What now?

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.

**Salt donkey**

Daedalus81 wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Eihnlazer wrote:
I still have yet to understand how Custodes gaining the same free rules every other army has been getting is considered power creep.

I mean the win rates dont lie, but that is actually all custodes got in their new dex. Shield hosts and ka'tah's. Bikes got +1w and lost obsec. Salvo launchers damage got more reliable but they lost reroll wounds vs vehicles. Wardens got cheaper and bodyguard but lost their deny on a 3+. All characters got +1w and a except for vexilla which only got +1w. All 3++ saves were taken away except for a one turn relic. Our strats got recosted to be more inline with other 9th books. Our faction specific secondaries are Mehhhh.

As far as datasheets go we were one of the least changed codex's in 9th.

you're looking at the datasheet, the power is in the stratagems as far as i understand. (I legit havnt looked at the codex since theyre one that interests me the least and no one locally plays them)

It's really hard to pin down with Custodes as their strats haven't really changed other than getting cheaper, but for smaller units.

Perhaps their win rates are more a factor of people pig piling the faction and winning a lot, because it's such an easy faction to start.

Perhaps...the only reason Custodes wasn't hitting high win rates since mid-edition is that people dropped them as they didn't want to deal with the weakness to morale and mortal wounds. Now that both those problems are "solved" people are picking them up again and they were already at a high level of viability?

Couple this with the nerfs to souping in armies in GK and Sisters and suddenly those armies are a lot easier for Custodes to tackle. That and the fact that it is still really hard to pick secondaries against Custodes as any kill oriented play is bound to fail.

So...Custodes were always kind of busted and we just didn't see it until the popularity came back.

Naw custodes got a lot from our new book. Free rules are free rules. Everything lost aside from the 3++ wasn’t that relevant, and even that mattered less than people think. If a 50% winrate Army receives a bunch free rules, stat buffs, and now has double the number of uses on 2 important defensive strats, than it’s not
hard to see why it now has a 65% winrate.

**Daedalus81**

Salt donkey wrote:

Naw custodes got a lot from our new book. Free rules are free rules. Everything lost aside from the 3++ wasn’t that relevant, and even that mattered less than people think. If a 50% winrate Army receives a bunch free rules, stat buffs, and now has double the number of uses on 2 important defensive strats, than it’s not
hard to see why it now has a 65% winrate.

They got a bunch of free rules, yes. But whether they improved +5%, +25%, or +50% changes in what way we perceive this situation.

I banded Custodes win rates into three periods - 11/1 to 1/9 ( pre-book ), 1/10 to 2/10 ( post-book, pre-ca ), 2/11 forward ( current )

I highlighted some of the armies where they saw a significant jump each period. e.g. Grey Knights went from 46% to 59% to 81% all with equivalent numbers of games. Custodes didn't gain all that much from 2/11, but improved considerably. Why? Because GK took a decent hit.

Part of our problem just may be that Chapter Approved hit armies in ways that Custodes just don't care about as much.

Spoiler:

**Ordana**

Really Daedalus? You don't see how Custodes getting a 4+++ against Mortals could dramatically improve the winrate against an army with access to lots of psychic?

Oo

**SemperMortis**

Tyel wrote:

But do they buy it from GW though - or do they swap them with people or scrounge them up off Ebay?
There was a debate about this in another thread - but I think GW's revenue is rooted mainly two million or so people spending £150~ a year.
I mean say there were 5000 players who blow £1000 every year (which I feel is a bit crazy - and if maintained over a few years would give you about 6~ armies). That's £5m of revenue. Of GW's... £350m last year?
I'm not convinced they'd overly care. Or certainly not enough to warp the whole game around them.
I think the issue is more likely to be that there's no such as "bad publicity". There's lots of talking about Custodes and Tau. There's not very much about say GSC.
I'm not convinced its a great thing - because it leads to "40k is a broken game, don't play it". But Codexes which drop with a whimper are probably a failure.
I think the issues with Custodes and Tau are easy to explain. Custodes were going to be terrible without their 3++ (see: the internet). Tau just "couldn't work" in 9th (Internet again). So they got compensating buff after compensating buff. And consequently they went far too far and they are busted as compared with the competition.
I'd argue "we want DE to be an assault-focused army" had the same. Everything had to be buffed up and dead cheap - or it would continue to be faction: Venom Spam+friends forever.

Not a bad notion, i'll bet a lot of them do buy 2nd hand but the ones i know buy from our local stores. But this got me thinking also....I am not a FOTM player by any stretch of the imagination...i own orkz and...nothing else

In the last year or so I have bought or received from my wife as a gift....The beast snagga box set, 1 unit of Squig riders, 1 Beastboss on squigosaur, 1 Mega armor warboss, 3x Kommandos, a new Dakkajet, and a unit of Meganobz and the new Ghazkuul/makari model. Just realized I spend way too much on Orkz every year

Daedalus81 wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:

Naw custodes got a lot from our new book. Free rules are free rules. Everything lost aside from the 3++ wasn’t that relevant, and even that mattered less than people think. If a 50% winrate Army receives a bunch free rules, stat buffs, and now has double the number of uses on 2 important defensive strats, than it’s not
hard to see why it now has a 65% winrate.

They got a bunch of free rules, yes. But whether they improved +5%, +25%, or +50% changes in what way we perceive this situation.

I banded Custodes win rates into three periods - 11/1 to 1/9 ( pre-book ), 1/10 to 2/10 ( post-book, pre-ca ), 2/11 forward ( current )

I highlighted some of the armies where they saw a significant jump each period. e.g. Grey Knights went from 46% to 59% to 81% all with equivalent numbers of games. Custodes didn't gain all that much from 2/11, but improved considerably. Why? Because GK took a decent hit.

Part of our problem just may be that Chapter Approved hit armies in ways that Custodes just don't care about as much.

Spoiler:

Daed...how the flying Feth does every army in your graph have a 50%+ win rate? that is literally not physically possible. I think you might need to adjust your data bud

**Daedalus81**

Ordana wrote:
Really Daedalus? You don't see how Custodes getting a 4+++ against Mortals could dramatically improve the winrate against an army with access to lots of psychic?

Oo

Right, but THAT change is encompassed in the period between codex launch and chapter approved. And it highlights what I'm talking about. Custodes improved against GK by 13% with the new book. When CA hit they improved a further 12%. I doubt that Custodes became that much better over a month.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Daed...how the flying Feth does every army in your graph have a 50%+ win rate? that is literally not physically possible. I think you might need to adjust your data bud

Sorry if it was clear - these are Custodes win rates against each of those armies, which is why they're so high.

**Gadzilla666**

vict0988 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
For example: in early 9th edition codexes Dd6 was considered "fine" for AT weapons. Then, gw decided that it wasn't reliable enough, and began rolling out things like Dd3+3, while leaving older units in older books with the "old paradigm" Dd6 weapons, thus making them weaker in comparison.

Fake news, Necrons got a Dd6 weapon upgraded to D3d3, 3d3

It wasn't a problem and the unit just recently got buffed twice in quick succession. The only thing that matters is points efficiency, broken rules don't exist outside Relics and WL traits which have no adjustable cost.

I'm sorry, what? I never said that the various "improved weapons" were "broken" or "a problem". I said that improving those in order to make them more reliable while leaving others in the "old paradigm" with Dd6 was bad, as it made those comparatively worse. And making things like lascannons more reliable wouldn't necessarily require changing their damage to Dd3+3. D2d3 is more reliable than Dd6, as is Dd6[MINIMUM3], or even a flat number like D4. The idea is to avoid those 1 damage rolls.

And I don't disagree with you that points cost can make something "good". But most people don't want their units to be good simply because they're cheap. They want them to behave and work as they should in the fluff. And many things currently don't. 5 PPM CSM with their current rules could be completely ridiculous, but I don't want CSM to be a "horde army", for example.

**Tyel**

I agree CA had an effect on certain factions but not sure on your timings here. Didn't Custodes get released on 15th January and CA 2 weeks later, 29th January?

Throw in some lag for tounaments adopting the changes (which isn't constant) and I think you are looking at a very thin period of new codex/no CA.

**vict0988**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
For example: in early 9th edition codexes Dd6 was considered "fine" for AT weapons. Then, gw decided that it wasn't reliable enough, and began rolling out things like Dd3+3, while leaving older units in older books with the "old paradigm" Dd6 weapons, thus making them weaker in comparison.

Fake news, Necrons got a Dd6 weapon upgraded to D3d3, 3d3

I'm sorry, what? I never said that the various "improved weapons" were "broken" or "a problem". I said that improving those in order to make them more reliable while leaving others in the "old paradigm" with Dd6 was bad, as it made those comparatively worse.

I didn't say you did, I said that you were wrong to suggest that early 9th edition codexes and newer 9th edition codexes are designed differently. Necrons got upgraded heavy gauss, Space Marines got upgraded multi-meltas, both of those weapons were upgraded more than dark lances and cognis lascannons would eventually be upgraded. Lascannons and Doomsday Arks do not need more damage, their lethality is perfectly fine if you ignore points. 2 weapons with D6 damage is better than one weapon with D3+3 damage, what's best is a question of pts-efficiency in scoring VP and preventing your opponent from scoring VP. Multi-meltas do too much damage, there is no room for meltaguns to have a role in the game.

**Karol**

vict0988 wrote:
2 weapons with D6 damage is better than one weapon with D3+3 damage, what's best is a question of pts-efficiency in scoring VP and preventing your opponent from scoring VP. Multi-meltas do too much damage, there is no room for meltaguns to have a role in the game.

No they are not, unless you have loaded dice or something. being sure that every and each one of your weapons is going to do 4W if not saved is huge to how you build your army, move your army, when comparing to an army where two weapons , which have to go through twice that many tests to save, wound, hit. which may end up doing 2W to something and that is before any -1D to wound or maxing wounds you can cause per phase etc.

**Marin**

Karol wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
2 weapons with D6 damage is better than one weapon with D3+3 damage, what's best is a question of pts-efficiency in scoring VP and preventing your opponent from scoring VP. Multi-meltas do too much damage, there is no room for meltaguns to have a role in the game.

No they are not, unless you have loaded dice or something. being sure that every and each one of your weapons is going to do 4W if not saved is huge to how you build your army, move your army, when comparing to an army where two weapons , which have to go through twice that many tests to save, wound, hit. which may end up doing 2W to something and that is before any -1D to wound or maxing wounds you can cause per phase etc.

Actually the math said it is, since having more shots generally increase the change of successful wound.

**JNAProductions**

Karol wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
2 weapons with D6 damage is better than one weapon with D3+3 damage, what's best is a question of pts-efficiency in scoring VP and preventing your opponent from scoring VP. Multi-meltas do too much damage, there is no room for meltaguns to have a role in the game.

No they are not, unless you have loaded dice or something. being sure that every and each one of your weapons is going to do 4W if not saved is huge to how you build your army, move your army, when comparing to an army where two weapons , which have to go through twice that many tests to save, wound, hit. which may end up doing 2W to something and that is before any -1D to wound or maxing wounds you can cause per phase etc.

Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

**Tyel**

JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

I guess that's one way of looking at it.
The other is that on BS3, wounding on 3s, hitting a 5++, a single shot has a 70%~ chance to do zero damage.
By contrast, this falls to 49% with 2 such shots. Sure, some % you might only get one hit through and do 1 damage - but that's (at least potentially) better than nothing.
The odds of doing nothing with say 4 Lascannons are 24% - so will happen fairly frequently. By contrast the odds on the same with 4 MMs is 5.7%.

Its still all about the relative points through.

**tneva82**

JNAProductions wrote:
Karol wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
2 weapons with D6 damage is better than one weapon with D3+3 damage, what's best is a question of pts-efficiency in scoring VP and preventing your opponent from scoring VP. Multi-meltas do too much damage, there is no room for meltaguns to have a role in the game.

No they are not, unless you have loaded dice or something. being sure that every and each one of your weapons is going to do 4W if not saved is huge to how you build your army, move your army, when comparing to an army where two weapons , which have to go through twice that many tests to save, wound, hit. which may end up doing 2W to something and that is before any -1D to wound or maxing wounds you can cause per phase etc.
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

Assuming getting 4 damage isn't the key and 1, 2 and 3 is irrelevant. And that 8+ might not be just wasted damage.

Something to keep in mind average damage by simple 2d6=7 doesn't tell real damage due to overkills, wounds not carrying over and 3 not neccessarily actually doing anything meaningful(ie target still alive).

8e necron pylon does average damage of 31 damage and spare vs baneblade. Yet it actually one shotted 24w baneblade less than 60% times. DUCY?

**Karol**

JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

Not when both shots have to hit, wound , go through an inv and/or FnP style save with possible -1 to hit etc If having two lascanons was so great people would be actually using stuff like predators or devastators with lascanons.

**Ordana**

Karol wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

Not when both shots have to hit, wound , go through an inv and/or FnP style save with possible -1 to hit etc If having two lascanons was so great people would be actually using stuff like predators or devastators with lascanons.

Because you rarely get 2 of guns X and 1 of gun Y for the same price.
If you got 2 lascannons for the price of 1 MM you would likely see more Lascannons.

**JNAProductions**

Karol wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

Not when both shots have to hit, wound , go through an inv and/or FnP style save with possible -1 to hit etc If having two lascanons was so great people would be actually using stuff like predators or devastators with lascanons.

And you have even worse odds of ONE shot hitting, wounding, and going through the save.

**ccs**

Karol wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

Not when both shots have to hit, wound , go through an inv and/or FnP style save with possible -1 to hit etc If having two lascanons was so great people would be actually using stuff like predators or devastators with lascanons.

I'd rather have 2 chances to SUCCEED (and potentially do more damage) than 1 chance to only do d3+3.
Pts permitting of course.

**SemperMortis**

Karol wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

Not when both shots have to hit, wound , go through an inv and/or FnP style save with possible -1 to hit etc If having two lascanons was so great people would be actually using stuff like predators or devastators with lascanons.

Assuming same cost between the two, both have BS4, Both wound on 4s, no armor save allowed because reasons.

D3+3 hits 50% of the time, wounds 25% of the time and does 5dmg on average. That works out to a per turn average of 1.25dmg per turn.
2 shots at D6d = 1 hit, 0.5 wounds for 1.75dmg per turn.

So yes, 2D6 is better than D3+3. But that also depends on target. If I am aiming to kill 3-4 wound models i'll take the D3+3 because i'm guaranteed a dead model per turn where as the 2D6 might whiff and only do 1-3dmg a turn and leave an enemy model alive that would otherwise have been dead.

Against vehicles and tough targets i'll go with 2D6, against elite heavy infantry, D3+3 is probably the way to go.

**Daedalus81**

Tyel wrote:
I agree CA had an effect on certain factions but not sure on your timings here. Didn't Custodes get released on 15th January and CA 2 weeks later, 29th January?

Throw in some lag for tounaments adopting the changes (which isn't constant) and I think you are looking at a very thin period of new codex/no CA.

Right, so 1/10 was the end of the prior weekend. More precisely it should be 1/14, but there aren't typically tournaments mid-week. When tournaments implement Chapter Approved varies, but that was the first "official" weekend. It gets fuzzy.

Bear with me on this, because it's a lot to take in and I'm just ruminating.

This is the Custodes win rate by date vs just GK and then versus the whole field minus Tau and GK. The first red line is codex, second is CA, third is the week following CA when uptake would be at its highest. I threw out days with less than 10 Custodes games and less than 3 GK v Custodes matchups. Trendlines are the same, but this just reduces the visual noise. In effect Custodes improved more vs GK than the rest of the field. There is a small window, but the improvement is greatest when CA is in full effect.

Of course caveats - data, variables, etc etc. This is mostly just for exploring data and fun.

I should probably run it by week...

Spoiler:

Here it is by week ( Mon thru Sun; dropping the low game holidays ) with a 3 week moving average:

Spoiler:

**Bosskelot**

Tyel wrote:

They absolutely should have a "roadmap for incoming mechanics". Gw's habit of changing their mind, or incorporating "cool new ideas" is one of the biggest factors in codex creep. These "paradigm shifts" in newer books have a tendency to leave "old paradigm" books behind. For example: in early 9th edition codexes Dd6 was considered "fine" for AT weapons. Then, gw decided that it wasn't reliable enough, and began rolling out things like Dd3+3, while leaving older units in older books with the "old paradigm" Dd6 weapons, thus making them weaker in comparison.

**moreorless**

tneva82 wrote:
Assuming getting 4 damage isn't the key and 1, 2 and 3 is irrelevant. And that 8+ might not be just wasted damage.

Something to keep in mind average damage by simple 2d6=7 doesn't tell real damage due to overkills, wounds not carrying over and 3 not neccessarily actually doing anything meaningful(ie target still alive).

8e necron pylon does average damage of 31 damage and spare vs baneblade. Yet it actually one shotted 24w baneblade less than 60% times. DUCY?

Indeed and you could argue this is now as big an issue as its ever been due to multi wound units becoming ever more common

A minimum damage 4 weapon is going to be a petty big advantage relative to D6 if your say shooting at units with 3 wounds and -1 damage.

Assuming everything gets though 2 D6 is only going to get double kills 25% of the time.

**Marin**

SemperMortis wrote:
Karol wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

Not when both shots have to hit, wound , go through an inv and/or FnP style save with possible -1 to hit etc If having two lascanons was so great people would be actually using stuff like predators or devastators with lascanons.

Assuming same cost between the two, both have BS4, Both wound on 4s, no armor save allowed because reasons.

D3+3 hits 50% of the time, wounds 25% of the time and does 5dmg on average. That works out to a per turn average of 1.25dmg per turn.
2 shots at D6d = 1 hit, 0.5 wounds for 1.75dmg per turn.

So yes, 2D6 is better than D3+3. But that also depends on target. If I am aiming to kill 3-4 wound models i'll take the D3+3 because i'm guaranteed a dead model per turn where as the 2D6 might whiff and only do 1-3dmg a turn and leave an enemy model alive that would otherwise have been dead.

Against vehicles and tough targets i'll go with 2D6, against elite heavy infantry, D3+3 is probably the way to go.

In most cases elite infantry have invul or access to transhuman, so the average is still lower. Volume wins in most cases, simple because it have higher chance to go to the damage phase, but you usually dont get 2 for 1.

**VladimirHerzog**

Bosskelot wrote:

Except this isn't really true.

The Space Marine, Necrons and Death Guard books are full of damage D3+3 or D6+2 anti-tank weaponry.

They often just put it on really bad platforms (which is a separate issue entirely).

Necron D3+3 :
Deathray (Monolith)
Entropic lance (Chronomancer)
Focused deathray (Sentry pylon)
Heavy deathray (Doom scythe)

D3+6 :
Gauss annihilator (Gauss pylon)

3D3 :
Gauss Destructor (heavy lokhust destroyer)

So yeah, were "full" of better than D6 damage weapons. And guess what, the ones that are playable are actually played.

**ccs**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:

Except this isn't really true.

The Space Marine, Necrons and Death Guard books are full of damage D3+3 or D6+2 anti-tank weaponry.

They often just put it on really bad platforms (which is a separate issue entirely).

Necron D3+3 :
Deathray (Monolith)
Entropic lance (Chronomancer)
Focused deathray (Sentry pylon)
Heavy deathray (Doom scythe)

D3+6 :
Gauss annihilator (Gauss pylon)

3D3 :
Gauss Destructor (heavy lokhust destroyer)

So yeah, were "full" of better than D6 damage weapons. And guess what, the ones that are playable are actually played.

You forgot the:
Heat Ray (focused): d6+2 at 1/2 range - Triarch Stalker
Synaptic Obliterator: Heavy d3, flat 6 damage - 2 of these guns on the Seraptek Heavy Construct

**VladimirHerzog**

ccs wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:

Except this isn't really true.

The Space Marine, Necrons and Death Guard books are full of damage D3+3 or D6+2 anti-tank weaponry.

They often just put it on really bad platforms (which is a separate issue entirely).

Necron D3+3 :
Deathray (Monolith)
Entropic lance (Chronomancer)
Focused deathray (Sentry pylon)
Heavy deathray (Doom scythe)

D3+6 :
Gauss annihilator (Gauss pylon)

3D3 :
Gauss Destructor (heavy lokhust destroyer)

So yeah, were "full" of better than D6 damage weapons. And guess what, the ones that are playable are actually played.

You forgot the:
Heat Ray (focused): d6+2 at 1/2 range - Triarch Stalker
Synaptic Obliterator: Heavy d3, flat 6 damage - 2 of these guns on the Seraptek Heavy Construct

fair enough on the triarch, but lol on the Seraptek

**Eihnlazer**

Seraptek would be fine with "Improved quantam Shielding: This model has a 5+ invunerable save and can never be wounded on an unmodified roll of a 1, 2, or 3. If an attack has a damage characteristic greater than 3 reduce the damage by 1".

**EviscerationPlague**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:

Except this isn't really true.

The Space Marine, Necrons and Death Guard books are full of damage D3+3 or D6+2 anti-tank weaponry.

They often just put it on really bad platforms (which is a separate issue entirely).

Necron D3+3 :
Deathray (Monolith)
Entropic lance (Chronomancer)
Focused deathray (Sentry pylon)
Heavy deathray (Doom scythe)

D3+6 :
Gauss annihilator (Gauss pylon)

3D3 :
Gauss Destructor (heavy lokhust destroyer)

So yeah, were "full" of better than D6 damage weapons. And guess what, the ones that are playable are actually played.

Meanwhile Tau get a D9 weapon that inflicts mortal wounds. Balance and fun!

**Karol**

GW games are clearly not balanced around playing one army, probably even one faction. From the way how rules are updated, FAQ and stuff gets buffed, or more often nerfed. It looks as if people are expected to own multiple armies. If you play stamped tyranids or custodes, tau seem like a normal army.

**ccs**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
ccs wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:

Except this isn't really true.

The Space Marine, Necrons and Death Guard books are full of damage D3+3 or D6+2 anti-tank weaponry.

They often just put it on really bad platforms (which is a separate issue entirely).

Necron D3+3 :
Deathray (Monolith)
Entropic lance (Chronomancer)
Focused deathray (Sentry pylon)
Heavy deathray (Doom scythe)

D3+6 :
Gauss annihilator (Gauss pylon)

3D3 :
Gauss Destructor (heavy lokhust destroyer)

So yeah, were "full" of better than D6 damage weapons. And guess what, the ones that are playable are actually played.

You forgot the:
Heat Ray (focused): d6+2 at 1/2 range - Triarch Stalker
Synaptic Obliterator: Heavy d3, flat 6 damage - 2 of these guns on the Seraptek Heavy Construct

fair enough on the triarch, but lol on the Seraptek

Hey, if you're going to make a list of our "Better than d6" guns....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Seraptek would be fine with "Improved quantam Shielding: This model has a 5+ invunerable save and can never be wounded on an unmodified roll of a 1, 2, or 3. If an attack has a damage characteristic greater than 3 reduce the damage by 1".

It's as-is 5++ is still more than my poor Monolith has. :(

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
Karol wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming same hit rate, same wound rate, and same save rate, it's literally a question of which is better: 2d6 or d3+3.

This isn't hard to calculate-Anydice can do it in a jiffy.
2d6 is better than 1d3+3 a whopping 71% of the time, just on averages.

Not when both shots have to hit, wound , go through an inv and/or FnP style save with possible -1 to hit etc If having two lascanons was so great people would be actually using stuff like predators or devastators with lascanons.
And you have even worse odds of ONE shot hitting, wounding, and going through the save.

The odds of one getting through is lower than either of two. But your premise was BOTH being better than 1 - which requires BOTH of two to make it through.