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.

 Kroem wrote:
Edit: I suppose the next question would be; how much less deadly would the intercessor shooting need to be to result in a scenario where enough orks make it into melee to have a roughly evenly matched combat?
I'm using boys as an example as I believe they are one of the few footslogging melee units still being taken, but it would be intresting to see comparisons with other units too.

I'm curious about what magnitude of change would be necessary. If reducing Intercessor leathality by 10% would be enough then hey maybe thats not so bad. If you would need to reduce it by 75% or something then we could truely appreciate the huge changes that would be necessary for footslogging melee to be relevant!

The question is "what does evenly matched combat look like".

I mean firstly problems with the Orks themselves. This is a highly dubious version of theoryhammer - the sort of two units with nothing else on the table approach. Trying to keep it simple - ignoring the fact it would become the Assault doctrine at some point for the Marines.

Lets assume you Jump 31 Orks across the board and make the 9" charge into a magic unit of 12 Intercessors. 3 die on overwatch and because of various issues - charge distance, terrain etc, you end up with 80 S4 attacks (its skewed by the Nob but ignoring that for the maths) going in.
On average dice - 80 attacks, 53 hits, 27 wounds, 9 go through, 4 dead Primaris and 1 left on one wound. Points achieved? 68/72 points killed.
For our example - 8 Primaris hit back - and you won't have any problem getting them all in. 27 attacks including sergeant with a chain sword. 26*2/3*1/2*5/6=8~ dead orks. So 11 dead orks, equals 77 points killed. (Sergeant could have a thunder hammer, which would be worse versus orks, but... meh.)

8 Primaris Left, 20 Orks left. If the Primaris can just walk away - they have not come off worse, and indeed if they got to shoot anything in a previous turn are now considerably ahead.

Lets assume, somehow, you trap a marine and he can't walk away. Or the Primaris are on an objective and want to try and hold it.
Primaris Turn.
Next turn, Primaris player shoots with pistols. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks. They then attack again. Only 18 attacks this time though. So another 5 dead orks.

So you have the nob and 12 boyz fighting back - presumably all sluggas.
Nob=3*2/3*2/3*1/3=0.444 wounds.
12 boyz. 36*2/3*1/2*1/3=4. Lets be generous and say they do 5 wounds, killing the guy on one wound and 2 more Primaris.

Result, 5 Primaris Left, 13 Orks left.
Ork turn 2.
Orks fire 13 sluggas, do 1 wound.
Orks attack, same as above but lets round down this time, 4 more wounds, so kill 2 more Primaris, with one on one wound.
3 Primaris fight back. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks.
Result 3 Primaris Left, 11 Orkk left.

Primaris Turn 2.
3 Primaris pistols, 1 dead Ork. Fighting, 2 more dead orks.
Nob+7 boyz left attacking = 3 wounds, so leave the Primaris Sergeant.
Result: 1 Primaris Left, 8 Orks left.

Ork Turn 3, remaining Orks kill last Primaris.

So in theory the Orks have "won" - but they have lost 70% of their unit to do it. Just about any Marine unit is going to clear them off with shooting - or a charge. Indeed they could have decisively done so by aiding the surrounded unit in either of the Marine player's turns. This assumed the Orks were teleported across the table to avoid shooting, and then made a lengthy charge. And if they had just tagged those Marines, they likely wouldn't have got 80 attacks in the first round - which would change things quite considerably.

So to perhaps slightly exaggerate it but not by much, to get "evenly matched combat", the Primaris have to give up their bolters. If they can do essentially any shooting, the Orks can't defeat the same points worth unless they can somehow get the full unit into combat, which has various problems.

Put the Primaris under say a Chapter Master and Lieutenant and its even more skewed. Yes - you can buff the Orks - but I'm not sure you can buff them as much to make the difference. Or at least not as reliably.

But really this is the problem with Orks and the problem with Intercessors.

Basically everything needs to be less lethal. When buffed up shooting *expects* to get about a 40% return, assault has to get about 100% return because a lot of it will be dead due to being shot, failing charges, not being able to fully get into contact etc etc. But any unit which does 100% damage and has a near 100% ability to get across the board turn 1 has a very strong ability to break the game in a way that isn't very fun. Its just "I go first, I kill a third of your army, tri-point something so you can't shoot, kill it in your turn and then proceed to table you turn 2" while you were entirely powerless.

Now whether this is any worse than "I roll a bit hot on my shooting, oh dear your army is all gone and you haven't had your third turn yet" I don't know - but I think GW rightly recognises it could be more obnoxious.

Tyel wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kroem wrote:
Edit: I suppose the next question would be; how much less deadly would the intercessor shooting need to be to result in a scenario where enough orks make it into melee to have a roughly evenly matched combat?
I'm using boys as an example as I believe they are one of the few footslogging melee units still being taken, but it would be intresting to see comparisons with other units too.

I'm curious about what magnitude of change would be necessary. If reducing Intercessor leathality by 10% would be enough then hey maybe thats not so bad. If you would need to reduce it by 75% or something then we could truely appreciate the huge changes that would be necessary for footslogging melee to be relevant!

The question is "what does evenly matched combat look like".

I mean firstly problems with the Orks themselves. This is a highly dubious version of theoryhammer - the sort of two units with nothing else on the table approach. Trying to keep it simple - ignoring the fact it would become the Assault doctrine at some point for the Marines.

Lets assume you Jump 31 Orks across the board and make the 9" charge into a magic unit of 12 Intercessors. 3 die on overwatch and because of various issues - charge distance, terrain etc, you end up with 80 S4 attacks (its skewed by the Nob but ignoring that for the maths) going in.
On average dice - 80 attacks, 53 hits, 27 wounds, 9 go through, 4 dead Primaris and 1 left on one wound. Points achieved? 68/72 points killed.
For our example - 8 Primaris hit back - and you won't have any problem getting them all in. 27 attacks including sergeant with a chain sword. 26*2/3*1/2*5/6=8~ dead orks. So 11 dead orks, equals 77 points killed. (Sergeant could have a thunder hammer, which would be worse versus orks, but... meh.)

8 Primaris Left, 20 Orks left. If the Primaris can just walk away - they have not come off worse, and indeed if they got to shoot anything in a previous turn are now considerably ahead.

Lets assume, somehow, you trap a marine and he can't walk away. Or the Primaris are on an objective and want to try and hold it.
Primaris Turn.
Next turn, Primaris player shoots with pistols. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks. They then attack again. Only 18 attacks this time though. So another 5 dead orks.

So you have the nob and 12 boyz fighting back - presumably all sluggas.
Nob=3*2/3*2/3*1/3=0.444 wounds.
12 boyz. 36*2/3*1/2*1/3=4. Lets be generous and say they do 5 wounds, killing the guy on one wound and 2 more Primaris.

Result, 5 Primaris Left, 13 Orks left.
Ork turn 2.
Orks fire 13 sluggas, do 1 wound.
Orks attack, same as above but lets round down this time, 4 more wounds, so kill 2 more Primaris, with one on one wound.
3 Primaris fight back. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks.
Result 3 Primaris Left, 11 Orkk left.

Primaris Turn 2.
3 Primaris pistols, 1 dead Ork. Fighting, 2 more dead orks.
Nob+7 boyz left attacking = 3 wounds, so leave the Primaris Sergeant.
Result: 1 Primaris Left, 8 Orks left.

Ork Turn 3, remaining Orks kill last Primaris.

So in theory the Orks have "won" - but they have lost 70% of their unit to do it. Just about any Marine unit is going to clear them off with shooting - or a charge. Indeed they could have decisively done so by aiding the surrounded unit in either of the Marine player's turns. This assumed the Orks were teleported across the table to avoid shooting, and then made a lengthy charge. And if they had just tagged those Marines, they likely wouldn't have got 80 attacks in the first round - which would change things quite considerably.

So to perhaps slightly exaggerate it but not by much, to get "evenly matched combat", the Primaris have to give up their bolters. If they can do essentially any shooting, the Orks can't defeat the same points worth unless they can somehow get the full unit into combat, which has various problems.

Put the Primaris under say a Chapter Master and Lieutenant and its even more skewed. Yes - you can buff the Orks - but I'm not sure you can buff them as much to make the difference. Or at least not as reliably.

But really this is the problem with Orks and the problem with Intercessors.

Basically everything needs to be less lethal. When buffed up shooting *expects* to get about a 40% return, assault has to get about 100% return because a lot of it will be dead due to being shot, failing charges, not being able to fully get into contact etc etc. But any unit which does 100% damage and has a near 100% ability to get across the board turn 1 has a very strong ability to break the game in a way that isn't very fun. Its just "I go first, I kill a third of your army, tri-point something so you can't shoot, kill it in your turn and then proceed to table you turn 2" while you were entirely powerless.

Now whether this is any worse than "I roll a bit hot on my shooting, oh dear your army is all gone and you haven't had your third turn yet" I don't know - but I think GW rightly recognises it could be more obnoxious.

Very accurate description of the boyz vs primaris problem and your theory exactly matches my in-game experience.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kroem wrote:
Edit: I suppose the next question would be; how much less deadly would the intercessor shooting need to be to result in a scenario where enough orks make it into melee to have a roughly evenly matched combat?
I'm using boys as an example as I believe they are one of the few footslogging melee units still being taken, but it would be intresting to see comparisons with other units too.

I'm curious about what magnitude of change would be necessary. If reducing Intercessor leathality by 10% would be enough then hey maybe thats not so bad. If you would need to reduce it by 75% or something then we could truely appreciate the huge changes that would be necessary for footslogging melee to be relevant!

The question is "what does evenly matched combat look like".

I mean firstly problems with the Orks themselves. This is a highly dubious version of theoryhammer - the sort of two units with nothing else on the table approach. Trying to keep it simple - ignoring the fact it would become the Assault doctrine at some point for the Marines.

Lets assume you Jump 31 Orks across the board and make the 9" charge into a magic unit of 12 Intercessors. 3 die on overwatch and because of various issues - charge distance, terrain etc, you end up with 80 S4 attacks (its skewed by the Nob but ignoring that for the maths) going in.
On average dice - 80 attacks, 53 hits, 27 wounds, 9 go through, 4 dead Primaris and 1 left on one wound. Points achieved? 68/72 points killed.
For our example - 8 Primaris hit back - and you won't have any problem getting them all in. 27 attacks including sergeant with a chain sword. 26*2/3*1/2*5/6=8~ dead orks. So 11 dead orks, equals 77 points killed. (Sergeant could have a thunder hammer, which would be worse versus orks, but... meh.)

8 Primaris Left, 20 Orks left. If the Primaris can just walk away - they have not come off worse, and indeed if they got to shoot anything in a previous turn are now considerably ahead.

Lets assume, somehow, you trap a marine and he can't walk away. Or the Primaris are on an objective and want to try and hold it.
Primaris Turn.
Next turn, Primaris player shoots with pistols. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks. They then attack again. Only 18 attacks this time though. So another 5 dead orks.

So you have the nob and 12 boyz fighting back - presumably all sluggas.
Nob=3*2/3*2/3*1/3=0.444 wounds.
12 boyz. 36*2/3*1/2*1/3=4. Lets be generous and say they do 5 wounds, killing the guy on one wound and 2 more Primaris.

Result, 5 Primaris Left, 13 Orks left.
Ork turn 2.
Orks fire 13 sluggas, do 1 wound.
Orks attack, same as above but lets round down this time, 4 more wounds, so kill 2 more Primaris, with one on one wound.
3 Primaris fight back. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks.
Result 3 Primaris Left, 11 Orkk left.

Primaris Turn 2.
3 Primaris pistols, 1 dead Ork. Fighting, 2 more dead orks.
Nob+7 boyz left attacking = 3 wounds, so leave the Primaris Sergeant.
Result: 1 Primaris Left, 8 Orks left.

Ork Turn 3, remaining Orks kill last Primaris.

So in theory the Orks have "won" - but they have lost 70% of their unit to do it. Just about any Marine unit is going to clear them off with shooting - or a charge. Indeed they could have decisively done so by aiding the surrounded unit in either of the Marine player's turns. This assumed the Orks were teleported across the table to avoid shooting, and then made a lengthy charge. And if they had just tagged those Marines, they likely wouldn't have got 80 attacks in the first round - which would change things quite considerably.

So to perhaps slightly exaggerate it but not by much, to get "evenly matched combat", the Primaris have to give up their bolters. If they can do essentially any shooting, the Orks can't defeat the same points worth unless they can somehow get the full unit into combat, which has various problems.

Put the Primaris under say a Chapter Master and Lieutenant and its even more skewed. Yes - you can buff the Orks - but I'm not sure you can buff them as much to make the difference. Or at least not as reliably.

But really this is the problem with Orks and the problem with Intercessors.

Basically everything needs to be less lethal. When buffed up shooting *expects* to get about a 40% return, assault has to get about 100% return because a lot of it will be dead due to being shot, failing charges, not being able to fully get into contact etc etc. But any unit which does 100% damage and has a near 100% ability to get across the board turn 1 has a very strong ability to break the game in a way that isn't very fun. Its just "I go first, I kill a third of your army, tri-point something so you can't shoot, kill it in your turn and then proceed to table you turn 2" while you were entirely powerless.

Now whether this is any worse than "I roll a bit hot on my shooting, oh dear your army is all gone and you haven't had your third turn yet" I don't know - but I think GW rightly recognises it could be more obnoxious.

Very accurate description of the boyz vs primaris problem and your theory exactly matches my in-game experience.

I find the conclusion the most important bit.
Remember start of 8th and berzerker bombing? Remove the Mobility and it get's basically nerfed to oblivion and berzerkers are by far not lacking melee capability. Even worse the fact that when you dedicated melee unit isn't deadly enough, aka boyz, and you see why massed melee armies full with such units in their roster perform lackluster.

There is another difference between melee and shooting.

Range can project killing power around them (barring line of sight), whereas melee needs to get there.

This means that with say interecessors you have more real table presence than with boys. Hold and objective and shoot, shoot one unit, turn around, shoot another 30'' away.

Only a few melee units can meaningfully project power this way, and they tend to be super mobile (spears, jetbikes, jumpers). If you teleport your aquilon terminators (at over 80 points a piece, yikes), it'd be be worth it, because they aren't going much further.

That aside, obviously interecessors are too good for what they cost. They almost beat orks boys even if they receive the charge (no prior shooting); that's just absurd, considering how they have very deadly shooting too. I can only imagine that if intercessors get their charge they probably kill those ork boys, which is adding salt to it.

Yea thanks Tyrel, that was really informative.
Appreciate this theoryhammer is highly dubious, but it does highlight how mismatched even the base stats are on both units before all the special rules are taken into account.

I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from this is that if you're playing your mates ork army, take tacticals instead of intercessors. Otherwise you're both going to have a pretty dull game!

 Kroem wrote:
I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from this is that if you're playing your mates ork army, take tacticals instead of intercessors. Otherwise you're both going to have a pretty dull game!

Nah, the solution is to just shoot those intercessors off the board with your orks, which is easily done. They are a great troops unit, but far from unbeatable.

Tacticals have their whole own set of problems.

 Kroem wrote:
Yea thanks Tyrel, that was really informative.
Appreciate this theoryhammer is highly dubious, but it does highlight how mismatched even the base stats are on both units before all the special rules are taken into account.

I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from this is that if you're playing your mates ork army, take tacticals instead of intercessors. Otherwise you're both going to have a pretty dull game!

Nah, thats list tailoring.

Martel732 wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
Yea thanks Tyrel, that was really informative.
Appreciate this theoryhammer is highly dubious, but it does highlight how mismatched even the base stats are on both units before all the special rules are taken into account.

I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from this is that if you're playing your mates ork army, take tacticals instead of intercessors. Otherwise you're both going to have a pretty dull game!

Nah, thats list tailoring.

Technically, but not in the sense that normally draws disapprobation. There is nothing wrong with toning down a list to make a game against a unoptimised army more interesting for all involved.