Blackie wrote:
Tyranids and also eldar are not even remotely overpowered, be honest about that. I don't see them dominating competitive metas, although they're very good in casual ones since they have lots of viable combinations.

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math. So if you guys could kindly stop parroting the (debunked) idea that hordes have no counter in 8th ed that would be great. Math follows,

I explained this with math in a prior thread but I suppose I'll have to explain this in a simpler manner than I did last time, since I didn't seem to clearly get my ideas across. Instead of doing this roundabout like last time, I'll try and establish the scoring system right off of the bat, so we can all be on the same page from the outset. Prepare for some moneyball,

So the question is how do we rank a units effectiveness at killing another unit? The answer is by measuring the time it takes a unit to kill a target and the number of points you have to commit to kill a unit as a measure of effeincy. The below is the formula I've been using:

(Rounds to kill * Point cost of attacker)/(point cost of the target) = Attack Effectiveness

This gives us a number between generally between 1 and 6, it can be less than 1 in extremely favorable matchups and more than six in really bad matchups. This is our rating, but we still need a scale, which is where turns to table comes into it.

Lets say your goal is to table your opponent, but that's only half a goal, because it doesn't have a deadline, so let's set it for tabling your opponent by turn six. Assuming equal starting points, and no casualties, you would need to inflict an average of 1/6th of your armies point value per turn to accomplish a tabling by turn six. But that's silly, of course your opponent is going to kill your guys, and we'll assume he and his forces are as capable as you and your own. So You'll start with all of your forces and end with a negligible amount, so you'll have an average available value of half of your army. Assuming you are giving as good as you are getting, to tabel your opponent by turn six you need to inflict a third of your points as damage per round. So first round you'd need to inflict points worth of 667 damage, 444 on the second, 296 on the third round, 197 on the fourth round, 131 on the fifth round, 87 on the sixth round. That will get you within 10% of tabling your opponent, which is close enough for our purposes.

So we plug those into the above formula, (3 * 2,000)/(2,000) we get three. So to table a worthwhile opponent you need an average Attack effectiveness of three, thus we have our scale, an attack effectiveness of 3 or less is decent, more than 3 is bad, Simple enough.

With the goalpost firmly fixed, let's start looking at some of the examples I gave:

Target is a 30 man guard squad, no upgrades, and we'll assume no immune to morale shenanigans. So 120 points,

Aggressors, 111 points, 9.5 shots per aggressor, S4 AP -. So without double fire that's 29 shots, 2/3 chance to hit 2/3 chance to wound, and a 2/3 chance to fail the save. So you'll end up with 29 * 8/27 or 9 dead, with leadership 7 that's another 5.5 lost due to morale.so call it 15 dead in a single volley. Based on those number, it will take them about 2 rounds to kill a 30 man guard blob, plug those into the formula from above:

(2 * 111)/120 = 1.85, which is a great attack effectiveness, if you entire army was this good you could table an opponent by turn 4. Double shot from aggressors will go well below 1, so yes despite what you guys think hordes have hard counters.

Just to give another example, how does the math look for a dev squad shooting at a LRBT with 4 las cannons. 4 shots, 2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, and a 5/6 chance to fail the save 3.5 damage per failed save. So the damage per round is 4 * 10/27 * 3.5 (damage per failed save) for 5 damage inflicted per round. So about 2.4 rounds required to kill a LRBT,

( 2.4 * 165)/152 = an attack effectiveness of 2.6.

Why stop there, to close out I'll compare hell blasters and aggressors against a Tac squad.

Hell blasters - 2/3 chance to hit, 5/6 chance to wound, and no saves, and we'll split the difference between rapid fire and not with 1.5 shots per blaster. So they inflict 4 wounds per round, for a 1.25 rounds to kill so here is rating:
(1.25 * 165)/65 = 3.17

Aggressors - 2/3 chance to hit, 1/2 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to fail a save with 29 shots, so 3 wounds inflicted per round, so 1.66 rounds.
(1.66 * 111)/65 = 2.83

Whelp you heard it here first, in addition to being good anti-horde aggressors are also better at taking out tac marines than hell blasters are. It's like that unicorn you guys said didn't exists, something that works against hordes of light infantry and small units of heavy infantry.

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math. So if you guys could kindly stop parroting the (debunked) idea that hordes have no counter in 8th ed that would be great. Math follows,

I explained this with math in a prior thread but I suppose I'll have to explain this in a simpler manner than I did last time, since I didn't seem to clearly get my ideas across. Instead of doing this roundabout like last time, I'll try and establish the scoring system right off of the bat, so we can all be on the same page from the outset. Prepare for some moneyball,

So the question is how do we rank a units effectiveness at killing another unit? The answer is by measuring the time it takes a unit to kill a target and the number of points you have to commit to kill a unit as a measure of effeincy. The below is the formula I've been using:

(Rounds to kill * Point cost of attacker)/(point cost of the target) = Attack Effectiveness

This gives us a number between generally between 1 and 6, it can be less than 1 in extremely favorable matchups and more than six in really bad matchups. This is our rating, but we still need a scale, which is where turns to table comes into it.

Lets say your goal is to table your opponent, but that's only half a goal, because it doesn't have a deadline, so let's set it for tabling your opponent by turn six. Assuming equal starting points, and no casualties, you would need to inflict an average of 1/6th of your armies point value per turn to accomplish a tabling by turn six. But that's silly, of course your opponent is going to kill your guys, and we'll assume he and his forces are as capable as you and your own. So You'll start with all of your forces and end with a negligible amount, so you'll have an average available value of half of your army. Assuming you are giving as good as you are getting, to tabel your opponent by turn six you need to inflict a third of your points as damage per round. So first round you'd need to inflict points worth of 667 damage, 444 on the second, 296 on the third round, 197 on the fourth round, 131 on the fifth round, 87 on the sixth round. That will get you within 10% of tabling your opponent, which is close enough for our purposes.

So we plug those into the above formula, (3 * 2,000)/(2,000) we get three. So to table a worthwhile opponent you need an average Attack effectiveness of three, thus we have our scale, an attack effectiveness of 3 or less is decent, more than 3 is bad, Simple enough.

With the goalpost firmly fixed, let's start looking at some of the examples I gave:

Target is a 30 man guard squad, no upgrades, and we'll assume no immune to morale shenanigans. So 120 points,

Aggressors, 111 points, 9.5 shots per aggressor, S4 AP -. So without double fire that's 29 shots, 2/3 chance to hit 2/3 chance to wound, and a 2/3 chance to fail the save. So you'll end up with 29 * 8/27 or 9 dead, with leadership 7 that's another 5.5 lost due to morale.so call it 15 dead in a single volley. Based on those number, it will take them about 2 rounds to kill a 30 man guard blob, plug those into the formula from above:

(2 * 111)/120 = 1.85, which is a great attack effectiveness, if you entire army was this good you could table an opponent by turn 4. Double shot from aggressors will go well below 1, so yes despite what you guys think hordes have hard counters.

Just to give another example, how does the math look for a dev squad shooting at a LRBT with 4 las cannons. 4 shots, 2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, and a 5/6 chance to fail the save 3.5 damage per failed save. So the damage per round is 4 * 10/27 * 3.5 (damage per failed save) for 5 damage inflicted per round. So about 2.4 rounds required to kill a LRBT,

( 2.4 * 165)/152 = an attack effectiveness of 2.6.

Why stop there, to close out I'll compare hell blasters and aggressors against a Tac squad.

Hell blasters - 2/3 chance to hit, 5/6 chance to wound, and no saves, and we'll split the difference between rapid fire and not with 1.5 shots per blaster. So they inflict 4 wounds per round, for a 1.25 rounds to kill so here is rating:
(1.25 * 165)/65 = 3.17

Aggressors - 2/3 chance to hit, 1/2 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to fail a save with 29 shots, so 3 wounds inflicted per round, so 1.66 rounds.
(1.66 * 111)/65 = 2.83

Whelp you heard it here first, in addition to being good anti-horde aggressors are also better at taking out tac marines than hell blasters are. It's like that unicorn you guys said didn't exists, something that works against hordes of light infantry and small units of heavy infantry.

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math. So if you guys could kindly stop parroting the (debunked) idea that hordes have no counter in 8th ed that would be great. Math follows,

I explained this with math in a prior thread but I suppose I'll have to explain this in a simpler manner than I did last time, since I didn't seem to clearly get my ideas across.

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math.

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math.

I't also math that Aggressors are better at killing marines that they're at killing the guard. That is the problem. There practically are no weapons which would be better at killing guard than they would be at killing equal points of MEQs or other elite infantry.

SemperMortis wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Err...no. Sorry to spoil this, but mathwise grots are even a better screen than guards, for the exact reason we say that guards are better than boyz i.e. lots and lots of cheap buffs.

You don't hear people complaining about them because orks have nothing worthy to screen, but if they had credible long range shooting, you wouldn't hear the end of it.

Except none of those "cheap" buffs are worth using on Grots. +1 attack on a S2 model? +1 WS on a 1 attack model? what cheap buffs do you see as worth it? The only buff I can think of is the Herders who make them borderline fearless. No, Grots are crap for the exact reason that I pointed out, while they are cheap, they serve no purpose because they lack any kind of damage output, Guardsmen can push out 1 S3 shot at 24 or 2 at 12, Grots can do 1 shot at 12, thats it. Guardsmen also have access to heavy weapons and other benefits, Grots have access to literally NOTHING.

kurhanik wrote:


Isn't morale the big equalizer there? Guard are minimum squad size 10 (Conscripts can go up to 30), and unless I am mistaken, the most they can get buffed to is Leadership 9, either requiring them being next to a Lord Commissar (55 points min), a Commissar Tank (150 points min, 2cp), or be both Catachan and take a Command Squad with a Banner (29 points min). One of those options can kill a squad member to give them a reroll, one of them is a tank that requires a decent investment, and the last can be targeted out fairly easily. Even fully invested in this, killing 6 guardsmen gives you a 50% chance of adding one or more casualties to the unit, unless the Guard player wants to burn through CP to save a single unit of naked guardsmen.

Spoletta wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Err...no. Sorry to spoil this, but mathwise grots are even a better screen than guards, for the exact reason we say that guards are better than boyz i.e. lots and lots of cheap buffs.

You don't hear people complaining about them because orks have nothing worthy to screen, but if they had credible long range shooting, you wouldn't hear the end of it.

Except none of those "cheap" buffs are worth using on Grots. +1 attack on a S2 model? +1 WS on a 1 attack model? what cheap buffs do you see as worth it? The only buff I can think of is the Herders who make them borderline fearless. No, Grots are crap for the exact reason that I pointed out, while they are cheap, they serve no purpose because they lack any kind of damage output, Guardsmen can push out 1 S3 shot at 24 or 2 at 12, Grots can do 1 shot at 12, thats it. Guardsmen also have access to heavy weapons and other benefits, Grots have access to literally NOTHING.

No one ever talked about offensive capabilities. Grots have big squad numbers, fearless and 6+++, so they are nice screens.

 koooaei wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Err...no. Sorry to spoil this, but mathwise grots are even a better screen than guards, for the exact reason we say that guards are better than boyz i.e. lots and lots of cheap buffs.

You don't hear people complaining about them because orks have nothing worthy to screen, but if they had credible long range shooting, you wouldn't hear the end of it.

Except none of those "cheap" buffs are worth using on Grots. +1 attack on a S2 model? +1 WS on a 1 attack model? what cheap buffs do you see as worth it? The only buff I can think of is the Herders who make them borderline fearless. No, Grots are crap for the exact reason that I pointed out, while they are cheap, they serve no purpose because they lack any kind of damage output, Guardsmen can push out 1 S3 shot at 24 or 2 at 12, Grots can do 1 shot at 12, thats it. Guardsmen also have access to heavy weapons and other benefits, Grots have access to literally NOTHING.

No one ever talked about offensive capabilities. Grots have big squad numbers, fearless and 6+++, so they are nice screens.

And what should they screen what boyz can't?

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math.

I't also math that Aggressors are better at killing marines that they're at killing the guard. That is the problem. There practically are no weapons which would be better at killing guard than they would be at killing equal points of MEQs or other elite infantry.

pismakron wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math.

I't also math that Aggressors are better at killing marines that they're at killing the guard. That is the problem. There practically are no weapons which would be better at killing guard than they would be at killing equal points of MEQs or other elite infantry.

That is true, but it is only true if you compare Guardsmen with Tactical Marines. Many other types of heavy infantry is considerably more durable per point than tacticals, and all other types of light infantry is less durable per points than Guardsmen. Small arms are better at killing Boyz or Hormagaunts than at killing Intercessors or Tyranid Warriors. Which is how it should be.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue here is that you are counting on morale to do a decent amount of the work. What happens when those 30 guardsman are in 3 squads of 10. Your numbers go way down to 10 on average per turn meaning you are taking 3 turns to kill all 30. To the point where the aggressors are still better at killing marines. It is not that nothing exists that kills chaff it is that nothing exists that kills it better than it kills other things.

An Actual Englishman wrote:
That's cool and all but what happens if you happen to play an army that has no access to Aggressors?

Crimson wrote:
I't also math that Aggressors are better at killing marines that they're at killing the guard. That is the problem. There practically are no weapons which would be better at killing guard than they would be at killing equal points of MEQs or other elite infantry.

Also how do you propose to make a squad of guard immune to morale for three turns, are you going to blow 6 CP to save a 120 point unit?

MilkmanAl wrote:

Also how do you propose to make a squad of guard immune to morale for three turns, are you going to blow 6 CP to save a 120 point unit?

Just be to play Devil's Advicate, it looks like you'll be able to make them morale-immune pretty easily with Custodes. Recall that morale immunity was what made Conscripts so heinously broken at first.

 Grimgold wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue here is that you are counting on morale to do a decent amount of the work. What happens when those 30 guardsman are in 3 squads of 10. Your numbers go way down to 10 on average per turn meaning you are taking 3 turns to kill all 30. To the point where the aggressors are still better at killing marines. It is not that nothing exists that kills chaff it is that nothing exists that kills it better than it kills other things.

Morale is the achilles heel of hordes, so it's germaine to any conversation about how to kill them. Also how do you propose to make a squad of guard immune to morale for three turns, are you going to blow 6 CP to save a 120 point unit?

pismakron wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue here is that you are counting on morale to do a decent amount of the work. What happens when those 30 guardsman are in 3 squads of 10. Your numbers go way down to 10 on average per turn meaning you are taking 3 turns to kill all 30. To the point where the aggressors are still better at killing marines. It is not that nothing exists that kills chaff it is that nothing exists that kills it better than it kills other things.

Morale is the achilles heel of hordes, so it's germaine to any conversation about how to kill them. Also how do you propose to make a squad of guard immune to morale for three turns, are you going to blow 6 CP to save a 120 point unit?

There is no 120 points unit. A squad of Guardsmen is 10 models for 40 points with leadership 7. They are weakly affected by morale due to their small unit size.

I haven't been keeping up with the leaks, what morale immunity do Custodes grant?

MilkmanAl wrote:

I haven't been keeping up with the leaks, what morale immunity do Custodes grant?

Per a leaked codex review, there's a relic for Vexilla that gives a morale immunity bubble. Looks like there are some pretty strong relics in the list, so i don't know that it'll be an auto-take, but for those of you looking to abuse Guardsmen herds, that seems like an easy choice.

 Grimgold wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue here is that you are counting on morale to do a decent amount of the work. What happens when those 30 guardsman are in 3 squads of 10. Your numbers go way down to 10 on average per turn meaning you are taking 3 turns to kill all 30. To the point where the aggressors are still better at killing marines. It is not that nothing exists that kills chaff it is that nothing exists that kills it better than it kills other things.

Morale is the achilles heel of hordes, so it's germaine to any conversation about how to kill them. Also how do you propose to make a squad of guard immune to morale for three turns, are you going to blow 6 CP to save a 120 point unit?

MilkmanAl wrote:

I haven't been keeping up with the leaks, what morale immunity do Custodes grant?

Per a leaked codex review, there's a relic for Vexilla that gives a morale immunity bubble. Looks like there are some pretty strong relics in the list, so i don't know that it'll be an auto-take, but for those of you looking to abuse Guardsmen herds, that seems like an easy choice.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Tyranids and also eldar are not even remotely overpowered, be honest about that. I don't see them dominating competitive metas, although they're very good in casual ones since they have lots of viable combinations.

No they are not.
But AM is the top tier army these days.
This is not really reflected in the poll
For AM, the sum seems to be larger than the accumulation of the parts.

 Shadenuat wrote:
For all the hilarious salt for Reapers (45 points a model? come on, we can do better, why not 50 or 100?) it's like people are oblivious to the real anchor of eldar army that also allows Reapers and other fragile elf models to not fly away from the table turn 1 - the Wave Serpent. Yet, it's not on the list. So I guess people are totally okay that it even went a chip down in points in the Codex from Index.

 DoomMouse wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Tyranids and also eldar are not even remotely overpowered, be honest about that. I don't see them dominating competitive metas, although they're very good in casual ones since they have lots of viable combinations.

No they are not.
But AM is the top tier army these days.
This is not really reflected in the poll
For AM, the sum seems to be larger than the accumulation of the parts.

Interesting. Just went to the caledonian uprising tourney in the UK with around 100 players, including plenty of the 40k england team. Tyranid hive tyrant spam took 1st and 3rd, and eldar took second. Guard weren't represented until 10th despite quite a lot of players present...

Of course I'm not saying guard aren't very strong, but tyranids may be stronger than people think!