forge world units are mathematically overpowered compared to GW ones! I can prove it but I won't waste my time." That statement takes about three seconds to produce, but would take significantly longer to prove, for whatever 'proof' happens to mean to anyone in that situation. When proof means "whatever I feel it should mean for me to be right", proof could well be impossible.

Thirdly, you could have also simply made a mistake. I see it happen a lot around here, and I suspect you're as fallible as anyone else.

Fourthly, if you're worried about 'bloat', toss some spoiler tags around that gak. A smart guy like you can probably figure that out.

Fifthly, dude, that's kind of an unnecessarily arrogant response. You came into this world soaking wet and forcefully ejected from a vagina just like everyone else. Lose the attitude, man. Please.

Well, someone beat me to it for the most part. Especially about the GM.

Firstly, asking for context and asking about the method is an entirely different think. As for the GM specifically, by combat I meant close combat. About the target, I'm assuming one you can use every stat of the weapon against, so something like a space marine with multiple wounds. The specific % of course can vary, but the point was not to show an exact percentage for every situation but just to show how ridiculous the difference is ( on some targets is 300%, on some 800%, does not really matter). Glad to clarify it for you. About your teacher, l''m not here to prove myself or be reviewed in any way, so not relevant at all.

Secondly, quickly made up statements are quickly disproven. How much dmg an smite averages is nothing mysterious and anyone can work it out and correct me if I'm wrong, and I would welcome it.

Thirdly, see second point.

Forthly, It's not that much about the post being too big, is about not being willing to do extra work because some people are lazy.

Fifthly, you think my answer shows arrogance, I think your question shows lack of respect by not bothering to look for the answer yourself. I remember some teacher telling me to not ask someone for an answer before looking it up or trying to solve it by myself first.

With this, I consider this matter closed.

Seizeman wrote:
Firstly, asking for context and asking about the method is an entirely different think. As for the GM specifically, by combat I meant close combat. About the target, I'm assuming one you can use every stat of the weapon against, so something like a space marine with multiple wounds. The specific % of course can vary, but the point was not to show an exact percentage for every situation but just to show how ridiculous the difference is ( on some targets is 300%, on some 800%, does not really matter). Glad to clarify it for you. About your teacher, l''m not here to prove myself or be reviewed in any way, so not relevant at all.

Secondly, quickly made up statements are quickly disproven. How much dmg an smite averages is nothing mysterious and anyone can work it out and correct me if I'm wrong, and I would welcome it.

Thirdly, see second point.

Forthly, It's not that much about the post being too big, is about not being willing to do extra work because some people are lazy.

Fifthly, you think my answer shows arrogance, I think your question shows lack of respect by not bothering to look for the answer yourself. I remember some teacher telling me to not ask someone for an answer before looking it up or trying to solve it by myself first.

With this, I consider this matter closed.

I'm still patiently waiting for the math behind the Doomglaive numbers you gave. Feel free to put the calculations in <spoiler> brackets if you'd like to keep the post short.

Also -- if we're talking about the viability of a non-GK Librarian in a GK list... you've got to consider the nice powers he's bringing from the Librarius Discipline. And also the combi-plasma.

Seizeman you have been making tons of claims regarding mathhammer but you haven't produced any alongside your claims. Start doing that or we'll just write you off like we do with certain Tau players we did last edition regarding math. We'll always believe the numbers.

Anyway.

So, here's some simulations based upon 10000 random die rolls.



That's assuming swings in melee only. If you want to talk about Smite then for the Librarian:
66.7% chance of 1d3 mortal wounds. 33.3% chance of any given number of wounds, so 44.4% total chance of outcome of 2-3 mortal wounds.
16.6% chance of 1d6 mortal wounds. 16.6% chance of any given number of wounds, so 13.8% total chance of outcome of 2-6 mortal wounds.

Smite for the Grand Master:
83.3% chance of 1 mortal wound. That's it.

Grand master usually wins by 3 wounds or so. About double the damage. That's also assuming a more favorable configuration of weapons for the Librarian than you'd probably normally take.

Once you start considering T8, you can kind of begin to identify where the change in the curve starts:


In that particular case, they're looking much closer when you take into account smite. Anything with 2+ armor (or invul saves) is going to just make that sway closer toward the librarian as well, though you could run so many tests, you might go a little nutty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, I did all that assuming multiwound models, and adding the number of wounds together. I suspect that the reality is even closer between the two for single wound models. I'll have that together in a little while.

In the case of the librarian vs GM, we were talking about a librarian with staff and shield (so no ranged weapon). I assumed the GM was equipped with a hammer as there is no reason to have him use anything else. Really there's no point in being so exhaustive when only a few cases are relevant.

Okay, so the above is valid for multi-wound targets.

Here's the melee mathhammer for Librarian vs Grand Master:



So 60% chance of 1-2 wounds with the libby, and 60% chance of 2-4 with the GM, but then you have about a 50% chance of 1 more wound with the libby smite than you do the GM smite, and the Libby has a higher overall ceiling for wounds.

I'd... still go with the GM, because of the similarity in price and the huge reroll aura the GM gives, but I could see cases where it would make sense to have ONE libby somewhere.

Thanks Daedalus! Always interesting to see dice simulations as opposed to calculating averages.

Thank you, gentlemen, I believe that will be more than adequate to put our tables at ease.

Seizeman wrote:
In the case of the librarian vs GM, we were talking about a librarian with staff and shield (so no ranged weapon). I assumed the GM was equipped with a hammer as there is no reason to have him use anything else. Really there's no point in being so exhaustive when only a few cases are relevant.

Well, that case is comparing a unit designed to stay alive at all costs with a unit designed to wreck as much face as possible. I was trying to at least make them seem somewhat similar in role for the sake of showing whether the extra smite was worth it.

Also, showing my work: https://github.com/daed/mathhammer

Hi all. Really pleased to read all the tactic, feel and advice here !

But I have a question : I've just tested the doomglaive dreadnought and... It's me or he's irrelevant against a normal venerable dread with close combat weapon (S12 vs S9) and a autocanon?

I plan to use the custodes dread with spear as a doomglaive, so the model doesn't really matters but man, i'd like to use our SPECIAL ONE!

kaal wrote:
Hi all. Really pleased to read all the tactic, feel and advice here !

But I have a question : I've just tested the doomglaive dreadnought and... It's me or he's irrelevant against a normal venerable dread with close combat weapon (S12 vs S9) and a autocanon?

I plan to use the custodes dread with spear as a doomglaive, so the model doesn't really matters but man, i'd like to use our SPECIAL ONE!

The Doomglaive does D6 wounds instead of 3. Also, ours is a psyker, so it can GoI itself around or whatever. That's about the biggest difference.