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.

Was on FB and someone referred to aggressors as squishy. i found it odd someone would say a T5 3W 3+Sv unit was squishy. they said because a squad of devs w/ grav cannons could wipe a 5 man aggressor squad using the cherub based on averages...and even then just barely.

i'd say having to throw 24 S5 AP-3 attacks to kill a squad does not classify as squishy especially when you have to use a special rule to do it

Some of it is relative . Things can be squishy for their points. In absolute terms, I would not count agressors as squishy

 Nevelon wrote:
Some of it is relative . Things can be squishy for their points. In absolute terms, I would not count agressors as squishy

Points change a lot these days so not a good yard stick imo.

But yeah it’s like if a unit requires A LOT of focused standard weapons fire to destroy, or a whole squad of dedicated heavy or special weapons to destroy, it’s not a squishy target.

To me, "squishy" is a relative term that depends on context.

It takes a lot more bolter shots to kill an eldar vyper than an eldar guardian. I wouldn't call a vyper "squishy" in the context of eldar in general. But if we're talking about vehicles and/or the ability to survive incoming anti-tank shots, the vyper feels pretty squishy compared to falcons and wave serpents and so forth.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Was on FB and someone referred to aggressors as squishy. i found it odd someone would say a T5 3W 3+Sv unit was squishy. they said because a squad of devs w/ grav cannons could wipe a 5 man aggressor squad using the cherub based on averages...and even then just barely.

i'd say having to throw 24 S5 AP-3 attacks to kill a squad does not classify as squishy especially when you have to use a special rule to do it

It's 20 shots total with the Cherub, not 24. And "averages" doesn't tell the full story as much of the damage will be lost taking the third wound of a model as the 2nd Damage wound doesn't spill over. Grav Cannons are also the absolute best MEQ weapon available for Devs.

 Insectum7 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Was on FB and someone referred to aggressors as squishy. i found it odd someone would say a T5 3W 3+Sv unit was squishy. they said because a squad of devs w/ grav cannons could wipe a 5 man aggressor squad using the cherub based on averages...and even then just barely.

i'd say having to throw 24 S5 AP-3 attacks to kill a squad does not classify as squishy especially when you have to use a special rule to do it

It's 20 shots total with the Cherub, not 24. And "averages" doesn't tell the full story as much of the damage will be lost taking the third wound of a model as the 2nd Damage wound doesn't spill over. Grav Cannons are also the absolute best MEQ weapon available for Devs.

which is kinda my point, the premiere MEQ killer squad still has to use a special rule to kill them.
personally i would say anything above T5 3+W and a decent save doesn't count as squishy

Yeah, I'd agree that "squishy" is a poor descriptor of aggressors. The existence of specialized units/loadouts that happen to be efficient against aggressors doesn't mean aggressors are "squishy" in general.

That said, I feel like the community as a whole does tend to think of units as being "squishy" if the meta as a whole functionally renders a unit easy to kill despite its stats. In metas where everyone is packing bright/dark lances and meltaguns, dreadnaughts feel like they die pretty easily, thus "squishy." When plasma is highly preferable to melta and dreadnaughts have damage reduction, dreads don't feel so "squishy."

Same unit, same defensive stats, one feels squishy and the other doesn't thanks to context.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah, I'd agree that "squishy" is a poor descriptor of aggressors. The existence of specialized units/loadouts that happen to be efficient against aggressors doesn't mean aggressors are "squishy" in general.

That said, I feel like the community as a whole does tend to think of units as being "squishy" if the meta as a whole functionally renders a unit easy to kill despite its stats. In metas where everyone is packing bright/dark lances and meltaguns, dreadnaughts feel like they die pretty easily, thus "squishy." When plasma is highly preferable to melta and dreadnaughts have damage reduction, dreads don't feel so "squishy."

Same unit, same defensive stats, one feels squishy and the other doesn't thanks to context.

By that standard everything is squishy just because this edition has become so god damn lethal.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah, I'd agree that "squishy" is a poor descriptor of aggressors. The existence of specialized units/loadouts that happen to be efficient against aggressors doesn't mean aggressors are "squishy" in general.

That said, I feel like the community as a whole does tend to think of units as being "squishy" if the meta as a whole functionally renders a unit easy to kill despite its stats. In metas where everyone is packing bright/dark lances and meltaguns, dreadnaughts feel like they die pretty easily, thus "squishy." When plasma is highly preferable to melta and dreadnaughts have damage reduction, dreads don't feel so "squishy."

Same unit, same defensive stats, one feels squishy and the other doesn't thanks to context.

By that standard everything is squishy just because this edition has become so god damn lethal.

Precisely.
And that’s a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, math.

16 shots
32/3 hits
16/3 wounds
80/18 or 40/9 failed saves
60/9 or 20/3 damage

Plus…

8 shots
40/6 or 20/3 hits
10/3 wounds
50/18 or 25/9 failed saves
75/18 or 25/6 damage

65/6 damage total, on average, or about 11 points.

Dev Doctrine bumps that by 6/5. Which is 13 damage… and not enough to kill 5 Aggressors. Someone did the math wrong.

^Add in a Relic (Master Crafted?) Combi-plasma on the sarge and Signum that bad boy for 4 S8 AP-3 3D shots for Aggressor-deleting goodness.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Add in a Relic (Master Crafted?) Combi-plasma on the sarge and Signum that bad boy for 4 S8 AP-3 3D shots for Aggressor-deleting goodness.

but at that point you're investing way too much into killing a unit for it to 'squishy'

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Add in a Relic (Master Crafted?) Combi-plasma on the sarge and Signum that bad boy for 4 S8 AP-3 3D shots for Aggressor-deleting goodness.

Then you lose 4 Grav shots and drop 4 to BS 3+ instead of 2+.

You’d be better off investing in a source of rerolls.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Add in a Relic (Master Crafted?) Combi-plasma on the sarge and Signum that bad boy for 4 S8 AP-3 3D shots for Aggressor-deleting goodness.

That doesn't sound very worth it. When using a CP like that, the Devs are gonna die hella quick.

Also, I miscounted shots.
It’s 12 shots at BS3+, not 16.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Add in a Relic (Master Crafted?) Combi-plasma on the sarge and Signum that bad boy for 4 S8 AP-3 3D shots for Aggressor-deleting goodness.

Then you lose 4 Grav shots and drop 4 to BS 3+ instead of 2+.

You’d be better off investing in a source of rerolls.

Mmm, not quite. 2 3D Plasma shots are worth more than 4 Grav shots, not because of averages, but because of the damage loss for 3W on the Aggressors, plus the Plasma wounds on 3s instead of 4s. It takes two successes with a Grav Cannon to kill an Aggressor. It takes one 3D Plasma shot to kill an Aggressor, and it wounds easier.

The same thing actually makes Multimeltas in short range better for the job. The minimum Damage for a Multimelta in short range is 3, so each success is a dead Aggressor. But it also wounds on 3s instead of 4s. It has the added bonus of being -4 AP too.

Or just bring a mix and choose the optimal weapon for Signum-Cherub-ing at the time of firing. There's other variables that can be pushed about such as Doctrine, move-penalties for firing Heavies, or the defensive use of Transhuman, but in my opinion, having that 3D option in your back pocket is a nice surprise against 3W models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Add in a Relic (Master Crafted?) Combi-plasma on the sarge and Signum that bad boy for 4 S8 AP-3 3D shots for Aggressor-deleting goodness.

That doesn't sound very worth it. When using a CP like that, the Devs are gonna die hella quick.

I'm used to Podding Devs in, so I'm usually less concerned about them dying before they get to do their thing.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Some of it is relative . Things can be squishy for their points. In absolute terms, I would not count agressors as squishy

Points change a lot these days so not a good yard stick imo.

But yeah it’s like if a unit requires A LOT of focused standard weapons fire to destroy, or a whole squad of dedicated heavy or special weapons to destroy, it’s not a squishy target.

And so do rules and damage output of armies.

What is squishy, killy etc absolutely depends on points. T9 30w sounds tough...unless it's 2000 pts model at which points for points it's squishy as hell.

Can't ignore points. And surprise surprise squishy changes as game changes.

30 T2 6+ models is tougher than 10 T3 5+ save if points are same. Despite T2 6+ being squishier stats


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah, I'd agree that "squishy" is a poor descriptor of aggressors. The existence of specialized units/loadouts that happen to be efficient against aggressors doesn't mean aggressors are "squishy" in general.

That said, I feel like the community as a whole does tend to think of units as being "squishy" if the meta as a whole functionally renders a unit easy to kill despite its stats. In metas where everyone is packing bright/dark lances and meltaguns, dreadnaughts feel like they die pretty easily, thus "squishy." When plasma is highly preferable to melta and dreadnaughts have damage reduction, dreads don't feel so "squishy."

Same unit, same defensive stats, one feels squishy and the other doesn't thanks to context.

By that standard everything is squishy just because this edition has become so god damn lethal.

That too.

There's not much real durable unit left in this game if it doesn't have wound cap/ability to come back


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Add in a Relic (Master Crafted?) Combi-plasma on the sarge and Signum that bad boy for 4 S8 AP-3 3D shots for Aggressor-deleting goodness.

but at that point you're investing way too much into killing a unit for it to 'squishy'

Combi plasma free. Signum and cherub is in squad anyway. Master crafted is only thing you would actually add up.

You ARE putting free combi weapon there..

The competitive crowd call Knights squishy, so it is just nonsense.

I would call anything that dies to "trivial" firepower squishy.

Trivial is obviously relative in this sense, and my metric for determining that is "does this need more than its own points cost to kill it" and "does this need a specialised unit to kill it".

If it doesn't tick those two boxes against that particular opponent, it's squishy.

So personally I'd never refer to a Knight as squishy, as it needs either a lot of points worth of models or something like massed lascannon devastators or a smash captain (do these still exist?). Grots and Guardsmen die to a fart on the wind, so they're squishy.

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
The competitive crowd call Knights squishy, so it is just nonsense.

Yes, being squishy and being easily focussed down due to lack of model numbers are two different things.

My personal definition of squishy is a bit stretched though, because i play GSC, possibly the most squishy army in the game on a per model basis.

I absolutely would not call aggressors squishy. Points inefficient maybe, but not squishy.

True squishy?

Anything with what I call 'victim stats' with no rule or anything to really help.

Gretchin are fantastically squishy to just about every gun that isn't awful.

Eldar Guardians, gaunts and kroot also fill that squishy infantry role, as they'll take meaningful damage from every source of fire.

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
The competitive crowd call Knights squishy, so it is just nonsense.

Well lists ARE designed so that they can one shot knight(2-3 armigers) a turn which can't exactly hide in most terrain so it's not that surprising.

tneva82 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Some of it is relative . Things can be squishy for their points. In absolute terms, I would not count agressors as squishy

Points change a lot these days so not a good yard stick imo.

But yeah it’s like if a unit requires A LOT of focused standard weapons fire to destroy, or a whole squad of dedicated heavy or special weapons to destroy, it’s not a squishy target.

And so do rules and damage output of armies.

What is squishy, killy etc absolutely depends on points. T9 30w sounds tough...unless it's 2000 pts model at which points for points it's squishy as hell.

Can't ignore points. And surprise surprise squishy changes as game changes.

30 T2 6+ models is tougher than 10 T3 5+ save if points are same. Despite T2 6+ being squishier stats


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah, I'd agree that "squishy" is a poor descriptor of aggressors. The existence of specialized units/loadouts that happen to be efficient against aggressors doesn't mean aggressors are "squishy" in general.

That said, I feel like the community as a whole does tend to think of units as being "squishy" if the meta as a whole functionally renders a unit easy to kill despite its stats. In metas where everyone is packing bright/dark lances and meltaguns, dreadnaughts feel like they die pretty easily, thus "squishy." When plasma is highly preferable to melta and dreadnaughts have damage reduction, dreads don't feel so "squishy."

Same unit, same defensive stats, one feels squishy and the other doesn't thanks to context.

By that standard everything is squishy just because this edition has become so god damn lethal.

That too.

There's not much real durable unit left in this game if it doesn't have wound cap/ability to come back


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Add in a Relic (Master Crafted?) Combi-plasma on the sarge and Signum that bad boy for 4 S8 AP-3 3D shots for Aggressor-deleting goodness.

but at that point you're investing way too much into killing a unit for it to 'squishy'

Combi plasma free. Signum and cherub is in squad anyway. Master crafted is only thing you would actually add up.

You ARE putting free combi weapon there..

When was the last time the core of a datasheet stat line was changed?
Points change nearly every 2-3 months for some unit in some army.

I don't think "squishy" is a very tightly defined term, and there is probably some overlap with fragile. Questoris knights, while they have impressive stats, actually die pretty quickly in the current environment, since they cannot be hidden and most armies have ways of dealing with heavy vehicles. Does that make them squishy? Fragile? I dunno, but it's part of the way we talk about knights.

Aggressors are obviously more durable than, say, intercessors, but have no defensive tech beyond a pip of toughness and third wound. They're very susceptible to D3 shooting, especially since they can't just lurk in cover.

T3, 5+ safe, 1 wound

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think "squishy" is a very tightly defined term, and there is probably some overlap with fragile. Questoris knights, while they have impressive stats, actually die pretty quickly in the current environment, since they cannot be hidden and most armies have ways of dealing with heavy vehicles. Does that make them squishy? Fragile? I dunno, but it's part of the way we talk about knights.

Aggressors are obviously more durable than, say, intercessors, but have no defensive tech beyond a pip of toughness and third wound. They're very susceptible to D3 shooting, especially since they can't just lurk in cover.

personally the way I look at it, D3 weapons have to make a decision, shoot at vehicles or shoot at the aggressors.
I think most of my success with aggressors has come from people underestimating them and using their high S and high D weapons on other targets that feel more threatening like dreads and my SR

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think "squishy" is a very tightly defined term, and there is probably some overlap with fragile. Questoris knights, while they have impressive stats, actually die pretty quickly in the current environment, since they cannot be hidden and most armies have ways of dealing with heavy vehicles. Does that make them squishy? Fragile? I dunno, but it's part of the way we talk about knights.

Aggressors are obviously more durable than, say, intercessors, but have no defensive tech beyond a pip of toughness and third wound. They're very susceptible to D3 shooting, especially since they can't just lurk in cover.

personally the way I look at it, D3 weapons have to make a decision, shoot at vehicles or shoot at the aggressors.
I think most of my success with aggressors has come from people underestimating them and using their high S and high D weapons on other targets that feel more threatening like dreads and my SR

this is the rub: if aggressors are the most durable unit on the board, they're vulnerable to all the heavy shooting, and therefore fragile. If they're in the middle of the durabilty curve for your army, they actually hold up pretty well unless your opponent has some werid, high damage but only mid strength shooting that does better against agreesors than tanks. And in a true skew list, Gravis becomes pretty hard when it's the lightest chassis on the board.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

When was the last time the core of a datasheet stat line was changed?

They've been changing quite a lot in recent years. Orks to T5, CSM to 2W (finally :/). Tyranid Warriors recently got a boost.

 Insectum7 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

When was the last time the core of a datasheet stat line was changed?

They've been changing quite a lot in recent years. Orks to T5, CSM to 2W (finally :/). Tyranid Warriors recently got a boost.

So maybe once every few editions, vs points which they update every 2-3 months or so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think "squishy" is a very tightly defined term, and there is probably some overlap with fragile. Questoris knights, while they have impressive stats, actually die pretty quickly in the current environment, since they cannot be hidden and most armies have ways of dealing with heavy vehicles. Does that make them squishy? Fragile? I dunno, but it's part of the way we talk about knights.

Aggressors are obviously more durable than, say, intercessors, but have no defensive tech beyond a pip of toughness and third wound. They're very susceptible to D3 shooting, especially since they can't just lurk in cover.

personally the way I look at it, D3 weapons have to make a decision, shoot at vehicles or shoot at the aggressors.
I think most of my success with aggressors has come from people underestimating them and using their high S and high D weapons on other targets that feel more threatening like dreads and my SR

this is the rub: if aggressors are the most durable unit on the board, they're vulnerable to all the heavy shooting, and therefore fragile. If they're in the middle of the durabilty curve for your army, they actually hold up pretty well unless your opponent has some werid, high damage but only mid strength shooting that does better against agreesors than tanks. And in a true skew list, Gravis becomes pretty hard when it's the lightest chassis on the board.

Yep in a vacuum you can argue heavy firepower would cut through aggressors, but every list I’ve made in the last 2 yrs has had a SR and 2 dreads in it, along with SG, so plenty of other targets.
Next list I’ll be taking my new stormspeeder for its first spin.

Squishy to me is about how well I expect a unit to withstand the type of fire that a smart player will send its way and how well it survives that fire. In a vacuum, vehicles might look tougher than an infantry unit, but they can still end up squishy if the expected anti-tank in a TAC army removes them from the table easily. Most units in the current edition of 40k end up squishy because lethality is tuned very high.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Squishy to me is about how well I expect a unit to withstand the type of fire that a smart player will send its way and how well it survives that fire. In a vacuum, vehicles might look tougher than an infantry unit, but they can still end up squishy if the expected anti-tank in a TAC army removes them from the table easily. Most units in the current edition of 40k end up squishy because lethality is tuned very high.

Yep the lethality of this edition really ruined the game.