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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.

I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.

85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?

(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.

40% chance of doing 0 Wounds.
60%*(1/3) chance to do no more than that d3 damage, or 20% of total - cumulatively, we're up to a 60% survival chance
60%*(2/3)*(1/2) chance (works out to 20%) to do exactly 1 MW. Of that, 2 out of 3 survive (because you didn't do 3W from your D3) - so another 13.3%. Up to 73.3% survival, and 6.7% kill
60%*(2/3)*(1/2)(2/3) chance (13.3%) to do exactly 2 MW. Of that, 1 out of 3 survive - so another 4.4%. Up to 77.7% survival, 15.5% kill
60%*(2/3)(1/2)(1/3) chance (6.7%) to do at least 3 MW. Beyond that, doesn't matter - it's a kill. So final numbeers:
77.7% survival, 22.3% kill.

You're shy of 25%. Not even halfway to 50%.

You're not even close to being reliable.

As for better odds of getting over 100% point return?
Guardsman shooting any other GEQ:
2x(1/2)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/3 chance to kill a Cultist, Guardian, or whatever (T3 5+ - there's tons of those that cost more than 4pts). Having a 22.3% chance or higher of getting a 100% points return is not rare at all in this game. Because 22.3% is *low*.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.

I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.

85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?

(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.

My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.

Since no one uses tomb spyders give them the same save as wraiths and let them heal D3 of their own wounds per turn.

Make flayed ones useful again!!!

Make the resseurection orb worth itcs points with a much longer range.

Ice_can wrote:

Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).

Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.

So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.
Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.

It's actually a lot worse then this. 20 Ork boyz is 140ptsnot 120pts, so a better comparison would be 3 and a half squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz. SO turn 1 guard kill 5 orkz, orkz kill 5ish Guardsmen (Orkz have to get within 18' range compared to IG's 24). Guard shoot and kill 4 more, orkz shoot 22 shots and kill 4, turn 3 guard are now down to a lowly 26 so 26 shots 13 hits 4 wounds 3-4 dead Ork boyz, orkz are now at 7-8 Boyz, leadership is now a thing and those -3 means they will likely lose at least some boyz, but lets say everyone is fearless. those 8 boyz get 16 shots, 6ish hits and 4 wounds for 2-3 dead Guard. Guard are now at 23, that is 11 hits and 4 wounds for another 4 dead Orkz bringing them to 3-4 boyz, those 4 boyz return 8 shots for 3 hits and 1 dead Guard, next turn the boyz all die. (With morale this would have happened 2 turns earlier. SO Boyz lose 20 boyz, guard lose 13. 140pts of dead Boyz, 52 of Guard.

with moving and rapid fire
If Guard go first with no buffs that is 35 shots at BS4 so roughly 17.5 hits, wounding in 5s is about 6 wounds, with a 6+ save that is 5 dead Orkz turn 1. Orkz are leadership 15 at this point so basically fearless. Those orkz with shootas have to advance as well to get into range since they only have 5' of movement and their guns are ranged 18, so 15 boyz left, 30 shots hitting on 6s, rerolling hits as dakkax3 kicks in = basically 6 hits, wounding on 3s = 4 wounds, guardsmen get a 5+ save so say 3 dead Guard LD 7 with sergeant so -3 = 4 so on a 5+ they lose 1-2 more, lets say they pass. They are now likely 15-16' from the guard, the guard lets say are guarding something so can't retreat (which is the easy win for them) so they move forward to double tap the orkz. 32 guardsmen alive = 64 shots, 32 hits 11ish wounds vs 6+ save = 9 dead Orkz, Orkz now have 6 boyz left with -9 LD Modifier, At this point they use the nobz LD7 and lose 2+D6 so likely 5-6 GG turn 2. Orkz lose 140pts of boyz, IG lose 12pts of guard. If the Orkz get 1st turn its slightly better, but it results in tabling turn 3 instead.

Pleasestop wrote:

Except morale is important, because that's guards weaknesses at at least one of the above is immune to morale. Orks wouldn't stay still and shoot, because they eat guard in melee combat, Marines is highly outdated since Marines with be always in rapid fire range, Admech got cheaper (also have a 30" gun which the above ignores?), etc.

It doesn't matter what Ork boyz do to Guardsmen, they lose no matter what. Ironically, the best way for ork infantry to kill guardsmen at near parity is to get in range as Bad Moonz. 30 SHoota boyz fire 60 shots for 20 hits and 20 rerolls which result in 7 more hits. 27 hits = 18 wounds, so basically killing 12 guard. Of course 30 Shoota boyz = 210pts and 12 guard = 48pts of course, if GW was smart and reduced the price of boyz back to 6 and increased the cost of guard to 5 that would make it a lot closer in parity.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Good for you? Stop acting like you have full insight to the process and chill out.

Well technically they had time to write the FAQ since the last CA. That is a lot of time to gather data and think about changes. Even if it is done by one man for 10 min every day, then it is still whole days of work time since CA went to print. Unless of course they did nothing and started writing it post adepticon, then in deed they could have delays.

That's because it's an ongoing process that requires people to play games, deliberate, and provide feedback on top of testing new codexes like GSC, CSM, and Sisters. Not to mention Index Assassins and Ynnari.

they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.

Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.

SemperMortis wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).

Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.

So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.
Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.

It's actually a lot worse then this. 20 Ork boyz is 140ptsnot 120pts, so a better comparison would be 3 and a half squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz. SO turn 1 guard kill 5 orkz, orkz kill 5ish Guardsmen (Orkz have to get within 18' range compared to IG's 24). Guard shoot and kill 4 more, orkz shoot 22 shots and kill 4, turn 3 guard are now down to a lowly 26 so 26 shots 13 hits 4 wounds 3-4 dead Ork boyz, orkz are now at 7-8 Boyz, leadership is now a thing and those -3 means they will likely lose at least some boyz, but lets say everyone is fearless. those 8 boyz get 16 shots, 6ish hits and 4 wounds for 2-3 dead Guard. Guard are now at 23, that is 11 hits and 4 wounds for another 4 dead Orkz bringing them to 3-4 boyz, those 4 boyz return 8 shots for 3 hits and 1 dead Guard, next turn the boyz all die. (With morale this would have happened 2 turns earlier. SO Boyz lose 20 boyz, guard lose 13. 140pts of dead Boyz, 52 of Guard.

with moving and rapid fire
If Guard go first with no buffs that is 35 shots at BS4 so roughly 17.5 hits, wounding in 5s is about 6 wounds, with a 6+ save that is 5 dead Orkz turn 1. Orkz are leadership 15 at this point so basically fearless. Those orkz with shootas have to advance as well to get into range since they only have 5' of movement and their guns are ranged 18, so 15 boyz left, 30 shots hitting on 6s, rerolling hits as dakkax3 kicks in = basically 6 hits, wounding on 3s = 4 wounds, guardsmen get a 5+ save so say 3 dead Guard LD 7 with sergeant so -3 = 4 so on a 5+ they lose 1-2 more, lets say they pass. They are now likely 15-16' from the guard, the guard lets say are guarding something so can't retreat (which is the easy win for them) so they move forward to double tap the orkz. 32 guardsmen alive = 64 shots, 32 hits 11ish wounds vs 6+ save = 9 dead Orkz, Orkz now have 6 boyz left with -9 LD Modifier, At this point they use the nobz LD7 and lose 2+D6 so likely 5-6 GG turn 2. Orkz lose 140pts of boyz, IG lose 12pts of guard. If the Orkz get 1st turn its slightly better, but it results in tabling turn 3 instead.

Pleasestop wrote:

Except morale is important, because that's guards weaknesses at at least one of the above is immune to morale. Orks wouldn't stay still and shoot, because they eat guard in melee combat, Marines is highly outdated since Marines with be always in rapid fire range, Admech got cheaper (also have a 30" gun which the above ignores?), etc.

It doesn't matter what Ork boyz do to Guardsmen, they lose no matter what. Ironically, the best way for ork infantry to kill guardsmen at near parity is to get in range as Bad Moonz. 30 SHoota boyz fire 60 shots for 20 hits and 20 rerolls which result in 7 more hits. 27 hits = 18 wounds, so basically killing 12 guard. Of course 30 Shoota boyz = 210pts and 12 guard = 48pts of course, if GW was smart and reduced the price of boyz back to 6 and increased the cost of guard to 5 that would make it a lot closer in parity.

I just want to point out that wasn't my maths in your quote, that was a guard player trying to justify that 4ppm. Guardsmen are balanced.

Ice_can wrote:

I just want to point out that wasn't my maths in your quote, that was a guard player trying to justify that 4ppm. Guardsmen are balanced.

My apologies, I must have deleted the wrong quote line when posting that. Either way though, if that is the case that guardsmen player is clutching at straws. They change the circumstances to make the math seem worse for guardsmen. Guardsmen need a point increase badly and have for some time, I would argue Tau firewarriors need a nerf as well but that is another story

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

I just want to point out that wasn't my maths in your quote, that was a guard player trying to justify that 4ppm. Guardsmen are balanced.

My apologies, I must have deleted the wrong quote line when posting that. Either way though, if that is the case that guardsmen player is clutching at straws. They change the circumstances to make the math seem worse for guardsmen. Guardsmen need a point increase badly and have for some time, I would argue Tau firewarriors need a nerf as well but that is another story

The thing with firewarriors is they actually bleed points like nobody's business, only better than cultists.
They do less damage than skitari vrs infantry, however they are a serious threat to vehicals and monsters in 8th, very much how the fluff says they should be, but the 8th wounding system really does suck at defining light medium and heavy armoured vehicles.

I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.

Terrain needs better rules.

Ynnari needs a little nerf.

Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.

GK and BA and a few others need a buff

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

I just want to point out that wasn't my maths in your quote, that was a guard player trying to justify that 4ppm. Guardsmen are balanced.

My apologies, I must have deleted the wrong quote line when posting that. Either way though, if that is the case that guardsmen player is clutching at straws. They change the circumstances to make the math seem worse for guardsmen. Guardsmen need a point increase badly and have for some time, I would argue Tau firewarriors need a nerf as well but that is another story

The thing with firewarriors is they actually bleed points like nobody's business, only better than cultists.
They do less damage than skitari vrs infantry, however they are a serious threat to vehicals and monsters in 8th, very much how the fluff says they should be, but the 8th wounding system really does suck at defining light medium and heavy armoured vehicles.

My comment was more in line with normal game play and not static Infantry vs Infantry, even though I still think Firewarriors are better than most. The 30' range is a huge stand off benefit to the Tau army and allows them to deploy beyond most armies ability to reliably get into CC. Team them up in an Onion of death with the correct buffing characters and they are truly frightening. But the thing that really makes them OP in my opinion is that they get all those buffs and range and are fairly durable with a 4+ save standard.....AND they cost 7ppm. Nothing ruins fun like a Tau Onion of death of 40 Firewarriors along with a fireblade camping on a central point in the map with Range 36 guns (Bork'an) and getting a 3rd shot at half range, so if you actually do get into shooting range of them they will unload 120 S5 shots hitting on 4s rerolling 1s. Ohh, and if you do get into assault, enjoy that overwatch. Those 120 shots in overwatch on average inflict 14 wounds to ork boyz. the 120 shots in the shoot phase tend to liquify 2 entire mobs of boyz. All for the low low cost of 322pts. If I played Tau I would never play less than 80 firewarriors just for their pure damage output and standoff ability. In a 2k list you have 644pts tied up in 2 onions of death which basically cover the entire deployment and neutral zones. you then spend your remaining 1356pts on whatever you want to add to that.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


Not really sure what maths your trying to show with that as you've changed the targets so the maths isn't consistent.
Killing .9 of a guardsmen is only 4 points removed .6 of a 13 point marine killed is 7 points. The guard players winning the war of attrition.

Yes, fair enough, but this is sans beta bolter and cover. Of course it's also sans CC and not everyone has snipers to take them out, so we can't necessarily cost them low because of that potential, but if Ogryn BGs become required then it's somewhat of the same effect as a 1 point increase on 60 models (with the benefit of a beat stick).

I won't be broken hearted if IS go to 5 points.

Making IS 5 points bringing them defensively in like with tacs, but better than them at doing damage.
They are out damaged by rangers and firewarriors who are less resilient.

Out damaged by rangers?

.....really? Rangers like the Eldar sniper troop?

He might mean the Skitarri rangers.

Karol wrote:

they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.

Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.

I think people here expect that 40K FAQs are GWs only immediate priority.

The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.

Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.

Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.

I think people here expect that 40K FAQs are GWs only immediate priority.

The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.

Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.

Kind of feel this is missing the point. It doesn't have to be their only priority for Games Workshop to be working on it, especially since it was already worked on before Adepticon, and the changes are smaller scale. People make excuses for Games Workshop's inactivity here, and it only does a dis-service to customers who demand a higher quality of product.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.

I think, generally though that with double tap and decent rolls a vindicaire can have a couple characters on the ropes.

Terminator armor HQs and rhino blockers will be necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darsath wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.

Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.

I think people here expect that 40K FAQs are GWs only immediate priority.

The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.

Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.

Kind of feel this is missing the point. It doesn't have to be their only priority for Games Workshop to be working on it, especially since it was already worked on before Adepticon, and the changes are smaller scale. People make excuses for Games Workshop's inactivity here, and it only does a dis-service to customers who demand a higher quality of product.

You assume nothing is being done and assign malice without evidence.

That's the problem.

the_scotsman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


Not really sure what maths your trying to show with that as you've changed the targets so the maths isn't consistent.
Killing .9 of a guardsmen is only 4 points removed .6 of a 13 point marine killed is 7 points. The guard players winning the war of attrition.

Yes, fair enough, but this is sans beta bolter and cover. Of course it's also sans CC and not everyone has snipers to take them out, so we can't necessarily cost them low because of that potential, but if Ogryn BGs become required then it's somewhat of the same effect as a 1 point increase on 60 models (with the benefit of a beat stick).

I won't be broken hearted if IS go to 5 points.

Making IS 5 points bringing them defensively in like with tacs, but better than them at doing damage.
They are out damaged by rangers and firewarriors who are less resilient.

Out damaged by rangers?

.....really? Rangers like the Eldar sniper troop?

No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.

Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.

I never assigned the intent to Games Workshop's actions.

I don't remember if Intercessor Sergeants got their CC options in an FAQ or in CA, but Reiver Sergeants need something to make that squad worthwhile. I really hope they get Power Axe / Chain Fist instead of the usual Power Sword / Power Fist options if GW does get around to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darsath wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.

Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.

I think people here expect that 40K FAQs are GWs only immediate priority.

The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.

Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.

Kind of feel this is missing the point. It doesn't have to be their only priority for Games Workshop to be working on it, especially since it was already worked on before Adepticon, and the changes are smaller scale. People make excuses for Games Workshop's inactivity here, and it only does a dis-service to customers who demand a higher quality of product.

Customers who demand a higher quality of product are playing something other than 40k.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.

I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.

85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?

(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.

My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.

how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?

 Xenomancers wrote:

how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?

No idea about the reroll, but for the damage I'd split the numbers. (1/6 x 3.5) + (4/6 x 2)

Unless there's a rule I've forgotten about, the to-hit rolls and armour saves will be the same either way, so there's no need to separate those. Also, I'm aware that 4/6 should really be 2/3, but I wanted to make my workings a little clearer.


The alternative would be to create an excel formula and run it 1000 times to get an idea of what the average damage is (rather than having to simplify damage). In this case, you might be able to write it such that it rerolls the first fail or the first damage roll of 1 (whichever happens first) each time.

The Newman wrote:


Customers who demand a higher quality of product are playing something other than 40k.

Yea, all us stupid sheeple can't figure it out. If only we would play on a bigger table against an opponent with longer range guns.

Ice_can wrote:

No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.

Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.

Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.

I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.

85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?

(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.

My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.

how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?

I wrote a program when the rules first came out, and they had a high average damage because they could do a lot -- d6 damaeg plus mortal wounds, but had a much lower skew over all. More often then I'd like (I think it was around 30%, I'll have to.chdck on Monday) they did zero damage, and most often did 3 to 4 total wounds to a Company Commander, And Less than that to a marine.

So while they have the chance to one shot Guilliman, you need to of them to reliable kill a character, and even then there was a fdecent chance they would skunk it.

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.

Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.

Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.

Their weapons are the same range as tau ones.
The 36 inch range requires taking a sept that prevents all the named charictors. The 42 is a nice theory hammer wall but relies on a T4 1W 4+ non charictor unit it dies so easily, additionally it is only available via another 40 points unit.

-1 to hit isn't a huge bust to durability? please point out a what else gives you at worse a 20% damaged reduction against BS 2+ to a 50% reduction against BS 5+?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think people here expect that 40K FAQs are GWs only immediate priority.

The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.

Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.

I am not a mind reader, so I don't know what other peoples think. What I do know is that GW had a lot of time to start working on the FAQ. I just don't think that the argument that they have little time or they only think a week or two in the future, when they have models and books waiting for months or maybe even years, waiting for release, is a valid one. The castellan or IG soup problem are a know thing, they are known in some cases for more then a year. IMO they had enough time to write and test stuff. Unless of course they think the stuff is fine, and does not require any fixs. Then they may as well not put out the FAQ. If it ain't going to deal with some real issuse, then it is just playing with words and anwser questions that are many things, but not frequently asked.

I don't remember if Intercessor Sergeants got their CC options in an FAQ or in CA, but Reiver Sergeants need something to make that squad worthwhile. I really hope they get Power Axe / Chain Fist instead of the usual Power Sword / Power Fist options if GW does get around to them.

But aren't all GW rules glued to what is in a box? If reavers don't come with the options, then GW won't errata the weapons in as an option, unless they have some new models to sell. The primaris melee weapon upgrades started poping up, if I remember corectly, when GW started to sell faction upgrade sprues, and had Lts with illegal weapons et ups.

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.

Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.

Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.

Their weapons are the same range as tau ones.
The 36 inch range requires taking a sept that prevents all the named charictors. The 42 is a nice theory hammer wall but relies on a T4 1W 4+ non charictor unit it dies so easily, additionally it is only available via another 40 points unit.

-1 to hit isn't a huge bust to durability? please point out a what else gives you at worse a 20% damaged reduction against BS 2+ to a 50% reduction against BS 5+?

Cover, FNP, +1 armor, they all add the same 17% bonus to durability.

And the Sept is good enough on its own...but you can take multiple detachments so you can still take whatever named characters you want. I don't play Tau so I don't know which ones are worth a damn, but giving your standard troop choices a S5 ranged 36' gun seems rather nice When Ork shoota boyz finally get in range the Tau are firing 50% more shots at higher strength and Ballistic skill and have easy access to reroll 1s which is a bigger benefit to Tau then Orkz because a 1/3rd chance isn't as good as a 1/2 chance to hit with a reroll

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.

Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.

Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.

Their weapons are the same range as tau ones.
The 36 inch range requires taking a sept that prevents all the named charictors. The 42 is a nice theory hammer wall but relies on a T4 1W 4+ non charictor unit it dies so easily, additionally it is only available via another 40 points unit.

-1 to hit isn't a huge bust to durability? please point out a what else gives you at worse a 20% damaged reduction against BS 2+ to a 50% reduction against BS 5+?

Cover, FNP, +1 armor, they all add the same 17% bonus to durability.

And the Sept is good enough on its own...but you can take multiple detachments so you can still take whatever named characters you want. I don't play Tau so I don't know which ones are worth a damn, but giving your standard troop choices a S5 ranged 36' gun seems rather nice When Ork shoota boyz finally get in range the Tau are firing 50% more shots at higher strength and Ballistic skill and have easy access to reroll 1s which is a bigger benefit to Tau then Orkz because a 1/3rd chance isn't as good as a 1/2 chance to hit with a reroll

That's not even remotely true. Depending on what your save is, a +1 improvement is either massive or barely noticeable.

FNP is a whole other ballpark.

FNP is also definitely not always the same increase in durability since it depends on the Damage of the weapon hitting you.

Karol wrote:
The castellan or IG soup problem are a know thing, they are known in some cases for more then a year. IMO they had enough time to write and test stuff. Unless of course they think the stuff is fine, and does not require any fixs.

It is possible that they don't think that Imperial soup is a problem, and they may not think the IG are a problem - I suspect they may be aware of a goof on the IK relic/trait side of things, though.

Karol wrote:
then they may as well not put out the FAQ. If it ain't going to deal with some real issuse, then it is just playing with words and anwser questions that are many things, but not frequently asked.

If they're answering questions in an FAQ, then they're actually using it for what it should be used for - and just because you (or your local group) haven't asked a particular question, doesn't mean they haven't seen it often enough to warrant an answer.

Finding errata in a FAQ release is what should be viewed as odd, not as the standard.

torblind wrote:


That's not even remotely true. Depending on what your save is, a +1 improvement is either massive or barely noticeable.

FNP is a whole other ballpark.

12 bolter shots hitting on 3s, with a -1 to hit = 6 hits, 3 wounds against a 6+ save = 2.5 damage on average
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds, +1 armor = 2.66 damage ish
12 Bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds against a 6+ save = 3.33 with a 6+ FNP = 2.77 damage ish
(+1 armor is the same as cover)

So yeah, its different but pretty close to equal. So saying a -1 to hit is a massive buff and worth way more then +1 strength on your weapon is kind of ....dishonest. Is -1 to hit good? Yeah of course, I just don't think its a huge buff over +1 strength on the weapon.