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.

I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

Except it sort of is as a BS3+ model pays more for the same weapon than a BS4+ model so they should loose the same points worth of shooting per -1 to hit, if GW got that maths correct is a different question but the design should be balanceable the real issue is D6's don't give a lot of options for variation.

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

That is true for other defensive stats though.

T counters tyranids and Tsons much more than it counters T'au for example.

Dark eldars are the ones who suffer invul saves the most.

SM and CSM are probably the ones that suffer more against high armor values, while Eldars will have an easier time.

IG struggles against hit penalties, but custodes laugh at it.

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

Except it sort of is as a BS3+ model pays more for the same weapon than a BS4+ model so they should loose the same points worth of shooting per -1 to hit, if GW got that maths correct is a different question but the design should be balanceable the real issue is D6's don't give a lot of options for variation.

Its definitely possible to balance the same gun at a different BS. But when you then decrease one BS by a higher % than the other, I don't think you can balance that, unless you do so by just giving the lower BS a permanent discount all the time because negatives to hit exist, which means they would be more efficient than higher BS per point anytime they aren't being reduced.

For example, let's pay we have 2000 points of space Marines and Tau that are both magically worth 2000 points of shooting armies. Against an enemy with -1 to hit, the Tau take a bigger overall penalty than the Marines do, somewhat arbitrarily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

That is true for other defensive stats though.

T counters tyranids and Tsons much more than it counters T'au for example.

Dark eldars are the ones who suffer invul saves the most.

SM and CSM are probably the ones that suffer more against high armor values, while Eldars will have an easier time.

IG struggles against hit penalties, but custodes laugh at it.

This is true, but the negatives to hit have very little counterplay, whereas most of the armies mentioned have builds and strategies around the other issues you mentioned, or would in a balanced game.

jcd386 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

Except it sort of is as a BS3+ model pays more for the same weapon than a BS4+ model so they should loose the same points worth of shooting per -1 to hit, if GW got that maths correct is a different question but the design should be balanceable the real issue is D6's don't give a lot of options for variation.

Its definitely possible to balance the same gun at a different BS. But when you then decrease one BS by a higher % than the other, I don't think you can balance that, unless you do so by just giving the lower BS a permanent discount all the time because negatives to hit exist, which means they would be more efficient than higher BS per point anytime they aren't being reduced.

For example, let's pay we have 2000 points of space Marines and Tau that are both magically worth 2000 points of shooting armies. Against an event with -1 to hit, the Tau take a bigger overall penalty than the Marines do, somewhat arbitrarily.

No the idea is for example auto hit lascannon is worth 40 points a bs 2+ is worth 33 points a BS3+ is 26 points bs4+ 19 points bs5+ 12 and bs6+ is 5 points. So the damage per point should scale accordingly even when effected by -1 to hits.
A marine does hit 100% of the time he hits 66.6% of the time and 50% with a -1 so a 16.6% reduction
A Tau hits 50% of the time or 33.3% of the time or a 16.7% reduction.
16.6 and 16.7 are the same reduction, people keep taking about reduction in chances to hit as if every model always hits they don't. 25% of 66% = 16.5 % and 33% of 50% = 16.5% that's the same effect.

I'll admit that there is probably mileage in how -1 to hit scales with hoards vrs smaller numbers of elite models but the same could be said for fast armies like drukari who can just jump within 12 inches etc. I'm not saying -1 to hit is good I'm just saying it should be balanceable. The issue I do see is when you get to -2 and -3 as that does have some wierd interactions as it effects bs4+ and bs5+ models in odd ways.

So, doing some math, if a BS3 Las cannon is worth 25 points, a BS4 Las cannon would be worth 18.75 to get the exact same hits per point ratio. This means that the current 20 point Las cannon for IG is actually sightly over costed if you ignore everything else.

But let's assume that the BS4 las cannon price is 18.75, and you buy 4 of them for 75 points, and 3 of the BS3 Las cannons for 75 points. These would be equal to each other as long as they get to use their normal BS, since they both average 2 hits for 75 points.

However, once you bring in a -1 to hit modifier, 4 shots with BS4 -1 becomes 1.3333 average hits, and 3 shots with BS3 -1 becomes 1.5 average hits. And you'd still be paying the same price for these weapons.

It isn't a 16% reduction for each point of BS you lose. If you go from hitting 3 out of 6 times with BS4 to 2 out of 6 times with a -1, you lose 33% of your hits. Going from 4/6 to 3/6 is only a 25% reduction.

And yet the 20 pt lascannons are still better, imo, because they are going on much better platforms.

Martel732 wrote:
And yet the 20 pt lascannons are still better, imo, because they are going on much better platforms.

And the multiple ablative wounds the Guardsman squad gives.

jcd386 wrote:
So, doing some math, if a BS3 Las cannon is worth 25 points, a BS4 Las cannon would be worth 18.75 to get the exact same hits per point ratio. This means that the current 20 point Las cannon for IG is actually sightly over costed if you ignore everything else.

But let's assume that the BS4 las cannon price is 18.75, and you buy 4 of them for 75 points, and 3 of the BS3 Las cannons for 75 points. These would be equal to each other as long as they get to use their normal BS, since they both average 2 hits for 75 points.

However, once you bring in a -1 to hit modifier, 4 shots with BS4 -1 becomes 1.3333 average hits, and 3 shots with BS3 -1 becomes 1.5 average hits. And you'd still be paying the same price for these weapons.

It isn't a 16% reduction for each point of BS you lose. If you go from hitting 3 out of 6 times with BS4 to 2 out of 6 times with a -1, you lose 33% of your hits. Going from 4/6 to 3/6 is only a 25% reduction.

Again 33% of 50% =16.5% reduction. 25% of 66.6% =16.6 % reduction.
Percentage of hits doesn't represent the change in odds it represents the change is results.
As for the 3 vrs 4 for the same price point again I didn't say the system was perfect, it's just not as imple as 25% of a % vrs 33% of a %. Ratios do wierd things but if you include the price of the model even at a best case of 5ppm guards men and 12ppm marines the maths changes.

111points of 3 marines (12ppm) with lascannons = 74 points per hit
95 points of 3 guardsmen (5ppm) with lascannons = 71.4 points per hit.
The rest from then on out is the same as the shooting models stats don't influence the rolls.

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
So, doing some math, if a BS3 Las cannon is worth 25 points, a BS4 Las cannon would be worth 18.75 to get the exact same hits per point ratio. This means that the current 20 point Las cannon for IG is actually sightly over costed if you ignore everything else.

But let's assume that the BS4 las cannon price is 18.75, and you buy 4 of them for 75 points, and 3 of the BS3 Las cannons for 75 points. These would be equal to each other as long as they get to use their normal BS, since they both average 2 hits for 75 points.

However, once you bring in a -1 to hit modifier, 4 shots with BS4 -1 becomes 1.3333 average hits, and 3 shots with BS3 -1 becomes 1.5 average hits. And you'd still be paying the same price for these weapons.

It isn't a 16% reduction for each point of BS you lose. If you go from hitting 3 out of 6 times with BS4 to 2 out of 6 times with a -1, you lose 33% of your hits. Going from 4/6 to 3/6 is only a 25% reduction.

Again 33% of 50% =16.5% reduction. 25% of 66.6% =16.6 % reduction.
Percentage of hits doesn't represent the change in odds it represents the change is results.
As for the 3 vrs 4 for the same price point again I didn't say the system was perfect, it's just not as imple as 25% of a % vrs 33% of a %. Ratios do wierd things but if you include the price of the model even at a best case of 5ppm guards men and 12ppm marines the maths changes.

111points of 3 marines (12ppm) with lascannons = 74 points per hit
95 points of 3 guardsmen (5ppm) with lascannons = 71.4 points per hit.
The rest from then on out is the same as the shooting models stats don't influence the rolls.

The change in results is all that matters.

I know its heresy but I think you should look at modifiers arithmeticly. -1 to hit results in 1 fewer hit per 6 dice. Doesn't matter what your balistic skill is (excepting edge cases) 1 few hit per 6 shots.

By that math negatives to hit affect orcs and elfs the same.

Mechanicus Electro Priests are the worst for this.

They have a 5++ AND a 5+++ feel no pain.
Plus canticles.
They shoot a billion S5 shots.

All for 14 points per model.

Compare that to a freaking Terminator.

Headlss wrote:
I know its heresy but I think you should look at modifiers arithmeticly. -1 to hit results in 1 fewer hit per 6 dice. Doesn't matter what your balistic skill is (excepting edge cases) 1 few hit per 6 shots.

By that math negatives to hit affect orcs and elfs the same.

But how does that make sense? If you are paying a certain points value for a unit that will hit 4/6 times, and another points value for a unit that will hit 2/6 times, and then you reduce the number of hits by 1, you've reduced the first unit's output by 25% but the second unit's by 50%. Not to mention that if a unit only hits 1/6 times you'd reduce it by 100%. If we assume that all of these units are priced correctly based on their ability to hit things, you've reduced one unit's effectiveness by more points than the other. This isn't a giant issue if it is one unit or something from a psychic ability, but when it is army wide i think it's a real problem.

If you were to pay 5 points for the ability to hit 1 out of every 6 times, in theory you'd pay 10 points for the ability to hit 2 out of every 6, or 15 points to hit 3 out of every 6.

A -1-to-hit only drops the value of the unit by 5 points, that is true. So 1 15-point unit loses 5 points of value, and 1 5-point unit loses 5 points of value. However, that -1-to-hit affects everything shooting at it (in almost every case). So it works out to be 1 15-point unit loses 5 points, but 3 5-point units lose 15 points.

Yes, it is 1 fewer hit per 6 dice. Same decrease per die regardless of price. But the better shooting pays more for the same number of dice. So, if you lose the same per dice and have fewer dice, you lose more.

6 guys who hit on a 3+ lose 1 hit
12 guys who hit on a 5+ lose 2 hits

If you're paying the same for output, the 12 guys lose twice the *hits* of the 6 guys.

This works out because nobody cares about misses. It's like Saves - going from a 6+ to a 5+ does a lot less than going from a 3+ to a 2+, despite only being 1 out of every 6 different.

If that's still not enough, consider the cost of going from hitting on 6s to hitting on 7s. Or, for a clearer example. consdier going from a 2++ to a 1++ save. The rules don't allow that for a reason: despite only improving the result 1 out of every 6 dice, it makes you go from really darn tough to truly invincible.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Northern85Star wrote:
Too many invul saves is a consequence of the arms race GW has running vs your money (and FW more so). Bigger models, bigger shots and more shots. A space marine has become cannon fodder (and bad at it) while terminators can no longer be thought of as resilient to anything but the weakest of weapons, weapons that are often absent from lists.

Simply because while everything new got bigger and deadlier, the old stuff stayed the same.

If weapons got downtoned, you could have a version where only characters had invul saves, and where characters where targetable if in sight. As in the old days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... oh, it is also a direct consequence of having to choose between regular save and invul save. Invul save thus became less effecient without it being an addition to normal saves, and could be handed out liberally, which is a pretty big downgrade for things like terminators.

No, overabundance of high invulnerable saves is itself a consequence of the poorly thought out and implemented AP system.
That is really about it.

I disagree, the AP system isn't new (we've seen it before in stuff like WFB and was a mechanic I rather liked in that game, though the 0+ saves (or better) some armies could buff to were insane and I'm glad to see that we can't seem to do better than a 1+ (with 1s always failing of course) making the game a lot more balanced than WFB was at times.

Unlike WFB though, Invuls are a bleeder valve for the AP system (instead of being an additional save you'd take after failing armour saves that would occassionally replace your armour save if you were pushed into the realms of needing a 7+ to save). Basically they exist, in all their flavors, to prevent AP from outright denying certain models a save worse than X (usually a 4 or a 5, sometimes a 6 with rare outliers being things like Storm Shields granting a 3++). For some units (like Daemons) this can be better than their armour, thus effectively replacing it, while for others (like Genestealers) it keeps them from being outright denied a save, but ultimately it acts as a kind of pressure valve versus AP to give a unit a certain amount of staying power versus AP.

The problem tends to be mostly for 2+ units as they're still more readily dragged down by weight of fire rather than good AP weapons making the pressure valve built into their stats less effective than it should be. Perhaps if Terminators took 1 less damage (to a minimum of 1) we'd see heavier guns aimed their way to compensate, but it's more likely people would just unleash a unit of Intercessors on them instead to force the wounds.

Of course Mortal Wounds push past the safety net we get from the invul save, but considering they don't spam nearly as easily as something like bolters or lasguns do, and thanks to things like VotLW which boost wound rolls, the ease of inflicting wounds via basic weapons is even easier than spamming Mortal Wounds as well.

Plus with Marines and CSM having ways of turning off invuls it's even more common that hammer type units that heavily rely on low invuls (Necron Wraiths for example) will see a lot of time being shut off which keeps the near unkillable deathstar style units from being as common since there is a counter mechanic built into the game.

As for the OP's complaint that durable units were durable, I'd argue that seeing as both armies are built around being anvils and not hammers that's a given. If you're good at not dying you tend to be less good at combat and inflicting wounds when compared to other armies who lack your durability but can bring more pain in a turn (like well played Guard). This is only pushed further when middling damage dealing power is reduced even further by unit durability resulting in a pillow fight between the armies.

 dan2026 wrote:
Mechanicus Electro Priests are the worst for this.

They have a 5++ AND a 5+++ feel no pain.
Plus canticles.
They shoot a billion S5 shots.

All for 14 points per model.

Compare that to a freaking Terminator.

Compare that to a tactical marine lol.