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.

the_scotsman wrote:

Point me at the durable GSC unit that can achieve any objectives in the new 9th ed missions for gak.

Sure, they can do a couple secondaries easly like the table quarters one, but you already get tabled playing as GSC like 90% of the time.

Putting 30% fewer units on the table? Your gaks gonna be gone turn 3-4 every game against any kind of competent opponent. GSC troops are made of paper, their elites are made of paper, and their vehicles are made of paper. They just fething die no matter how you build them.

It isn't something I've tried. Just that I can see Ambush as something GW would work themselves up about.

For much the same reason 'elf stats' have been a bugbear since 3rd edition fantasy. Eldar still pay for those, even though they do jack/squat for them in current editions.
And they're still getting punished for 1st/2nd edition shuriken catapults.

 Irbis wrote:
Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target

You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Probably, but that's a 30% chance to kill yourself.

2 * .5 * .666 * .833 = 0.55 wounding hits on an Eradicator (for example) - this results in a little better than 50% chance to put 2 damage on
1 * .5 * .666 = 0.33 wounding hits - 33% * 66% = 22% to kill an Eradicator outright

Lasguns might be a better paired finisher though if the PG goes through as they should be able to do 1 wound.

I might have the sums wrong,
But the issue is - in 12", ignoring the melta rule.
Melta: 66% chance to do nothing (miss, fail to wound). 5.5% chance to 1 damage, 5.5% chance to do 2 damage, 22% chance to kill an eradicator.
Plasma: I think with one shot your odds of doing nothing are 13/18. So the odds of doing *nothing* with both (13/18)^2, is about 52%.
So I think you have a 48% chance to do some damage - which works out as about 40.3% to do 2 damage, and about 7.7% to kill the eradicator by getting 2 hits through. (Obviously considering multiple guns hitting models with wounds missing complicates both guns value immensely.)

This might be a weird way of thinking about it, skewed by the fact shots will be wasted on wounded models, but:
Plasma:(2*0.403)+(3*0.077)=1.037 wounds.
Melta: (1*0.055)+(2*0.055)+(3*0.22)=0.82666 wounds.
Melta in melta range: (1*1/108)+(2*3/108)+(3*32/108)=0.953 wounds.

And this I think is where the agro starts to kick in. Because the odds of getting *nothing* from firing 2 plasma guns, is 52%*52%=27%. Whereas 2 meltas is 66%*66%=43.5%.
With 3 its 14% chance of nothing from the plasma compared with 29% on the meltas. If you think that's a critical failure point - its happening twice as often.

So do you want to have a gun which can run hot or cold, or do you want something to more consistently chip away, knowing you can also chip with other units as necessary? Generally points being equal the second is better, because you lose games by having unlucky streaks - and you lose tournaments by losing games.

But then there is a question of whether 40k should be balanced in the context of an individual game or say 6 games - because dice will be lucky/unlucky some times - and that's always going to be an issue with different probability curves.

The absolute shambles of what went up and what didn't in the CWE list is the best illustration of what a joke of a points update this was, though it's certainly not the only one.

It's super evident that aside from space marines, almost every other faction just got the blanket algorithm treatment for 99% of its units - the ones they didn't screw up completely due to some sort of oversight, that is (e.g. Warp Talons). Even the worst elite infantry, like Striking Scorpions, went up 3 points, even if it makes them into an even bigger joke than before, because that's what their algorithm did and they were too lazy to take even a tiny bit of time to verify that the algorithm was producing vaguely valid results.

This lack of attention to non-Space Marine factions also explains some weird things like Space Marine indirect going up hugely, while almost all other indirect in the game remains similar. IG indirect didn't get nerfed because they just didn't even bother to look at the IG list and figure out what was indirect and what wasn't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target

You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.

They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).

the_scotsman wrote:

The currently competitive units (the bikes, the acolytes, the kelermorph, and the achilles ridgerunner) all got fairly light points nerfs, while lesser used units got absolutely slam-dunked.

...Which is how it is for seemingly every faction. If the only person playtesting GSC had a currently meta tournament-competitive list, no way in hell did he provide any feedback about Purestrain Genestealers, Metamorphs, Goliath Rockgrinders, Cult Sentinels, etc.

Surprise surprise, which units in GSC got shat on the most?

Those ones.

It feels like there are biases towards certain aspects - vehicles shooting into combat, melee units having (what I feel) a strong influence on the game now, movement, etc.

I've been eyeballing Enlightened. I've always wanted to run the spears on them, but they went from 13 to 18 and I've *never* seen them used. It has always been exclusively bows and even then their limelight was brief. But the more I think on my previous games the more I want them.

I don't know if they'd work, but I can see the value in them.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Even the worst elite infantry, like Striking Scorpions, went up 3 points,

To 12 points just like Kill Team. I wonder how many other points changes were telegraphed in Kill Team if anyone had bothered to look...NVM Chaos Cultists are 4 points in KT, Grots 3 points...

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target

You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.

They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).

No, they're not, but you can't outright ignore their melee capability either. It is a tool in their toolbox. There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target

You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.

They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).

No, they're not, but you can't outright ignore their melee capability either. It is a tool in their toolbox. There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.

There are melee specialists with less than 1 S4 AP0 attack per 12 points?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target

You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.

They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).

No, they're not, but you can't outright ignore their melee capability either. It is a tool in their toolbox. There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.

There are melee specialists with less than 1 S4 AP0 attack per 12 points?

Did I say per point? Or are you putting words into my mouth to prove a point?

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's super evident that aside from space marines, almost every other faction just got the blanket algorithm treatment for 99% of its units - the ones they didn't screw up completely due to some sort of oversight, that is

Although goonhammers shot at the algorithm is a guess it looks pretty spot on when you are looking for a 'why is this weaker / why is this stronger' exclamation. The pattern across all of the books is that they've bumped up/down a few units selectively and the remaining 90%+ is purely at the whims of an excel formula for anything from a discout through to a 500% price hike, based solely on where in that formula they happen to fall.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target

You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.

They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).

No, they're not, but you can't outright ignore their melee capability either. It is a tool in their toolbox. There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.

There are melee specialists with less than 1 S4 AP0 attack per 12 points?

Did I say per point? Or are you putting words into my mouth to prove a point?

You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

^this

Comparing them to any tank, their melee capabilities are a big distinction that allows them to break out of a lot of the types of cheap tie-up units that could be used to stop a vehicle firing its melta or lascannon weaponry at its preferred target for a turn.

What you said he said

You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

what he ACTUALLY said

There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.

He is right - you are misrepresenting his argument .

How do 3 eradicators get 27 attacks? I want to know for my BA.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

Uh yeah you can. You barely kill 3 Infantry with 120 points of Eliminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
What you said he said

You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

what he ACTUALLY said

There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.

He is right - you are misrepresenting his argument .

Except I'm not. Having fewer attacks only matters if the points are the same. Trying to represent them as capable in melee AT ALL is a bad argument unless you're saying, for the first round of combat, 12 points per S4 attack is chaff clearing at all.

I think the original post said nothing about quality or attacks per point, just attacks per model. IG crusaders have 2 attacks and are dedicated melee specialists. Therefore the statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

Uh yeah you can. You barely kill 3 Infantry with 120 points of Eliminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
What you said he said

You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

what he ACTUALLY said

There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.

He is right - you are misrepresenting his argument .

Except I'm not. Having fewer attacks only matters if the points are the same. Trying to represent them as capable in melee AT ALL is a bad argument unless you're saying, for the first round of combat, 12 points per S4 attack is chaff clearing at all.

Ahh you still donlt understand the difference between nothing at ALL and mutiple S4 attacks. Mutiple S4 attacks is NOT zero - well maybe in your own wierd logic world.

Its just horribly sad how you have still not learnt that.

Also equally sad how you won't admit you lied about what he said.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I think the original post said nothing about quality or attacks per point, just attacks per model. IG crusaders have 2 attacks and are dedicated melee specialists. Therefore the statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct)

We're not playing Age of Sigmar Vol. One though

Is there any indication what to do about points that weren't adjusted for units in Munitorum 2020? Should we be using Munitorum 2019 points?

Example = Stormhammer. Its weapons were added to the list of blast weapons in the erratum, but its points weren't updated.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

Uh yeah you can. You barely kill 3 Infantry with 120 points of Eliminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
What you said he said

You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

what he ACTUALLY said

There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.

He is right - you are misrepresenting his argument .

Except I'm not. Having fewer attacks only matters if the points are the same. Trying to represent them as capable in melee AT ALL is a bad argument unless you're saying, for the first round of combat, 12 points per S4 attack is chaff clearing at all.

Ahh you still donlt understand the difference between nothing at ALL and mutiple S4 attacks. Mutiple S4 attacks is NOT zero - well maybe in your own wierd logic world.

Its just horribly sad how you have still not learnt that.

It might as well be zero at the price point. They're literally almost the cost of 10 Tactical Marines but I'm not seeing anyone saying they have anything more than bad combat ability. So the claim "they hit back!!!1!" is honestly ludicrous and honestly embarrassing for anyone to claim.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Is there any indication what to do about points that weren't adjusted for units in Munitorum 2020? Should we be using Munitorum 2019 points?

Example = Stormhammer. Its weapons were added to the list of blast weapons in the erratum, but its points weren't updated.

We have no official word either way. Consensus seems to be leaning Legends with 2019 points, but I have a feeling we're looking at new Open/Narrative PL only like the other OOP FW models at the end of the FAQs.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

If we presume they get charged turn 3, which is most likely and the Eradicators are AP1 and they're not going to blow a CP on O/W you can see that they would be unable to kill the IS for the rest of the game. The only correct play, it would seem is to back out and take a mortal wound or two, if the IS are feeling cheeky, and then shoot them off.

Turn 3
10 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 3.7
Morale : 33% fail, Average 2 losses

Turn 4
7 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 2.6
Morale : 16% fail, Average 2 losses

Turn 5
Still models left to fight

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

If we presume they get charged turn 3, which is most likely and the Eradicators are AP1 and they're not going to blow a CP on O/W you can see that they would be unable to kill the IS for the rest of the game. The only correct play, it would seem is to back out and take a mortal wound or two, if the IS are feeling cheeky, and then shoot them off.

Turn 3
10 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 3.7
Morale : 33% fail, Average 2 losses

Turn 4
7 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 2
Morale : 16% fail, Average 2 losses

Turn 5
Still models left to fight

Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.

Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.

All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

If we presume they get charged turn 3, which is most likely and the Eradicators are AP1 and they're not going to blow a CP on O/W you can see that they would be unable to kill the IS for the rest of the game. The only correct play, it would seem is to back out and take a mortal wound or two, if the IS are feeling cheeky, and then shoot them off.

Turn 3
10 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 3.7
Morale : 33% fail, Average 2 losses

Turn 4
7 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 2
Morale : 16% fail, Average 2 losses

Turn 5
Still models left to fight

Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.

Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.

All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.

It's nice and convenient for your argument that you get at minimum another 80 points on top of your 120 point squad compared to not getting equal points of stuff for our examples but okay.

Ice_can wrote:

Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.

Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.

All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.

3" typically and irrelevant.

The claim was they had sufficient attacks to handle such threats. Now that we see that isn't true you have to bring a character in to save them. A character being protected by units with only 3 models.

See where the chain starts to unravel? Primaris will be great, I'm sure, because the skill requirement is low.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.

Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.

If we presume they get charged turn 3, which is most likely and the Eradicators are AP1 and they're not going to blow a CP on O/W you can see that they would be unable to kill the IS for the rest of the game. The only correct play, it would seem is to back out and take a mortal wound or two, if the IS are feeling cheeky, and then shoot them off.

Turn 3
10 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 3.7
Morale : 33% fail, Average 2 losses

Turn 4
7 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 2
Morale : 16% fail, Average 2 losses

Turn 5
Still models left to fight

Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.

Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.

All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.

It's nice and convenient for your argument that you get at minimum another 80 points on top of your 120 point squad compared to not getting equal points of stuff for our examples but okay.

Well find me someone not playing marines around a CM and LT who are packing more than enough CC power to mince a guard squad etc.

But you just want to defend the indefensible broken units presumably because you need them in your army but whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.

Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.

All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.

3" typically and irrelevant.

The claim was they had sufficient attacks to handle such threats. Now that we see that isn't true you have to bring a character in to save them. A character being protected by units with only 3 models.

See where the chain starts to unravel? Primaris will be great, I'm sure, because the skill requirement is low.

Marines especially when played by what i consider competent players have CM & LT and Banners all the charictors doing so are all no slouches in CC against basic chaff.

You know what'll keep those charictors from being shot either a dreadnaught/vehical as it doesnt actually have to be the closest just within 3 while another unit is closer. (thank god Chaplin dreads are dead)

Also the age old screw you unit of 5 Agressors killing 3 of those to make the charictors targetable is no small matter. Especially with the Father of the Future FNP malarkey.

I've seen plenty of unit bounce of the insanity that marines can boast as defensive profiles. Only to have the model that was killed and shoot magically brought back to life.

Sure - I don't doubt that at all.

It comes down to how we want to assess things. If Eradicators need characters and characters need dreadnoughts then the calculus of how Eradicators affect the table is a lot different than the mental image of 3 squads just rocking the socks off everything in sight.

More than likely other elements will be in front of Eradicators like Outriders. How it will all shake out, I don't know. No one seems to want to write a list. The tactics thread is practically dead.

All this talk of Eradicators is very confusing for a Guard tank commander like me.