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.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

What are you basing this off?

The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

Ok, sure... It's a powerful weapons. But without all the info, especially points, we can't say whether it's OP. It could easily be trash.

18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

We'll see. If it's priced like a Titan I doubt it though. Just too early to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be more proper to look at average rather than maximum by the way. Not that that isn't still scary, but it would be 12 shots with 1.33 mortal wounds.

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

What are you basing this off?

The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

Ok, sure... It's a powerful weapons. But without all the info, especially points, we can't say whether it's OP. It could easily be trash.

18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

We'll see. If it's priced like a Titan I doubt it though. Just too early to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be more proper to look at average rather than maximum by the way. Not that that isn't still scary, but it would be 12 shots with 1.33 mortal wounds.

Still, looks nasty.

Agreed

 Stux wrote:

Ultimately balance is about what's best for competitive play, and in that context it trumps catering for fluffy lists.

Hell no! Any balancing must be so that it won't hurt more casual players.

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Ultimately balance is about what's best for competitive play, and in that context it trumps catering for fluffy lists.

Hell no! Any balancing must be so that it won't hurt more casual players.

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

Uhh why do they keep using D3's.

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

That is correct.

The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.

I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.

In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Uhh why do they keep using D3's.

Less swingy. I'd much prefer a weapon to be 2d3 than 1d6


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

To you. Fair enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

That is correct.

The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.

I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.

In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.

Well, they already have divided them for a start! Matched, Narrative, Open.

What I'm saying is that for pickup games with strangers, to me balance is more important than every mixed army combination being allowed.

 Stux wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Uhh why do they keep using D3's.

Less swingy. I'd much prefer a weapon to be 2d3 than 1d6


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

To you. Fair enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

That is correct.

The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.

I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.

In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.

Well, they already have divided them for a start! Matched, Narrative, Open.

What I'm saying is that for pickup games with strangers, to me balance is more important than every mixed army combination being allowed.

2D3 is the exact same as 1D6.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

2D3 is the exact same as 1D6.

No, it isn't.

1d6 averages 3.5
2d3 averages 4

1d6 has a minimum of 1
2d3 has a minimum of 2

1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

2D3 is the exact same as 1D6.

No, it isn't.

1d6 averages 3.5
2d3 averages 4

1d6 has a minimum of 1
2d3 has a minimum of 2

1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.

Oh yeah, I never was that good at statistics.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

2D3 is the exact same as 1D6.

No, it isn't.

1d6 averages 3.5
2d3 averages 4

1d6 has a minimum of 1
2d3 has a minimum of 2

1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.

Oh yeah, I never was that good at statistics.

It's cool, it's complicated stuff! I just happen to really like it

Personally I feel the game would be better for using 2d3 more often. As I say, the middle results become much more common. You only have a 1 in 9 chance of rolling a 2 for instance, but the same for rolling a 6. Evens things out a lot, which I feel would play better for weapons that are currently d6 shots.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

2D3 is the exact same as 1D6.

No, it isn't.

1d6 averages 3.5
2d3 averages 4

1d6 has a minimum of 1
2d3 has a minimum of 2

1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.

Oh yeah, I never was that good at statistics.

It's cool, it's complicated stuff! I just happen to really like it

Personally I feel the game would be better for using 2d3 more often. As I say, the middle results become much more common. You only have a 1 in 9 chance of rolling a 2 for instance, but the same for rolling a 6. Evens things out a lot, which I feel would play better for weapons that are currently d6 shots.

I agree, D6 etc. for blast weapons doen't really work, rolling 1's or 2's is ridiculous especially for a vindicator cannon, I think GW figure 'yeah that's down to scattering' but you roll to hit so its stupid. Scattering was fun because the blast actually veered off and it was really realistic, but they should do 2+D3 instead of D6 etc.

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.

A big thing will be if it gets quantum shields or not as a knight level stat block with that and two of those weapons is going to be nasty at almost any points level.

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.

Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output

Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.

Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output

Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.

The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

What are you basing this off?

The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.

that's the worst logic ever. You know nothing other than it's gun. It could be the cost of a Tau'nar for all you know. It might be T6 with no Quantum Shielding. The fact that there's people like you already whining about it being too OP is a sign of how far this community has sunk.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.

Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output

Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

No...just no. That's massively wrong. You need to use the average and if you want you can see what results on the bell curve fall in the 40-60% range, which gives you a good idea of what you should expect. The more dice you roll the less likely you are to get outliers too. So the Necron model that rolls 6D3 for the shots of its two main guns is actually pretty consistent and much, much less likely to roll 18 shots than a weapon that rolls, say a single 18-sided dice. Incidentally, the probability of rolling 18 mortal wounds with this gun - assuming you've already rolled up 18 hits, which is itself hugely unlikely - is 1/101559956668416. Hopefully that makes it clear why you don't use maximum effectiveness to determine how good something is.

Seriously, by this logic the Stock Baneblade is broken. 36 shots re-rolling 1s, 120 possible wounds. Then it gets to charge and melee! 9 attacks at S9 ap-3! thats 54 more wounds! NERFFFFFFFFFF.

This is why you need to pay attention in math class. Because Statistics matter!

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

What are you basing this off?

The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.

that's the worst logic ever. You know nothing other than it's gun. It could be the cost of a Tau'nar for all you know. It might be T6 with no Quantum Shielding. The fact that there's people like you already whining about it being too OP is a sign of how far this community has sunk.

I'm not whining , I merely said I feared it. I would have been good if you 'actually' read, what I 'actually' wrote..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.

Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output

Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

No...just no. That's massively wrong. You need to use the average and if you want you can see what results on the bell curve fall in the 40-60% range, which gives you a good idea of what you should expect. The more dice you roll the less likely you are to get outliers too. So the Necron model that rolls 6D3 for the shots of its two main guns is actually pretty consistent and much, much less likely to roll 18 shots than a weapon that rolls, say a single 18-sided dice. Incidentally, the probability of rolling 18 mortal wounds with this gun - assuming you've already rolled up 18 hits, which is itself hugely unlikely - is 1/101559956668416. Hopefully that makes it clear why you don't use maximum effectiveness to determine how good something is.

Not if you are going to the effort of factoring in BS etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, by this logic the Stock Baneblade is broken. 36 shots re-rolling 1s, 120 possible wounds. Then it gets to charge and melee! 9 attacks at S9 ap-3! thats 54 more wounds! NERFFFFFFFFFF.

This is why you need to pay attention in math class. Because Statistics matter!

Okay, tell me the statistics.

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.

Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!

It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.

But the exact opposite also applies. Why shouldn't you be able to go mono force without gimping yourself. Why do we reward the people who cherry pick from multiple factions?

StrayIight wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.

The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?

if you aren't taking into account the ballistic skill and you can't be bothered working it all out, then max is a good comparison, because what you are comparing is going to have the same inflated results as what you are comparing it to. If you do that its easy, all you have left to compare is the st and ap.

 Stux wrote:


Well, they already have divided them for a start! Matched, Narrative, Open.

What I'm saying is that for pickup games with strangers, to me balance is more important than every mixed army combination being allowed.

This. A huge amount of problem exist in this game due to Casual players not sticking with Narrative and Open play. Where they belong. Instead they jump into Match play and wonder why no one wants to have a Necrons and Orcs in the same codex and they get angry when people have an expectation that the game is going actually finish and not stop at turn 3.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

StrayIight wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.

The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?

if you aren't taking into account the ballistic skill and you can't be bothered working it all out, then max is a good comparison, because what you are comparing is going to have the same inflated results as what you are comparing it to. If you do that its easy, all you have left to compare is the st and ap.

I don't even know what that means. What are you trying to say here? Any calculation of the average damage output would take BS into account by definition. Maximum damage output is about the worst metric you can use. In fact, given that the minimum damage output is much more likely than the maximum, why wouldn't you use that?

Here's a quick example: the average damage output of the new Necron model against, say, a Leman Russ, is about 15-16 wounds, including the 1.33 mortal wounds from rolling a 6+ to wound. The maximum output is 126 wounds (18x6 wounds plus 18 mortal wounds). Those numbers are different by an order of magnitude, so why would you use the maximum damage output?

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

StrayIight wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.

The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?

if you aren't taking into account the ballistic skill and you can't be bothered working it all out, then max is a good comparison, because what you are comparing is going to have the same inflated results as what you are comparing it to. If you do that its easy, all you have left to compare is the st and ap.

I don't even know what that means. What are you trying to say here? Any calculation of the average damage output would take BS into account by definition. Maximum damage output is about the worst metric you can use. In fact, given that the minimum damage output is much more likely than the maximum, why wouldn't you use that?

Here's a quick example: the average damage output of the new Necron model against, say, a Leman Russ, is about 15-16 wounds, including the 1.33 mortal wounds from rolling a 6+ to wound. The maximum output is 126 wounds (18x6 wounds plus 18 mortal wounds). Those numbers are different by an order of magnitude, so why would you use the maximum damage output?

I said if you are like me and can't be bothered to take into account of the B.S. then comparing the maximum damage is fine. Both comparisons are going to have inflated numbers, their max damage is the max damage, so when you take that into account you just have to compare their BS, st, ap. Makes it quicker and simpler than working it out.

"I'm not whining learn to read"

"I'm annoyed because the Necron LOW looks OP"

Pick one, sorry bud


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Max damage potential is just as relevant as actual maths because it's quicker to work out" lmao wow

 SHUPPET wrote:
"I'm not whining learn to read"

"I'm annoyed because the Necron LOW looks OP"

Pick one, sorry bud

I was annoyed at the points rise of the Castallan. Quote the whole thing and add context; rather than trying to prove that you did read what I said properly. People are moaning about people moaning when they aren't even moaning, ppffttt now that is out of control lol