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:

 Blackie wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Right now, at 8ppm, 30 Boyz (without upgrades) are 240 points. At 9 points? You can get 26. That’s just 4 Boyz fewer.

They can't have a 5++ bubble anymore though and they're also much more vulnerable to morale. So in practise they were probably more resilient before, when they were T4.

2x30 boyz with pks on nobz are 500 points, 560 if we add a Big mek with a KFF. Now the same number of boyz cost exactly 560 points but with no invuln and more vulnerable to morale. Do you really think they're more resilient now that they gained T5?

I mean, they can have a 5++ bubble, it does cost you 2cp per turn but depending on what you want to protect that may be worth it. I'm still finding I'm including KFFs in some of my lists.

I'm guessing really the intension though is to make them more durable without there being units you focus much on buffing.

Am I confusing this with AoS, but isn't there a universal strat to make a unit automatically pass a leadership test? If yes, it could mitigate some of the moral problems though it would limit the number of big mobs you can take to basically one or maybe two.

With the nerf to moral, I would be tempted to say that boyz mounted on trukks or a carpet of small units is preferable.

epronovost wrote:
Am I confusing this with AoS, but isn't there a universal strat to make a unit automatically pass a leadership test? If yes, it could mitigate some of the moral problems though it would limit the number of big mobs you can take to basically one or maybe two.

With the nerf to moral, I would be tempted to say that boyz mounted on trukks or a carpet of small units is preferable.

Yes. Orks have a second worse one. Lots of CP though.

epronovost wrote:
Am I confusing this with AoS, but isn't there a universal strat to make a unit automatically pass a leadership test? If yes, it could mitigate some of the moral problems though it would limit the number of big mobs you can take to basically one or maybe two.

With the nerf to moral, I would be tempted to say that boyz mounted on trukks or a carpet of small units is preferable.

yea, with grots being WAY overcosted they are the cheapest viable option for scoring secondary's. We are still looking at a 90 point unit sadly, T5 will be niceish but with a 6+ and bad leadership we will still going to be easy to wipe off objectives, but once down to a nob and a boy or 2 hopefully they can hide behind LOS blocking terrain and hope to get points. I do think trukk boys special will make it into one unit in a lot of armies as the special culture once they change the rules/ FAQ so they can legally ride in a trukk

I don't think grots are overcosted. T3 helps a ton and now they get to a 5+ in cover. Perfect for holding the backfield and grot shields is no targeting.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think grots are overcosted. T3 helps a ton and now they get to a 5+ in cover. Perfect for holding the backfield and grot shields is no targeting.

i mean, compare them to guardsman. they get a guardsman save only in cover worst statline and no orders plus a special rule to make them cowardly for... half a point less per model. only thing they do get is the models being tiny. grot shields may have some strange list uses, if it were a unit ability it might make up for a lot of the bad statline but spending cp on it makes it bad imo

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think grots are overcosted. T3 helps a ton and now they get to a 5+ in cover. Perfect for holding the backfield and grot shields is no targeting.

i mean, compare them to guardsman. they get a guardsman save only in cover worst statline and no orders plus a special rule to make them cowardly for... half a point less per model. only thing they do get is the models being tiny. grot shields may have some strange list uses, if it were a unit ability it might make up for a lot of the bad statline but spending cp on it makes it bad imo

It's hard to compare across codexes, because at the same time IG can't go to 30 and doesn't have Boyz to lean on. IS were oversold since you need commanders to make them work. When they fed CP they were amazing for the points. Not so much any more.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think grots are overcosted. T3 helps a ton and now they get to a 5+ in cover. Perfect for holding the backfield and grot shields is no targeting.

Remember how I showed you that T5 boyz at 9ppm are less durable than T4 8ppm boyz?

Grots are the same way, only difference is they also lost their 1 really big upside, Objective secured.

T3 Grot In the open, 9 S4 hits, 6 wounds, 6 dead Grots.
T2 Grots in the open, 9 S4 hits, 7.5 wounds, 6.25 dead Grots. wooohoo! New Grots are better!....well no

Combat attrition, both fail morale because LD4. Both lose 1 from failing Morale, New grots than lose 1/2 of what is left, old grots lose 1/3rd of what is left.

T3 grots total: 9 dead, 1 left alive.
T2 grots total: 8 dead, 2 left alive.

In cover the new grots fair about the same as old grots because they both get 5+ in cover.

SemperMortis wrote:
As Jidmah pointed out, Ork boyz are LESS durable than they were before. Good work GW.

Orkz face off against a 10 man intercessor squad because the Marine player was being weird that day.

10 Marines = 20 shots, 14ish hits,

Old Orkz: 14 hits turns into 7 dead Orkz. Mob down to 23, doesn't give a damn, keeps on muckin about.

New Orkz: 14 hits turns into 5 dead Orkz, Mob down to 25, Mob likely fails morale, loses 1 boy, down to 24, Now rolls attrition, fails 4 more rolls on average, congrats you are now down to 20 models you have lost 3 more boyz that cost more under the new rules than you did before.

Ork units w/ Morale in general are going to be in a really bad place this edition. Christ Mek Gunz have a 50% chance to fail morale now after losing 1 model.

Orkz are going to go through a paradigm shift. Going from massive blobs of boyz and "speshulists" to Elite MSU builds, because if they aren't in the smallest units allowed they will get gutted by Morale.

I'm not really sure this is how it will go in game though.
Put another way in your scenario the Marine player has just left that blob of 20 Boyz there to do whatever it is they were going to do next turn (or 25, because the Ork player could pass morale). Which seems bad.

More likely you'll be aiming to kill that Boyz squad (or cripple it down to 3 model or something). So say they kill 20 out of 30. Odds are you fail so one runs away. Odds are also however that if this is early on in the game you are in 6" of another Clan Mob unit that isn't under half strength. So you'd expect another 1-2 run away. Leaving you with 7-8 Boyz where before you might have kept 10 (ignoring the T5/T4 change). I'm not sure that's overly important. Taking account of T5, if they they did that with mainly S4 shooting, they'd have potentially just killed all 30 boyz before.

Tyel wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
As Jidmah pointed out, Ork boyz are LESS durable than they were before. Good work GW.

Orkz face off against a 10 man intercessor squad because the Marine player was being weird that day.

10 Marines = 20 shots, 14ish hits,

Old Orkz: 14 hits turns into 7 dead Orkz. Mob down to 23, doesn't give a damn, keeps on muckin about.

New Orkz: 14 hits turns into 5 dead Orkz, Mob down to 25, Mob likely fails morale, loses 1 boy, down to 24, Now rolls attrition, fails 4 more rolls on average, congrats you are now down to 20 models you have lost 3 more boyz that cost more under the new rules than you did before.

Ork units w/ Morale in general are going to be in a really bad place this edition. Christ Mek Gunz have a 50% chance to fail morale now after losing 1 model.

Orkz are going to go through a paradigm shift. Going from massive blobs of boyz and "speshulists" to Elite MSU builds, because if they aren't in the smallest units allowed they will get gutted by Morale.

I'm not really sure this is how it will go in game though.
Put another way in your scenario the Marine player has just left that blob of 20 Boyz there to do whatever it is they were going to do next turn (or 25, because the Ork player could pass morale). Which seems bad.

More likely you'll be aiming to kill that Boyz squad (or cripple it down to 3 model or something). So say they kill 20 out of 30. Odds are you fail so one runs away. Odds are also however that if this is early on in the game you are in 6" of another Clan Mob unit that isn't under half strength. So you'd expect another 1-2 run away. Leaving you with 7-8 Boyz where before you might have kept 10 (ignoring the T5/T4 change). I'm not sure that's overly important. Taking account of T5, if they they did that with mainly S4 shooting, they'd have potentially just killed all 30 boyz before.

The point being that boyz are no more durable than they were prior thanks to morale. The only big difference is that Boyz now get to pay 1ppm for a -1AP choppa since the T5 is neatly ignored by being LD7 instead of LD30 like it used to be.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think grots are overcosted. T3 helps a ton and now they get to a 5+ in cover. Perfect for holding the backfield and grot shields is no targeting.

i mean, compare them to guardsman. they get a guardsman save only in cover worst statline and no orders plus a special rule to make them cowardly for... half a point less per model. only thing they do get is the models being tiny. grot shields may have some strange list uses, if it were a unit ability it might make up for a lot of the bad statline but spending cp on it makes it bad imo

It's hard to compare across codexes, because at the same time IG can't go to 30 and doesn't have Boyz to lean on. IS were oversold since you need commanders to make them work. When they fed CP they were amazing for the points. Not so much any more.

do you honestly think with the morale issue for grots anybody would take a larger squad of them though? currently grots are one of the worst units in the codex and the T3 makes them better than before they are still unlikely to be taken in much. I heard a playtester say they tried 2 grots per 5 points (at the old T2) and then they were still just ok for scoring secondaries (a perfectly useful role honestly in 9th) honestly. the T3 is a buff but i am hoping they get something else in chapter approved 2022 to make em worth the 5 points or just drop en to 10 grots for 40 and can only be bought in groups of 5 grots for 20 points.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I can see the 33% claim from a result standpoint, but definatly not taking 50% more shooting

50% more attacks needs more explanation then "how math works"

In the old T4 orks 10 intersessors rapid fire into T4 orks with plain bolt rifles. 20 shots, 13.2 hits, 20 x .66 Those 13 hits then wounding on 4's (13.2x.5) so 6.6 wounds. ap-1 so no save. 6.6 dead orks

In the new T5 orks 10 intersessors rapid fire into T5 orks with plain bolt rifles. 20 shots hitting, 13.2 hits (same as above). those hits now wound on 5's , (13.2 x .33) means 4.4 dead orks.

4.4 dead Orks is 33% less than 6.6, but 6.6 dead Orks is 50% more than 4.4. That's what I meant that you need 50% increase in firepower to make up for 33% decrease in efficiency. 15 shots instead of 10, for example (assuming same amount of target models).

That being said, I only know math, not 40k. I don't know anything about point values, morale, bubbles or any other variables.

jullevi wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I can see the 33% claim from a result standpoint, but definatly not taking 50% more shooting

50% more attacks needs more explanation then "how math works"

In the old T4 orks 10 intersessors rapid fire into T4 orks with plain bolt rifles. 20 shots, 13.2 hits, 20 x .66 Those 13 hits then wounding on 4's (13.2x.5) so 6.6 wounds. ap-1 so no save. 6.6 dead orks

In the new T5 orks 10 intersessors rapid fire into T5 orks with plain bolt rifles. 20 shots hitting, 13.2 hits (same as above). those hits now wound on 5's , (13.2 x .33) means 4.4 dead orks.

4.4 dead Orks is 33% less than 6.6, but 6.6 dead Orks is 50% more than 4.4. That's what I meant that you need 50% increase in firepower to make up for 33% decrease in efficiency. 15 shots instead of 10, for example (assuming same amount of target models).

That being said, I only know math, not 40k. I don't know anything about point values, morale, bubbles or any other variables.

but that is 33% more shots (as a whole), but i get it, you aren't necessarily wrong its just wording.

the logic there is like saying look i bought this $200 pair of shoes but only paid $100 so I got 100% off. Or in another more likely situation if I buy $100 worth of groceries and they put on the receipt the amount i "saved" due to sales" and I "saved" $50 I didn't save 50% I saved 33% but if you said "I saved half or the paid price that would also be correct just... more confusing

mayeb just more confusing to me, i am a data analyst as a profession so mostly think in number like how they would work out on a spreadsheet or SQL

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I can see the 33% claim from a result standpoint, but definatly not taking 50% more shooting

50% more attacks needs more explanation then "how math works"

In the old T4 orks 10 intersessors rapid fire into T4 orks with plain bolt rifles. 20 shots, 13.2 hits, 20 x .66 Those 13 hits then wounding on 4's (13.2x.5) so 6.6 wounds. ap-1 so no save. 6.6 dead orks

In the new T5 orks 10 intersessors rapid fire into T5 orks with plain bolt rifles. 20 shots hitting, 13.2 hits (same as above). those hits now wound on 5's , (13.2 x .33) means 4.4 dead orks.

so when you take into account the full attack sequence the space marines do 33% less casualties on the orks in this situation

Yeah, and then worth noting in the old paradigm the boyz would take 0 casualties from morale (old mob rule) while now, they have a 50% chance of taking 1+1/6 of the unit.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think grots are overcosted. T3 helps a ton and now they get to a 5+ in cover. Perfect for holding the backfield and grot shields is no targeting.

Remember how I showed you that T5 boyz at 9ppm are less durable than T4 8ppm boyz?

Do you mean your reference to the consequences of morale? To which I demonstrated how that is irrelevant when boyz do so much better than before.

Grots are the same way, only difference is they also lost their 1 really big upside, Objective secured.

Grots aren't the unit to be up front. There may come a day where a campaign book releases a supplement that makes an all grot army viable, but that's not the reality here. Grots are either the unobtrusive shield wall or out of sight.

It seems what GW doesn't want is a huge crush of cheap bodies swarming and being extremely difficult to remove under the new morale system. Cultists also lost obsec. Poxwalkers don't have actions.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
but that is 33% more shots (as a whole), but i get it, you aren't necessarily wrong its just wording.

10/15=0,67=/=15/10=1,5. It's not 33% more shots to kill T5, it's 33% less shots to kill T4.

I am more bullish on snaggas personally.

Automatically having that str 5 breakpoint allows you to tech away from Goffs (if you so choose), and allows you look at other clans (snakebites, suns...).

They also have an innate invul, saving you the bother of an 85 point KFF not worth its weight.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think grots are overcosted. T3 helps a ton and now they get to a 5+ in cover. Perfect for holding the backfield and grot shields is no targeting.

Remember how I showed you that T5 boyz at 9ppm are less durable than T4 8ppm boyz?

Do you mean your reference to the consequences of morale? To which I demonstrated how that is irrelevant when boyz do so much better than before.

Grots are the same way, only difference is they also lost their 1 really big upside, Objective secured.

Grots aren't the unit to be up front. There may come a day where a campaign book releases a supplement that makes an all grot army viable, but that's not the reality here. Grots are either the unobtrusive shield wall or out of sight.

It seems what GW doesn't want is a huge crush of cheap bodies swarming and being extremely difficult to remove under the new morale system. Cultists also lost obsec. Poxwalkers don't have actions.

In regards to boyz, no, they don't.

27 Old Boyz = 216pts.
24 "New" boyz = 216pts.

Same scenario (changing a bit for ease of math ) 21 shots, 14 hits, against Old boyz its 7 dead Boyz.
New boyz its 14 hits, 4.8 wounds for 4.8 (rounding to 5) dead Boys.

Old boyz are down to 20 Models and pass morale.
New boyz are down to 19 models, and fail morale, down to 18. 1/6 die so now down to 15. They all get into combat that next turn.

20 Old Boyz = 80 attacks, 53.3 hits, 26.6 wounds and against a Marine unit that is 8.8 dmg
15 "New" boyz = 45 attacks, 30 hits, 15 wounds and 7.5 Dmg.

Old Boyz do more dmg and only lost 56pts
New Boyz do less dmg and lost 81pts.

Now, that is all planet bowling ball I get that, but the point is that Morale is going to be a crushing difference maker, it quiet literally cancels out the benefit of T5. I would gladly trade T5 for old Mob Rule. Just Like I would gladly trade T3 for old Grot rules as pathetic as they were.

I would gladly trade this new codex for another codex with no new models coming along.
It is all that beastsnagga crap that is to blame. I am certain with that model range that needs selling, GW would have given us a better codex

SemperMortis wrote:


In regards to boyz, no, they don't.

27 Old Boyz = 216pts.
24 "New" boyz = 216pts.

Same scenario (changing a bit for ease of math ) 21 shots, 14 hits, against Old boyz its 7 dead Boyz.
New boyz its 14 hits, 4.8 wounds for 4.8 (rounding to 5) dead Boys.

Old boyz are down to 20 Models and pass morale.
New boyz are down to 19 models, and fail morale, down to 18. 1/6 die so now down to 15. They all get into combat that next turn.

20 Old Boyz = 80 attacks, 53.3 hits, 26.6 wounds and against a Marine unit that is 8.8 dmg
15 "New" boyz = 45 attacks, 30 hits, 15 wounds and 7.5 Dmg.

Old Boyz do more dmg and only lost 56pts
New Boyz do less dmg and lost 81pts.

Now, that is all planet bowling ball I get that, but the point is that Morale is going to be a crushing difference maker, it quiet literally cancels out the benefit of T5. I would gladly trade T5 for old Mob Rule. Just Like I would gladly trade T3 for old Grot rules as pathetic as they were.

On raw shooting the T5 boyz lose fewer points.

Still, in both scenarios you'd likely have a warboss unless they're jumping.

So that makes 15 = 60 * .833 * .5 * .5 = 12.5

And these figures only apply if you fail the morale, which is still a 33% chance to pass. So for 1 in 3 times they become -- 19 * 4 * .833 * .5 * .5 = 15.8 - just about twice as strong. Or in a critical moment you can drop 2CP to just keep the models. I know I have with Warriors. You'll also run 30 regardless of cost, which gives the T5 boyz another 6 models on top of all of this ( and 3 for the oldies ).

Obviously no one is going to limp in a boyz unit that is nearby so these outcomes will vary widely, but if you have 3 blocks they can't take them all.

In any scenario where you're playing your boyz as an aggressive midfield force, you're forcing your opponent to cripple your brick of boyz or eat a nasty charge. In such a case an unsupported brick of T5 boyz will take more firepower to remove than a T4 blob would.

It's only in the case where you're not threatening a key unit with your boyz that your opponent has the luxury of picking off a few and letting morale act as an efficient source of removal. In this case, you're already on the back foot and have either made a deployment mistake or didn't push up the board properly. In either scenario, you're unlikely to win that game and need to examine more than just how much a unit of boyz costs to figure out what went wrong.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
In any scenario where you're playing your boyz as an aggressive midfield force, you're forcing your opponent to cripple your brick of boyz or eat a nasty charge. In such a case an unsupported brick of T5 boyz will take more firepower to remove than a T4 blob would.

It's only in the case where you're not threatening a key unit with your boyz that your opponent has the luxury of picking off a few and letting morale act as an efficient source of removal. In this case, you're already on the back foot and have either made a deployment mistake or didn't push up the board properly. In either scenario, you're unlikely to win that game and need to examine more than just how much a unit of boyz costs to figure out what went wrong.

Yeah, how many boyz do you expect to make it across the field anyway? I usually lose a mob of 30 before making it into combat. What really hurts is the lack of endless green tide...

Heafstaag wrote:
Yeah, how many boyz do you expect to make it across the field anyway? I usually lose a mob of 30 before making it into combat. What really hurts is the lack of endless green tide...

Nerfed KFF, not being able to refreshing a mostly dead unit of boyz, and Da Jump + 'Ere We Go being less reliable hurt way more than morale does.

I'm dropping all my boyz and buying an equal amount of Beast Snaggas! Thanks Games Workshop for releasing a slightly larger kit for a unit that fills the exact same role but is better in every way! I'm so happy!

A few bits here.

First, there's a raw increase of 1/8th points but 1/6th endurance (Going from 8 pts to 9 pts vs being wounded on 1 more vs most weapons)

So there's a small increase in durability here.

"But morale! You're going to los-"

Hang on.

Why are you running 30 man blobs again?

You lost the morale bonus from it. You lost the extra attacks from it. You lost the ability to bring the unit back from 1 model to 30. You gain a Nob in each unit for free, so … why not 3 units of 10 instead of 1 unit of 30?

You can keep the BIG MOB if you want to make psychic boosts a thing, at which point you'll want to keep a Warboss or some Nobs around to keep order with some ;ead crackin', but without that?

Stick to a unit of 9 lads and a Nob... bangs out the same attacks, has the same defense, but gives you more tactical flexibility, increased resistance to morale issues, and more reliable charges … three units each trying to make a 7" charge vs one BIG unit trying it means that you'll pull it off more often, even if with less bodies, making tie-ups more reliable.

New book? New rules? New tactics.

For the mathhammer folks, 8 NuBoys vs 9 OldBoys would work, but you can't get units of that size, so we'll double it instead. 16 NuBoys vs 18 OldBoys. 144 pts either way, so run all your numbers from there if you want to see the proper comparison on a points basis.

45 shots, 30 hits, 15 dead T4 Orks in a unit with 27 models, 12 left, fail morale, 5 run away, 7 left.

45 shots, 30 hits, 10 dead T5 Orks in a unit with 24 models, 14 left, fail morale, 3 run away, 11 left.

7*3 attacks, extra attacks on 6s *7/6, saving on 3s *1/3m. 5 wounds to MEQ.

11*3 attacks, extra hits on 6s *5/4, saving on 4s *1/2. 13,75 wounds to MEQ. They deal twice as much damage for the same points ZOMG ROFLCOPTER so L33T H4X0R5 OP.

Wakshaani wrote:
First, there's a raw increase of 1/8th points but 1/6th endurance (Going from 8 pts to 9 pts vs being wounded on 1 more vs most weapons)

That's not how mathhammer works. The fact that you are rolling a 6-sided dice instead of an 8-sided or 4-sided dice is irrelevant, what is relevant is the frequency with which you wounded relatively to the frequency with which you failed to wound vs the relation between the frequency with which you will wound in the future and you will fail to wound in the future.

SemperMortis wrote:
Remember how I showed you that T5 boyz at 9ppm are less durable than T4 8ppm boyz?

This is the same company that decided to showcase how tough Plague Marines are by somehow making them more vulnerable to D1 weapons, so should we be surprised?

It's interesting that the fandom is honing in so much on the idea that GW deliberately made the old units worse so the new models would look more enticing, considering we have like a dozen historical examples of new models having absolute crap rules on release.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

epronovost wrote:
Am I confusing this with AoS, but isn't there a universal strat to make a unit automatically pass a leadership test? If yes, it could mitigate some of the moral problems though it would limit the number of big mobs you can take to basically one or maybe two.

With the nerf to moral, I would be tempted to say that boyz mounted on trukks or a carpet of small units is preferable.

Yes. Orks have a second worse one. Lots of CP though.

It's not strictly worse, since you can use it after a roll. So in case you've bombed one of those tests that are possible to pass you could trade 1+1/6th moral casualties for d3 MW if it matters.
Most 9th edition stratagems are situational, not "always use this", and the few that break the rule also cause problems for the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wakshaani wrote:
Why are you running 30 man blobs again?

You lost the morale bonus from it. You lost the extra attacks from it. You lost the ability to bring the unit back from 1 model to 30. You gain a Nob in each unit for free, so … why not 3 units of 10 instead of 1 unit of 30?

You can keep the BIG MOB if you want to make psychic boosts a thing, at which point you'll want to keep a Warboss or some Nobs around to keep order with some ;ead crackin', but without that?

Stick to a unit of 9 lads and a Nob... bangs out the same attacks, has the same defense, but gives you more tactical flexibility, increased resistance to morale issues, and more reliable charges … three units each trying to make a 7" charge vs one BIG unit trying it means that you'll pull it off more often, even if with less bodies, making tie-ups more reliable.

I agree in general, but you still are somewhat limited in slots, so to get to the 120 breaking point, you would still need to bring units of 20, which still tend to lose more models to moral than which are saved by T5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
First, there's a raw increase of 1/8th points but 1/6th endurance (Going from 8 pts to 9 pts vs being wounded on 1 more vs most weapons)

That's not how mathhammer works. The fact that you are rolling a 6-sided dice instead of an 8-sided or 4-sided dice is irrelevant, what is relevant is the frequency with which you wounded relatively to the frequency with which you failed to wound vs the relation between the frequency with which you will wound in the future and you will fail to wound in the future.

Mork, can we please stop this discussion, it makes my brain hurt.

When you hit T4 100 times with a bolter, you deal 50 wounds. When you hit T5 100 times with a bolter you deal 33.33 wounds. Compared to before, you now deal 33.33/50 = 66.66% damage now. This a decrease of 16.66 wounds or 33.33% less damage taken.
When you have 100 T4 wounds, you need 200 bolter hits to wound all of them. When you have 100 T5 wounds, you need 300 bolter hits to wound them all. 300 hits are 300/200=150% of what you had to shoot before, so you need 50% more shots than before to kill them.
Both numbers are right, they are just different perspectives on the same thing.

If you are comparing efficiency you need to multiply either value for new boyz by 8/9 = 88.88% because their efficiency dropped per point. Ork boyz now cost 9/8=125.5% of what they have costed before, an increase of 12.5%.

Seriously, it's just percentages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Remember how I showed you that T5 boyz at 9ppm are less durable than T4 8ppm boyz?

This is the same company that decided to showcase how tough Plague Marines are by somehow making them more vulnerable to D1 weapons, so should we be surprised?

Plague marines got less vulnerable to d1 weapons.

Disgusting Resilient does't help them against D1 weapons anymore.

"But they have two wou..." ... all Marines* have 2 wounds. That was a given.

*Who have a new Codex.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's interesting that the fandom is honing in so much on the idea that GW deliberately made the old units worse so the new models would look more enticing, considering we have like a dozen historical examples of new models having absolute crap rules on release.

And as is often said, what GW try to do isn't always what they achieve. They make mistakes.