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.

Any unit that takes an expensive big gun is natural going to be more expensive than the same model with a basic weapon. That doesn't inherently make it a "glass cannon", unless you want to seriously argue a tau commander is a glass cannon compared to normal crisis suit.

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.

I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.

That's still an 83% pts return.

Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.

I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.

What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.

It at the very least makes you weirdly glass cannon for the way those models look.

But can marines especially a unit with 18 inch range that needs to be stationary to maximise it's output afford to be that glass cannon?

Nope. It definitely can't. And that game play context of how it's abilities and mobility interact with its defenses is EXACTLY what actually shows that unit to be a bad unit.

Not one piece of what it does. The whole package.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Any unit that takes an expensive big gun is natural going to be more expensive than the same model with a basic weapon. That doesn't inherently make it a "glass cannon", unless you want to seriously argue a tau commander is a glass cannon compared to normal crisis suit.

I mean, it isn't because Character is the single best defensive ability in the game bar none.

If a Tau commander didn't have character it absolutely would be.

Tyel wrote:


This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.

Out of curiosity - is there a reason why people stick to using plain vanilla tactical marines in comparisons. If you want a plain vanilla marine troops unit then Intercessors are flat-out superior and bolter scouts are more flexible. The role for tactical marines is to be carrying a number of upgrades (special/heavy weapons) that the primaris dudes just don't have access to.

Or what am I missing, why are people taking basic tactical bolter squads so frequently that they are still a valid baseline for comparison?

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Tyel wrote:


This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.

Out of curiosity - is there a reason why people stick to using plain vanilla tactical marines in comparisons. If you want a plain vanilla marine troops unit then Intercessors are flat-out superior and bolter scouts are more flexible. The role for tactical marines is to be carrying a number of upgrades (special/heavy weapons) that the primaris dudes just don't have access to.

Or what am I missing, why are people taking basic tactical bolter squads so frequently that they are still a valid baseline for comparison?

As far as I can tell? Makes it easier to complain about guard.

Probably habit. Accusations of bad faith analyses don't help. Intercessor should probably be the new standard.

Intercessors could work. They're solid. The only problem is that GW keeps handing out D2 to weapons like candy.

 Crimson wrote:
Intercessors could work. They're solid. The only problem is that GW keeps handing out D2 to weapons like candy.

True problem.

However W2 is never worse than W1 and still quite often better. Similarly A2 is always either better than A1 or not relevant. Same for AP-1 with an extra 6" range, usually better. You get my drift

We can number-crunch and guardsmen will still come out looking strong for their points but it will be less skewed and it will be a far more valid comparison for use in actual games with 8th edition armies.

My experience on the table is that if you have cover for your Intercessors its a decently close match point-for-point. The guardsmen are badly out-ranged by the bolt rifle with bolter drill so they have to get across the table, which means they take casualties before they get effective and are probably not in cover all the time. 40 guardsmen vs 10 Intercessors is a horrible mis-match on planet bowling ball at 12" range but much less so in real game deployment on tables with a bit of terrain.

As you say, D2 weapons with good AP are the problem.

W2 are worse when hit by d2 because its killing more value. Inverse ig effect.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Intercessors could work. They're solid. The only problem is that GW keeps handing out D2 to weapons like candy.

True problem.

However W2 is never worse than W1 and still quite often better. Similarly A2 is always either better than A1 or not relevant. Same for AP-1 with an extra 6" range, usually better. You get my drift

We can number-crunch and guardsmen will still come out looking strong for their points but it will be less skewed and it will be a far more valid comparison for use in actual games with 8th edition armies.

My experience on the table is that if you have cover for your Intercessors its a decently close match point-for-point. The guardsmen are badly out-ranged by the bolt rifle with bolter drill so they have to get across the table, which means they take casualties before they get effective and are probably not in cover all the time. 40 guardsmen vs 10 Intercessors is a horrible mis-match on planet bowling ball at 12" range but much less so in real game deployment on tables with a bit of terrain.

As you say, D2 weapons with good AP are the problem.

Your playing guard why are you having issues with intercessors tank commanders with BC eat them for breakfast lunch and dinner at a rate thats not even funny.

the_scotsman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Something like ravager has over 65% vs gravis primaris marines with no buffs.

And plasma cannon devastators have 104% return against the same targets.

See how this isn't a useful comparison?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope.

So, to clarify, this data proves that blood angels are the worst faction, but it does not prove that Astra Militarum are the most balanced faction.

Winrate tells you who is worst, but not who is in the middle?

How does that work?

9 shots at -1w vs 8 shots with the same ap and damage - That doesn't seem right. Also - plasma cannons slay their user. Slaying yourself is actually negative efficiency. It must be calculated into an efficiency calculation. Every shot has a 1/6 (or worse based on modifiers) of slaying the shooter.

I'm using a basic equipped aggressor at 37ppm as my target. A ravager kills 2.45 of them getting 74% return. A 29 point pc devastator kills .92 or them. As you said it kills 1/3 Of itself which I'll round up to 10pts of loss.

That's still an 83% pts return.

Proving ravagers are op because of their points return vs aggressors also proves plasma cannon devastators are more overpowered.

I don't know about you but I think that proves to me that that's a stupid metric to use to prove something is op.

What I would say that proves is that you just can't pay 37ppm with 2W 3+ Sv.

It at the very least makes you weirdly glass cannon for the way those models look.

But can marines especially a unit with 18 inch range that needs to be stationary to maximise it's output afford to be that glass cannon?

Nope. It definitely can't. And that game play context of how it's abilities and mobility interact with its defenses is EXACTLY what actually shows that unit to be a bad unit.

Not one piece of what it does. The whole package.

Half a peach says GW thinks the Aggressors are in an acceptable place because Raven Guard can plant them inside 18" of the enemy before the game starts, and GW has a really bad habit of pricing units according to the best combo that GW notices they can be a part of.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Any unit that takes an expensive big gun is natural going to be more expensive than the same model with a basic weapon. That doesn't inherently make it a "glass cannon", unless you want to seriously argue a tau commander is a glass cannon compared to normal crisis suit.

I mean, it isn't because Character is the single best defensive ability in the game bar none.

If a Tau commander didn't have character it absolutely would be.

Admittedly a bad example on my part, but I still find the use of "glass cannon" in that way undermines the point of the term, a unit that's easier to kill in absolute terms that has an offensive capability that make up for other, otherwise using a relative comparison makes anything look like a glass cannon when it pays for any kind of offensive capability. And when used as a criticism against a unit (which is a lot on this site), it gives the impression of an expectation (that I would argue is unreasonable) that anything that is more expensive due to a increase in offense must also come with an increase in defense.

Martel732 wrote:
W2 are worse when hit by d2 because its killing more value. Inverse ig effect.

FNP spoiler effect is quite detrimental to weapon damage that matches the wounds of the model.

I for one can't wait for W3 Primaris bikes though. Those babies would really screw things up.

 Crimson wrote:
Intercessors could work. They're solid. The only problem is that GW keeps handing out D2 to weapons like candy.

And CSM only have vanila marines, we don't have intercessors. So comparing with basic marines allows for a broader comparison.

Martel732 wrote:
W2 are worse when hit by d2 because its killing more value. Inverse ig effect.

But it is mostly a question of model cost. 2W for 40pts is really bad. 2W for 10pts is nice, and if it was 4-6pts it would be broken. Statlines can not exist in a vacuum, without point costs.

Drager wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Tyel wrote:


This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.

Out of curiosity - is there a reason why people stick to using plain vanilla tactical marines in comparisons. If you want a plain vanilla marine troops unit then Intercessors are flat-out superior and bolter scouts are more flexible. The role for tactical marines is to be carrying a number of upgrades (special/heavy weapons) that the primaris dudes just don't have access to.

Or what am I missing, why are people taking basic tactical bolter squads so frequently that they are still a valid baseline for comparison?

As far as I can tell? Makes it easier to complain about guard.

No probably because the marine statline has a lot and i mean alot, MORE comparaive units to it.
Which often are worse off then even tacticals.

The comparisons are typically used to try to show other units are overpowered, which is silly. We all know basic power armour units suck, so if you want to compare things to make a point other than that redundant one you should use something else. Kabalites, Firewarriors, Guardians, Ork Boyz, for example; you know the other good troops choices.

Paying more than single digits for 1W troops feels like a mug's game in general.

Karol wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
W2 are worse when hit by d2 because its killing more value. Inverse ig effect.

But it is mostly a question of model cost. 2W for 40pts is really bad. 2W for 10pts is nice, and if it was 4-6pts it would be broken. Statlines can not exist in a vacuum, without point costs.

Losing intercessor isnt too bad, but the rest of the primaris line gives away points to 2 damage way too fast.

Yeah I know how you feel, each time a 43pts termintor dies from some dude that costs ten times less and a plasmagun, I wonder what GW was thinking when they assigned point costs in 8th ed.

Gukk said a very true thing. When the basic troop in the game costs less then 5pts, anything that costs more then 9pts has to be really good to be considered.

If they cost 6 instead of 4 it would help a lot

Martel732 wrote:
If they cost 6 instead of 4 it would help a lot

Guardsmen seems fine compared to other competetive troops.

Not really imo. They take up 50% more space than kabs who are also undercosted.

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If they cost 6 instead of 4 it would help a lot

Guardsmen seems fine compared to other competetive troops.

Which all cost a lot less then 10pts, it seems like good troop means being as close in cost to IG as possible.

Martel732 wrote:
Not really imo. They take up 50% more space than kabs who are also undercosted.

I disagree. What makes you say Kabalites are undercosted? Comparison to marines?

I've played Kabalites vs Guard enough to know it doesn't go well for the guard. The guard are better in some matchups, worse in others. Covering all that ground is a double edged sword, makes them easy to flank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If they cost 6 instead of 4 it would help a lot

Guardsmen seems fine compared to other competetive troops.

Which all cost a lot less then 10pts, it seems like good troop means being as close in cost to IG as possible.

That's a strange way to phrase it. It might be that being good troops means being sub 10 points, but phrasing it as being pointed close to guardsmen is just muddying the waters. Rippers and Nurglings are also pretty good and are greater than 10. Intercessors are not terrible either (though not in the same class as guard/kabs).

Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.

Martel732 wrote:
Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.

Yeah but tying them up in melee is a lot easier and permanent tying them up even easier if there are more then enough.

That's a strange way to phrase it. It might be that being good troops means being sub 10 points, but phrasing it as being pointed close to guardsmen is just muddying the waters. Rippers and Nurglings are also pretty good and are greater than 10. Intercessors are not terrible either (though not in the same class as guard/kabs).

both rippers and nurglings are just 3 models stuck on a single base. I have no personal view on intercessors, I can't use them, so assume you know better then me and they are good.

Martel732 wrote:
Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.

Please explain how you know this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

That's a strange way to phrase it. It might be that being good troops means being sub 10 points, but phrasing it as being pointed close to guardsmen is just muddying the waters. Rippers and Nurglings are also pretty good and are greater than 10. Intercessors are not terrible either (though not in the same class as guard/kabs).

both rippers and nurglings are just 3 models stuck on a single base. I have no personal view on intercessors, I can't use them, so assume you know better then me and they are good.

This is incorrect. Rippers and nurglings are multiwound models and work very differently to 3 cheaper models.

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.

Please explain how you know this.

Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.

SemperMortis wrote:

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Flanking means nothing in 40k. At least, not compared to pts/wound.

Please explain how you know this.

Because AV's aren't a thing anymore. So flanking means the same as deep striking/arriving from reserve. Models showing up from an unexpected angle....but the only inherent benefit is the fact that they show up after the enemy shot so they can't shoot it again. Implementing a rule where units getting shot from 2 distinct angles would be cool but extremely hard to write and would slow the game down a lot as people argued over the angles.

I pretty commonly play with a house rule of "front/rear armor" where you draw an imaginary line through the main body of all monster and vehicle keyword models and any attacks coming from units wholly in the front arc are resolved with +1 to standard saving throws amd any attacks coming wholly from the rear arc are resolved at -1. If there's any dispute or units are in partial arcs attacks are resolved normally.

Its pretty quick and easy honestly.