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.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I personally think it should be one roll to hit. Hit does the normally rolled number of shots as having hit, a miss equals half of said roll hits. That way most Ork weapons will basically hit 1d3 times and sometimes a bit more.

As it stands, all the Ork weapons should have become assault like the Tyranids did.

One roll to hit and a miss = 1/2 the shots is fine, so long as Orkz get twice as many shots on average, otherwise you are just taking ork shooting and keeping it a peg below everyone else. OR I would be absolutely fine with that, if Ork weapons were priced accordingly. the fact that a Battle Cannon is cheaper then a Kill Kannon is ridiculous. A Kill Kannon should be HALF the price of a Battle Cannon or less.

The kill cannon should have the demolisher cannon stats at least. S7 for the biggest cannon is silly, a nob with a big choppa causes the dame damage.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 JinxDragon wrote:
If they give back the Automatic Hit but reduced the number of Hits generated?

Blast weapons still missed roughly one fourth of their shots, plus automatic hits would make former template weapons obsolete (not to mention their overwatch and anti-air ridiculous).

The only way to fix blasts across the codices would be re-evaluating every single one of them and fixing their shots or points.

Not necessary.

What you should do is roll to hit with a single shot. If successful, you roll a D3/D6 to see how many hits you got. Relatively easy to houserule or implement in the game, makes the shots more plentiful, and makes sure they're worth the cost.

You realize that this makes blast weapons worse, not better?

If you miss your initial 5+ you get no hits at all. This means while the average stays the same, your blast weapons are much more likely to do nothing.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 JinxDragon wrote:
If they give back the Automatic Hit but reduced the number of Hits generated?

Blast weapons still missed roughly one fourth of their shots, plus automatic hits would make former template weapons obsolete (not to mention their overwatch and anti-air ridiculous).

The only way to fix blasts across the codices would be re-evaluating every single one of them and fixing their shots or points.

Not necessary.

What you should do is roll to hit with a single shot. If successful, you roll a D3/D6 to see how many hits you got. Relatively easy to houserule or implement in the game, makes the shots more plentiful, and makes sure they're worth the cost.

You realize that this makes blast weapons worse, not better?

If you miss your initial 5+ you get no hits at all. This means while the average stays the same, your blast weapons are much more likely to do nothing.

It just moves the extremes. A D6 blast weapon for Orkz will hit 1 time on average or 2 for Grots each turn. Moving this to 1 roll means you are going to do nothing for most of the game but on the 2ish turns you hit something you are going to do D6 and hope to god you roll above average to make up for the loss of dakka on the other turns. So if on turn 1 you hit and roll a 6, then YAY you have done work. Now conversely if you don't roll a hit until turn 3 and you roll a 1 you have basically spent a bunch of points on something that managed a single wound in 3 game turns.

I'm personally a fan of bringing back templates and removing scatter. Just roll once to hit for each model underneath or so. Give Battlewagons a +1 BS upgrade ("Grot Gunners") or so just to keep things interesting.

 Weazel wrote:
I'm pretty sure in their "extensive playtesting" they really didn't think it through what getting rid of templates is going to do to Ork shooting. Blast/explosive weapons should probably hit automatically since the "randomness of scatter" would already be covered by the random number of shots. What's really killing it for Orks is the hit rolls.

They completely botched former big templates, in my humble opinion. Big guns just don't feel good unless they are gatling types and/or associated with way higher BS.

SemperMortis wrote:
It just moves the extremes. A D6 blast weapon for Orkz will hit 1 time on average or 2 for Grots each turn. Moving this to 1 roll means you are going to do nothing for most of the game but on the 2ish turns you hit something you are going to do D6 and hope to god you roll above average to make up for the loss of dakka on the other turns. So if on turn 1 you hit and roll a 6, then YAY you have done work. Now conversely if you don't roll a hit until turn 3 and you roll a 1 you have basically spent a bunch of points on something that managed a single wound in 3 game turns.

You don't need to tell me how statistics work, I've done more statistics than is healthy for most people

You don't "move extremes". You reduce variance. This is actually a bad thing when you have unreliable hit rolls, because successful rolls are not close to the average.

Let's assume your blast weapon is destroyed (or locked in combat) after turn 3. In this case your weapon's success hinges on three rolls. You fail 3 5+ rolls (29.63% chance), your weapon does absolutely nothing for the entire game. In the current system, your roll 3d6 5+ rolls, which has a much lower chance of not producing a single hit. You would need to roll a trippe for shots to get the same high chance of completely failing, any other result has a much lower chance, the average result of 10 has a 0.2% chance to miss all shots.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 JinxDragon wrote:
If they give back the Automatic Hit but reduced the number of Hits generated?

Blast weapons still missed roughly one fourth of their shots, plus automatic hits would make former template weapons obsolete (not to mention their overwatch and anti-air ridiculous).

The only way to fix blasts across the codices would be re-evaluating every single one of them and fixing their shots or points.

Not necessary.

What you should do is roll to hit with a single shot. If successful, you roll a D3/D6 to see how many hits you got. Relatively easy to houserule or implement in the game, makes the shots more plentiful, and makes sure they're worth the cost.

You realize that this makes blast weapons worse, not better?

If you miss your initial 5+ you get no hits at all. This means while the average stays the same, your blast weapons are much more likely to do nothing.

How is that objectively worse? Maybe I'm not specific enough. You roll to hit, and then the second part would be like the current flamer and you roll and see how many hit.

 Mr. Grey wrote:
If you want orks to be good at shooting, you're barking up the wrong tree.

You're a newbie to 40k, aren't you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is that objectively worse? Maybe I'm not specific enough. You roll to hit, and then the second part would be like the current flamer and you roll and see how many hit.

See the math above. You have the same average result, but getting that average or even near it is less likey. You're basically making it a gamble whether your blast weapon is terrible or awesome, with little in between and terrible being a lot more likely than awesome..

In general more dice are better, as it makes a smoother curve and thus the unit more reliable.

For example, a unit of ork boyz with 120 attacks will most likely kill an undamaged space marine dread (average 8.88 wounds, rounded up to 9).
Two deff dreads with 4 attacks each will net the exact same result (8.88).
However, the dreads are pretty likely to have a couple bad hit or wound rolls (and maybe a lucky 6+ save) saving the dread and only do 6, 3 or even 0 damage to it, while the boyz will maybe cause 7 or 8 damage on a bad roll, but results as low as 3 or 0 are very unlikely.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is that objectively worse? Maybe I'm not specific enough. You roll to hit, and then the second part would be like the current flamer and you roll and see how many hit.

See the math above. You have the same average result, but getting that average or even near it is less likey. You're basically making it a gamble whether your blast weapon is terrible or awesome, with little in between and terrible being a lot more likely than awesome..

In general more dice are better, as it makes a smoother curve and thus the unit more reliable.

For example, a unit of ork boyz with 120 attacks will most likely kill an undamaged space marine dread (average 8.88 wounds, rounded up to 9).
Two deff dreads with 4 attacks each will net the exact same result (8.88).
However, the dreads are pretty likely to have a couple bad hit or wound rolls (and maybe a lucky 6+ save) saving the dread and only do 6, 3 or even 0 damage to it, while the boyz will maybe cause 7 or 8 damage on a bad roll, but results as low as 3 or 0 are very unlikely.

Right now you roll for how many shots and then you roll to hit those, whereas I'm letting stuff auto hit. There is NO way you are presenting correct math.

His math is correct.

Right now you figure out how many shots there are and see if each one hits.

So if you have D6 shots you average 3.5 shots. (round to 3 for easy math)
For orks each shot has a 1/3 chance to hit. SO you hit one time.

So every 3 times you shoot gets you 3 hits.

Your suggestion changes it to
1 shot that hits 1/3rd of the time
if it hits you average 3 hits.

So every 3 times you shoot gets you 3 hits. (you miss 2 out of 3 times).

essentially think of it like this
Turn 1 I shoot each weapon
One gets 3 shots, I hit 1
the other gets 1 shot, and misses
Turn 2
One gets 3 shots I hit 1
the other gets 1 shot, I hit and get 3 hits
Turn 3
One gets 3 shots, I hit 1
the other gets 1 shot, and misses

The end result is the same, it just ends up with 1 turn where your gun is really good and 2 turns of doing nothing.

Your focused too much on the "auto-hit" part to realize that you "auto-miss" the rest of the time. So the results are much swingier. So it makes the weapons more unreliable, and more likely to die before doing anything.

The math is the same though. What we do here is take out extra rolls that aren't necessary.

All you have to do after that is add a caveat that's maybe +1 or +2 to that D3/6 And you're set.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The math is the same though. What we do here is take out extra rolls that aren't necessary.

All you have to do after that is add a caveat that's maybe +1 or +2 to that D3/6 And you're set.

No you really aren't. yes the averages are the same, but the curve is way off. They system is much more binary, either you hit with everything or nothing. Your argument only holds when you look at a large number of results. For a single turn it makes those weapons far more likely to do nothing at all.

Over the course of 100 trials (D6 shots/hits 5+ BS) the results come out fairly close (I got 124 hits in your method and 110 in the current 1). However in your method their are strings of up to 10 firings in a row where no damage is done at all, which is not the case for the current method. Which is important because there is a chance that you might only fire once or twice in the whole game, so there is every likelihood that you will do nothing at all. If you value the idea of reliable damage then the current method is more reliable, you are doing something every turn more or less. In your method that simply isn't true, so it makes blasts much more luck reliant.

Further example that same result for 1000 trials leads to the weapon doing nothing 684 times in your method (~2/3rds) compared to only 167 times for the current system (1/6th).

Slayer, you're misunderstanding statistics if you're really honestly arguing they're the same that way.

Honestly, hasn't Ork shooting always been about "more dakka" rather than precision? I'd love it if the killkanon just took that to heart and went 2d6 shots instead. Bullets in excess, with hardly any hitting, and wildly swingy and unreliable. As it is currently it's useless. Should aim more for unreliable, as is the Ork way.

That said, if people still haven't realised that the Index was a rushjob to hold us over until the codex releases after seeing the difference between index and codex, then I really don't know what to say.

 Purifier wrote:
Honestly, hasn't Ork shooting always been about "more dakka" rather than precision? I'd love it if the killkanon just took that to heart and went 2d6 shots instead. Bullets in excess, with hardly any hitting, and wildly swingy and unreliable. As it is currently it's useless. Should aim more for unreliable, as is the Ork way.

That said, if people still haven't realised that the Index was a rushjob to hold us over until the codex releases after seeing the difference between index and codex, then I really don't know what to say.

I agree, though more shots is actually more reliable. Marine shooting in its own way is far more unreliable than high dakka ork shooting would be. IF you are shooting 100 times you are far more likely to be close to average than a single lascannon etc would be. Now marines with all their re-rolls etc are very likely to hit so that does change things, but, lots of shots is reliability.

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The math is the same though. What we do here is take out extra rolls that aren't necessary.

All you have to do after that is add a caveat that's maybe +1 or +2 to that D3/6 And you're set.

No you really aren't. yes the averages are the same, but the curve is way off. They system is much more binary, either you hit with everything or nothing. Your argument only holds when you look at a large number of results. For a single turn it makes those weapons far more likely to do nothing at all.

Over the course of 100 trials (D6 shots/hits 5+ BS) the results come out fairly close (I got 124 hits in your method and 110 in the current 1). However in your method their are strings of up to 10 firings in a row where no damage is done at all, which is not the case for the current method. Which is important because there is a chance that you might only fire once or twice in the whole game, so there is every likelihood that you will do nothing at all. If you value the idea of reliable damage then the current method is more reliable, you are doing something every turn more or less. In your method that simply isn't true, so it makes blasts much more luck reliant.

Further example that same result for 1000 trials leads to the weapon doing nothing 684 times in your method (~2/3rds) compared to only 167 times for the current system (1/6th).

Which is about how the Ork blast weapons without Gretchin worked in the last edition. That BS2 + Scatter was far worse. You're in denial if you thought they were at all reliable last edition, especially small blasts.

Also I don't care about "swingy" or "not doing anything for potentially a turn". That only happens if you literally bring ONE blast weapon, and even singularly the numbers are the same (you're doing maybe 1 kill a turn, in the third turn I killed three to even out, which doesn't matter if you do the math looking at 3 of them firing, because that's much easier to look at on my phone). Ergo, since the averages are the same, I'd rather get rid of the unnecessary dice roll.

The REAL fix is to add +1 to small blasts, and +2 For large blasts to help with the less than powerful weapons. However, less dice rolling means a quicker game and that's important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Slayer, you're misunderstanding statistics if you're really honestly arguing they're the same that way.

In groups of multiples it's going to be the same every turn. If you're taking literally ONE you would have a point and that's not a point in buying because good lists, even with crap units, use redundancy in list building.

Killkannons were semi-usable on Looted Wagons as a "cheap pieplate" for supporting Zhadsnark Bikerspam. There were plenty of other issues that prevented the Killkannon from being worth it, but the biggest issues were that it had Vindicator Range on a vehicle with stretch limo armor facings, yet had less strength than a Battlecannon, all while costing like a Vanilla Russ yet being inferior in most ways that counted. Not to mention you were still paying a premium for being able to transport 20+ Orks. 30 points for a near-50-50 shot of chipping 1 HP from a Rhino, a 33% chance of wounding a Wraithknight before FNP, and a 5 in 6 chance of bouncing off a Riptide. This of course assumes you didn't get shaken/stunned (as Orks did not get POTMS), or simply exploded (since you were Open-Topped).

Aka, why the Looted Wagon was the Killkannon throwaway.

Breng77 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Honestly, hasn't Ork shooting always been about "more dakka" rather than precision? I'd love it if the killkanon just took that to heart and went 2d6 shots instead. Bullets in excess, with hardly any hitting, and wildly swingy and unreliable. As it is currently it's useless. Should aim more for unreliable, as is the Ork way.

That said, if people still haven't realised that the Index was a rushjob to hold us over until the codex releases after seeing the difference between index and codex, then I really don't know what to say.

I agree, though more shots is actually more reliable. Marine shooting in its own way is far more unreliable than high dakka ork shooting would be. IF you are shooting 100 times you are far more likely to be close to average than a single lascannon etc would be. Now marines with all their re-rolls etc are very likely to hit so that does change things, but, lots of shots is reliability.

Yes, but 2d6 shots is horrendously unreliable. You can get a devastating series of rolls or 2 shots. Which is great. Or you could do what the skaven ratling gun used to. You can keep rolling d6es, but on a 1 you die. Maybe increase the chance for every attempt after the x'th

I've been wondering if maybe there should be a generic rule that all blast weapons (for everyone, not just orks) get +1 to the number of attacks for every 10 models in a target unit. It seems like the kind of thing that would help make blast weapons relevant for thinning out hordes without making them too powerful, but there are probably a few weapons out there that I'm not familiar with that would make this a bad idea.

Something like the Linebreaker stratagem for Killkannons would be cool, but the cost of fielding a Battle Wagon with a Killkannon is about twice that of a Vindicator IIRC so it would be pretty expensive to pull off.

I seriously think it's as simple as adding more shots to certain Ork guns. Not all of them need it and no army that hits on 2s/3s and rerolls misses needs help.
Just up the likes of the SAG and Killcannon to 2D6 and go the multiple D3 route with others.

 Purifier wrote:

That said, if people still haven't realised that the Index was a rushjob to hold us over until the codex releases after seeing the difference between index and codex, then I really don't know what to say.

I can't agree here. If we look at marines and csm, the codex only changes a couple things compared to an index - mostly point costs. It adds strategems and a coule special rules here and there, but the core and mechanics remain the same.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also I don't care about "swingy" or "not doing anything for potentially a turn". That only happens if you literally bring ONE blast weapon, and even singularly the numbers are the same (you're doing maybe 1 kill a turn, in the third turn I killed three to even
out, which doesn't matter if you do the math looking at 3 of them firing, because that's much easier to look at on my phone). Ergo, since the averages are the same, I'd rather get rid of the unnecessary dice roll.

So why not make it d100 roll. On a roll of 1 your gun destroys everything on the table, otherwise it doesn't do anything. The averages are close enough, you don't have any unnecessary rolls and you don't care about swingy either.

Before continuing this discussion, you need to understand that there is a chance attached to actually hitting that average. For example if you have 2d6 and a dice with 11 sides numbered from 2 to 12. Both have the same average of 7, hower the chance of rolling a 7 on 2d6 is 16.6%, the chance of hitting it on a d11 is 1/11 = 9.09%.

Your solution has the same problem, while keeping the average the same, your chance of actually reaching that average dropped a lot, with most of the chance going to failure results instead of success result because 5+ is more likely to fail than to succeed.

#Hits Proposed Current 0 66,67% 30,41% 1 5,56% 36,83% 2 5,56% 21,47% 3 5,56% 8,66% 4 5,56% 2,26% 5 5,56% 0,34% 6 5,56% 0,02%

Therefore rolling d6 shots for one hit each is better than 1 shot with d6 hits.

The REAL fix is to add +1 to small blasts, and +2 For large blasts to help with the less than powerful weapons. However, less dice rolling means a quicker game and that's important.

Ignoring overwatch, any given weapon shoots an absolute maximum of 7 times during any game. Since you have to target in range, are locked in combat or your weapon gets destroyed over the course of a game, a realistic value would be three of four rolls per game. If you have high chance of failure on those you might as well not take these units at all. Anything else is just gambling.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Slayer, you're misunderstanding statistics if you're really honestly arguing they're the same that way.

In groups of multiples it's going to be the same every turn. If you're taking literally ONE you would have a point and that's not a point in buying because good lists, even with crap units, use redundancy in list building.

What you are referring to is called the Law of large numbers. In order to reach a point where that law is actually starting to show you would have to field around a hundred of the weapon in question. For the cheapest big gun this would mean 2700 points of kannons. While awesome, not exactly a good list.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The math is the same though. What we do here is take out extra rolls that aren't necessary.

All you have to do after that is add a caveat that's maybe +1 or +2 to that D3/6 And you're set.

No you really aren't. yes the averages are the same, but the curve is way off. They system is much more binary, either you hit with everything or nothing. Your argument only holds when you look at a large number of results. For a single turn it makes those weapons far more likely to do nothing at all.

Over the course of 100 trials (D6 shots/hits 5+ BS) the results come out fairly close (I got 124 hits in your method and 110 in the current 1). However in your method their are strings of up to 10 firings in a row where no damage is done at all, which is not the case for the current method. Which is important because there is a chance that you might only fire once or twice in the whole game, so there is every likelihood that you will do nothing at all. If you value the idea of reliable damage then the current method is more reliable, you are doing something every turn more or less. In your method that simply isn't true, so it makes blasts much more luck reliant.

Further example that same result for 1000 trials leads to the weapon doing nothing 684 times in your method (~2/3rds) compared to only 167 times for the current system (1/6th).

Which is about how the Ork blast weapons without Gretchin worked in the last edition. That BS2 + Scatter was far worse. You're in denial if you thought they were at all reliable last edition, especially small blasts.

Also I don't care about "swingy" or "not doing anything for potentially a turn". That only happens if you literally bring ONE blast weapon, and even singularly the numbers are the same (you're doing maybe 1 kill a turn, in the third turn I killed three to even out, which doesn't matter if you do the math looking at 3 of them firing, because that's much easier to look at on my phone). Ergo, since the averages are the same, I'd rather get rid of the unnecessary dice roll.

The REAL fix is to add +1 to small blasts, and +2 For large blasts to help with the less than powerful weapons. However, less dice rolling means a quicker game and that's important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Slayer, you're misunderstanding statistics if you're really honestly arguing they're the same that way.

In groups of multiples it's going to be the same every turn. If you're taking literally ONE you would have a point and that's not a point in buying because good lists, even with crap units, use redundancy in list building.

It doesn't balance out just by having multiples though, because you still have more random built in. Say you have 3 blast weapons for orks. 1 will hit and on average do 3 hits. The same amount that 3 blasts will do currently. However, because you only roll 1D6 for hits instead of 3D6 for shots it is far more likely that you will end up in the worst case (1 hit). It is also more likely you will get the best result of 6 hits (for your 1 shot). The problem is that you are far more likely to fail all 3 5+ rolls then you would be to fail all 10 on average you are making now. You also still aren't accounting for attrition. Sure turn 1 when everything is alive the averages are closer, but as soon as you start to lose weapons you return to what I was saying before where the number of times you do nothing at all sky rockets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For instance even with 3 blast weapons for orks doing 15000 trials there are 4476 times where they fail to do anything in your system vs 0 times for the current one. Looking at a single game 5 turns the current method does consistently 16-18 hits per game, your way fluctuates between 8 and 34. So they become something you really cannot depend on at all. As it is entirely possible for them to do nothing turn 1, then die. SO your assertion that "doing nothing" only happens if you only bring one blast is false it actually happens about 30% of the time if you have 3 blast weapons. With 5 it was still 1987 (13%). So you need a ton of blasts in your method to make it even out on averages per turn.


As for last edition small blasts generally were crap for everyone, but they were more reliable than what you are suggesting as if you aimed at a larger target there was a far better than 33% chance to hit at least something. For large blasts they were pretty reliable. So much like the current system there was a better chance of doing at least something, rather than your method where there is a rare chance of doing a ton of damage.

adding +1 shots to Ork blast weapons is useless. Its a small help, it adds .333 hits to our average rolls. So now instead of 3.5 being the average number of shots its 4.5, so we go from 1.16 hits a turn to 1.49 hits a turn.

Adding another D6 to every ork blast weapon (and HRoF weapon) is similarly not useful. A 2D6 SM Blast weapon averages 7 shots and about 5 hits. A 3D6 Ork Blast weapon averages 10.5 shots and 3.49 hits. If you made it 4D6 thats 14 shots on average and 4.66 hits on average.

And on the top end, that SM 2D6 weapon on the high end is hitting 8 times on average (12 shots = 8 hits) and the Ork 4D6 weapon is significantly harder (twice as hard) to get that perfect roll but if it did its 24 shots = 8 hits, so at the top end they are the same. So weaker on average and exactly the same on the top end, except the SM will typically hit that top end twice as often as an Ork player will.

SemperMortis wrote:
adding +1 shots to Ork blast weapons is useless. Its a small help, it adds .333 hits to our average rolls. So now instead of 3.5 being the average number of shots its 4.5, so we go from 1.16 hits a turn to 1.49 hits a turn.

Adding another D6 to every ork blast weapon (and HRoF weapon) is similarly not useful. A 2D6 SM Blast weapon averages 7 shots and about 5 hits. A 3D6 Ork Blast weapon averages 10.5 shots and 3.49 hits. If you made it 4D6 thats 14 shots on average and 4.66 hits on average.

And on the top end, that SM 2D6 weapon on the high end is hitting 8 times on average (12 shots = 8 hits) and the Ork 4D6 weapon is significantly harder (twice as hard) to get that perfect roll but if it did its 24 shots = 8 hits, so at the top end they are the same. So weaker on average and exactly the same on the top end, except the SM will typically hit that top end twice as often as an Ork player will.

I actually think adding a D6 to all ork blast weapons would help quite a bit. Most marine blast weapons are a single D6 shots. So having on average 7 shots vs 3.5 would mean each hits 2.33 times.

Breng77 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
adding +1 shots to Ork blast weapons is useless. Its a small help, it adds .333 hits to our average rolls. So now instead of 3.5 being the average number of shots its 4.5, so we go from 1.16 hits a turn to 1.49 hits a turn.

Adding another D6 to every ork blast weapon (and HRoF weapon) is similarly not useful. A 2D6 SM Blast weapon averages 7 shots and about 5 hits. A 3D6 Ork Blast weapon averages 10.5 shots and 3.49 hits. If you made it 4D6 thats 14 shots on average and 4.66 hits on average.

And on the top end, that SM 2D6 weapon on the high end is hitting 8 times on average (12 shots = 8 hits) and the Ork 4D6 weapon is significantly harder (twice as hard) to get that perfect roll but if it did its 24 shots = 8 hits, so at the top end they are the same. So weaker on average and exactly the same on the top end, except the SM will typically hit that top end twice as often as an Ork player will.

I actually think adding a D6 to all ork blast weapons would help quite a bit. Most marine blast weapons are a single D6 shots. So having on average 7 shots vs 3.5 would mean each hits 2.33 times.

I was comparing it versus a 2D6 weapon for purposes of comparing hits/wounds.

In the Case of the Battle Cannon/Kill Kannon it would be 3D6 for Orkz vs the 2D6 for the Battle Cannon but that is because IG hit on 4s not 3s. Basically every BS point = 1D6 for purposes of leveling the playing field, Conversely you could just make those items so cheap that we can take 2-3 for each opponents weapon that would level it out as well.

SemperMortis wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
adding +1 shots to Ork blast weapons is useless. Its a small help, it adds .333 hits to our average rolls. So now instead of 3.5 being the average number of shots its 4.5, so we go from 1.16 hits a turn to 1.49 hits a turn.

Adding another D6 to every ork blast weapon (and HRoF weapon) is similarly not useful. A 2D6 SM Blast weapon averages 7 shots and about 5 hits. A 3D6 Ork Blast weapon averages 10.5 shots and 3.49 hits. If you made it 4D6 thats 14 shots on average and 4.66 hits on average.

And on the top end, that SM 2D6 weapon on the high end is hitting 8 times on average (12 shots = 8 hits) and the Ork 4D6 weapon is significantly harder (twice as hard) to get that perfect roll but if it did its 24 shots = 8 hits, so at the top end they are the same. So weaker on average and exactly the same on the top end, except the SM will typically hit that top end twice as often as an Ork player will.

I actually think adding a D6 to all ork blast weapons would help quite a bit. Most marine blast weapons are a single D6 shots. So having on average 7 shots vs 3.5 would mean each hits 2.33 times.

I was comparing it versus a 2D6 weapon for purposes of comparing hits/wounds.

In the Case of the Battle Cannon/Kill Kannon it would be 3D6 for Orkz vs the 2D6 for the Battle Cannon but that is because IG hit on 4s not 3s. Basically every BS point = 1D6 for purposes of leveling the playing field, Conversely you could just make those items so cheap that we can take 2-3 for each opponents weapon that would level it out as well.

The battle cannon only has 1D6 shots. But yes cost of weapons need to reflect their abilities. Really very few blasts have more than 1D6 shots right now so if most orks weapons were 2D6 it would go a long way.