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.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Obliterators are the big one, just because it was a pointless nerf to a unit that wasn't even that powerful for its points, that removed the whole point of fielding in the first place. Meanwhile a unit like the Riptide got costed upwards to impracticality, but it at least got to keep its Nova Reactor mechanic and play like it did.

Obliterators are as they are, because they need to exist without consuming some other unit entirely. When they had power weapons in melee it made Mutilators almost 100% redundant.

When Iron Warriors are a thing again you'll likely see more spice for them.

Grey hunters were always marines ++, and yes, they were viable and quit potent.

But the staple tac marine fielded by DA, BA, and vanilla has always been a victim.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Obliterators are the big one, just because it was a pointless nerf to a unit that wasn't even that powerful for its points, that removed the whole point of fielding in the first place. Meanwhile a unit like the Riptide got costed upwards to impracticality, but it at least got to keep its Nova Reactor mechanic and play like it did.

Obliterators are as they are, because they need to exist without consuming some other unit entirely. When they had power weapons in melee it made Mutilators almost 100% redundant.

When Iron Warriors are a thing again you'll likely see more spice for them.

Mutilators took an Elite slot and had a Chainfist option; worst comes to worst, they were a cheap objective capper that took more shooting to clear than they were already worth (think Tyrant Guard in Incidentally, they also got the nerfbat due to random melee profiles and losing the option to be fielded as solos.

It still doesn't excuse Obliterators losing the ability to choose their gun. You know, the whole purpose of fielding Obliterators in the first place over a more cost-effective option (Havocs in 6th and 7th, Autolas Predators in 5th).

The solo thing was abusive, imo. BA terminators would have been viable if I could field them solo as well. I just overwhelm my opponent with targets.

Martel732 wrote:
The solo thing was abusive, imo. BA terminators would have been viable if I could field them solo as well. I just overwhelm my opponent with targets.

Having played Deathwatch in 7th where I could field them solo I think you may be overestimating how useful that actually was.

Well, scatterbike units would only be able to kill one dude at a time. Sounds good to me.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, scatterbike units would only be able to kill one dude at a time. Sounds good to me.

Yup. And scatterbikes came in 81pt pods of three. You were never throwing the firepower from one big unit at something, you were combining fire from a whole bunch of minimum-size units for the exact same reason you're suggesting taking single Terminators. You've presented not even a fraction of a speedbump to scatterbikes.

(Might be more of a speedbump to Riptides given that you can keep them all 3" away from each other and the large blast can only hit one, though.)

Maybe that wouldn't have been the best, but it would have been great vs Riptides.

With the multilator, there was the chance that 3 scatterbikes didn't get it done, so you end having to shoot 6 at one model. I still think that's a win.

This was how Lictorshame worked in the early half of 40k. One unit shoots at one unit and there's no reward for overkill. Did you really want to have a 140-point Wave Serpent shoot at a 50-point Stealth model that would just Go to Ground only to become Fearless next turn due to Synapse bubble shenanigans? Or did you want to shoot a 15-point Mucoloid Spore? They're all coming for you at once so decide fast!

And with global Split Fire in 8th that strategy doesn't really work. I don't have to commit my entire Predator to shooting an eight-point Acolyte, just one of the sponson heavy bolters.

(Acolytes might be a bad example, at three wounds apeice they take way more than eight points of fire to drop...)

So how much are they really nerfed? We'll have to see i think.

Martel732 wrote:
So how much are they really nerfed? We'll have to see i think.

Oh, Obliterators specifically? I'm working on the math, but since there are 180 target cases (six relevant T values, six relevant armour save values, five relevant invulnerable save values) and 27 Obliterator weapon possibilities it's taking a while.

(Instinct from weapon stats says that an Obliterator squad is approximately equivalent to a Leman Russ with around double the firepower, but having seen the Russ in action I'm not sure how much of a complement that is, and the math may demonstrate that there are competing units that are better.)

 Traditio wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
The 7th ed Manticore? It's OK, but the 36" min range REALLY hurts it.

You may want to check out the 8th edition manticores when you get the chance.

Imho, they are overpowered.

I have.

They're okay. I was expecting more. They got nerfed too, from 1D3 5" S10 AP3 blasts [which can average a nice big number of hits on Fire Warrior unit, and also cripple the Pathfinders next to them and make the Hammerhead behind them jink], to basically plinking 2 guys or mildly annoying a tank. At least they're 133 points instead of 170.

Conscripts are better at killing infantry. Conscripts are better at most things, actually.

On this topic, I have just made myself a spreadsheet for calculating a rough estimate of unit efficiency to compare the performance/cost of different units to each other. It calculates expected wounds given to MEQ, TEQ, and IEQ with up to two different weapons; expected casualties taken at the hands of a squad of each of those with one special or heavy weapon in each, and gives a relative efficiency rating by subtracting casualties taken from wounds given and dividing that number by the points per model. So far I haven't come up with a good way to represent things like invulnerable saves, so it doesn't take those into account. Nor does it account for move distances or special rules, which will obviously add a lot of value to a unit. It just gives a general picture of combat efficiency for a given unit across a small range of enemy types. If you want you can test assault units by treating their attacks as weapons.

It tests against three different squads:

10 Tactical Marines with 9 Bolters and 1 Plasma Gun
5 Terminators with 4 Storm Bolters and 1 Assault Cannon
10 IG Infantry with 9 Lasguns and 1 Plasma Gun

I've had some interesting takeaways so far, namely that there is a sweet spot for points cost, volume of fire, and weapon capabilities. For example, the top unit I've tested so far is a bike squad with three members and two Melta Guns. They have the capability to reliably cause wounds, two different weapons they can fire and good durability at a cost of about 42 ppm. The worst unit tested so far is a squad of 20 Conscripts at 3 ppm. You would think they'd get a higher score because of how cheap they are but they can't cause wounds and they take massive casualties. Other standouts are a ten-man TAC squad with one Plasma Gun at 14.3 ppm, which scores almost twice as high as a squad of five Intercessors; and Inceptor squads, which have an extremely high volume of fire along with great durability even though they are very expensive at 75 ppm.

Anyway, if anyone wants to check it out here is a link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P3Kh0JL7wVcK4Gq3ci_ANwKKXMKOAVCLxYa0r-7IKgk/edit?usp=sharing

Feel free to plug different units into it to compare, and share your results.

1. Whoever brought up wyverns is in for serious disappointment. Wyverns are practically useless against MEQs in cover. You'll be lucky to kill a five man squad in the course of a game. You'll average 7 hits, 3.5 wounds and a little more than half of an unsaved wound per turn.

2. I can demonstrate mathematically that manticores in 8th edition are OP.

In the course of 4 rounds of shooting, 2 manticores are all but gauranteed to kill an IK, a wraithknight or a landraider (both of which cost much more than 2 manticores).

A single manticore is also essentially guaranteed to wipe a squad of terminators out of cover (or power armored marines in cover) in the course of a game.

Likewise, it's basically guaranteed to kill at least 7 SM bikers over the course of a game.

In my view, the problems with the 8th edition manticore:

1. S10, AP -2 makes the manticore good against basically any target. It's wounding T6-9 on 3s and T 1-5 on 2s.

2. It's always going to be guaranteed an optimal target, because 120 inches is essentially the entire table. And it doesn't need line of sight.

Saying "but it only has four shots" isn't really an answer. Unless your opponent is spamming non-elite infantry, the manticore doesn't really need more than 4 shots. And even then, that's why you bring wyverns.

Another problem with the manticore is the severe nerf to deepstrike. If the IG opponent is any good, your chances of ever reaching that manticore are fairly slim. That conscript blob isn't going to break unless you've brought snipers en masse.

In brief:

Manticores are OP because they are: 1. too cheap for what they do, 2. too optimal against all non-elite opponents and 3. don't need to maneuver at all. The 120 inch range and (essentially) barrage special rule allows them to hit whatever they want without needing to move.

In order for manticores to be balanced in 8th, at least two out of three things need to happen:

1. manticores need to experience an increase in points cost, 2. a decrease in range and 3. need to lose the barrage special rule.

I love how, having repeatedly demonstrated a total and fundamental lack of understanding of what "OP" is in 7th, and displayed a total lack of concern for actual balance as long as you had the balance you wanted, you've actually started already on an edition that isn't even out yet.

Frankly, it's ridiculous to the point of parody, and I say this not as an attack but as a simple statement of opinion, Dakka is a better forum when you're not posting in it.

 Luciferian wrote:
On this topic, I have just made myself a spreadsheet for calculating a rough estimate of unit efficiency to compare the performance/cost of different units to each other. It calculates expected wounds given to MEQ, TEQ, and IEQ with up to two different weapons; expected casualties taken at the hands of a squad of each of those with one special or heavy weapon in each, and gives a relative efficiency rating by subtracting casualties taken from wounds given and dividing that number by the points per model. So far I haven't come up with a good way to represent things like invulnerable saves, so it doesn't take those into account. Nor does it account for move distances or special rules, which will obviously add a lot of value to a unit. It just gives a general picture of combat efficiency for a given unit across a small range of enemy types. If you want you can test assault units by treating their attacks as weapons.

It tests against three different squads:

10 Tactical Marines with 9 Bolters and 1 Plasma Gun
5 Terminators with 4 Storm Bolters and 1 Assault Cannon
10 IG Infantry with 9 Lasguns and 1 Plasma Gun

I've had some interesting takeaways so far, namely that there is a sweet spot for points cost, volume of fire, and weapon capabilities. For example, the top unit I've tested so far is a bike squad with three members and two Melta Guns. They have the capability to reliably cause wounds, two different weapons they can fire and good durability at a cost of about 42 ppm. The worst unit tested so far is a squad of 20 Conscripts at 3 ppm. You would think they'd get a higher score because of how cheap they are but they can't cause wounds and they take massive casualties. Other standouts are a ten-man TAC squad with one Plasma Gun at 14.3 ppm, which scores almost twice as high as a squad of five Intercessors; and Inceptor squads, which have an extremely high volume of fire along with great durability even though they are very expensive at 75 ppm.

Anyway, if anyone wants to check it out here is a link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P3Kh0JL7wVcK4Gq3ci_ANwKKXMKOAVCLxYa0r-7IKgk/edit?usp=sharing

Feel free to plug different units into it to compare, and share your results.

How are conscripts that bad?

Big blob o' Conscripts averages more wounds per turn against all targets than any kind of Leman Russ Tank, or a Manticore.

Conscripts Vs. T4, Sv3+ ~ 7 kills
Conscripts Vs. T7, Sv3+ ~ 4 wounds
Leman Russ Vs. T4, Sv3+ ~ 1 kill
Leman Russ Vs. T7, Sv3+ ~ 1.5 wound
Manticore Vs. T4, Sv3+ ~ 2 kills
Manticore Vs. T7, Sv3+ ~ 2.3 wounds


Also, Traditio, you have no idea what you're talking about. Give me ten minutes, and I will produce a detailed display of what a 8e Manticore will do each turn.

To put things in context:

A manticore basically is armed with the equivalent of 3.5 lascannons. Except those lascannons don't need LoS and can hit whatever they want on the table. And instead of dealing 1d6 damage to one target, each lascannon can instead opt to deal 1d3 damage each to two models in a unit, or else, 2d3 to one model in a unit.

And for the laugh, a manticore gets one more wound than a rhino. Because why not?

Again, for what it does, the manticore is too cheap.

I can't rate the relative power scales, but I'll give a + or - to an army i see that got better or worse relative to what i feel the average powerscale would be. (Nebulous, I know).

Tyranids: +++
Necrons: +
Orks: ++
Imperial Guard: ++
Genestealer Cult: even
Eldar: - -
Dark Eldar: +
Space Marines: -
Grey Knights: - -
Blood Angels: ++
Space Wolves: +
Dark Angels: - - -
Tau: even
Daemons: - -
Chaos Space Marines: ++

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


How are conscripts that bad?

Big blob o' Conscripts averages more wounds per turn against all targets than any kind of Leman Russ Tank, or a Manticore.

Conscripts Vs. T4, Sv3+ ~ 7 kills
Conscripts Vs. T7, Sv3+ ~ 4 wounds
Leman Russ Vs. T4, Sv3+ ~ 1 kill
Leman Russ Vs. T7, Sv3+ ~ 1.5 wound
Manticore Vs. T4, Sv3+ ~ 2 kills
Manticore Vs. T7, Sv3+ ~ 2.3 wounds


Also, Traditio, you have no idea what you're talking about. Give me ten minutes, and I will produce a detailed display of what a 8e Manticore will do each turn.

Conscripts receive a low score because on average they take more casualties than they cause.

I have for 20 Conscripts:
Expected wounds caused
MEQ - 0.739851408
TEQ - 0.3701478816
IEQ - 2.221776

Expected Casualties taken:
MEQ 9x Bolter 1x Plasma Gun - 3.213652464
TEQ 4x Storm Bolter 1x Asscan - 5.138044372
IEQ 9x Lasgun 1x Plasma Gun - 1.91515

Conscripts are 3ppm and are... meatshields. They SHOULD cause less casualties than they take

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Also, Traditio, you have no idea what you're talking about. Give me ten minutes, and I will produce a detailed display of what a 8e Manticore will do each turn.

Do you want to see the math?

2d6 shots per turn averages to 7 shots per turn. 7 shots over the course of 4 turns is 28 shots. Assuming 4+ to hit, that averages to 14 successful hits. Furthermore, the average damage on a 1d3 roll is a 2. Here's my math for each of the targets:

IKs and wraithknights:

14/1 hits X 2/3 chance to wound X 2/3 chance to bypass saves X 2/1 for average damage = 112/9, or about 12 wounds. Multiply by 2 manticores, and that's a dead IK or wraithknight.

Landraider:

14/1 hits X 2/3 chance to wound X 1/2 chance to bypass saves X 2/1 for average damage = 28/3, or a little over 9 wounds. Multiply by two, and that's a dead landraider.

TEQs outside of cover:

14/1 hits X 5/6 chance to wound X 1/2 chance to bypass saves = 5. Take into account the average 2 damage, and that's a dead terminator squad.

Bikes:

14/1 hits X 5/6 chance to wound X 2/3 chances to bypass saves = 70/9. Take into account the average 2 wounds, and that's about 7 SM bikes.

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts are 3ppm and are... meatshields. They SHOULD cause less casualties than they take

Sure, that just isn't the pinnacle of combat efficiency.

 Traditio wrote:
To put things in context:

A manticore basically is armed with the equivalent of 3.5 lascannons. Except those lascannons don't need LoS and can hit whatever they want on the table. And instead of dealing 1d6 damage to one target, each lascannon can instead opt to deal 1d3 damage each to two models in a unit, or else, 2d3 to one model in a unit.

For equal points, you can get about 5.5 lascannons in HWS. Sidestepping the fact that lascannons are probably still slightly better overall due to superior AP (I kinda want to see the math of how you're comparing the two) do you think the extras are worth the loss of the extra 2 lascannons worth of damage? Your comments appear to suggest it overwhelmingly is.

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts are 3ppm and are... meatshields. They SHOULD cause less casualties than they take

Conscripts' damage is irrelevant. That's not why you take conscripts. You take conscripts to build an unbreakable wall between your opponent and the stuff that you actually care about. Why unbreakable? Because that commissar which you've put next to those conscripts is limiting morale losses to 1 model per phase.

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Also, Traditio, you have no idea what you're talking about. Give me ten minutes, and I will produce a detailed display of what a 8e Manticore will do each turn.

Do you want to see the math?

2d6 shots per turn averages to 7 shots per turn. 7 shots over the course of 4 turns is 28 shots. Assuming 4+ to hit, that averages to 14 successful hits. Furthermore, the average damage on a 1d3 roll is a 2. Here's my math for each of the targets:

IKs and wraithknights:

14/1 hits X 2/3 chance to wound X 2/3 chance to bypass saves X 2/1 for average damage = 112/9, or about 12 wounds. Multiply by 2 manticores, and that's a dead IK or wraithknight.

Landraider:

14/1 hits X 2/3 chance to wound X 1/2 chance to bypass saves X 2/1 for average damage = 28/3, or a little over 9 wounds. Multiply by two, and that's a dead landraider.

TEQs outside of cover:

14/1 hits X 5/6 chance to wound X 1/2 chance to bypass saves = 5. Take into account the average 2 damage, and that's a dead terminator squad.

Bikes:

14/1 hits X 5/6 chance to wound X 2/3 chances to bypass saves = 70/9. Take into account the average 2 wounds, and that's about 7 SM bikes.

Tacticals shows how many tactical-marine equivalents it kills.
Rhino shows how many wounds it puts on a Rhino-equivalent [T7, Sv. 3+] tank.

Vertical axis is percent chance of a given result.

Basically, it looks like 133 points to me. You'll run out of tactical marines around the same time it runs out of missiles. Which is honestly depressing, because if it spends it's whole game trying to kill a tactical squad, why did I bring it in the first place?

Right now, I can count on my Manticores to erase Tau Fire Warriors, Necron Warriors, and Ork Battlewagons. In 8e the thing isn't going to manage half that.

Can you explain the chart? What's the y axis? Edit - nevermind, you added it.

What's the manticore gun statline?

 Traditio wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts are 3ppm and are... meatshields. They SHOULD cause less casualties than they take

Conscripts' damage is irrelevant. That's not why you take conscripts. You take conscripts to build an unbreakable wall between your opponent and the stuff that you actually care about. Why unbreakable? Because that commissar which you've put next to those conscripts is limiting morale losses to 1 model per phase.

Unbreakable as long as your opponent doesn't have many Assault Cannons

 Marmatag wrote:
Can you explain the chart? What's the y axis? Edit - nevermind, you added it.

What's the manticore gun statline?

Heavy 2d6, Str.10, AP-2, D 1D3. 1-use only.

It has 4 rockets, and can fire 1 per turn.

 Traditio wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts are 3ppm and are... meatshields. They SHOULD cause less casualties than they take

Conscripts' damage is irrelevant. That's not why you take conscripts. You take conscripts to build an unbreakable wall between your opponent and the stuff that you actually care about. Why unbreakable? Because that commissar which you've put next to those conscripts is limiting morale losses to 1 model per phase.

...which is why sniper rifles were changed to actually act like sniper rifles.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts are 3ppm and are... meatshields. They SHOULD cause less casualties than they take

Conscripts' damage is irrelevant. That's not why you take conscripts. You take conscripts to build an unbreakable wall between your opponent and the stuff that you actually care about. Why unbreakable? Because that commissar which you've put next to those conscripts is limiting morale losses to 1 model per phase.

Unbreakable as long as your opponent doesn't have many Assault Cannons

Or flamers, any significant number of small arms, a leaf blower...