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.

Spoletta wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

darkarchonlord wrote:


I mean hell, for the same price as the dreaded 10 man shining spear unit you can take 60 fething gaunts, do you really think 10 shining spears can kill 60 gaunts?

Yes - almost without question. 10 Shining Spears have 40 Shruiken Catapult Shots, 10 Laser Lance shots and then another 21 attacks in melee.

Math it out, you are taking out only half of them. You get up to ~40 with guide and ~ 47 with doom.

And termagants comes in squads of 30 so unless both squads are really close, so you can shoot at one and charge the other, there should be still a decent number of gants to counter strike and earn some points back.

 Lord Perversor wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

darkarchonlord wrote:


I mean hell, for the same price as the dreaded 10 man shining spear unit you can take 60 fething gaunts, do you really think 10 shining spears can kill 60 gaunts?

Yes - almost without question. 10 Shining Spears have 40 Shruiken Catapult Shots, 10 Laser Lance shots and then another 21 attacks in melee.

Math it out, you are taking out only half of them. You get up to ~40 with guide and ~ 47 with doom.

And termagants comes in squads of 30 so unless both squads are really close, so you can shoot at one and charge the other, there should be still a decent number of gants to counter strike and earn some points back.

I’d have zero problems charging a max unit of 9 Spears into 60 guards if there were no other better targets.

Sure, with Guide and Doom you’d only kill 26 of the first 30 via shooting, and then, charging both groups, I’d expect to kill the rest of the first group and about 9 of the 2nd group. As for the gants fighting back… I’d expect to lose 0 models to the retaliation.

Not only would this be a reasonable trade, the Tyranid consolidation would likely mean you are surrounding so no other Tyranid unit can get into combat as well, meaning the only threat to your Spears would be if they decide to fall back.

Kdash wrote:

 Lord Perversor wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

darkarchonlord wrote:


I mean hell, for the same price as the dreaded 10 man shining spear unit you can take 60 fething gaunts, do you really think 10 shining spears can kill 60 gaunts?

Yes - almost without question. 10 Shining Spears have 40 Shruiken Catapult Shots, 10 Laser Lance shots and then another 21 attacks in melee.

Math it out, you are taking out only half of them. You get up to ~40 with guide and ~ 47 with doom.

And termagants comes in squads of 30 so unless both squads are really close, so you can shoot at one and charge the other, there should be still a decent number of gants to counter strike and earn some points back.

I’d have zero problems charging a max unit of 9 Spears into 60 guards if there were no other better targets.

Sure, with Guide and Doom you’d only kill 26 of the first 30 via shooting, and then, charging both groups, I’d expect to kill the rest of the first group and about 9 of the 2nd group. As for the gants fighting back… I’d expect to lose 0 models to the retaliation.

Not only would this be a reasonable trade, the Tyranid consolidation would likely mean you are surrounding so no other Tyranid unit can get into combat as well, meaning the only threat to your Spears would be if they decide to fall back.

No one is contesting that in the right situation this is a tactically sound move, i'm just stating that math wise they are not horde cleaners.

Spoletta wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 Lord Perversor wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

darkarchonlord wrote:


I mean hell, for the same price as the dreaded 10 man shining spear unit you can take 60 fething gaunts, do you really think 10 shining spears can kill 60 gaunts?

Yes - almost without question. 10 Shining Spears have 40 Shruiken Catapult Shots, 10 Laser Lance shots and then another 21 attacks in melee.

Math it out, you are taking out only half of them. You get up to ~40 with guide and ~ 47 with doom.

And termagants comes in squads of 30 so unless both squads are really close, so you can shoot at one and charge the other, there should be still a decent number of gants to counter strike and earn some points back.

I’d have zero problems charging a max unit of 9 Spears into 60 guards if there were no other better targets.

Sure, with Guide and Doom you’d only kill 26 of the first 30 via shooting, and then, charging both groups, I’d expect to kill the rest of the first group and about 9 of the 2nd group. As for the gants fighting back… I’d expect to lose 0 models to the retaliation.

Not only would this be a reasonable trade, the Tyranid consolidation would likely mean you are surrounding so no other Tyranid unit can get into combat as well, meaning the only threat to your Spears would be if they decide to fall back.

No one is contesting that in the right situation this is a tactically sound move, i'm just stating that math wise they are not horde cleaners.

I agree, but also disagree to an extent. They aren’t stand alone “efficient” horde killers based on role and regaining points, but, as shown, they can deal with large geq units with relative ease over the course of 1 turn. This is the problem people always fall into – mathhammer based on a 1v1 situation in total isolation.

Now, 281 points (without powers) to kill 120 points worth of GEQ isn’t the best – would need to kill 3 units to be “effective”.

However, this is where people start to not take the rest of the game into account.

Usually, “effectiveness” is based off 1 turn only on here. However, you have to consider more than 1 turn and the rest of the army.

For example, if I have 2 units of 9 Spears and 1 unit of 10 Dark Reapers. Which unit are you going to kill first, because chances are you’ll only have the firepower to fully destroy one if I play correctly. Now what if I have the first turn, so therefore I’ve already taken out 2 horde units, destroyed god knows what else with the Reapers and consolidated into combat with the 2 spear units.

You now get your chance to kill 1 unit and maybe get lucky and half destroy another. If 1 Spear unit survives, 1 dies and half the Reapers are killed, the next turn the full Spear unit kills another 30 man blob.

At this point, I’d be questioning what units you have left on the table now that, in 2 turns, I’ve removed 90 horde models + 2+ things with the Reapers and whatever else the other 1163 points of my army has been killing.

Is it points “efficient”? No, nowhere near (unless the Reapers manage to kill 450 points in 2 turns). However, is it game winning efficient? Potentially yes.

People always get hung up on “this doesn’t do x very well” or “this is op cos it can do x” but never look at the bigger picture. For example, I plan on using a 2 Vyper squad with Starcannons in my army. Currently in isolation they are unit that people completely ignore and avoid. Sure, they aren’t spectacular at killing things, but, they can kill things over several turns whilst doing other things. To many people take the “all or nothing” approach and then wonder why games fall apart if one side or the other doesn’t get a massive alpha strike.

The rationale i use is easy. To be average a unit must destroy it's own cost in points AND require 3 times it's cost in ranged fire to go down (this is based on the assumption that the average life of a shooting model is 3 turns).

Spoletta wrote:
The rationale i use is easy. To be average a unit must destroy it's own cost in points AND require 3 times it's cost in ranged fire to go down (this is based on the assumption that the average life of a shooting model is 3 turns).

Shooting or shooting and combat?

So, based on 3 turns of GEQ horde killing, the single Spear unit will kill (at a minimum due to the 4ppm cost) 360 points, or 90 models. This is 79 points more than their base cost.

In reverse, it would take 5 turns for the same points of GEQ horde (conscripts) to kill the 1 unit of Spears, even when they have FRFSRF. Standard GEQ will take 3 turns.

The problem will come when we start mixing and matching what shoots at what and what benefits we give to the attacker and defender. If we continue with Guard and say, Spears target horde units but get shot by a double tapping Leman Russ Punisher, we’d expect the Russ to also take 5 turns to kill the Spear unit with no buffs (which costs 150 points per turn).

A Basilisk will take forever to solo a squad (won’t even happen solo in a 6 turn game). Mortars, likewise, have no hope.

A plasma command squad could kill the unit in 5 turns as well, but, that is with overcharging and a strong chance of killing yourself before you manage it.

There are probably lots of options that CAN easily kill the unit in a turn or over 3 turns, but, it does go to show that when you consider 3 turns, certain units are more efficient than people sometimes presume.

That's a model i use game by game to evaluate the different units and how they performed. It's hard to do that on an absolute level, at least the "How much it killed part". The second part is a bit easier, since you can guesstimate how much shooting it will take to go down and which kind of units will shoot at it. I like this system because it allows you to easily include the cost of support units in the math.
What i still have problems to define is the average life on a melee model, so i can't define how many points of melee specialists you have to absorb on average.

Spoletta wrote:
That's a model i use game by game to evaluate the different units and how they performed. It's hard to do that on an absolute level, at least the "How much it killed part". The second part is a bit easier, since you can guesstimate how much shooting it will take to go down and which kind of units will shoot at it. I like this system because it allows you to easily include the cost of support units in the math.
What i still have problems to define is the average life on a melee model, so i can't define how many points of melee specialists you have to absorb on average.

I’d personally expect there to be 2 different life expectancies for melee units, depending on whether they managed to charge, or were charged.

In all likelihood, a melee unit that gets charged often only has a slim chance of surviving into the next turn (when charged by another specialist unit), however, if they are charged with a tar pitting unit, I’d expect them to survive all game.

As you’re looking at specialist units, I’d probably tend to lean more towards the 1 turn side of things, when they get charged.

However, when they do the charging, I’d expect their life expectancy to double to around 2 turns. This is simply because they will likely destroy the enemy unit in that 1 turn and can then consolidate forward into another unit. This then reduces the incoming fire by at least 1 unit, and gives them the potential of having a 2nd round of combat later in that turn.

I also feel like , with melee units, you have to factor in deep-strike or not. If they aren’t deep-striking, I’d go for a measure of 2 turns of survival, but likely only 1 turn of combat (as they likely won’t be able to do anything at all expect move in the first turn), so, they are either open to 2 rounds of shooting, or will get charged due to them being “out of range” first turn.

Deep-striking units I’d give the standard 2 rounds, with the caveat that they make their first 9” charge.

Kdash wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That's a model i use game by game to evaluate the different units and how they performed. It's hard to do that on an absolute level, at least the "How much it killed part". The second part is a bit easier, since you can guesstimate how much shooting it will take to go down and which kind of units will shoot at it. I like this system because it allows you to easily include the cost of support units in the math.
What i still have problems to define is the average life on a melee model, so i can't define how many points of melee specialists you have to absorb on average.

I’d personally expect there to be 2 different life expectancies for melee units, depending on whether they managed to charge, or were charged.

In all likelihood, a melee unit that gets charged often only has a slim chance of surviving into the next turn (when charged by another specialist unit), however, if they are charged with a tar pitting unit, I’d expect them to survive all game.

As you’re looking at specialist units, I’d probably tend to lean more towards the 1 turn side of things, when they get charged.

However, when they do the charging, I’d expect their life expectancy to double to around 2 turns. This is simply because they will likely destroy the enemy unit in that 1 turn and can then consolidate forward into another unit. This then reduces the incoming fire by at least 1 unit, and gives them the potential of having a 2nd round of combat later in that turn.

I also feel like , with melee units, you have to factor in deep-strike or not. If they aren’t deep-striking, I’d go for a measure of 2 turns of survival, but likely only 1 turn of combat (as they likely won’t be able to do anything at all expect move in the first turn), so, they are either open to 2 rounds of shooting, or will get charged due to them being “out of range” first turn.

Deep-striking units I’d give the standard 2 rounds, with the caveat that they make their first 9” charge.

Interesting analysis, indeed it's not a simple matter. Some times a melee specialist has only turn to score points, while my termagants keeping an IK at bay surely follow a different pattern. I'll try to cook up something keeping in mind these considerations.

Spoletta wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That's a model i use game by game to evaluate the different units and how they performed. It's hard to do that on an absolute level, at least the "How much it killed part". The second part is a bit easier, since you can guesstimate how much shooting it will take to go down and which kind of units will shoot at it. I like this system because it allows you to easily include the cost of support units in the math.
What i still have problems to define is the average life on a melee model, so i can't define how many points of melee specialists you have to absorb on average.

I’d personally expect there to be 2 different life expectancies for melee units, depending on whether they managed to charge, or were charged.

In all likelihood, a melee unit that gets charged often only has a slim chance of surviving into the next turn (when charged by another specialist unit), however, if they are charged with a tar pitting unit, I’d expect them to survive all game.

As you’re looking at specialist units, I’d probably tend to lean more towards the 1 turn side of things, when they get charged.

However, when they do the charging, I’d expect their life expectancy to double to around 2 turns. This is simply because they will likely destroy the enemy unit in that 1 turn and can then consolidate forward into another unit. This then reduces the incoming fire by at least 1 unit, and gives them the potential of having a 2nd round of combat later in that turn.

I also feel like , with melee units, you have to factor in deep-strike or not. If they aren’t deep-striking, I’d go for a measure of 2 turns of survival, but likely only 1 turn of combat (as they likely won’t be able to do anything at all expect move in the first turn), so, they are either open to 2 rounds of shooting, or will get charged due to them being “out of range” first turn.

Deep-striking units I’d give the standard 2 rounds, with the caveat that they make their first 9” charge.

Interesting analysis, indeed it's not a simple matter. Some times a melee specialist has only turn to score points, while my termagants keeping an IK at bay surely follow a different pattern. I'll try to cook up something keeping in mind these considerations.

I agree, non specialist units will need another metric. For example, a horde/screening unit would be measured by footprint and survivability based on how many points required to remove it.

It's why I never ever bother with mathhammer. On a good board, in a dice game, only the most vague mathhammer is really relevant. When you get into silly minutia of wounds per point, etc...it becomes rather pointless. Won't stop people from parading it around like it's the truth or factual though.

 Elbows wrote:
It's why I never ever bother with mathhammer. On a good board, in a dice game, only the most vague mathhammer is really relevant. When you get into silly minutia of wounds per point, etc...it becomes rather pointless. Won't stop people from parading it around like it's the truth or factual though.

So in your opinion...paying less for units that deal more damage than your opponent does not play a factor in victory?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It's why I never ever bother with mathhammer. On a good board, in a dice game, only the most vague mathhammer is really relevant. When you get into silly minutia of wounds per point, etc...it becomes rather pointless. Won't stop people from parading it around like it's the truth or factual though.

So in your opinion...paying less for units that deal more damage than your opponent does not play a factor in victory?

The problem is that the answer is "it depends."

Are you paying less points to do more damage because your unit is drastically less durable? Are you doing more damage because you're firing at a preferred target type? Is the damage you do heavily dependent on your opponent making a mistake or taking a certain build? Is your unit dramatically faster or slower than the enemy's, making its effectiveness vary with board size?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It's why I never ever bother with mathhammer. On a good board, in a dice game, only the most vague mathhammer is really relevant. When you get into silly minutia of wounds per point, etc...it becomes rather pointless. Won't stop people from parading it around like it's the truth or factual though.

So in your opinion...paying less for units that deal more damage than your opponent does not play a factor in victory?

There's a difference between "plays a factor" and "is the end-all be-all." For example, position yourself smartly and the PPW approaches infinity of enemy models, as they aren't able to target and create wounds. Target your Fire Dragons against that guard squad and watch your PPM break down. Lots of us play for fluff, too - we don't want to bring a perfect PPM army because it's boring or a waste of models/time/money.

Complaining at the level that you are is akin to complaining that your dice are slightly unbalanced and roll 1's more than they should. Sure, technically, it's a thing and if you were TFG and/or really into competitive, you'd buy perfectly-weighted casino dice. But 99% of the time, it just makes you come across as pedantic and nitpicky. And it does that even moreso when you argue it repeatedly and poorly, refusing to admit contrary evidence or other rules (toughness, ability to deep strike, mobility, durability) that are in play.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It's why I never ever bother with mathhammer. On a good board, in a dice game, only the most vague mathhammer is really relevant. When you get into silly minutia of wounds per point, etc...it becomes rather pointless. Won't stop people from parading it around like it's the truth or factual though.

So in your opinion...paying less for units that deal more damage than your opponent does not play a factor in victory?

I'll give you an extreme example where that breaks down.

A wave serpent with shuriken cannons costs 144 and has 3 shuriken cannons (total assault 129 because I can't math apparently), hits on a 3+, and has a degrading stat line. 5 guardians have 1 more attack and only cost 40pts. By your math hammer logic, no one should ever take wave serpents cause wtf, they cost 3.5x as much as the guardians that do more.

Now this is obviously hyperbole but you can see where the mathhammer breaks down. You need to take into account a units utility, keywords, range, versatility against different types of units, durability, weaknesses to certain types of damage. All these things go into balancing the game. If the game was simply PPW then no one would bother playing, the game would be decided at turn 0 when both players bring their army lists out.

Shuriken Cannons only have 3 shots.

darkarchonlord wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It's why I never ever bother with mathhammer. On a good board, in a dice game, only the most vague mathhammer is really relevant. When you get into silly minutia of wounds per point, etc...it becomes rather pointless. Won't stop people from parading it around like it's the truth or factual though.

So in your opinion...paying less for units that deal more damage than your opponent does not play a factor in victory?

I'll give you an extreme example where that breaks down.

A wave serpent with shuriken cannons costs 144 and has 3 shuriken cannons (total assault 12), hits on a 3+, and has a degrading stat line. 6 guardians have the exact same damage potential and only cost 48pts. By your math hammer logic, no one should ever take wave serpents cause wtf, they cost 3x as much as the same damage guardians.

Now this is obviously hyperbole but you can see where the mathhammer breaks down. You need to take into account a units utility, keywords, range, versatility against different types of units, durability, weaknesses to certain types of damage. All these things go into balancing the game. If the game was simply PPW then no one would bother playing, the game would be decided at turn 0 when both players bring their army lists out.

Just to head off Xeno here, you can use the same argument for a pair of War Walkers with cannons (140 points for 33% more firepower *and* an invuln save, no degrading statline, plus infiltration, etc.).

darkarchonlord wrote:
I'm not going to go through all the effort of quoting but swooping hawks are basically the worst anti GEQ in the game (when comparing anti GEQ units) essentially never making their points back against the units their designed to kill. It's not that their weapons are bad, its that they're (as with almost all footdar) so expoensive per model and so fething squishy that they can't compete point for point. Do you really think 10 swooping hawks can kill 33 guardsmen even if they hit first? Not a chance. Don't forget they're fast attack so we can't even use them to fill out battalions for more CP.

Whoever said spears don't have a penalty for advancing is dead wrong. Given their movespeed you basically never want to have to advance your spears because if you do you have to spend CP just to allow them to charge. You're using CP to give them 6" of move which is pretty garbage.

Guardian PPW in a vacuum are great, until you remember they're 12" and now they're in rapidfire range of everyone else so your mathhammer goes out the window and every guardian costs as much as 2 guardsmen for the same toughness and wounds.

What Xeno seems to be forgetting is the PPW isn't damn near close to enough to determine how points effective a unit is, you need to compare the PPW it takes to KILL them too and thats why you seem to think eldar is AP. Yes, most things have pretty good PPW but Eldar is typically firing against 1.5 - 2x the same amount of wounds/toughness equivalent.

I mean hell, for the same price as the dreaded 10 man shining spear unit you can take 60 fething gaunts, do you really think 10 shining spears can kill 60 gaunts?

You only advance with your spears to get into perfect position - so you can fire your 6 inch range guns and charge as many units as possible. Obviously you don't do it if you don't need to. Why saying no penalty (it really just means you can still make all your actions) the cost is a command point. In regards to hawks. They can expect to kill 10ish guardsmen a turn - 7 if they are in cover. It's not incredible. But it's enough to kill 10 GEQ a turn without any support and being able to maneuver to the perfect position with a 15-20" move with no penalty for the advance. It would be a lot juicer to shoot a unit of veterans with a las cannon in the back line (they could easily reach them). If standing next to an autarch they kill 15 gaunts - which is almost half their points in damage. Not bad for an army with no anti horde ability. I also can't imagine hawks being a priority target when they are shining spears or 20 guardians in your face or both in your face.

Gardians die fast - but they are never taking fire until you are set up - they are ether deep striking in or in a wave serpent so they are first striking basically all the time and their 4++ invo strategem makes guardians pretty tough to bring down. They aren't a super unit but they are also very versatile. In my game last night they dealt the killing blows to an imperial knight with weight of fire on 6s. There really aren't a lot of troop units in that can kill an infantry unit one turn and then the next turn take down an imperial knight - esp not without expensive upgrades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"If the game was simply PPW then no one would bother playing, the game would be decided at turn 0 when both players bring their army lists out."

Unfortunately the roll to go first and army list decide a huge amount of battles in this game. The better lists usually wins. The better list has more efficient units. That is exactly how it works.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You only advance with your spears to get into perfect position - so you can fire your 6 inch range guns and charge as many units as possible. Obviously you don't do it if you don't need to. Why saying no penalty (it really just means you can still make all your actions) the cost is a command point. In regards to hawks. They can expect to kill 10ish guardsmen a turn - 7 if they are in cover. It's not incredible. But it's enough to kill 10 GEQ a turn without any support and being able to maneuver to the perfect position with a 15-20" move with no penalty for the advance. It would be a lot juicer to shoot a unit of veterans with a las cannon in the back line (they could easily reach them). If standing next to an autarch they kill 15 gaunts - which is almost half their points in damage. Not bad for an army with no anti horde ability. I also can't imagine hawks being a priority target when they are shining spears or 20 guardians in your face or both in your face.

Gardians die fast - but they are never taking fire until you are set up - they are ether deep striking in or in a wave serpent so they are first striking basically all the time and their 4++ invo strategem makes guardians pretty tough to bring down. They aren't a super unit but they are also very versatile. In my game last night they dealt the killing blows to an imperial knight with weight of fire on 6s. There really aren't a lot of troop units in that can kill an infantry unit one turn and then the next turn take down an imperial knight - esp not without expensive upgrades.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
"If the game was simply PPW then no one would bother playing, the game would be decided at turn 0 when both players bring their army lists out."

Unfortunately the roll to go first and army list decide a huge amount of battles in this game. The better lists usually wins. The better list has more efficient units. That is exactly how it works.

If you can shoot 21+6 shots and still be in range to charge than your opponent has likely done something drastically wrong. Also you can do this with ONE unit of spears only and it costs a CP so it's not broken, there's a cost to it. Also don't forget Eldar is the army that has the lowest potential for command points since Eldar troops are among the most expensive, especially when you compare their effectiveness.

Swooping hawks are 13pts a model, killing a guardsman each is complete garbage and you're completly ignoring return fire. I've done the math on that one, the same points worth of hawks and guardsmen, the guard win EVEN IF the hawks fire first which is absolutely ridiculous when guard are what they are designed to deal with.

You're right in that guardians will get their first volley off, but its usually not enough to equal their point total and then they're within 12" of an enemy that can slaughter their squishy T3 W1 5+ bodies. The strategem is pretty good and it makes a single 20man guardian blob a pretty good unit, not going to argue that one, I've got one in my army myself (to deal with screens mostly). Certainly not OP though since you're burning 2CP to get them there plus an extra CP a turn to try to keep them alive. Do keep in mind a 20man guardian blob cost 160pts, the same as 40 guardsmen who have more firepower. Guardians are probably just slightly overcosted, they could stand to lose a point per model (7pt each instead of 6pt).

First army to go first does have a huge advantage and I'd prefer to see a system with alternating fire to reduce this impact. There really isn't such a thing as a "better" list for tournaments, each has their own viable strategy and "better" is hugely up for debate. The "better" list is not the one with the most efficient units, it's the one with the best strategy + luck. Just like the example I gave above, there is much MUCH more to units besides their PPW. Most important would be the amount of damage it can absorb before it dies, and it's general utility.

You feel Eldar is OP because they tend to be very good PPW. What you seem to fail to understand is that Eldar are one of if not the worst armies for how much damage their models can absorb. Eldar is a very glass cannon army and glass cannons are relatively easily countered. This is why Eldar are not absolutely slaughtering the tournament scene. Hell, the Eldar army to win the last major tournament had none of these units you seem to be deemed OP, it was pretty much soley filled with dark reapers, which I will fully admit are undercosted by at least 3 points per model if not more.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

darkarchonlord wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It's why I never ever bother with mathhammer. On a good board, in a dice game, only the most vague mathhammer is really relevant. When you get into silly minutia of wounds per point, etc...it becomes rather pointless. Won't stop people from parading it around like it's the truth or factual though.

So in your opinion...paying less for units that deal more damage than your opponent does not play a factor in victory?

I'll give you an extreme example where that breaks down.

A wave serpent with shuriken cannons costs 144 and has 3 shuriken cannons (total assault 12), hits on a 3+, and has a degrading stat line. 6 guardians have the exact same damage potential and only cost 48pts. By your math hammer logic, no one should ever take wave serpents cause wtf, they cost 3x as much as the same damage guardians.

Now this is obviously hyperbole but you can see where the mathhammer breaks down. You need to take into account a units utility, keywords, range, versatility against different types of units, durability, weaknesses to certain types of damage. All these things go into balancing the game. If the game was simply PPW then no one would bother playing, the game would be decided at turn 0 when both players bring their army lists out.

Just to head off Xeno here, you can use the same argument for a pair of War Walkers with cannons (140 points for 33% more firepower *and* an invuln save, no degrading statline, plus infiltration, etc.).

Warwalkers - another versatile anti infantry option. Already mentioned on the previous page. Mainly just trying to dispel the notion that eldar have weak anti infantry options so they need spears to be undercosted. Makes me laugh.

 Xenomancers wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

darkarchonlord wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It's why I never ever bother with mathhammer. On a good board, in a dice game, only the most vague mathhammer is really relevant. When you get into silly minutia of wounds per point, etc...it becomes rather pointless. Won't stop people from parading it around like it's the truth or factual though.

So in your opinion...paying less for units that deal more damage than your opponent does not play a factor in victory?

I'll give you an extreme example where that breaks down.

A wave serpent with shuriken cannons costs 144 and has 3 shuriken cannons (total assault 12), hits on a 3+, and has a degrading stat line. 6 guardians have the exact same damage potential and only cost 48pts. By your math hammer logic, no one should ever take wave serpents cause wtf, they cost 3x as much as the same damage guardians.

Now this is obviously hyperbole but you can see where the mathhammer breaks down. You need to take into account a units utility, keywords, range, versatility against different types of units, durability, weaknesses to certain types of damage. All these things go into balancing the game. If the game was simply PPW then no one would bother playing, the game would be decided at turn 0 when both players bring their army lists out.

Just to head off Xeno here, you can use the same argument for a pair of War Walkers with cannons (140 points for 33% more firepower *and* an invuln save, no degrading statline, plus infiltration, etc.).

Warwalkers - another versatile anti infantry option. Already mentioned on the previous page. Mainly just trying to dispel the notion that eldar have weak anti infantry options so they need spears to be undercosted. Makes me laugh.

Wait. So now you think that spears are an anti-infantry option...and that's what the key argument for costing them more competitively is. Oookay.

I think we've run beyond silly and are well into delusional territory.

Edit: I'd also note out that you completely missed the point. You seem to be only interested in arguing straw men you've created in your own head rather than reality.

darkarchonlord wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You only advance with your spears to get into perfect position - so you can fire your 6 inch range guns and charge as many units as possible. Obviously you don't do it if you don't need to. Why saying no penalty (it really just means you can still make all your actions) the cost is a command point. In regards to hawks. They can expect to kill 10ish guardsmen a turn - 7 if they are in cover. It's not incredible. But it's enough to kill 10 GEQ a turn without any support and being able to maneuver to the perfect position with a 15-20" move with no penalty for the advance. It would be a lot juicer to shoot a unit of veterans with a las cannon in the back line (they could easily reach them). If standing next to an autarch they kill 15 gaunts - which is almost half their points in damage. Not bad for an army with no anti horde ability. I also can't imagine hawks being a priority target when they are shining spears or 20 guardians in your face or both in your face.

Gardians die fast - but they are never taking fire until you are set up - they are ether deep striking in or in a wave serpent so they are first striking basically all the time and their 4++ invo strategem makes guardians pretty tough to bring down. They aren't a super unit but they are also very versatile. In my game last night they dealt the killing blows to an imperial knight with weight of fire on 6s. There really aren't a lot of troop units in that can kill an infantry unit one turn and then the next turn take down an imperial knight - esp not without expensive upgrades.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
"If the game was simply PPW then no one would bother playing, the game would be decided at turn 0 when both players bring their army lists out."

Unfortunately the roll to go first and army list decide a huge amount of battles in this game. The better lists usually wins. The better list has more efficient units. That is exactly how it works.

If you can shoot 21+6 shots and still be in range to charge than your opponent has likely done something drastically wrong. Also you can do this with ONE unit of spears only and it costs a CP so it's not broken, there's a cost to it. Also don't forget Eldar is the army that has the lowest potential for command points since Eldar troops are among the most expensive, especially when you compare their effectiveness.

Swooping hawks are 13pts a model, killing a guardsman each is complete garbage and you're completly ignoring return fire. I've done the math on that one, the same points worth of hawks and guardsmen, the guard win EVEN IF the hawks fire first which is absolutely ridiculous when guard are what they are designed to deal with.

You're right in that guardians will get their first volley off, but its usually not enough to equal their point total and then they're within 12" of an enemy that can slaughter their squishy T3 W1 5+ bodies. The strategem is pretty good and it makes a single 20man guardian blob a pretty good unit, not going to argue that one, I've got one in my army myself (to deal with screens mostly). Certainly not OP though since you're burning 2CP to get them there plus an extra CP a turn to try to keep them alive. Do keep in mind a 20man guardian blob cost 160pts, the same as 40 guardsmen who have more firepower. Guardians are probably just slightly overcosted, they could stand to lose a point per model (7pt each instead of 6pt).

First army to go first does have a huge advantage and I'd prefer to see a system with alternating fire to reduce this impact. There really isn't such a thing as a "better" list for tournaments, each has their own viable strategy and "better" is hugely up for debate. The "better" list is not the one with the most efficient units, it's the one with the best strategy + luck. Just like the example I gave above, there is much MUCH more to units besides their PPW. Most important would be the amount of damage it can absorb before it dies, and it's general utility.

You feel Eldar is OP because they tend to be very good PPW. What you seem to fail to understand is that Eldar are one of if not the worst armies for how much damage their models can absorb. Eldar is a very glass cannon army and glass cannons are relatively easily countered. This is why Eldar are not absolutely slaughtering the tournament scene. Hell, the Eldar army to win the last major tournament had none of these units you seem to be deemed OP, it was pretty much soley filled with dark reapers, which I will fully admit are undercosted by at least 3 points per model if not more.

Where can i find those lists?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Edit: I'd also note out that you completely missed the point. You seem to be only interested in arguing straw men you've created in your own head rather than reality.

Welcome to the logical fallacy roundabout with Xenomancer! It's tiring, but necessary, otherwise he runs all over the board screaming that the sky is falling and we're all going to die in the coming FOTM apocalypse.

According to Xeno there is no difference between a Land Raider and a Space Marine model with a Land Raider stat line, they're the same!

Anyways, as you pointed out, PPW is only useful to a certain extent, since it fails to account for a number of different factors that affect the game beyond a flat determination of offensive weapon efficiency.

I'm still patiently waiting for the answer from Xeno: if Shining Spears went up 4-5 points a model...and your opponent still took the same list, just dropping some secondary models in the backfield...how would you deal with it? You're obviously complaining that Shining Spears are undercosted. That's fine, so even if they bumped their points cost - it's not as if it would have a drastic change on an army. Twenty Shining Spears going up by 5 points a model is a measly 100 points in an army of 1500-2000...just not a big change.

At this point the "boohoo, they're cheap" crusade needs to give way to: find a better way to play against them - something you're not addressing.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Edit: I'd also note out that you completely missed the point. You seem to be only interested in arguing straw men you've created in your own head rather than reality.

Welcome to the logical fallacy roundabout with Xenomancer! It's tiring, but necessary, otherwise he runs all over the board screaming that the sky is falling and we're all going to die in the coming FOTM apocalypse.

"According to Xeno there is no difference between a Land Raider and a Space Marine model with a Land Raider stat line, they're the same!"

Anyways, as you pointed out, PPW is only useful to a certain extent, since it fails to account for a number of different factors that affect the game beyond a flat determination of offensive weapon efficiency.

For someone so obsessed with fallacy. You are guilty of at least 3 in this statement.

I'd like to know how you come up with this - What is this? "According to Xeno there is no difference between a Land Raider and a Space Marine model with a Land Raider stat line, they're the same!"
Does this have to do with model size or something? I am well aware that land raiders are bigger than space marines. I'm also aware that both units are terrible as well.

Also please tell me what my straw-man argument is so I can debunk it immediately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I'm still patiently waiting for the answer from Xeno: if Shining Spears went up 4-5 points a model...and your opponent still took the same list, just dropping some secondary models in the backfield...how would you deal with it? You're obviously complaining that Shining Spears are undercosted. That's fine, so even if they bumped their points cost - it's not as if it would have a drastic change on an army. Twenty Shining Spears going up by 5 points a model is a measly 100 points in an army of 1500-2000...just not a big change.

At this point the "boohoo, they're cheap" crusade needs to give way to: find a better way to play against them - something you're not addressing.

My proposed point change to give them an overall 10 points increase. 4-5 points is not not enough. Also the exrach weapon needs a significant price increase it should be over 20 points.

This would result in around a 100 point increase for a 9 man unit. The truth is - considering they steamroll armies almost by themselves (when you factor in the supporting fire of the eldar army behind them that basically gets an additional turn of free shooting while the opponent struggles to bring down a buffed spears unit.) It probably wont change much. it's 100 more points of firepower not coming at you at least.

 Xenomancers wrote:
For someone so obsessed with fallacy. You are guilty of at least 3 in this statement.

This is absolutely true.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'd like to know how you come up with this - What is this? "According to Xeno there is no difference between a Land Raider and a Space Marine model with a Land Raider stat line, they're the same!"

Because PPW seems to be the only metric you have any interest in, at which point, all other variables associated with a given unit are thrown out the window.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also please tell me what my straw-man argument is so I can debunk it immediately.

With another appeal from authority or another hasty generalization? Perhaps we'll be regaled with another anecdotal data point that will be used to make a hasty generalization.

Straw Man - When a person ignores one actual position, and presents an exaggerated one

Seriously Xeno, this is your entire schtick.

Ultimately, the sad part is that you're often only wrong by degrees, not entirely, but you absolutely refuse to put any work into your arguments. Several people on this thread have gone through the effort to actually do the math, discuss the scenarios, related variables, you know, do the work. You do not.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The truth is - considering they steamroll armies almost by themselves (when you factor in the supporting fire of the eldar army behind them

They steamroll armies by themselves, but only when they receive supporting fire? By themselves. Supporting fire.

Snuh?

There is a problem with your way of thought.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The truth is - considering they steamroll armies almost by themselves (when you factor in the supporting fire of the eldar army behind them

They steamroll armies by themselves, but only when they receive supporting fire? By themselves. Supporting fire.

Snuh?

There is a problem with your way of thought.

So this very powerful unit which is killing or tying up well over it's point cost practically every turn - with no defense but just destroying them because they fly over units and can assault after falling back with a stratagem- it's a pretty big problem - it leaves an entire army behind them just lighting you up while you throw everything you have into the least points efficient unit to shoot. It's about as close to an auto win condition that this game has.

darkarchonlord wrote:

First army to go first does have a huge advantage and I'd prefer to see a system with alternating fire to reduce this impact. There really isn't such a thing as a "better" list for tournaments, each has their own viable strategy and "better" is hugely up for debate. The "better" list is not the one with the most efficient units, it's the one with the best strategy + luck. Just like the example I gave above, there is much MUCH more to units besides their PPW. Most important would be the amount of damage it can absorb before it dies, and it's general utility.

You feel Eldar is OP because they tend to be very good PPW. What you seem to fail to understand is that Eldar are one of if not the worst armies for how much damage their models can absorb. Eldar is a very glass cannon army and glass cannons are relatively easily countered. This is why Eldar are not absolutely slaughtering the tournament scene. Hell, the Eldar army to win the last major tournament had none of these units you seem to be deemed OP, it was pretty much soley filled with dark reapers, which I will fully admit are undercosted by at least 3 points per model if not more.

Bolded the part that I don't understand at all. No such thing as a better list, if you mean best then I could understand that but better? If there are no better lists there are no worse lists and that's crazy. The most recent GT was eldar, chaos and AM. The strategies employed by most winning lists are built around the most efficient units. The one before that was eldar, chaos and AM, hell socal open was chaos and AM. You find what works better than what your opponents can field and then figure out how to maximize on that advantage. If your list was limited to gak (ie the marine codex) you can have whatever strategy you want and you won't perform well (as indicated by SM codex performance since the eldar codex has dropped).

While talking strategy you refer to eldar as glass cannons ignoring they have great options to just not be engaged until they want to alpha strike and then their disproportionate fire power is what makes them OP.
1. Webway (1-3 units immune to shooting until you want them to be)
2. Altroc (-1 to hit)
3. Conceal (look another -1 to hit)
4. -1 to hit strat (damn -3 to hit is pretty much invincible no mater what you're shooting at it, unless it's reapers...)
5. Super durable transports (I'm pretty sure they are point for point the most durable transport around)
6. Highly mobile units (lack of penalty to hits after moving, a lot of fly units and just large movement radius) means you can use LOS blocking terrain more efficiently than other armies.

So you can have 4-5 units immune to shooting (3 webway, 1-2 in nearly impossible to pop in one round of shooting transports) and two more units at a -2 to hit and out of LOS (so enemy has to move in order to shoot at it so many armies will be a -3 to hit making it effectively immortal). So what's that 7 drops that can't be shot and will be able to shoot back at an advantage. For someone who seems to place a premium on strategy I'm not sure how you are ignoring these obvious advantages. (oh you can make one of your units require a 6 to hit right?)

Um, eldar not slaughtering the tourney scene. The last to large tournament winners were eldar (the one in a Scandinavian country and the most recent GW GT). Hell look at the non-winners and you will see eldar disproportionately placing at the top tables. Is your argument that if all armies at the top table aren't eldar then eldar aren't OP?

I really hope you are trolling here because these points seem to fly in the face of everything most people understand on a pretty basic level.

edit for typo

banana I agree with you on everything but only 2 units can web-way.