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.

My main army is DA, and I played most games with em. But if I could choose a chapter tactic to fit my playstile, it definitley wouldnt be -1 to your hit rolls.

Actually BA's chapter tactics sound *reeeeeaaally* strong I think. +1 to wound in the first battle round? Wounding everything at least on 5+ with your bare fists? I would take that over "-1 to hit" every day!

Also the the drop pod is beeing declared as "useless". It has a slight advantage over infiltrating per cp though: You can drop it onto an objective to hold it, and a drop pod is durable enough to not go down easy. Especially if it's *not* dropped in turn 1.

Problem with assault hasn't generally been doing damage so the +1 to wound isn't THAT awesome help.

And that pod is expensive objective grabber that can only capture objectives outside enemy deployment zone most of the time. Unless you delay it to turn 3 at which point game is basically done often anyway.

Spoletta wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:
This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?

Yeah, like it never happened in the history of 40k that assault armies broke the meta. Nids armies are already showing that pure gunlines are not viable anymore, and that you need at least a 20-30% of your army invested in melee specialists.

I think Assault breaking the game is a lot more likely than the reverse in general.

Assault broke 7th way worse than anything Eldar broke 6th phase B and 7th, no army could stand in the way of the super best friends electro displacement face stomper.

morgoth wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:
This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?

Yeah, like it never happened in the history of 40k that assault armies broke the meta. Nids armies are already showing that pure gunlines are not viable anymore, and that you need at least a 20-30% of your army invested in melee specialists.

I think Assault breaking the game is a lot more likely than the reverse in general.

Assault broke 7th way worse than anything Eldar broke 6th phase B and 7th, no army could stand in the way of the super best friends electro displacement face stomper.

But any other assault unit was worthless.

Spoletta wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I feel I am repeating the same point as yesterday - but while "stack turn 1 charges" is a counter to -1 to hit armies, I am not sure that is good for the game either.

40k is in danger of devolving into a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors.

One of the big things with 8th was that we were meant to be getting away from "only hit on 6s, I get a 2++ rerollable". This stacking -1s to hit is definitely moving in that direction. It is a massive meta defining buff that also has the effect of really screwing over certain armies.

The rock-paper-scissors logic will apply only to skewed lists, which will not be competitive.
Gunline wins against slow assault and loses against fast assault which in turn loses against slow assault.
Truly competitive lists will mix parts of these 3 archetypes. You don't bring a list to a tournament that is match up dependent.

I don't this is true. 40k has never really worked this way.
I agree you don't bring lists to a tournament which are match dependent - you bring lists which are "good". You end up with a tier system rather than a counter system.

So Rock-paper-scissors is probably the wrong example. I didn't really mean in terms of hard counters. What I meant was that it was over fast. You might still play out the game - dice can always do strange things - but given normal dice both players know the result an hour or so before the end.

Take the post above saying superfriends broke the game.

Well... they didn't. Or at least no more than various other factions.
They regularly lost in tournaments to Eldar, and Riptides, and double gladius lists etc.
What mattered was who went first. If the super friends player went first, allowing them to advance up the table and activate their psychic defences, they probably had the game in the bag.
If the shooty player went first, getting another turn to shoot, including one before invisibility was up, they had a good chance of killing enough that they had the game in the bag.

I would feel fairly confident in saying 80% of games were won by the player who went first. These lists were very good "skews", rather than being counters, and could confidently stomp weaker lists.

Like for instance the RG+Assbacks etc List is not really a skew - it just takes units which are good and puts them together. Certain factions can build against it - but to be honest they are making lists which are "good". I am not sure that having built such a list the marine player could then "counter build" against it.

This is why you end up with top tier lists that tend to endure until GW change the rules (either via Codex creep or a new edition).

tneva82 wrote:
Problem with assault hasn't generally been doing damage so the +1 to wound isn't THAT awesome help.

And that pod is expensive objective grabber that can only capture objectives outside enemy deployment zone most of the time. Unless you delay it to turn 3 at which point game is basically done often anyway.

I think you'd be surprised, +1 to wound alongside the new wounding mechanics is an amazing benefit. It allows beat troops to punch way above their weight class and it allows elite troops to absolutely wreck certain units. Honestly, characters with Power Fists or Librarian Dreadnoughts are going be wounding T8 on a 3+ or 2+, which is really good, it also means that any character that can hit at S5 or better is wounding anything in the game on a 4+ on the charge. There's also the simple fact that it allows you to attack pretty much anything in the game with any units in your army and have a reasonable chance of doing damage to it.

If they get the cost and delivery mechanisms to really put their assault units in place I think it will be very effective.

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I feel I am repeating the same point as yesterday - but while "stack turn 1 charges" is a counter to -1 to hit armies, I am not sure that is good for the game either.

40k is in danger of devolving into a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors.

One of the big things with 8th was that we were meant to be getting away from "only hit on 6s, I get a 2++ rerollable". This stacking -1s to hit is definitely moving in that direction. It is a massive meta defining buff that also has the effect of really screwing over certain armies.

The rock-paper-scissors logic will apply only to skewed lists, which will not be competitive.
Gunline wins against slow assault and loses against fast assault which in turn loses against slow assault.
Truly competitive lists will mix parts of these 3 archetypes. You don't bring a list to a tournament that is match up dependent.

I don't this is true. 40k has never really worked this way.
I agree you don't bring lists to a tournament which are match dependent - you bring lists which are "good". You end up with a tier system rather than a counter system.

So Rock-paper-scissors is probably the wrong example. I didn't really mean in terms of hard counters. What I meant was that it was over fast. You might still play out the game - dice can always do strange things - but given normal dice both players know the result an hour or so before the end.

Take the post above saying superfriends broke the game.

Well... they didn't. Or at least no more than various other factions.
They regularly lost in tournaments to Eldar, and Riptides, and double gladius lists etc.
What mattered was who went first. If the super friends player went first, allowing them to advance up the table and activate their psychic defences, they probably had the game in the bag.
If the shooty player went first, getting another turn to shoot, including one before invisibility was up, they had a good chance of killing enough that they had the game in the bag.

I would feel fairly confident in saying 80% of games were won by the player who went first. These lists were very good "skews", rather than being counters, and could confidently stomp weaker lists.

Like for instance the RG+Assbacks etc List is not really a skew - it just takes units which are good and puts them together. Certain factions can build against it - but to be honest they are making lists which are "good". I am not sure that having built such a list the marine player could then "counter build" against it.

This is why you end up with top tier lists that tend to endure until GW change the rules (either via Codex creep or a new edition).

Hmm yes, this analysis is closer to my experience as well. Though to be fair, the distance between a good list and a "fluffy list" has greatly shortened in 8th compared to 7th.

Yes it's good but assault units tend to kill target anyway. Overkill is not useful. Does it matter do you cause 10 or 15 wounds if target has 8? Problem is getting there and surviving shooting

Martel732 wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:
This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?

Yeah, like it never happened in the history of 40k that assault armies broke the meta. Nids armies are already showing that pure gunlines are not viable anymore, and that you need at least a 20-30% of your army invested in melee specialists.

I think Assault breaking the game is a lot more likely than the reverse in general.

Assault broke 7th way worse than anything Eldar broke 6th phase B and 7th, no army could stand in the way of the super best friends electro displacement face stomper.

But any other assault unit was worthless.

Right now the meta is not defined by gunlines in general, but a finite number of them. I could count the models across all factions that are pushing the meta into gunline heavy, and i would not reach a dozen. It always works like that, assault and shooting are usually failry balanced if you don't optimize lists, then depeding on the edition one of the two can push the limits further.

But if you can have a 5-man ASM squad do the work instead of a 5-man VV squad with weapons, you can have more bodies or other things with the remaining points.

LC BA Termies will be scary.

Spoletta wrote:
LC BA Termies will be scary.

They'll be shot dead or hit a screen. I'm looking for ways around this, but not seeing any

This kind of gak makes my orks cry.

SweetLou wrote:
This kind of gak makes my orks cry.

At least you have numbers. Power assault in general is far inferior.

Martel732 wrote:

SweetLou wrote:
This kind of gak makes my orks cry.

At least you have numbers. Power assault in general is far inferior.

I gotta agree with Martel here. It is the same as shooting at Flyers in prior editions. Orks going from 5+ to 6+ was not nearly as hard as Marines going from 3+ to 6+
Orks are built to have the quantity of shots to get hits. Marines rely on quality. -1 to hit affects quality, ergo, Marines are worse off.

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

SweetLou wrote:
This kind of gak makes my orks cry.

At least you have numbers. Power assault in general is far inferior.

I gotta agree with Martel here. It is the same as shooting at Flyers in prior editions. Orks going from 5+ to 6+ was not nearly as hard as Marines going from 3+ to 6+
Orks are built to have the quantity of shots to get hits. Marines rely on quality. -1 to hit affects quality, ergo, Marines are worse off.

-

No wait, i think you are really really wrong about this matter.
-1 to hit affects LESS the marines compared to other factions, Orks in particular.

Spoletta wrote:

No wait, i think you are really really wrong about this matter.
-1 to hit affects LESS the marines compared to other factions, Orks in particular.

Statistically on a 1 shot basis, you are right. A singe shot from a single Marine does not go down in efficiency as much as a single shot from a single Ork
What I am alluding to is that a single shot from a Marine is worth much more than a single shot from an Ork, because Orks have straight up more shots

Orks are made to make up for having poor quality by having massed quantity, ergo reducing their quality has less of an overall effect because they have the quantity to counter it.
Marines have no such quantity, thus anything the reduces their quality it felt more.

When you are throwing buckets of dice, -1 to hit doesn't hurt as much as you still get hits. Throwing small numbers of dice might mean no hits at all, even if the quality of hits is better.
Some hits are better than no hits.

-

Bharring wrote:
But if you can have a 5-man ASM squad do the work instead of a 5-man VV squad with weapons, you can have more bodies or other things with the remaining points.

People are gonna take barebones Vanguard anyway.

Do you know the price difference between Assault Marines and Vanguard by chance? Based off this post you don't.

Playing with and against the -1 to hit (at over 12" remember) I don't think it is overpowered in the case of SM and CSM because it only applies to Infantry, Bikes, Dreadnoughts. I think the problem is when it applies to every unit. It takes away tactical depth and strategy in list building. I am working on an AL list that is all -1 to hit units, but in doing so I am not taking the very good all laser cannon predator, or daemon engines, or even rhinos. So I am restricting my options to have all -1. If I take some of the vehicles, then there are units in my army without -1 that the opponent can target. Each play is making a choice. All -1 or have some units more vulnerable, or shoot the -1 units, or concentrate on the non -1 units until I can get closer. When the -1 is army wide with no restrictions, then you can make any list you want without any extra thought, and there is no target priority decision by the opponent. The extra -1 on Super Sonic is problematic in itself. The mistake they really made is allowing some armies access -1 outside of basically infantry and bikes.

I actually like the Blood Angels CT. If you ever used "Veterans of the Long War" stratagem you will know how +1 to wound can make mediocre attacks so much more potent. I also think the tactics that allow vehicles to double the wounds for damage chart seems really good, but I have never played with or against, only watched on battle reports. I guess my point is there are multiple tactics that are good in someway, and may warrant taking over -1 to hit, depending on your army, but -1 to hit army wide is probably the best tactic and probably needs to be toned down.

My post didn't refer to barebones VV. Kitted VV versus naked VV is kinda the same scenario.

The point is that, now that you need less of any given assault threat to do the same damage, if it's overkill now, either take more of smaller threats or take on more at once with the threats.

 Galef wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

No wait, i think you are really really wrong about this matter.
-1 to hit affects LESS the marines compared to other factions, Orks in particular.

Statistically on a 1 shot basis, you are right. A singe shot from a single Marine does not go down in efficiency as much as a single shot from a single Ork
What I am alluding to is that a single shot from a Marine is worth much more than a single shot from an Ork, because Orks have straight up more shots

Orks are made to make up for having poor quality by having massed quantity, ergo reducing their quality has less of an overall effect because they have the quantity to counter it.
Marines have no such quantity, thus anything the reduces their quality it felt more.

When you are throwing buckets of dice, -1 to hit doesn't hurt as much as you still get hits. Throwing small numbers of dice might mean no hits at all, even if the quality of hits is better.
Some hits are better than no hits.

-

I still don't get it.
If we assume that equal points in ork shooting and SM shooting provide the same average result, how can reducing the ork output by 50% and the SM output by 25% be more harmful for SM?

Spoletta wrote:
I still don't get it.
If we assume that equal points in ork shooting and SM shooting provide the same average result, how can reducing the ork output by 50% and the SM output by 25% be more harmful for SM?

I think I've explained it the best I can without dropping some math (which I don't have books nearby to do justice). But my point is that math isn't 100% of the equation.
There is no such thing as an all shooting Ork list as any self respecting Ork general will include plenty of melee units. So 50% less shooting should not be as hard a blow for Orks in general than to Marines that HAVE to include decent shooting.

But even just looking at the numbers alone, Orks have so many shots that the averages come closer to expected and you can rely on some hits.
Marines having so few shots in general means that a single round of poor shooting can mean whole units get zero shooting.

-

The averages do *not* favor the Orkz. Regardless of the shooty-or-not nature of the unit, a 5+ unit does 50% less damage, and a 3+ unit does 25% less damage.

Your other argument - that the Orkz aren't as dependent on their shooting - is a possiblitiy. The idea is that, while the Orkz lose 50% of their shooting, it only amounts to one or two more guys that live until the Orkz assualt. On the other hand, the Marines kill maybe 5 or 10 fewer guys before getting assaulted. The Marines would be worse off, if that's how it works out.

However, the math is very clear - the numbers hurt Orkz more. It's just that, tactically, it may not matter.

If an Ork list is a ton of long-range dakka and not really kitted for assault, it will certainly hurt the Ork army worse. It's just that the Ork army is more likely to *not* be long-range dakka.

 Galef wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

No wait, i think you are really really wrong about this matter.
-1 to hit affects LESS the marines compared to other factions, Orks in particular.

Statistically on a 1 shot basis, you are right. A singe shot from a single Marine does not go down in efficiency as much as a single shot from a single Ork
What I am alluding to is that a single shot from a Marine is worth much more than a single shot from an Ork, because Orks have straight up more shots

Orks are made to make up for having poor quality by having massed quantity, ergo reducing their quality has less of an overall effect because they have the quantity to counter it.
Marines have no such quantity, thus anything the reduces their quality it felt more.

When you are throwing buckets of dice, -1 to hit doesn't hurt as much as you still get hits. Throwing small numbers of dice might mean no hits at all, even if the quality of hits is better.
Some hits are better than no hits.

-

This would be true if marines were not able to put out higher volumes of fire than many ork units for a similar price. Especially when we are talking about high S, high Damage shots.

What you say was true last edition for snap firing, but lets look at 2 comparably pointed units and how their fire power is effected

10 tactical marines Rapid firing bolters = 130 points
22 Ork boyz with shootas = 132 points

Marines get 20 shots, orks 44.

Without -1 to hit
Marines hit 13.33 times
Orks hit 14.67 times slight advantage orks, their bucket of dice helps to make up for their bad BS in this case

With -1 to hit
Marines hit 10 times
Orks hit 7.33 their volume of fire is no longer an equalizing factor.

A -1 to hit goes from the ork unit producing 1.34 more hits, to producing 2.67 fewer hits.

If we go to -2 to hit
Marines hit 6.67 times
Orks hit 0.

What about a devastator squad vs tank bustas
5 devs with 4 ML =165
10 tank bustas = 170

Normal
Marines 2.67 missiles hit
Orks 3.33 hits, so 0.67 hits, their extra shots offset their bad BS

-1 to hit
Marines hit 2 times
Orks hit 1.67

So extra shots help a bit, but not very much once modifiers start coming in to play. Especially when they stack. Which is why I would like to see modifiers not stack, with a few very specific exceptions (maybe elder rangers can get -2 but not things like flyers or most other things, not alpha legion oblits with changeling etc.)

As for orks mostly relying on assault, they have no but to do so with -1 to hit for shooting being common, especially when it stacks.

It does seem like "to-hit penalties don't stack" would be a great direction to go.

Maybe GW wants -1 to hit to be the Eldar scheme in general. Other, lesser armies won't be able to stack it.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

SweetLou wrote:
This kind of gak makes my orks cry.

At least you have numbers. Power assault in general is far inferior.

I gotta agree with Martel here. It is the same as shooting at Flyers in prior editions. Orks going from 5+ to 6+ was not nearly as hard as Marines going from 3+ to 6+
Orks are built to have the quantity of shots to get hits. Marines rely on quality. -1 to hit affects quality, ergo, Marines are worse off.

-

The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

Snapshot favored Orks because it it was a -1 to hit for them, while it was a -3 to hit for Marines. Orks could still get 50% of their firepower against things that only got 25% of Marine firepower.

But a flat -1 to hit works different for Marines, because now they are only losing a 25% of their firepower while Orks still are losing 50% of theirs. Even worse, now there is the possibility of a -2 to hit, which negates Ork shooting while Marines would still have 50% of their normal firepower against that.

The fact that Orks pay less for dice is irrelevant, as the -1 is applied to each of their dice, and they will lose far more dice to a -1 than Marines.

Tyran wrote:
The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

Please make your comments less inflammatory. I understand math and statistics just fine, having made As in every math related class in high school and college.

My claim has less to do with the actual math than the overall affect on the armies in question. Obviously -1 has a greater affect on BS5+ than BS3+
My point is that those BS3+ shots MATTER MORE because there are fewer of them.
If Orks fail to hit with every shot, who cares, they weren't really shooting much without the -1. If a Marines fail to hit because of the -1 it reduces their odds of victory in a much more significant way.

Shooting is a bonus for Orks, not their main way of winning. Marines kinda rely on a few good rounds of shooting to win

-

 Galef wrote:

Tyran wrote:
The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

Please make your comments less inflammatory. I understand math and statistics just fine, having made As in every math related class in high school and college.

My claim has less to do with the actual math than the overall affect on the armies in question. Obviously -1 has a greater affect on BS5+ than BS3+
My point is that those BS3+ shots MATTER MORE because there are fewer of them.
If Orks fail to hit with every shot, who cares, they weren't really shooting much without the -1. If a Marines fail to hit because of the -1 it reduces their odds of victory in a much more significant way.

Shooting is a bonus for Orks, not their main way of winning. Marines kinda rely on a few good rounds of shooting to win

-

Except that is dependant in how the list are built. You can have an all assault Marine force of assault marines and terminators or an all shooting ork force of lootas and tankbustas.

Orks players are annoyed that their shooting is easily nullified in the current meta by modifiers, forcing them into pure assault lists.

 Galef wrote:

Tyran wrote:
The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

...
If Orks fail to hit with every shot, who cares, they weren't really shooting much without the -1. If a Marines fail to hit because of the -1 it reduces their odds of victory in a much more significant way.

-

A large portion of the Ork Codex are just 'Dakka' units, disregarding them "Just because their orks" makes no sense? Its like saying "Space marines have good guns, they shouldn't be able to hit in melee ever!"
Orkz are shoe-horned into running a melee based build *because* their ranged options are really sub-par.

Additionally, the new Ork Strategem "Dakka Dakka Dakka" lets you get another hit on a 6+, with the -1 modifier that essentially makes the stratagem completely useless.

 Galef wrote:

Shooting is a bonus for Orks, not their main way of winning. Marines kinda rely on a few good rounds of shooting to win
-

Here's an example.
5x Lootas 85 points
BS 5+ | Wep Attacks 1d3 (Average at 2)

vs
6x Space Marines 91 points (Tactical)
BS 3+ | Wep Attacks rf 2 (Lets say an average of 1.5)

No mods
Lootas hit 30% of 10 attacks, resulting in 3 hits
Space Marines hit 66.66% of 9 attacks, resulting in 6 hits.

With -1 modifier
Lootas hit 16.66% of 10 attacks, resulting in 1.5 hits.
Space marines hit 50% of 9, resulting in 4.5 hits

So tell us more about how it effects Orks less, Lootas are Orks dedicated shooting option