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.
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
To answer the question, I say A primaris, B CSM, C Cultist, D cultist, E csm, F primaris.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/26 12:52:26
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
To give them different costs should also mean they are treated as different datasheets in ALL respects, included Ro3.
-
All the GK vehicles have different rules then normal marine ones, but when GW decided to hike the price of regular marine stuff, they hiked our too. just saying.
Well, they had to do something to stop the menace that is Grey Knights .
I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
So, Grey Knight players are losing games not because their book is objectivly bad, but because they just don't know how to play well? Does it work like that for people who don't play ITC and just rulebook missions?
I never mentioned Grey Knights, Karol. Down boy.
What I was saying is that blaming terrain and mission structure for not providing an "even playing field" is absurd.
Everyone here will get far better if they learn to play better rather than blaming terrain and dice. 100% guaranteed.
Ah okey. does make sense.must stuff ignores terrain anyway nowadays.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 13:26:16
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
the_scotsman wrote: I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
Cultists do not get trait bonuses, as per updated CSM Codex. My point I had made on page 2 was merely that there is a discussion again to be had over whether or not 5 Chaos Marines are better value than 10 Cultists for a mere 5 points difference (which is not yet confirmed anyways). I honestly think that if I had 5 points floating about, I'd definitely consider changing one unit of Cultists into Chaos Space Marines. I just recently had a funny battle of a terrible Chaos List vs a terrible Guard list. Very short synopsis of the lists was that I had Abaddon and 5x 10-man units of Chaos Space Marines in Rhinos plus a unit of Obliterators (Black Legion, because that's what they're modeled as), and my opponent fielded Catachans (that's what they're modeled as) with 1 Tank Commander, 1 Baneblade, and everything else was pretty much infantry squads with flamers or melta guns. I won the match, and with that many bad units running around the field, you got to see in full display the power of Hateful Assault. Why? It doubled the number of attacks that I generally made; so more chances for 6's as well for DttFE. My Chaos Marines were charging and taking charges from Catachans and were WINNING the ensuing close combats, rather than drawing them out.
As such, I can see myself now upgrading one of my three units of Cultists to a basic Chaos Marine squad if I had 5 points to spare, because they will survive better against a lot of things in the game, and if my opponent is bringing cultists or rippers or something small and gribbly, the Chaos Marines will be able to more effectively fight them back.
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
Lemondish wrote: What I was saying is that blaming terrain and mission structure for not providing an "even playing field" is absurd.
I just pulled up an anecdote using Google:
Franky from FLG talked about an experience he had at a ITC major he recently attended. He brought his Drukhari army that seemed to do really well in testing. Every time he went to a table for a game there was not nearly enough terrain, and the terrain that was there was not high enough at all. So the sails on his ships were always seen since they count for LOS now, so most of his vehicles would die and he'd be tabled by turn 2 or 3. If the TO has set up table properly and used the amount and type of terrain that FLG reccommends (the guys who helped design and test 8th edition) then this game would of been much more enjoyable for both people; do you think the guy with the gunline enjoyed tabling his opponent on turn 2? Maybe, but most likely not, and the guy who got tabled turn 2 didn't even get a chance to play the game.
Terrain has a huge effect on the game. Scotsman was talking about Intercessors shooting 30" at Cultists across deployment zones, isn't this contingent on if there is screening terrain and clear fire lanes? What about Magnus getting a LOS blocker to get all his survival buffs going? Blaming terrain and dice won't make you play better, but it's 100% a factor in how armies perform.
Lemondish wrote: I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
It depends on what you consider to be skill.
I mean I'd argue in something like MTG, the skill is overwhelming in the deck building - rather than "do I do X or Y" from the often very limited set of options available to me.
40k has always had a list building element and as I see it this will always happen barring major changes.
You could say everyone should play a mirror match - and then it would all be about target priority and manoeuvring rather than list building. (I'd also say it would largely come down to who goes first - like chess - but you can try to build rules to counteract that).
But in reality, since target priority is just learned maths too (in order to optimise your probabilities) what you end up doing is reducing the game down to luck. Or who can roll dice better.
Which is what you would expect, because you are not measuring an athletic ability - you are measuring knowledge.
I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
To answer the question, I say A primaris, B CSM, C Cultist, D cultist, E csm, F primaris.
Yes, they get tons of abilities. This exercise is built to do two things. First, to remove bias from and second, to highlight the differences between base units.
There are certainly battlefield considerations to be made about units -- one set of those numbers is under a condition that would be less likely to happen for that unit than it would for the others. The exercise isn't really about Primaris, but I needed a third option to obfuscate and it's really interesting to see people's responses.
EDIT: correction - remove bias based on name recognition, because bias is still driving expectations.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/11/26 14:14:16
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: TBH 5 Alpha Legion chaos space marines in cover are much better than 10 Cultists for camping objetives.
Well until recently your average cultist had the AL trait. Nowadays yes absolutely but earlier this edition not really, beyond the smaller footprint.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Lemondish wrote: What I was saying is that blaming terrain and mission structure for not providing an "even playing field" is absurd.
I just pulled up an anecdote using Google:
Franky from FLG talked about an experience he had at a ITC major he recently attended. He brought his Drukhari army that seemed to do really well in testing. Every time he went to a table for a game there was not nearly enough terrain, and the terrain that was there was not high enough at all. So the sails on his ships were always seen since they count for LOS now, so most of his vehicles would die and he'd be tabled by turn 2 or 3. If the TO has set up table properly and used the amount and type of terrain that FLG reccommends (the guys who helped design and test 8th edition) then this game would of been much more enjoyable for both people; do you think the guy with the gunline enjoyed tabling his opponent on turn 2? Maybe, but most likely not, and the guy who got tabled turn 2 didn't even get a chance to play the game.
Terrain has a huge effect on the game. Scotsman was talking about Intercessors shooting 30" at Cultists across deployment zones, isn't this contingent on if there is screening terrain and clear fire lanes? What about Magnus getting a LOS blocker to get all his survival buffs going? Blaming terrain and dice won't make you play better, but it's 100% a factor in how armies perform.
I mean, it kind of isn't. That's part of the problem with 8th edition, shooting is either all or nothing. There's no difference between a unit firing across an open field and a unit drawing LOS to one single model in the enemy unit in the gap between two tanks thru a window modeled in a building standing between the firer and target. A unit can be 99.999% obscured by terrain and unless they are "Fully on or within!" they gain ZERO benefit to defense in the base game.
I've built and painted multiple tables worth of every terrain series GW has produced either now or in the near past. None of it features appreciably large sections of pure LOS block. Also, none of them tend to have ground floors, which to me makes the current terrain system based around binary "Either completely obscured or you are totally un-obscured" and "All model in the unit must be fully on or within" absolutely asinine to me. From a business standpoint alone this seems like GW just handing their business to competitors who do produce terrain that works with 8th ed (and I cannot help but notice that tiny little detail that the ITC sells a series of MDF terrain featuring large amounts of blocking walls, all of which is on bases....) And from a playability standpoint it actually adds an enormous amount of subjectivity to LOS declarations which is supposedly the reason why the previous "% Obscured" system was removed. People declaring shooting attacks have a huge incentive to tilt their head slightly one way or another to see an arm or a foot on a single model in the enemy unit, because it's often the difference between 0 damage and totally removing a whole unit.
Very simple replacement suggestion appropriate for a mass battle game like 40k:
Declaring Line of Sight works as now, but weapons, banners, antennae and wings on models cannot be targeted.
Draw a straight line between the firing model and target while checking the range. The line should be drawn from the center of the firing model to the center of the target model. If this line crosses 1 terrain feature or model without the INFANTRY, BEASTS or SWARM keyword that is not a part of the firing or target unit, the target is Obscured. If the line crosses 2 such features or models, the target is Highly Obscured. Bonuses are cumulative.
Obscured: +1 to the target's Sv rolls. Does not affect invulnerable saves.
Highly Obscured: -1 to the firer's hit rolls for this attack.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Galas wrote: TBH 5 Alpha Legion chaos space marines in cover are much better than 10 Cultists for camping objetives.
I agree, and for a scant 10 more points, you can give those CSMs either a HB or Autocannon. While not fantastic at damage output, it's far more than 10 cultists can throw out and allows those CSM to contribute in some way instead of just sitting there. I mean if the AC manages to kill a single Primaris Marine, it's paid for itself
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 15:00:12
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Yes. This. Now.
Isn't this basically cities of death as well? But without terrain rules?
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Yes. This. Now.
Isn't this basically cities of death as well? But without terrain rules?
Quite similar, yet KT also has -1 for over half the range of the weapon on shooting, which would also help imo, especially since even more infantry now runs around with 30" guns. (exception to precision rifles ). Its a great system and i can honestly reccomend you if you are fed up with the killyness of 40 k and the lack of meaningfull manouverability, to add these rules.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
the_scotsman wrote: I've built and painted multiple tables worth of every terrain series GW has produced either now or in the near past. None of it features appreciably large sections of pure LOS block. Also, none of them tend to have ground floors, which to me makes the current terrain system based around binary "Either completely obscured or you are totally un-obscured" and "All model in the unit must be fully on or within" absolutely asinine to me. From a business standpoint alone this seems like GW just handing their business to competitors who do produce terrain that works with 8th ed (and I cannot help but notice that tiny little detail that the ITC sells a series of MDF terrain featuring large amounts of blocking walls, all of which is on bases....) And from a playability standpoint it actually adds an enormous amount of subjectivity to LOS declarations which is supposedly the reason why the previous "% Obscured" system was removed. People declaring shooting attacks have a huge incentive to tilt their head slightly one way or another to see an arm or a foot on a single model in the enemy unit, because it's often the difference between 0 damage and totally removing a whole unit.
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Yes. This. Now.
Isn't this basically cities of death as well? But without terrain rules?
Yeah, minus the two dozen odd stratagems, the +1AP for higher ground (Unnecessary, the tactical advantage of being up high is very considerable) and the +2 to sv "hard cover"
And the need to agree with your opponent pre-game on what each piece of terrain is and how you claim cover from it. Gaining cover is just folded in to gaining Obscurement and is determined at the same time as measuring range rather than the current system of determine LOS/Determine range/determine if you have cover.
If I were to flesh the system out, I'd probably include stuff like "Ignore terrain features within 2" of the firer" and
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Yes. This. Now.
Isn't this basically cities of death as well? But without terrain rules?
Quite similar, yet KT also has -1 for over half the range of the weapon on shooting, which would also help imo, especially since even more infantry now runs around with 30" guns. (exception to precision rifles ). Its a great system and i can honestly reccomend you if you are fed up with the killyness of 40 k and the lack of meaningfull manouverability, to add these rules.
Hopefully gw will incorporate similar rules into the rumored 9th edition.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Sure. But that is why you have sufficiently large samples to average it out.
Over 50 or 100 or 200 games, just as many people will make a stupid decision with an Iron Hands army as they do with a Grey Knight army, and roughly as many will have a stroke of genius and pull a brilliant move.
Given the underlying rules are balanced, both armies should come out equal win percentages, etc.., etc. within the margin of error of a given sample size.
But currently they do not. Not even close.
We have a category of Marine players on this board who simply don't acknowledge data, so this is kind of a futile point to make to some people. Marines could take the top 50 spots at the next 50 tournaments and they would still turn around and say everything is working as intended.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 15:18:01
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
the_scotsman wrote: [snip]
I mean, it kind of isn't. That's part of the problem with 8th edition, shooting is either all or nothing. There's no difference between a unit firing across an open field and a unit drawing LOS to one single model in the enemy unit in the gap between two tanks thru a window modeled in a building standing between the firer and target. A unit can be 99.999% obscured by terrain and unless they are "Fully on or within!" they gain ZERO benefit to defense in the base game.
[/snip]
GW did quietly change the terrain rules so if you're hugging an obstacle the squad gets cover. I'd need to check, but I think shooting through windows in a ruin isn't a thing you can do anymore either.
It's true, the terrain rules are really, really not good enough.
Some people found the 4th ed "terrain height levels" too complicated and unintuitive, but they made terrain far more useful, and thus maneuvering far more important.
the_scotsman wrote: [snip]
I mean, it kind of isn't. That's part of the problem with 8th edition, shooting is either all or nothing. There's no difference between a unit firing across an open field and a unit drawing LOS to one single model in the enemy unit in the gap between two tanks thru a window modeled in a building standing between the firer and target. A unit can be 99.999% obscured by terrain and unless they are "Fully on or within!" they gain ZERO benefit to defense in the base game.
[/snip]
GW did quietly change the terrain rules so if you're hugging an obstacle the squad gets cover. I'd need to check, but I think shooting through windows in a ruin isn't a thing you can do anymore either.
If you can find that second one in any kind of GW doc I'd love ya. Sadly I think you're probably thinking of the popular ITC houserule that first floors of ruins always block LOS, but often I can't even convince people to play the official GW supplement rules Cities of Death.
Also, "obstacle" type terrain rules do exist in the rules in the form of "Statuary" (Imperial Statuary is the only terrain of this type in the base rulebook, but other stuff like the Deathworld Forests have used the same framework for claiming cover) whereby you get cover if your unit is wholly within 3" and 25% or more obscured by the terrain piece.
However, this still leaves some significant issues because often units are too large to fit Wholly Within 3" since the redefinition of wholly within (they reversed a FAQ ruling so now Wholly Within now means that every part of the base must now be within 3", rather than the prior clarification that said "Every model in the unit must be within 3")
So, a large rock or pile of scatter terrain (you know, like the new Zone Mortalis stuff, or the new Ork terrain that came out with Speed Freeks, or the newish Sector Mech shipping containers) only has any effect on the game at all if either
A) your unit is so small it can entirely hide out of LOS behind the terrain
B) your unit is small enough that it can cluster behind the terrain, with all the bases within 3", and at such an angle that no single squad member is less than 25% obscured.
If one guy is visible, or doesn't fit, or you're 4" away from the terrain, your opponent can shoot at you as if you were standing in an open field.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
To answer the question, I say A primaris, B CSM, C Cultist, D cultist, E csm, F primaris.
Since no one else seems willing to take this on here's the detail.
Spoiler:
Obviously spotting the differences in damage taken was pretty easy, but I find it pretty telling that people assumed the unit that did the most damage were Primaris. Let's validate the numbers real quick. 5 CSM are 55 points, which is 3.2 Primaris.
CSM:
5 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.5
Primaris
3.2 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 1.2
The cultists were 10.6 models plus a heavy stubber (so a bit of mathematical advantage since I should have run it as 9.6 plus stubber). They did lots of damage at 12", but like the CSM this is a more difficult scenario to make use of especially considering the original scenario was considering the usefulness of these units as objective holders.
In any case, the CSM produce 25% more damage than Primaris. Clearly that gets made up by their 30" range on top of all the bonuses they can get. AND they're more durable according to the table above, right? Well, not if we tie it to points lost:
Spoiler:
CSM have a 7 "point" disadvantage with D1 weapons, but a 14 point advantage when D2 enters the picture. Of course, none of this means CSM are better or approaching being as good as Primaris.
What it does tell me is two things:
1) People that take CSM as objective holders over Cultists are not making a poor choice and, in context, CSM are not "trash". (The calculus changes if cultists go back to 4, but not terribly - and changes again if CSM get good traits)
2) Bias is a hard thing to shake and even when the names of units were removed people still assumed the biggest number must be Primaris.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/27 05:18:54
I’d say it tells us very little as it’s not grounded in reality. Intercessors have a greater range and multiple, powerful rules affecting their damage output and durability. CSM less so. Cultists not at all. Not to mention the fact that it is literally impossible to take ‘10.6 cultists’. Then there are the questions of use of cover, ease of hiding a unit outside of LOS, maximum threat range etc
CSM are considered rubbish in the context of the current meta where everyone is gearing to kill marines and cheap, CP generating bodies are king.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I’d say it tells us very little as it’s not grounded in reality. Intercessors have a greater range and multiple, powerful rules affecting their damage output and durability. CSM less so. Cultists not at all. Not to mention the fact that it is literally impossible to take ‘10.6 cultists’. Then there are the questions of use of cover, ease of hiding a unit outside of LOS, maximum threat range etc
CSM are considered rubbish in the context of the current meta where everyone is gearing to kill marines and cheap, CP generating bodies are king.
This is already addressed within the post. I'm WELL aware you can't take 10.6 cultists, but if you want an "apples to apples" math comparison - there it is.
Everyone is gearing to kill marines...cheap bodies for CP...
10 Cultists - 50 points. 5 CSM 55 points.
Do you realize that for 3x5 CSM and 2 Warpsmiths - 285 points - I can get 8 CP? That's 36 points per CP. 3x10 IS and 2 CC is 38 points per CP.
Do you realize that Cultists in cover die at 5 to 6 times the rate of CSM except where its an anti-marine weapon and they still die more easily?
10 Stalkers on turn 1 shoot CSM in cover:
10 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 2.2 * 11 = 24 points
And Cultists:
10 * .666 * .666 = 4.4 * 5 = 22 points
Stop the press. CSM lost two more points. GARBAGE!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: The really sick thing is the fair comparison for Range would be 3 Autobolt Rifle Intercessors.
Autobolts would require the Intercessors to be in cover and have their target in range, which is unlikely, which means they're moving forward and will be in range of more enemy guns. 5 such Intercessors move up and shoot CSM and kill maybe one. For 88 points I get 7 CSM - one with a PG. Lets say you killed one.
So CSM lost 1 11 point model and the Intercessors lost 1 17 point model. Obviously these are averages. The PG can knock an entire model on its own if it gets through.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/27 13:56:47
Why not use 11 cultists to get the clearer picture in your first exemple?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
This is already addressed within the post. I'm WELL aware you can't take 10.6 cultists, but if you want an "apples to apples" math comparison - there it is.
