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.

Karol wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.

We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.

My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.

Ok but if we went with this thinking we would be all living in mud huts, and the pain medicin would be sticking a red hot poker in your ear. Just because the game was bad in the past, doesn't mean it has to be bad now or in the future. People that claim that w40k is great right now, accuse those that want fixs, that we want the game to have all armies at 50/50 win ratio. But it is not the case. People want to not have armies costing the same money, but being night and day as far as power goes. Worse most of the people that tell others to chill play armies that are good to pay with to begin with. I mean where are the legions of GK players telling others to chill and "it is just a game" others ? Math crunching math maybe not fun to all, but sometimes it is needed to show how big a gap exists between those for fun IG armies and bottom tier stuff. Now I get it, if someone plays a good army they don't want it nerfed. But it is really not peoples foult that GW doesn't know how to make stuff better, just how to nerf stuff in to the ground. So if the gap between good and bad can only be made smaller by GW nerfing the living hell out of good armies, then it should be done. At worse people are going to have the same levels as fun, as every army is going to be as unfun to play as the other. There won't be people playing some armies wondering what others talk about when they point out that edition seems to be rather unfun to play right now.

10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.

And then your roll a 1 on number of hits and your glorious anti horde weapon is worse then a lascannon vs orcs. Flamer type weapons should have a flat number of auto hits they do, to be a real counter to horde units. Then they can even have a 6" range, as long as shoting with 1-2 of them means a 30 model units with low saves gets hurt real bad.

No one is saying better balance is bad. All anyone is saying is boring, dull armies don't make the game fun for anyone. Even if guard go up a point, even if you take a knife to each and every unit they book has till guard are little more than an absolute auto loss at even the most casual level. Guess what ? There will still be a best army, and a best unit and it will still run rampant all over the scene and the GK will still suck, they won't in any way nerf everything enough GK will be on parity without re-working them entirely with a new book, that is honestly their only hope.

I've played bad armies before, for a long time and even won games still. It is possible. Now I say that assuming you play against people who want both sides to have fun and from the short time I've been here it seems like where ever you game has to be in dantes inferno where there is only suffering and broken dreams and GK could never ever win, even in dreams. Though I recall your collection isn't really even ideal, even for a good GK list. So I have to point out this as well, there has never been a time in 40k where the amount of money you spent on your army meant anything in relation to how good it ran against other armies. That is why you do research, learn the game a bit, pick up the army that is effective and fits your play style. There will never be a time in this game where I can buy 200$ worth of units, regardless of what they are and come in at the same use as another random collection of models that cost the same. How much the model costs means nothing to its effectiveness in game and it never will I'm willing to bet on that.

I hope that GW never listen to the people wanting to see everyone nerfed and instead focus on bringing up the weaker factions and just touching on actual problem units. The fact is, people wouldn't give a rats rear end about IS from IG if that knight combo wasn't there. The nerfing of cultists was also dumb, and no one called for that. You don't need to math hammer to know when one unit is just better than another, that can often be easily discerned naturally. If you played the game long enough you just pick it up. From my first game of 8th edition I knew that smite was broke as a joke, commissars were way too good, conscripts were great and the standard value of guard infantry was great. That isn't hard to understand and wasn't hard to pick up on. Mathhammer while helpful isn't always a needed tool for the obvious. Many of these issues I blame on allies and I doubt that will change.

I will leave this idea here as well. It is telling of a mentality to want everyone else brought down so no one has fun, as opposed to your own faction brought up so you can compete. There will never be enough nerfs to make GK awesome, at this point, GW wouldn't do that to their own game. The people that say to chill, are just saying that, chill. It is at the end of the day, just a game and if it causes so much displeasure it may be a time to step away for a bit, work on a different army maybe if you just can't step away. Many of us have played a low tier army for a long long time and even won. It's hard to imagine, but guard were crap for awhile too. Most factions have had their time at the bottom of the pile. However the balance in every game has never been better. In editions past the balance was bad, some armies could bring a list with little thought at all placed into it and just roll your army off the board. That has been much less the case with this edition, so far.

In closing, they already said these won't be sweeping changes, so thinking it's going to be the magic hammer that fixes a bottom of the bin army is just delusional at this point. The problems that cast disparity on the balance of armies are in the system itself not just on any one unit. Imbalance is like Hydra, cut off one head, and 10 more take its place, hail hydra.

Yes, flamers rolling a one sucks, it sucks with blasts weapons as well but I doubt they will change universally how those weapons work, changing ranges would do worlds to make them more viable though and that they may do which is why I agreed that would be nice in the FAQ.

Making everything over the top ridiculous is just as terrible as nerfing the problems. See what they are doing with AOS right now to see how this works; each new faction has some OP gimmick, but some have it more crazy than others so you still have some options being way OP despite trying to make everything OP.

It needs to be both: Nerf the op things, buff the underperforming things. It doesn't have to be huge nerfs, but that's how you correctly balance things.

The two major issues are that 1) The game itself is largely bloated and one dimensional, with only very shallow tactics bolted onto a poor imitation of combo stacking with none of the depth, and 2) The 40k design team's frequent lack of actually understanding the issue and instead just band-aid fixing what's been dominating at tournaments months before since fixing the main issues would require the rules to be rewritten, and they've said this is the "last" edition.

tneva82 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

Comparing units 1 vs 1 like that is silly though. Orks don't come walking across field like that. They charge 9" away with overwatch as only shooting before charge roll. Often needing 8 on the charge.

Stratagems and support is core of 40k. If you aren't factoring those you aren"t comparing 40k units(

I was responding to a guy comparing IG to everyone's troops Tneva, his math was wrong for Ork boyz, he priced us at 6ppm and still had us losing horribly.

But as far as your comment about 9' away, that isn't true though. You can Jump 1 squad a turn which means turn 1 you will only have 1 unit of boyz getting into CC if they are lucky enough to get their charge off, even then they will be subjected to overwatch, and depending on what that overwatch is, it could literally kill 30 boyz. I've seen a Tau onion eviscerate 3 mobz in 1 turn. 2 in the shooting phase and 1 in the charge phase. Personally, what I do is put 1 or 2 mobz in deep strike with strats and then team them with da jump to have my deep striking army appear turn 2 while my gun line loota bomb whittles down the enemy.

Regarding flamers: I feel like rather than changing them, giving every army that can deepstrike access to the Seraphim's stratagem from the Sister's beta tules would be better.

 nordsturmking wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
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

This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.

If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.

A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.

Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.

So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.

A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.

Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.

SemperMortis wrote:
Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.

"But if we update the FAQs on the first of every month people will get confused!" - GW Head of Boomer division.

They could put out an FAQ once every two months where they pick 5 or 6 of the RAW snaffles in BaconCatBug's sig. and add in a Beta rule for something that's obviously working, and they'd have content for years.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.

"But if we update the FAQs on the first of every month people will get confused!" - GW Head of Boomer division.

You don't realize how difficult it would be to keep up with changes at tournaments. Meaningful monthly updates would likely be detrimental.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.

"But if we update the FAQs on the first of every month people will get confused!" - GW Head of Boomer division.

You don't realize how difficult it would be to keep up with changes at tournaments. Meaningful monthly updates would likely be detrimental.

Yeah, especially if GW didn't change how FAQs were distributed. We'd be having to scroll through dozens of documents just to figure out how the rules currently worked.

"April FAQ Update: This month, we've cleared up some rules for the following factions: X, Y and Z - be sure to check out their respective FAQs for full details! In addition, we've noticed [MODEL/UNIT] isn't doing so hot, so here's a Beta Rule we'd like you to try out for us. [BETA RULE]. We're looking to reassess the rule in about 6 months time, so until then be sure to send us your feedback at [address]!"

How would that be difficult? Why are people always making excuses for GW's backwards update policies?

It's bad enough that I'm using 3 books to put together my current Primaris army (C:SM, Vanguard SM, and CA:2018), if I had to keep up on constant FAQ updates I'd likely end up getting lost at some point.

Twice a year is about right. It lets them tackle major problems, see trends and play out over multiple large tournaments and figure out where the game isn't playing like they want. Doing it every month means a constantly shifting target that doesn't let them accurately see where the game is as tournaments wouldn't adopt the rules in a timely manner to see the changes play out.

The beta rules could be quarterly, bi-annually, whatever. But having to wait for a once-a-year BIG FAQ to fix obvious rules errors is just dumb.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The beta rules could be quarterly, bi-annually, whatever. But having to wait for a once-a-year BIG FAQ to fix obvious rules errors is just dumb.

Big FAQ is twice a year. We used to get FAQs maybe once a year (with some armies left untouched for surprising amounts of time regardless how many emails you sent in) but now it's twice a year and they do a lot better about answering questions.

Better than before =/= good enough now, especially since "before" was 7th edition.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Better than before =/= good enough now, especially since "before" was 7th edition.

Before was also 6th ed, 5th ed (previously called "the best edition"), 4th ed (the forgotten edition), and 3rd edition (the previous best edition before 5th). Seriously, twice a year is better than we've had it before since they started doing online FAQs and frankly the idea that it's not good enough is frankly just silly.

The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.

But that's why they FAQ individual releases a couple of weeks after they come out?

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.

They do a post codex release FAQ that's outside of the standard FAQ schedule. Seriously, you're making up reasons to complain at this point. The FAQ schedule is as good as it can be. The only way the rules could be better than they currently are is if they opened every codex up to an open beta before they go to printing, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.

They do a post codex release FAQ that's outside of the standard FAQ schedule. Seriously, you're making up reasons to complain at this point. The FAQ schedule is as good as it can be. The only way the rules could be better than they currently are is if they opened every codex up to an open beta before they go to printing, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Where is it for Shadowspear? It should have come out already.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
"April FAQ Update: This month, we've cleared up some rules for the following factions: X, Y and Z - be sure to check out their respective FAQs for full details! In addition, we've noticed [MODEL/UNIT] isn't doing so hot, so here's a Beta Rule we'd like you to try out for us. [BETA RULE]. We're looking to reassess the rule in about 6 months time, so until then be sure to send us your feedback at [address]!"

How would that be difficult? Why are people always making excuses for GW's backwards update policies?

Christ it has nothing to do with GW.

Warhammer takes 3+ hours to play for one game not considering list building time. Changes take lots of games to process. You could be prepared one month and then another tweak comes along and changes how you approach the meta upsetting all the previous work instantly.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.

They do a post codex release FAQ that's outside of the standard FAQ schedule. Seriously, you're making up reasons to complain at this point. The FAQ schedule is as good as it can be. The only way the rules could be better than they currently are is if they opened every codex up to an open beta before they go to printing, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Where is it for Shadowspear? It should have come out already.

Have they done it for those mini codexes that come in the box before? I haven't been keeping track.

If they do, then Shadowspear might be getting left alone since there is likely a new Marine codex coming out to roll Shadowspear's new units into (along with all the points changes from 2018).

I'd like to see CSMs get a boltgun, bolt pistol and CCW all at once, it'd really be a nice moderate fix for the army

 Apple Peel wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.

They do a post codex release FAQ that's outside of the standard FAQ schedule. Seriously, you're making up reasons to complain at this point. The FAQ schedule is as good as it can be. The only way the rules could be better than they currently are is if they opened every codex up to an open beta before they go to printing, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Where is it for Shadowspear? It should have come out already.

When there's a big FAQ about to drop they hold off on releasing other FAQs until then.

 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 figured I'd post a little maths explanation for those who want to know.

The probability of a Vindicare Killing Ahriman without rerolls

Step 1 is to hit 1/6 Miss 2/3 Normal Damage 1/6 High damage Step 2 (to wound) 2/3 * 5/6 = 5/9 wound with normal damage 2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9 fails to wound 1/6 * 5/6 = 5/36 wound with high damage 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36 Fails to Wound ------ Totals for Step 2 ------ 5/9 = 20/36 wound with normal damage = 5/36 wound with high damage 1/36 + 1/9 = 5/36 fails to wound (0 Damage) 1/6 = 6/36 misses (0 Damage) For Step 3 (saves) 5/9 * 5/6 = 25/54 deals normal damage 5/9 * 1/6 = 5/54 saved 5/36 * 5/6 = 25/216 deals high damage 5/36 * 1/6 = 5/216 saved ------ Totals for Step 3 ------ 25/54 = 100/216 deals normal damage 25/216 = 25/216 deals high damage 11/36 = 66/216 No save needed (0 damage) 5/54 + 5/216 = 25/216 Saved (0 Damage) Step 4 Damage 25/54 * 1/3 = 25/162 1 Damage 25/54 * 1/3 = 25/162 2 Damage 25/54 * 1/3 = 25/162 3 Damage 25/216 * 1/6 = 25/1296 1 Damage 25/216 * 1/6 = 25/1296 2 Damage 25/216 * 1/6 = 25/1296 3 Damage 25/216 * 1/6 = 25/1296 4 Damage 25/216 * 2/6 = 50/1296 Kill ------ Totals for Step 4 ------ 91/216 = 546/1296 0 Damage 25/162 + 25/1296 = 225/1296 1 Damage 25/162 + 25/1296 = 225/1296 2 Damage 25/162 + 25/1296 = 225/1296 3 Damage = 25/1296 4 Damage = 50/1296 Kill Step 5-8 Headshot rolls Step 5 Roll 1 225/1296 * 2/3 = 450/3888 2 Damage So Far 225/1296 * 1/3 = 225/3888 1 Damage Total 225/1296 * 2/3 = 450/3888 3 Damage So Far 225/1296 * 1/3 = 225/3888 2 Damage Total 225/1296 * 2/3 = 450/3888 4 Damage So Far 225/1296 * 1/3 = 225/3888 3 Damage Total 25/1296 * 2/3 = 50/3888 Kill 25/1296 * 1/3 = 25/3888 4 Damage Total ------ Totals for Step 5 ------ 91/216 = 1638/3888 0 Damage = 225/3888 1 Damage Total = 225/3888 2 Damage Total = 225/3888 3 Damage Total = 25/3888 4 Damage Total = 450/3888 2 Damage So Far = 450/3888 3 Damage So Far = 450/3888 4 Damage So Far 50/1296 + 50/3888 = 200/3888 Kill Step 6 Roll 2 450/3888 * 1/2 = 450/7776 3 Damage So Far 450/3888 * 1/2 = 450/7776 2 Damage Total 450/3888 * 1/2 = 450/7776 4 Damage So Far 450/3888 * 1/2 = 450/7776 3 Damage Total 450/3888 * 1/2 = 450/7776 Kill 450/3888 * 1/2 = 450/7776 4 Damage Total ------ Totals for Step 6 ------ 91/216 = 3276/7776 0 Damage 225/3888 = 450/7776 1 Damage Total 225/3888 + 450/7776 = 900/7776 2 Damage Total 225/3888 + 450/7776 = 900/7776 3 Damage Total 25/3888 + 450/7776 = 500/7776 4 Damage Total 450/7776 3 Damage So Far 450/7776 4 Damage So Far 200/3888 + 450/7776 = 850/7776 Kill Step 7 Roll 3 450/7776 * 1/3 = 150/7776 4 Damage So Far 450/7776 * 2/3 = 300/7776 3 Damage Total 450/7776 * 1/3 = 150/7776 Kill 450/7776 * 2/3 = 300/7776 4 Damage Total ------ Totals for Step 7 ------ = 3276/7776 0 Damage = 450/7776 1 Damage Total = 900/7776 2 Damage Total 900/7776 + 300/7776 = 1200/7776 3 Damage Total 500/7776 + 300/7776 = 800/7776 4 Damage Total = 150/7776 4 Damage So Far 850/7776 + 150/7776 = 1000/7776 Kill Step 8 Roll 4 150/7776 * 1/6 = 25/7776 Kill 150/7776 * 5/6 = 125/7776 4 Damage Total ------ Results of Calculation ------ = 3276/7776 0 Damage = 450/7776 1 Damage Total = 900/7776 2 Damage Total = 1200/7776 3 Damage Total 800/7776 + 125/7776 = 925/7776 4 Damage Total 1000/7776 + 25/7776 = 1025/7776 Kill


So the probabilities are as follows (with no reroll):

0 Damage = 42.1%
1 Damage = 05.6%
2 Damage = 11.6%
3 Damage = 15.4%
4 Damage = 11.9%
Kill = 13.2%

I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.

BrianDavion wrote:
I'd like to see CSMs get a boltgun, bolt pistol and CCW all at once, it'd really be a nice moderate fix for the army

They had the opportunity to do that with the recent update but didn't. I don't know why they didn't, but they didn't. I still own a 3 armed CSM with all three who is illegal because of the removal of that option.

The current FAQ/Errata set-up is a logistical mess, unclear at the best of times and perpetually 6 months behind for even obvious fixes such as the nonsense in BaconCatBug's sig. If GW made a concerted effort to fix even one of those things, that would be a start.

As an aside, the rules for how a Monolith transports Necron units (i.e. one of its main functions) is still an absolute dumpster fire that needs to be torn down and re-written from the ground up. The unit being gated in deep-strikes but it's kinda like getting out of a transport but still like deep striking? What?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I'd like to see CSMs get a boltgun, bolt pistol and CCW all at once, it'd really be a nice moderate fix for the army

They had the opportunity to do that with the recent update but didn't. I don't know why they didn't, but they didn't. I still own a 3 armed CSM with all three who is illegal because of the removal of that option.

yeah it annoys me, CSMs are clearly supposed to be more melee centric, but a chainsword isn't worth the trade for a bolt gun. but making CSMs similer to grey hunters would IMHO transform the army

Drager wrote:

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

So the probabilities are as follows (with no reroll):

0 Damage = 42.1%
1 Damage = 05.6%
2 Damage = 11.6%
3 Damage = 15.4%
4 Damage = 11.9%
Kill = 13.2%

I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.

Basically the coolest thing i have ever seen.

What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.