Switch Theme:

Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Xenomancers wrote:
Why is there even a debate?

Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.



I mean, no, it seems to be a pretty much universally despised and hated thing whenever someone wins a tournament with a hyper skew list that only includes one type or unit spammed over and over and over.

In my experience that is the thing that the 40k community hates the most vitriolically and consistently and wants nerfed the hardest.

"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!"  
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I don't think the FoC is up to the task of balancing games.
Because the variety of units in each given slot is just huge.

The requirement for Fast Attack seems to just be "canonically they're a bit faster" but for example Imperial Guard get Hellhounds, which are full on tanks, in Fast Attack.
"Elites" is just a mess of multiple choice, you can have anything in there.

An example of a game that I think manages a "force organisation" well is the videogame Steel Division.
It's categories are Recon, Infantry, Support, Tank, Anti-tank, Artillery, and Air.
Units are sorted very definitely by their capabilities. If 40k were to match that, you'd have stuff like Devastator Squads being Support when armed with heavy bolters, and Anti-tank when armed with lascannons.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think the FoC is up to the task of balancing games.
Because the variety of units in each given slot is just huge.

The requirement for Fast Attack seems to just be "canonically they're a bit faster" but for example Imperial Guard get Hellhounds, which are full on tanks, in Fast Attack.
"Elites" is just a mess of multiple choice, you can have anything in there.

An example of a game that I think manages a "force organisation" well is the videogame Steel Division.
It's categories are Recon, Infantry, Support, Tank, Anti-tank, Artillery, and Air.
Units are sorted very definitely by their capabilities. If 40k were to match that, you'd have stuff like Devastator Squads being Support when armed with heavy bolters, and Anti-tank when armed with lascannons.


yeah, servitors being elite in the space marines codex is the funniest gak to me lol
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






the_scotsman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Why is there even a debate?

Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.



I mean, no, it seems to be a pretty much universally despised and hated thing whenever someone wins a tournament with a hyper skew list that only includes one type or unit spammed over and over and over.

In my experience that is the thing that the 40k community hates the most vitriolically and consistently and wants nerfed the hardest.

You are speaking about a balance issue of a single unit. If someone takes nothing but shinning spears/ or harli jetbikes/ or eradicators in an army. It is because the unit is unbalanced. They might meet the criteria for skew but the issue is unit balance. A themed list like a highly mobile army with all kinds of jetbikes and light vehicals is also a skew list but it's not spamming a particular unit.

Also like has been stated before - you can take 12-18 harli jetbikes if you want. It is extremely OP and this secondary system doesn't even punish it. So it's not fixing skew anyways.

"Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience?"

I don't know how you could disagree with this statement? People wants choices and they don't want to be punished for making them. Unit to unit balance is another issue though. Fixing unit balance with victory conditions is a terrible stop gap bandaid on another problem. Fix the unit issue. Problem solved.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think the FoC is up to the task of balancing games.
Because the variety of units in each given slot is just huge.

The requirement for Fast Attack seems to just be "canonically they're a bit faster" but for example Imperial Guard get Hellhounds, which are full on tanks, in Fast Attack.
"Elites" is just a mess of multiple choice, you can have anything in there.

An example of a game that I think manages a "force organisation" well is the videogame Steel Division.
It's categories are Recon, Infantry, Support, Tank, Anti-tank, Artillery, and Air.
Units are sorted very definitely by their capabilities. If 40k were to match that, you'd have stuff like Devastator Squads being Support when armed with heavy bolters, and Anti-tank when armed with lascannons.

Sounds like an error in detachment assignment - it has the same chassis and move characteristic as many other heavy support choices in IG. Likely intentional because they want IG to be able to spam tanks. Because IG should be able to spam tanks.

In genreal though your heavy support is where the big guns are. If you want to spam big guns. Youll have to take more than one detachment. Which has a tax of CP and other required units. It might not control it well enough but it is attacking the issue of "skew" the correct way. A bad way to attack the issue is to make a victory condition that is essentially "you lose if you bring this army composition". I would be more than happy to entertain the idea of readjusting tradition FOC assignments. Kind of like how scouts got moved to elite because they don't want them there to spam detachments.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/06 18:27:52


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




I'm just saying detachments control skew a great deal. That is how I would fix a skew problem - I would alter or tax these skews. Not change the victory conditions for every army because some armies skew.


Ah - I gotcha. I misunderstood. Yeah, it does seem like just slapping an additional CP tax in spots where skew gets bad may work better.

I don't think the FoC is up to the task of balancing games.
Because the variety of units in each given slot is just huge.

The requirement for Fast Attack seems to just be "canonically they're a bit faster" but for example Imperial Guard get Hellhounds, which are full on tanks, in Fast Attack.
"Elites" is just a mess of multiple choice, you can have anything in there.

An example of a game that I think manages a "force organisation" well is the videogame Steel Division.
It's categories are Recon, Infantry, Support, Tank, Anti-tank, Artillery, and Air.
Units are sorted very definitely by their capabilities. If 40k were to match that, you'd have stuff like Devastator Squads being Support when armed with heavy bolters, and Anti-tank when armed with lascannons.


To a large degree, the FOC combined with the 9th ed rules already has leveled the field. Think of the worst skew lists from 8th - they are no longer viable in 9th. I mean sure you can play some of them, but what is everyone currently saying about things like knights? They're saying they suck.

Think about the old Supreme Command detachment where people took 3 Tsons Demon Princes for crazy psychic shennaginans w/the Primarchs, etc. These are all things of the past, and currently a lot of those old skew lists are pretty much "fixed".

The real issue we have isn't even skew at this point. It's a mega-faction that is completely unaffected by a major portion of the rules, while those same rules are beating the crap out of some armies that were never a problem to begin with.

RE: The video game comparison - almost all video game comparisons fall apart pretty quickly imo. You can't imagine the data streams gaming companies get. They get more customer data in one hour than GW will have in two years and that's not even remotely an exaggeration. The data is also largely unbiased. So when the team of people they have analysing said data sees the issues, it becomes much easier to solve them. Even in the example given, I think changing a units role based on its weapons makes sense to a point, but likely creates a very unwieldy scenario for pointing things.

So TLR -

I know at one point recently I said I was fine w/kill secondaries provided they were rebalanced, but seeing the discussion over the last few threads I am convinced the best way to solve this is to just dump ALL the kill secondaries.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/06 18:34:49


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

 addnid wrote:
But... Canadian 5th you did at least try 9th edition right ? Because of all your posts in so many threads, I mean they must at least be based on a tiny bit of experience (and not 100% on 40k disgrunted theoryhammer) ? And please try to not get this thread locked like you did the other one

Consider my interest in 40k these days to be that of a sports fan talking about rosters, stats, and trades on a forum. Most people on such forums don't actively play hockey, but we can all still easily discuss it. Sometimes those that play, or played, at a high level have unique and interesting insights but just as often some stats nerd who's never even played the sport comes along and finds an advanced metric that professional teams hire them to implement in their scouting department. Most often it's all a bunch of back and forth, the occasional heated exchange, and then it's back to cheering or booing your team of choice; so in that respect, I'm even less biased because I have no favorite 40k faction.

Tycho wrote:
RE: The video game comparison - almost all video game comparisons fall apart pretty quickly imo. You can't imagine the data streams gaming companies get. They get more customer data in one hour than GW will have in two years and that's not even remotely an exaggeration. The data is also largely unbiased. So when the team of people they have analysing said data sees the issues, it becomes much easier to solve them. Even in the example given, I think changing a units role based on its weapons makes sense to a point, but likely creates a very unwieldy scenario for pointing things.

I've been banging this same drum for ages now, people don't want to hear it.

The funny thing is that there is a solution to the balance issue. You could design a supercomputer that runs learning AIs that practice with each faction and simply run simulations to generate a data set on par with anything an online game has, it's wildly impractical and expensive but it could theoretically be done.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/06 23:16:15


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Xenomancers wrote:


"Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience?"

I don't know how you could disagree with this statement? People wants choices and they don't want to be punished for making them. Unit to unit balance is another issue though. Fixing unit balance with victory conditions is a terrible stop gap bandaid on another problem. Fix the unit issue. Problem solved.


Having freedom of choice is one thing, bringing whatever units people want and have fun and balanced experience it's completely different. Someone might want to play only Stormravens for example, or any other extremely skew lists. Some sort of limitations in listbuilding should always be in play, and in my opinion limitations should be significant, definitely more strict than they are now.

Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Aight so kindly avoid talking about the rules balance.

No.


You can't expect anyone to take you seriously, then. You're explicitly in Dunning-Kruger territory in all of this.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Blackie wrote:


Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


That would be very bad for armies that are using all 6 elite slots right now, because for what ever reason, GW decided to not give them Lt level characters two per slot, and cram ton of characters in to the elite slot alongside basic units.

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. 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Karol wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


That would be very bad for armies that are using all 6 elite slots right now, because for what ever reason, GW decided to not give them Lt level characters two per slot, and cram ton of characters in to the elite slot alongside basic units.


Elite is a dumb slot right now, it's basically the "one size fits all" slot. There should be new categories added to the game and units should be reorganized.

I know you're talking about your GK and its completely stupid in my eyes that an Apothecary, Brotherhood ancient and servitors are all Elites, even dreadnought should really be heavy support IMO. Paladins and Purifiers are the only units that do feel elite IMO.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


I'm not sure what this solves beyond absolutely crippling multiple armies who need that slot just to function, and telling Astra Militarum they don't get to participate at all.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Tycho wrote:
Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


I'm not sure what this solves beyond absolutely crippling multiple armies who need that slot just to function, and telling Astra Militarum they don't get to participate at all.


Yeah, Admech not being able to take squads of Dunecrawlers surely destroyed the army. the AM codex could be changed to be able to be played without spamming russes
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Yeah, Admech not being able to take squads of Dunecrawlers surely destroyed the army. the AM codex could be changed to be able to be played without spamming russes


That's exactly what I said too isn't it?

The fact remains multiple armies currently need those elite slots to function at all and aren't even abusing it. They literally stop functioning, and it's easy to say "they would be changed to work without it" but what are you going to do? Especially for the vehicle squads thing. This is one of those changes that people propose thinking they've solved a thing that will inevitably lead only to brand new major issues we didn't have before.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I mean if you just roll back everything to the end of 4th you get a pretty playable game that meets all those criteria.

IG even get armored companies if you want to spam russes.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Karol wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


That would be very bad for armies that are using all 6 elite slots right now, because for what ever reason, GW decided to not give them Lt level characters two per slot, and cram ton of characters in to the elite slot alongside basic units.


No, they'd just pay 2-3 CPs to get the desired elite slots. Some competitive lists already pay 2-3 CPs for the second detachment, sister's Bloody Rose vanguard with multiple elites is a thing for example, it's not the end of the world.

 
   
Made in fr
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'






Leave detachments alone, they are more important battles to fight, stuff GW needs correcting.

I litterally never heard anyone complain about them in 9th edition (because they had glmaring issues ini 8th, namely giving CP for no good reason) except here.

This is really a "last on the list of grievances" kind of thing

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 15:07:47


Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 addnid wrote:
Leave detachments alone, they are more important battles to fight, stuff GW needs correcting.

I litterally never heard anyone complain about them in 9th edition (because they had glmaring issues ini 8th, namely giving CP for no good reason) except here.

This is really a "last on the list of grievances" kind of thing


only thing that still irks me is the change to the supreme command detachment and superheavies.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




I mean if you just roll back everything to the end of 4th you get a pretty playable game that meets all those criteria.

IG even get armored companies if you want to spam russes.


Different time, different game though. That was back when you needed more than a stiff breeze to kill a tank ...

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 16:49:27


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 alextroy wrote:
GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

Not sure that's 100% true for bring it down. They have fiddled with it but as to actually nerfed it dreadnaughts with their -1 damage are still way harder to kill than many of the vehicals giving up twice the VP's and for some idiotic reason someone decided that bring it down and titan slayer should overlap. Really you though that was necessary GW?
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

Hecaton wrote:
You can't expect anyone to take you seriously, then. You're explicitly in Dunning-Kruger territory in all of this.

I guess that means we should shut down all the sports forums because people that don't play the sport they love can't have a clue what they're talking about. Ignore the fact that some of these people have gone on to be hired by professional teams because their work with statistical analysis was so high quality that it became valuable.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
You can't expect anyone to take you seriously, then. You're explicitly in Dunning-Kruger territory in all of this.

I guess that means we should shut down all the sports forums because people that don't play the sport they love can't have a clue what they're talking about. Ignore the fact that some of these people have gone on to be hired by professional teams because their work with statistical analysis was so high quality that it became valuable.


Those forums aren't typically discussing the fundamentals of game design and whether or not balance should be the goal of a given rule-set, because that's a stupid thing to talk about when the answer is "of course it is, no the Cowboys shouldn't start with two touchdowns over their opponents just because they wear silver" or "why do the Patriots get to ignore the rules for no more than 1 forward pass per play while all the Texans get is the ability to not be penalized for pass interference?"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 17:00:18


 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Those forums aren't typically discussing the fundamentals of game design and whether or not balance should be the goal of a given rule-set, because that's a stupid thing to talk about when the answer is "of course it is, no the Cowboys shouldn't start with two touchdowns over their opponents just because they wear silver."

They do however talk about the details of constructing a good team, propose trades, discuss if certain specific rules are good or bad for the game (or just your team in particular), question the effects of the salary cap on roster building, and argue about draft philosophies for bringing new talent into your team, and go on about other extremely fundamental topics. To say that sports forums don't discuss complex and fundamental aspects of their sport is completely false.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




If you haven't played 9th have you atleast even read the dang rulebook? Mission pack? New codex's and points compaired to 8th edition codex's?

If the answer to any of the above is no, you are free to input to the discussion.
However you shoukd realise your doing so from a very uninformed position that's especially likely to cause issues.

It's like telling someone who actually does their job your know how they should be doing it better than they do.

This isn't Fing sports with the same rules for every team and lots of publicly available data for you to analysis in spreadsheets for months on end.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 17:14:22


 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

Ice_can wrote:
If you haven't played 9th have you atleast even read the dang rulebook? Mission pack? New codex's and points compaired to 8th edition codex's?

Yes, it would be rather hard to discuss this without having done so. The rules are easily found so I make ready use of them.

It's like telling someone who actually does their job your know how they should be doing it better than they do.

So it's like I'm your manager? Cool.

This isn't Fing sports with the same rules for every team and lots of publicly available data for you to analysis in spreadsheets for months on end.

So there aren't tables of tournament data to go over? Battle reports to read and watch? Unit stats laid out in tables? I was unaware that 40k was impossible to analyze logically.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Ice_can wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

Not sure that's 100% true for bring it down. They have fiddled with it but as to actually nerfed it dreadnaughts with their -1 damage are still way harder to kill than many of the vehicals giving up twice the VP's and for some idiotic reason someone decided that bring it down and titan slayer should overlap. Really you though that was necessary GW?
Titan Slayer and Bring It Down are the same category. You can’t take them both.

As for dreadnaughts, are they really that resistant to dedicated anti-tank weapons?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
I guess that means we should shut down all the sports forums because people that don't play the sport they love can't have a clue what they're talking about. Ignore the fact that some of these people have gone on to be hired by professional teams because their work with statistical analysis was so high quality that it became valuable.


"Armchair quarterbacks" not knowing jack about gak has been a running joke for more than fifty years. If I saw you actually doing statistical work on 40k, I'd probably take you seriously. I don't.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Canadian 5th wrote:
So there aren't tables of tournament data to go over? Battle reports to read and watch? Unit stats laid out in tables? I was unaware that 40k was impossible to analyze logically.


Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 alextroy wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

Not sure that's 100% true for bring it down. They have fiddled with it but as to actually nerfed it dreadnaughts with their -1 damage are still way harder to kill than many of the vehicals giving up twice the VP's and for some idiotic reason someone decided that bring it down and titan slayer should overlap. Really you though that was necessary GW?
Titan Slayer and Bring It Down are the same category. You can’t take them both.

As for dreadnaughts, are they really that resistant to dedicated anti-tank weapons?
I'll compare an Ironclad (T8, 3+, W8, -1 Damage) to a Leman Russ (T8, 3+, W12).

Hit values are the same.
Wound values are the same.
Save values are the same.
All that assumes no shenanigans, which are possible, but will not be assumed.
So the only difference is damage.

Spoiler:
D1
Ironclad takes 8.
Leman Russ takes 12.
150% durability on the Russ.

D2
Ironclad takes 8.
Leman Russ takes 6.
75% durability.

D3
Ironclad takes 4.
Leman Russ takes 4.
100% durability.

Dd3
Ironclad takes 6.
Leman Russ takes 6.
100% durability.

Dd6
Ironclad takes 3.
Leman Russ takes 4.
133% durability.

Dd6, Min 3
Ironclad takes 3.
Leman Russ takes 3.
100% durability.

Dd6+2
Ironclad takes 2.
Leman Russ takes 3.
150% durability.
Dreads that are NOT T8 are obviously more vulnerable to S4, S7, and S8. As well as the uncommon S14.

If there are any general statlines I missed that you want me to do, let me know.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 18:00:01


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: