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.

 Haighus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I wouldn't say that a 24" S3 AP0 D1 Rapid Fire 1 weapon is objectively better than a 12" S4 AP0 D1 Assault 1 weapon. Especially not when you take into consideration that the Fleshborer is on a platform that gets to reroll Wound rolls of 1 when you have 20 or more models in the unit and that the unit can have mixed weapon profiles within the unit.

I think it is better when considering the Conscripts will be Rapid fire 2 half the time. Although the 4+ for orders nerf does make them less powerful for sure.

I think that it is important to remember a few things:
-Conscripts being at 12" means that the Termagants with Fleshborers can fire back.
-Conscripts can't Advance and Fire. Termagants can. When they Advance+Fire, they're admittedly hitting at the same BS as Conscripts.
-Termagants are getting a passive buff in that as long as they're within 24" of a Synapse creature, they are not subject to Instinctive Behavior. Orders require an Officer within 6" to be utilized since Conscripts cannot take Vox-Casters.
-Termagants in units of 20 or more get a passive reroll Wound rolls of 1s.

I'll certainly grant that FRSRF makes a difference, but it's worth mentioning that you definitely need to have an Officer within 6" of the Conscripts for that to happen.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Termagants cost 4 pts, you may have a point if they costed 3ppm, but sadly they don't.

Aren't Termagants BS and WS 4+, like 4ppm Guardsmen, rather than 5+ for both like 3ppm Conscripts?

And the conscripts have a better weapon. Compared in vacuum the conscripts are far better than termagants with the cheaper cost and better weapon and better armor.

I wouldn't say that a 24" S3 AP0 D1 Rapid Fire 1 weapon is objectively better than a 12" S4 AP0 D1 Assault 1 weapon. Especially not when you take into consideration that the Fleshborer is on a platform that gets to reroll Wound rolls of 1 when you have 20 or more models in the unit and that the unit can have mixed weapon profiles within the unit.

The only advantage that fleshborers have over lasguns is that they can advance and shoot.

Termagants have the same cost than infantry squads, and they are blatanly inferior. And most people agree that conscripts are better than guardsmen.

Tyran wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Termagants cost 4 pts, you may have a point if they costed 3ppm, but sadly they don't.

Aren't Termagants BS and WS 4+, like 4ppm Guardsmen, rather than 5+ for both like 3ppm Conscripts?

And the conscripts have a better weapon. Compared in vacuum the conscripts are far better than termagants with the cheaper cost and better weapon and better armor.

I wouldn't say that a 24" S3 AP0 D1 Rapid Fire 1 weapon is objectively better than a 12" S4 AP0 D1 Assault 1 weapon. Especially not when you take into consideration that the Fleshborer is on a platform that gets to reroll Wound rolls of 1 when you have 20 or more models in the unit and that the unit can have mixed weapon profiles within the unit.

The only advantage that fleshborers have over lasguns is that they can advance and shoot.

Termagants have the same cost than infantry squads, and they are blatanly inferior. And most people agree that conscripts are better than guardsmen.

And why do "most people agree that Conscripts are better than Guardsmen"?

Because much like Termagants, Infantry Squads are able to field mixed weapons that will potentially degrade their performance.
A Guard Infantry Squad that takes a Heavy Weapons Team and a Special Weapon that you issue "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire" to will be less efficient than a Conscript Squad of 30.

Why?
Because of three things:
1) The Heavy Weapons Team is not able to fire the Lasgun on the loader in addition to the Heavy Weapon.
2) The Special Weapon loses his Lasgun to carry the Special Weapon. Because of this, he can't benefit from FRFSRF.
3) The Sergeant has a Laspistol and cannot take any ranged weapon other than a Boltgun, Laspistol, Bolt Pistol, or Plasma Pistol.
None of these allow for your whole squad to benefit from FRFSRF.
Issuing FRFSRF to a Conscript Squad equals 30 shots getting doubled to 60 before taking into account the benefits from being at 12" or lower.

Funny that you ignored my point about 20 or more models in the unit granting rerolling Wound rolls of 1 and allowing for mixed weapon profiles(Fleshborers and Devourers, for example) in a unit though.

And the whole schtick about advancing and firing.

"And why do "most people agree that Conscripts are better than Guardsmen"?"

I'm not sure they are anymore. There is something to be said for something like six units of completely disposable guardsmen in front of six more units toting a lascannon in front of the real guns. That's complete board coverage with no need for any kind of officer to be involved except as icing.

Oh jeebus, just got a look at the Eldar codex. If people were salty about the Guard codex being impossible for Marines to deal with, Eldar are going to be even worse in that regard, especially if you like taking armor saves

Color me shocked.

Martel expected it for sure. Eldar are much closer to AM power level than space marines. Wait for the inevitable nerf of Guilliman as well.

They won't nerf him. Don't be too crazy here.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Oh jeebus, just got a look at the Eldar codex. If people were salty about the Guard codex being impossible for Marines to deal with, Eldar are going to be even worse in that regard, especially if you like taking armor saves

A guardian still costs twice what an infantry man does for the exact same resiliency. Lets not get too ahead of ourselves. Eldar got toys for sure. I am more concerned about tyranids which appear to be getting some pretty silly buffs. IE - carnifexes are better than guilliman buffed razorbacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
They won't nerf him. Don't be too crazy here.

With the rate that he is complained about - it's only a matter of time.

Unless he's intended to be like that.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And why do "most people agree that Conscripts are better than Guardsmen"?

Because much like Termagants, Infantry Squads are able to field mixed weapons that will potentially degrade their performance.
A Guard Infantry Squad that takes a Heavy Weapons Team and a Special Weapon that you issue "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire" to will be less efficient than a Conscript Squad of 30.

Why?
Because of three things:
1) The Heavy Weapons Team is not able to fire the Lasgun on the loader in addition to the Heavy Weapon.
2) The Special Weapon loses his Lasgun to carry the Special Weapon. Because of this, he can't benefit from FRFSRF.
3) The Sergeant has a Laspistol and cannot take any ranged weapon other than a Boltgun, Laspistol, Bolt Pistol, or Plasma Pistol.
None of these allow for your whole squad to benefit from FRFSRF.
Issuing FRFSRF to a Conscript Squad equals 30 shots getting doubled to 60 before taking into account the benefits from being at 12" or lower.

Funny that you ignored my point about 20 or more models in the unit granting rerolling Wound rolls of 1 and allowing for mixed weapon profiles(Fleshborers and Devourers, for example) in a unit though.

And the whole schtick about advancing and firing.

Rerolling wound rolls of 1 is nowhere close to literally duplicating your firepower. It is a minor buff at best, one that is quickly negated as killing Termagants isn't hard.

As for mixing weapons, Devourers duplicates the cost of the termagants, so now we are comparing a 3ppm Conscript to a 8ppm devourer Termagant.

It's okay. They act like upgrades for marines are free, too.

Tyran wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And why do "most people agree that Conscripts are better than Guardsmen"?

Because much like Termagants, Infantry Squads are able to field mixed weapons that will potentially degrade their performance.
A Guard Infantry Squad that takes a Heavy Weapons Team and a Special Weapon that you issue "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire" to will be less efficient than a Conscript Squad of 30.

Why?
Because of three things:
1) The Heavy Weapons Team is not able to fire the Lasgun on the loader in addition to the Heavy Weapon.
2) The Special Weapon loses his Lasgun to carry the Special Weapon. Because of this, he can't benefit from FRFSRF.
3) The Sergeant has a Laspistol and cannot take any ranged weapon other than a Boltgun, Laspistol, Bolt Pistol, or Plasma Pistol.
None of these allow for your whole squad to benefit from FRFSRF.
Issuing FRFSRF to a Conscript Squad equals 30 shots getting doubled to 60 before taking into account the benefits from being at 12" or lower.

Funny that you ignored my point about 20 or more models in the unit granting rerolling Wound rolls of 1 and allowing for mixed weapon profiles(Fleshborers and Devourers, for example) in a unit though.

And the whole schtick about advancing and firing.

Rerolling wound rolls of 1 is nowhere close to literally duplicating your firepower. It is a minor buff at best, one that is quickly negated as killing Termagants isn't hard.

Neither is killing Conscripts, but you don't get a buff for simply having tons of them in a unit.
And while "killing Termagants isn't hard"--neither is parking a Tervigon near them to replenish the unit and to grant Synapse(meaning they won't lose more models to morale while the Conscripts will lose models to morale thanks to the new Commissar change).

In any regards, Conscripts have to be issued an Order(which only goes off on a 4+) to "double their firepower" or you have to move within 12" of them.

As for mixing weapons, Devourers duplicates the cost of the termagants, so now we are comparing a 3ppm Conscript to a 8ppm devourer Termagant.

It doubles the cost of the Termagants. You don't say something "duplicates" unless it copies it.

And you're comparing a 3ppm Conscript who hits on 5s and is wounded on 3s to a Termagant who hits on 4s and is wounded on 4s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's okay. They act like upgrades for marines are free, too.

Boltguns are 0 points.
Frag Grenades are 0 points.
Bolt Pistols are 0 points.
Chainswords are 0 points.

I have the Marine Codex sitting next to me. Try to pretend that their basic weapons cost points. Please do.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That by itself proves that models are still important. "

No, it doesn't. Conscripts are still points on the table that happen to take up space cheaply and efficiently. Yes, models matter, but points matter more.

No, no they don't.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must believe that over the long run games are completely mathematically predictable. Do you think you could predict the winrate of a given Imperial Guard army over, say, 50 games?

Of course you can. I get that you don't like thinking of it as math, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. Naming exceptions doesn't change that fact. Most of what you are protesting against is simply due to a faulty understanding of probabilities.

If I have 3 point conscripts and you have 6 points conscripts, math says that I will win most of our games. Not all, and you certainly might be a better player. But I am getting a heck of an advantage, and that's based purely on mathematical analysis.

Analyzing units based on mathematical expectations can certainly give a player an edge. Do a lot of people make errors in their mathematical analysis? Of course, otherwise I'd lose more games.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Oh jeebus, just got a look at the Eldar codex. If people were salty about the Guard codex being impossible for Marines to deal with, Eldar are going to be even worse in that regard, especially if you like taking armor saves

A guardian still costs twice what an infantry man does for the exact same resiliency. Lets not get too ahead of ourselves.

Such has been true for most editions, thats never been a particular drag on Eldar and probably wont be this edition either. Guardians being overcosted is the perennial price Eldar pay for the rest of their nice things.

Eldar got toys for sure. I am more concerned about tyranids which appear to be getting some pretty silly buffs. IE - carnifexes are better than guilliman buffed razorbacks.

Im not sure what theyrr looking like, but theyre a heavy support unit, Im not terribly broken up about them being beefier than an overgunned transport. Speaking of which, the Wave Serpent is already at that point, and if anyone was concerned about Russ tanks, well, take a gander at the Fire Prism instead

Edit: topkek, Dark Reapers are even cheaper, they're paying 5pts for the dude and 2pts more for their missile launcher than IG do for one

xmbk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That by itself proves that models are still important. "

No, it doesn't. Conscripts are still points on the table that happen to take up space cheaply and efficiently. Yes, models matter, but points matter more.

No, no they don't.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must believe that over the long run games are completely mathematically predictable. Do you think you could predict the winrate of a given Imperial Guard army over, say, 50 games?

Of course you can. I get that you don't like thinking of it as math, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. Naming exceptions doesn't change that fact. Most of what you are protesting against is simply due to a faulty understanding of probabilities.

If I have 3 point conscripts and you have 6 points conscripts, math says that I will win most of our games. Not all, and you certainly might be a better player. But I am getting a heck of an advantage, and that's based purely on mathematical analysis.

Analyzing units based on mathematical expectations can certainly give a player an edge. Do a lot of people make errors in their mathematical analysis? Of course, otherwise I'd lose more games.

We cold get into it on PMs if you want, but do you believe, then, that 40k could be simulated? Solved by a machine? That there is no need for human interaction to determine the victor in any given list matchup?

All gants need to be 1 point cheaper than their current cost to be "decent" compared to other similar choices, otherwise they're plain bad and inferior in every way

KurtAngle2 wrote:
All gants need to be 1 point cheaper than their current cost to be "decent" compared to other similar choices, otherwise they're plain bad and inferior in every way

Other than being the same statlines barring maybe a point of armor save, right?

Because Termagants have the same statline as Guardsmen barring 1 point of armor.

Edit:
Sorry and a few points of Leadership(Termagants are LD5, Guardsmen are 7 while the Sergeant is alive and 6 otherwise).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That by itself proves that models are still important. "

No, it doesn't. Conscripts are still points on the table that happen to take up space cheaply and efficiently. Yes, models matter, but points matter more.

No, no they don't.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must believe that over the long run games are completely mathematically predictable. Do you think you could predict the winrate of a given Imperial Guard army over, say, 50 games?

Of course you can. I get that you don't like thinking of it as math, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. Naming exceptions doesn't change that fact. Most of what you are protesting against is simply due to a faulty understanding of probabilities.

If I have 3 point conscripts and you have 6 points conscripts, math says that I will win most of our games. Not all, and you certainly might be a better player. But I am getting a heck of an advantage, and that's based purely on mathematical analysis.

Analyzing units based on mathematical expectations can certainly give a player an edge. Do a lot of people make errors in their mathematical analysis? Of course, otherwise I'd lose more games.

We cold get into it on PMs if you want, but do you believe, then, that 40k could be simulated? Solved by a machine? That there is no need for human interaction to determine the victor in any given list matchup?

It can. I've been working towards it since 8th came out in my spare (non-hobby) time
I'm about a week of non-stop development from the point the machine can construct an optimum TAC list for IG of its own accord, because the factors that make up a TAC are fairly easy to describe to a computer. They just take forever to hone in meat space, which is what brute force simulations are for (and why i'm doing it).

40k can be reduced down to a numbers game IF the only factors in play are (in order of significance):

1. Damage output
2. Target Prioritisation

and the following in any order
3. Redundancy
4. Defensive positioning
5. Objective grabbing

1 & 2 are easy for a machine, even without actually having an on-going update of the battlefield; it'd just spit out "shoot the models that can do the most damage to the models I have that can do the most damage", which about 70% of the time is all a human player needs to do. Objectives games generally add only one extra factor of "And also shoot models near objectives with the most effective weapons" with weighting shifting from one to the other as the game goes into later turns.

3 is where AI comes in, something i'm not too familiar with yet. However if factor 2 can be composed in such a way that it can affect the AI's long term planning and allow for multiple resolution paths, it wouldn't be impossible. It's just that I personally don't know how to do it yet

4. Is hard, as it requires 3d imaging to determine if an object is in cover or not. If this could be abstracted away into a "this 2d object provides cover, this other one doesn't" as a top-down photograph of the game as it goes on, it would be much easier.

5. is probably a function of the army construction subsystem. It would also need to recognise targets in the aforementioned 2d plot as "i'll lose %avg models if I put them there" or "I need to kill these models before they get to this objective".

None of this is impossible for a machine, as the RTS computer game genre has been doing it for decades. The only reason we don't have a 40k AI right this moment, I think, is because the inputs are an ordeal. With the rise of 3d imaging, and even to a lesser extent drones ( imagine a credit card sized drone hovering over the table taking photos after every movement) I think this could actually be accomplished cheaply now.

On topic, some of my background mathhammer indicates that a lot of the points values are tuned *exactly* to average values. the most egregious example was the twin heavy bolter which can only ever be bs4, and kill exactly the cost of 1 marine, while costing 1 marine. As I know GW were hiring programmers during the ramp up of 8th ( I applied), it's possible they have a system that worked out the points values automagically, and now its the meatspace adjustments that have to be made as the edge cases creep up.

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That by itself proves that models are still important. "

No, it doesn't. Conscripts are still points on the table that happen to take up space cheaply and efficiently. Yes, models matter, but points matter more.

No, no they don't.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must believe that over the long run games are completely mathematically predictable. Do you think you could predict the winrate of a given Imperial Guard army over, say, 50 games?

Of course you can. I get that you don't like thinking of it as math, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. Naming exceptions doesn't change that fact. Most of what you are protesting against is simply due to a faulty understanding of probabilities.

If I have 3 point conscripts and you have 6 points conscripts, math says that I will win most of our games. Not all, and you certainly might be a better player. But I am getting a heck of an advantage, and that's based purely on mathematical analysis.

Analyzing units based on mathematical expectations can certainly give a player an edge. Do a lot of people make errors in their mathematical analysis? Of course, otherwise I'd lose more games.

We cold get into it on PMs if you want, but do you believe, then, that 40k could be simulated? Solved by a machine? That there is no need for human interaction to determine the victor in any given list matchup?

It can. I've been working towards it since 8th came out in my spare (non-hobby) time
I'm about a week of non-stop development from the point the machine can construct an optimum TAC list for IG of its own accord, because the factors that make up a TAC are fairly easy to describe to a computer. They just take forever to hone in meat space, which is what brute force simulations are for (and why i'm doing it).

40k can be reduced down to a numbers game IF the only factors in play are (in order of significance):

1. Damage output
2. Target Prioritisation

and the following in any order
3. Redundancy
4. Defensive positioning
5. Objective grabbing

1 & 2 are easy for a machine, even without actually having an on-going update of the battlefield; it'd just spit out "shoot the models that can do the most damage to the models I have that can do the most damage", which about 70% of the time is all a human player needs to do. Objectives games generally add only one extra factor of "And also shoot models near objectives with the most effective weapons" with weighting shifting from one to the other as the game goes into later turns.

3 is where AI comes in, something i'm not too familiar with yet. However if factor 2 can be composed in such a way that it can affect the AI's long term planning and allow for multiple resolution paths, it wouldn't be impossible. It's just that I personally don't know how to do it yet

4. Is hard, as it requires 3d imaging to determine if an object is in cover or not. If this could be abstracted away into a "this 2d object provides cover, this other one doesn't" as a top-down photograph of the game as it goes on, it would be much easier.

5. is probably a function of the army construction subsystem. It would also need to recognise targets in the aforementioned 2d plot as "i'll lose %avg models if I put them there" or "I need to kill these models before they get to this objective".

None of this is impossible for a machine, as the RTS computer game genre has been doing it for decades. The only reason we don't have a 40k AI right this moment, I think, is because the inputs are an ordeal. With the rise of 3d imaging, and even to a lesser extent drones ( imagine a credit card sized drone hovering over the table taking photos after every movement) I think this could actually be accomplished cheaply now.

On topic, some of my background mathhammer indicates that a lot of the points values are tuned *exactly* to average values. the most egregious example was the twin heavy bolter which can only ever be bs4, and kill exactly the cost of 1 marine, while costing 1 marine. As I know GW were hiring programmers during the ramp up of 8th ( I applied), it's possible they have a system that worked out the points values automagically, and now its the meatspace adjustments that have to be made as the edge cases creep up.

I would like to see your computer perform at tournaments.

As a professional wargamer in the U.S. Defense industry, we usually assume Wargaming cannot be done by computer (as a Simulation is not a Wargame, because Wargaming inherently involves human actors). The reason for this is that human factors cannot be calculated for - have you found a way to overcome this? If so, there's probably plenty of money for you in the campaign analysis field.

Plus, no one's going to care unless you can get Matthew Broderick to commit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I would like to see your computer perform at tournaments.

As a professional wargamer in the U.S. Defense industry, we usually assume Wargaming cannot be done by computer (as a Simulation is not a Wargame, because Wargaming inherently involves human actors). The reason for this is that human factors cannot be calculated for - have you found a way to overcome this? If so, there's probably plenty of money for you in the campaign analysis field.

Me too, but it'll never get there as i'm a DB programmer first, a number cruncher second and AI monkey somewhere around 7th or 8th. Maybe when it's ready for someone else to pick up when i've got what I want out of it

While I'm in no position to critique your specialisation; I'll point out that with a 2 dimensional plot, known, fixed inputs, and statistically and quantifiably provable "most advantageous actions" with a fairly coarse grade of yes/no/maybe, there's actually not a lot that the human factor provides in 40k that the RNG vastly *vastly* overpowers.

While 40k has considerably more moving parts than Chess or Go (especially with continuous movement equalling a board of technically infinite tiles, and the variation added by dice rolls), it probably is still orders of magnitude simpler and easier to solve than actual people running around a forest firing training rounds at each other.

Regarding gants, I basically consider the fleshborer to be half a lasgun because it has half the shots at half the range. The S4 helps it a bit so maybe it's closer to 5/8ths of a lasgun, but generally the fleshborer is a pretty pathetic weapon.

Termagants could easily get away with being 3ppm with fleshborers even with their BS4+ and they'd still be pretty balanced, because fleshborers are just such a terrible weapon. It's basically a bolt pistol, but worse because it can't fire in melee.

Devourers on the other hand, those things are beastly with their assault 3. At least 5 points for gants with devourers, maybe even 6. Doubling the unit's cost to triple their firepower and extend their range by 6" is actually a pretty good deal, the only reason it doesn't seem so great now is because they're starting from such a terrible baseline.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Neither is killing Conscripts, but you don't get a buff for simply having tons of them in a unit.

Instead you have orders that are far better than rerolling 1. Imagine that FRFSRF was only rerolling 1s to wound.

And while "killing Termagants isn't hard"--neither is parking a Tervigon near them to replenish the unit and to grant Synapse(meaning they won't lose more models to morale while the Conscripts will lose models to morale thanks to the new Commissar change).

The problem is that the Tervigon costs 250pts. It is far cheaper to simply have more Termagants than having a Tervigon. But you are right about Synapse, although without the Commissar nerf conscripts were a problem, now they are simply a very good unit.

In any regards, Conscripts have to be issued an Order(which only goes off on a 4+) to "double their firepower" or you have to move within 12" of them.

Well, you need to move Termagants within 12" to have firepower at all, Fleshborers are only 12" after all.

And you're comparing a 3ppm Conscript who hits on 5s and is wounded on 3s to a Termagant who hits on 4s and is wounded on 4s.

Except that at the same range, the Conscript fires two shots, and two S3 shots are better than one S4 shot against almost any target assuming the same BS. With the 5+ to hit of the Conscripts, they will have very similar firepower to a Termagant.

Conscripts and Termagants should have the same point cost; whatever that is 3ppm or 4ppm is a different argument.

for the cost of a devil gaunt (a gaunt with a devourer with 3 shots) you get 9 shots for 1 more point with a conscript.

It's pretty much a joke to compare conscripts to termigaunts. Conscripts have more firepower-more surivivability-and conscripts aren't forced to move up - they are in an army that camps in it's deployment zone. Termigaunts are always moving towards the enemy - far less likely to be in cover. We are talking about a clearly inferior unit.

Why not compare an infantryman to a gaunt. They have the same point cost so it's even more obvious which is better. Termis can take devourer - infantry can take las cannons and plasma guns. HOLY MOLEY.

It's pretty obvious that the conclusion to draw from that is that gants need buffs rather than guardsmen needing nerfs though.

Unless you're trying to say that proper balance is tac marines completely shredding their own points' worth of anything else and walking away with only minor casualties.

In order for gaurd infantry to be fair...practically every armies troops would need buffs in comparison. Minus daemons ofc.

Tyran wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Neither is killing Conscripts, but you don't get a buff for simply having tons of them in a unit.

Instead you have orders that are far better than rerolling 1. Imagine that FRFSRF was only rerolling 1s to wound.

There's an Order for that. You don't get both at once, due to the fact that a unit being issued an Order forbids them from receiving another Order(outside of a Relic).
FRFSRF requires you to have:
1) An Officer with Voice of Command and of the same Regiment within 6" of the Conscripts.
2) Passed a D6 roll of a 4+.

FRFSRF != a native ability. I do not get FRFSRF just for having 20 or more Conscripts in a unit.

And while "killing Termagants isn't hard"--neither is parking a Tervigon near them to replenish the unit and to grant Synapse(meaning they won't lose more models to morale while the Conscripts will lose models to morale thanks to the new Commissar change).

The problem is that the Tervigon costs 250pts. It is far cheaper to simply have more Termagants than having a Tervigon. But you are right about Synapse, although without the Commissar nerf conscripts were a problem, now they are simply a very good unit.

Which were basically unaffected by the Commissar nerf. People will just find other ways to get the same effect.

The Tervigon costs 250 points but provides the equivalent of a Commissar and grants you the ability to either spawn new units or reinforce existing units that suffered casualties.

How are you not seeing the benefit there?

In any regards, Conscripts have to be issued an Order(which only goes off on a 4+) to "double their firepower" or you have to move within 12" of them.

Well, you need to move Termagants within 12" to have firepower at all, Fleshborers are only 12" after all.

Right, and as mentioned:

You can advance and fire.
You don't have to remain in that 12" bracket from start to finish of the match. There's nothing preventing you from Advancing and opting not to fire until you have charges lined up from other units.

And you're comparing a 3ppm Conscript who hits on 5s and is wounded on 3s to a Termagant who hits on 4s and is wounded on 4s.

Except that at the same range, the Conscript fires two shots, and two S3 shots are better than one S4 shot against almost any target assuming the same BS. With the 5+ to hit of the Conscripts, they will have very similar firepower to a Termagant.

Conscripts and Termagants should have the same point cost; whatever that is 3ppm or 4ppm is a different argument.

Termagants that have not Advanced will be hitting Conscripts on a 4+. Conscripts do not have native access to anything that makes them harder to hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
for the cost of a devil gaunt (a gaunt with a devourer with 3 shots) you get 9 shots for 1 more point with a conscript.

It's pretty much a joke to compare conscripts to termigaunts. Conscripts have more firepower-more surivivability-and conscripts aren't forced to move up - they are in an army that camps in it's deployment zone. Termigaunts are always moving towards the enemy - far less likely to be in cover. We are talking about a clearly inferior unit.

Why not compare an infantryman to a gaunt. They have the same point cost so it's even more obvious which is better. Termis can take devourer - infantry can take las cannons and plasma guns. HOLY MOLEY.

Yeah, and taking lascannons and plasma guns effectively reduces the usage of "FRFSRF" by 3 models.

That means that using FRFSRF would benefit 6 models instead of 9. Which means that this "devastating firepower" that Conscripts bring is, again, unique to them since INFANTRY SQUADS CANNOT TAKE ALL LASGUNS EVEN NATIVELY.

Also, you're being willfully misleading saying that Termigants are "far less likely to be in cover". They're an army that can have areas of -1 to be Hit for things like Termagants thanks to Venomthropes.

Where's the Guard equivalent of that again?

And hell, it's not like we didn't see today that Hive Fleet Jormungandr makes it so that you always have the effects of Cover(+1 to saves) as long as you haven't Charged or Advanced.

I'm building my tyranid army up, and with the leaks it will be fun. But I still don't see it managing to do anything against imperial guard. Their kits are simply too strong. Taurox Primes, Wyverns, and suicide plasma ruin Tyranids day.

Of course I don't have the codex yet so that may change, but ffs, every army i've collected is hosed playing guard.

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I would like to see your computer perform at tournaments.

As a professional wargamer in the U.S. Defense industry, we usually assume Wargaming cannot be done by computer (as a Simulation is not a Wargame, because Wargaming inherently involves human actors). The reason for this is that human factors cannot be calculated for - have you found a way to overcome this? If so, there's probably plenty of money for you in the campaign analysis field.

Me too, but it'll never get there as i'm a DB programmer first, a number cruncher second and AI monkey somewhere around 7th or 8th. Maybe when it's ready for someone else to pick up when i've got what I want out of it

While I'm in no position to critique your specialisation; I'll point out that with a 2 dimensional plot, known, fixed inputs, and statistically and quantifiably provable "most advantageous actions" with a fairly coarse grade of yes/no/maybe, there's actually not a lot that the human factor provides in 40k that the RNG vastly *vastly* overpowers.

I believe, that given enough time a computer would be able to consistently beat human players in 40k, simply because of it being able to accurately calculate the “best case scenarios” each time a move is made.

Tabletop simulation will always be different to wargames “simulation”, as you said, simply because of the “human factor”. What happens if this human trips up and breaks an ankle? The “human factor” however would be completely diminished in a 40k computer lead battle – this is simply due to the computer leading and the human essentially just moving the parts and rolling the dice. Of course, the human could then fail to place a model in the correct position, but it is no longer about the human making the initial decision. Other factors would also then come into play – such as how the dice are physically rolled etc, but in a “casino dice” setting that can be dismissed.
The one thing the AI would have to do, and do well, is react to the other player. What happens if the opposition does some of the most illogical things possible across 1 turn which would potentially change the entire game? What happens if the dice gods make an appearance etc etc. But, most importantly, what would the AI do when faced with a rising percentage chance it was going to lose? Would it then compound the losses further, or would it work to minimise losses in an attempt to hold objectives and potentially stay in the game?

Whilst I fully believe this is all possible, it is a massive undertaking with a lot of variables and decision making involved, not to mention the whole premise of “what beats what” is founded completely on the law of averages, in a game that is highly unlikely to meet those averages over the course of 6 turns.

AI would win, likely, the majority of games where the lists are even, but there will always be a strong possibility of it also getting beat due to the nature of the game.