40K Balance

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote:

> The error of that theory is that it *assumes* that a Marine is
> going to inflict 1 wounding hit per turn - which is not the case. I
> understand your logic - it just isn't statistically correct.

Look at it this way (and correct me wherever I'm wrong)-

Orks have a BS of 2, so they need to roll 5's to hit - they only hit 1/3 of
the time.
They shoot S4 weapons? (not very familiar with Orks) - that wounds a Marine
1/2 the time.
Thanks to the Marine's power armor, only one 1/3 of the wounding hits
actually kill a marine.

So for each shot an Ork makes, (1/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = (1/18) of a Marine dies.
On average, it takes 18 Orks shooting a turn to kill 1 marine.

A Marine has BS 4, so they need 3's to hit - they hit 2/3 of the time.
Again S4 vs T4 means 1/2 of the hits wound.
And Orks get no armor save against the Marine's weapons.

So for each shot a Marine makes, (2/3)*(1/2) = (2/6) = (1/3) of an Ork dies.
On average, it takes 3 Marines shooting a turn to kill 1 ork.

So, in order for the firefight to be balanced, there needs to be *6* Orks
per Marine!

Of course, this completely ignores other troops in the army, hand-to-hand,
cover saves, and lots of other stuff. So I know my logic is flawed in lots
of ways - but *statistically* - it is correct.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Xis entered the world pub known as
rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> "Jim M" <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bottom line is that you can get roughly two Eldar or Orks for the cost of
> > one Marine, that means they get nearly twice the number of total shots and
> > attacks for the same number of points. It also means that the Marine has
> > to
> > save twice as often as the other races, which gives them more chances to
> > fail at that lower save.
>
>
> A 3+ save means only one out of three wounding hits gets through. If
> everything else was equal (which it is not) - Orks/Eldar should get *three*
> times as many troops to stay even.
>
Obviously you have never seen a tricked out Squad of Marines (roughly 200
points) fall prey to two mobz of grotz(30+slaver), it isn't a very pretty
sight, unless of course you're the one playin' da boyz...

For those keeping score the Marines get 10-20 shots at one of the mobs. The
grot mobs get 32 shots per mob(30 grots + slaver with slugga gets 2 shots)
that's roughly 2 kills per mob even with the Marines save. Four kills total
will easily cause a morale check in any Marine Squad. The number of shots
will vary depending of course who gets the first crack at shooting. Oh and
did I mention that grots can always move and shoot, something about grot
blastas being assault weapons.

So there you have it one of the weakest troops with the weakest weapons in
the game and they can still be used to slow down Marines, through shear
force of numbers. Oh and another thing 2 mobs of grots with slaver is
roughly 198 points...

--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Xis entered the world pub known as
rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

>
> "Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote:
>
> > The error of that theory is that it *assumes* that a Marine is
> > going to inflict 1 wounding hit per turn - which is not the case. I
> > understand your logic - it just isn't statistically correct.
>
> Look at it this way (and correct me wherever I'm wrong)-
>
> Orks have a BS of 2, so they need to roll 5's to hit - they only hit 1/3 of
> the time.
> They shoot S4 weapons? (not very familiar with Orks) - that wounds a Marine
> 1/2 the time.
> Thanks to the Marine's power armor, only one 1/3 of the wounding hits
> actually kill a marine.
>
> So for each shot an Ork makes, (1/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = (1/18) of a Marine dies.
> On average, it takes 18 Orks shooting a turn to kill 1 marine.
>
> A Marine has BS 4, so they need 3's to hit - they hit 2/3 of the time.
> Again S4 vs T4 means 1/2 of the hits wound.
> And Orks get no armor save against the Marine's weapons.
>
> So for each shot a Marine makes, (2/3)*(1/2) = (2/6) = (1/3) of an Ork dies.
> On average, it takes 3 Marines shooting a turn to kill 1 ork.
>
> So, in order for the firefight to be balanced, there needs to be *6* Orks
> per Marine!
>
> Of course, this completely ignores other troops in the army, hand-to-hand,
> cover saves, and lots of other stuff. So I know my logic is flawed in lots
> of ways - but *statistically* - it is correct.
>

What you are missing is Mob size compared to Marine Size, as well as the
cost per Marine (15 pts) and Orks (9 pts) Which means that for every 2
Marines you get 3 Orks, or 10 Marines compared to 15 Orks, So the Marines
get up to 20 shots rapid fire (no upgrades for weapons) and the Orks get 30
shots rapid fire (no weapon upgrades) If the Marines take Upgrades they can
get a Heavy Bolter which means they get one additional shot, longer range
but can't move. The Orks can take 3 Big Shootas as upgrades, which means 3
extra shots, and they can move and shoot as big shootas are assault weapons.
The Heavy Bolter really won't do that much more damage to an Ork mob, but
three big shootas with a total of nine shots (STR 5, AP 5) DO make a
difference against Marines, even with a BS of 2.
--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Jim M wrote:

> What you are missing is Mob size compared to Marine Size, as well as the
> cost per Marine (15 pts) and Orks (9 pts) Which means that for every 2
> Marines you get 3 Orks, or 10 Marines compared to 15 Orks...

OK so far...

> So the Marines get up to 20 shots rapid fire (no upgrades for weapons)
> and the Orks get 30 shots rapid fire (no weapon upgrades)

Let's explore that a little. 20 shots at BS4 = 13.32 hits. 30 shots at
BS2 = 9.99 hits. The Orks are now down 3.3 hits. Both wound half the
time against each other, so 6.66 wounds against the Orks (who get no
saves) and 4.99 wounds on the SM (who save against all but 1.66).

Net results: 7 dead Orks. Break test for them. 2 Dead marines. No break
test.

Next round: 5-6 more dead Orks. If the Orks don't break and stand their
ground, they will kill 1 Marine on average. Break test for the Orks
again, no test for the Marines. Not looking too good for the Orks.

Let's make it CC. On the charge the Orks will go first and get an
impressive 45 attacks. Half hit, but only we need 5's to wound with the
Ork S3 so 7 wounds. 2 dead Marines. Marines strike back, and hit 4 of
their eight attacks and wound with 2. Orks save .16 and you lose 2 Orks.
Drawn combat. Next round SM go first and kill another 2 Orks. Orks get
22 attacks back, killing 1 SM ultimately. If they stay stuck in and the
Orks don't run, the Marines will win statistically every time.

Choppas help some. Of course, if they are Slugga boys there will not be
15 of them by the time they get to h2h because the Marines will get two
rounds of shooting with one round of Rapid Fire before they get there.
Ten marines will reduce the 15 man Slugga boy squad to 5 before they lay
a single choppa on the Marines.


> If the Marines take Upgrades they can get a Heavy Bolter which means they get
> one additional shot, longer range but can't move.

Why would they want to move? They want to sit and shoot due to their
higher armor save and superior BS and AP.

> The Orks can take 3 Big Shootas as upgrades, which means 3
> extra shots, and they can move and shoot as big shootas are assault weapons.
> The Heavy Bolter really won't do that much more damage to an Ork mob...

Except kill two Orks per turn in addition to what the other weapons in
the squad do. That's up to six turns of shooting and 12 dead Orks on
average... and all for 5 points.

> three big shootas with a total of nine shots (STR 5, AP 5) DO make a
> difference against Marines, even with a BS of 2.

On average the BS will give you one hit per turn. Three will give you
maybe 1 dead marine per turn. Three of them will cost 24 points. That's
a basic troop given up per Big Shoota. How many Space Marines do you
give up for the Heavy Bolter? 1/3 of one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Hive Tyrant wrote:
> John Hwang wrote:
>> But when you keep in mind that Marines of all flavors are basically
>> beginner armies, the crutch of awesome saves and the AP system is a
>> necessary evil.
>
> Fair enough. So balance be damned,

I don't think it's that much of a problem.

> and just live with it?

Yup.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

John Hwang wrote:

> Nevertheless, I have every expectation that the new Eldar book will
> restore Eldar to parity by pumping up all of their "iffy" units
> commensurate with the bump that the weaker SM units received.
>

Now *THAT* is comedy! Hee-hee-haa-ha hardee har har.

GW Creed: "Fair and Balanced means the Space Marines win."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Hive Tyrant entered the world pub known
as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> Jim M wrote:
>
> > What you are missing is Mob size compared to Marine Size, as well as the
> > cost per Marine (15 pts) and Orks (9 pts) Which means that for every 2
> > Marines you get 3 Orks, or 10 Marines compared to 15 Orks...
>
> OK so far...
>
> > So the Marines get up to 20 shots rapid fire (no upgrades for weapons)
> > and the Orks get 30 shots rapid fire (no weapon upgrades)
>
> Let's explore that a little. 20 shots at BS4 = 13.32 hits. 30 shots at
> BS2 = 9.99 hits. The Orks are now down 3.3 hits. Both wound half the
> time against each other, so 6.66 wounds against the Orks (who get no
> saves) and 4.99 wounds on the SM (who save against all but 1.66).
>
> Net results: 7 dead Orks. Break test for them. 2 Dead marines. No break
> test.
>
> Next round: 5-6 more dead Orks. If the Orks don't break and stand their
> ground, they will kill 1 Marine on average. Break test for the Orks
> again, no test for the Marines. Not looking too good for the Orks.
>
> Let's make it CC. On the charge the Orks will go first and get an
> impressive 45 attacks. Half hit, but only we need 5's to wound with the
> Ork S3 so 7 wounds. 2 dead Marines. Marines strike back, and hit 4 of
> their eight attacks and wound with 2. Orks save .16 and you lose 2 Orks.
> Drawn combat. Next round SM go first and kill another 2 Orks. Orks get
> 22 attacks back, killing 1 SM ultimately. If they stay stuck in and the
> Orks don't run, the Marines will win statistically every time.
>
> Choppas help some. Of course, if they are Slugga boys there will not be
> 15 of them by the time they get to h2h because the Marines will get two
> rounds of shooting with one round of Rapid Fire before they get there.
> Ten marines will reduce the 15 man Slugga boy squad to 5 before they lay
> a single choppa on the Marines.
>
>
> > If the Marines take Upgrades they can get a Heavy Bolter which means they get
> > one additional shot, longer range but can't move.
>
> Why would they want to move? They want to sit and shoot due to their
> higher armor save and superior BS and AP.
>
> > The Orks can take 3 Big Shootas as upgrades, which means 3
> > extra shots, and they can move and shoot as big shootas are assault weapons.
> > The Heavy Bolter really won't do that much more damage to an Ork mob...
>
> Except kill two Orks per turn in addition to what the other weapons in
> the squad do. That's up to six turns of shooting and 12 dead Orks on
> average... and all for 5 points.
>
> > three big shootas with a total of nine shots (STR 5, AP 5) DO make a
> > difference against Marines, even with a BS of 2.
>
> On average the BS will give you one hit per turn. Three will give you
> maybe 1 dead marine per turn. Three of them will cost 24 points. That's
> a basic troop given up per Big Shoota. How many Space Marines do you
> give up for the Heavy Bolter? 1/3 of one.
>

Actually when you figure it exactly the Orks get 16.6 Boyz for 10 Marines.
If you add a nob you can get 4 big shootas I also never take less then the
max if I can help it, the Maximum number of boyz in a mob is 30. So that
would mean 26 shootas and 4 big shootas, run your numbers again using
maximum size and over 12 inch long range, and you will see that Orks
actually have an advantage over the Marines. Marines would be down to 11 or
12 shots (depending on how the sgt is armed) The Orks would get 48.

when comparing units it is actually best to compare them by maximum unit
size and not points. That was a mistake in my original premise. But it also
shows how skewed the GW points system is. If you want to make all things
equal then a maximum sized unit should be the same cost for every army, then
removing figures should lower the cost, rather then starting with a minimum
and raising the cost. The problem with this is you would end up with a unit
of 60+ grots being the equivalent of a 10 Marine unit, while this prospect
actually appeals to me, How the hell could you put three or four units of
grots on the table? It's hard enough to fit on units of 30.

So here is how it would work
Max sized Troops choices would all be the same basic cost before upgrades
(or downgrades) for all armies
Max sized Fast Attack Troops same cost as other FA
Max sized Heavy Support Troops same cost as other HS
Max sized Elite Troops same cost as other El
The only real difference would be in costing of vehicles.

So you would start out with a 150 point Space Marine Squad of 10, to get it
down to 5 for min/max purposes you would need to subtract 5 Marines at 15
points each bringing the cost to 75 points, then add in whatever weapons and
equipment you need, this would not affect Marines at all.

But a Maximum unit of 30 Orks would be 150 points also. Subtract half of
them at 9 points each and you would have a unit of 15 Orks at a cost of 15
points. Which is probably an accurate account of their actual worth in
comparison to 5 Marines... 8^)

The question is what should be the "gold" standard points cost for a basic
40k troops unit?


--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Jim M wrote:
> would mean 26 shootas and 4 big shootas, run your numbers again using
> maximum size and over 12 inch long range, and you will see that Orks
> actually have an advantage over the Marines.

The problem with that is you will never, and I mean *NEVER* encounter
this comparision in a game situation. It discounts the rounds of
shooting that the Orks must endure to get to 12" range. It's fine for
hypotheticals and all but not a very realistic comparision.

Compare the full sized Ork Boyz squad to the full sized Tac squad at 24"
(the average distance between armies at start) and you get a better
comparision.

Oh wait, now the points are skewed. That full sized Slugga mob costs 317
points with the Nob and 4 Big Shootas. That's *TWO* SM Tac squads kitted
with Heavy Bolter. Make it Shoota Boys and you come in a little closer
at 290 points... still darned near that two SM Tac squad point cost.

Now run your comparision.

18 shots at 24" from the Space Marines kills 6 Orks. Hvy Bolters kill 4
more.

Ork return fire at 24" kills 1 Space Marine from Shoota fire and another
from Big Shoota fire.

If the Orks stand and shoot, they die. If they move they give up half
their effective casualty potential. Three rounds of this to get to
assault range, but they never get there as they disappear in a cloud of
red and green mist from the Bolter fire. Either way, the SM vape the
Orks with maybe 6 casualties out of 20. Compound this with the two
targets that the smaller SM squads present the Orks. Now I must
concentrate on one or the other....

I stand by my original contention that the AP system skews results
toward the Space Marines.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Hive Tyrant wrote:
> Jim M wrote:
>
>> would mean 26 shootas and 4 big shootas, run your numbers again using
>> maximum size and over 12 inch long range, and you will see that Orks
>> actually have an advantage over the Marines.
>
> The problem with that is you will never, and I mean *NEVER* encounter
> this comparision in a game situation. It discounts the rounds of
> shooting that the Orks must endure to get to 12" range. It's fine for
> hypotheticals and all but not a very realistic comparision.
>
> Compare the full sized Ork Boyz squad to the full sized Tac squad at 24"
> (the average distance between armies at start) and you get a better
> comparision.

But now, we are comparing just orks vs just marines, over a barren,
featureless wasteland, which should also never happen.

> Oh wait, now the points are skewed. That full sized Slugga mob costs 317
> points with the Nob and 4 Big Shootas. That's *TWO* SM Tac squads kitted
> with Heavy Bolter. Make it Shoota Boys and you come in a little closer
> at 290 points... still darned near that two SM Tac squad point cost.
>
> Now run your comparision.

<snip stats>

From which, we can conclude that normal Orks lose in a firefight to
Marines, and that orks just running forward will get shot up by marines,
neither of which is terribly surprising, and both of which are probably
what you would hope for when designing the armies. After all, if
marines were made more expensive to give a balance for equal pointed
orks/marines, grots (cheap screening in a game where screening otherwise
doesn't exist) would be horribly effective, and also need to have a
large points boost.

The point of points costs isn't to produce balance between opponents at
the model or unit scale, but at the level of armies. It is perfectly
possible (in fact, likely) that if you gave the same unit, with the same
stats, options and costs to two different base army lists, it would be
untercosted in one relative to the other.

> I stand by my original contention that the AP system skews results
> toward the Space Marines.

that could well be the case, but running small unit vs unit numbers
isn't going to prove it.

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Graham Thurlwell wrote:
> On the 27 Mar 2005, "W. B." <wardcb@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Tau - Tier 3. No one here has figured out how to play Tau
>>effectively. I have never seen them win a game.
>
> The 4th Ed Rapid Fire rules have the potential to make them a Tier 2
> army, but it may take time for developing new tactics. Of all the
> armies with rapid fire weapons, I'd say that the Tau are least
> inconvenienced by not being able to fire and assault with their basic
> troopers. [1]
>
> Firstly, Tau are pretty poor in close combat and secondly, the
> Fire Warriors' photon grenade option will deny the opposition bonus
> attacks for charging.
>
> 1. While Fire Warriors are able to take Pulse Carbines, which are an
> Assault weapon, those are limited to 50% of the squad. The other 50%
> have to take Pulse Rifles, which are Rapid Fire. AFAIK, it's not
> possible to shoot with only the Pulse Carbines and then charge.

I'm not sure why not, I'd be perfectly happy for opponents to charge
having shot only the assault weapons in a unit, it doesn't really make
sense for them not to be able to.

The problem with Pulse Carbines isn't so much that as that the drop in
firepower from teh rifle is too much to justify taking them in enough
numbers to give a decent chance of causing pinning.

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Chipacabra wrote:
> Hive Tyrant <richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net> wrote in
> news:I5ydnUswG_o8O9jfRVn-vw@comcast.com:
>
>
>>To illustrate the point: A Tyranid venom cannon costs 45 points and
>>can't even penetrate armor or a 3+ save. A SM lascannon costs at most
>>25 points and punches everything a Nid army can field. In a tac squad
>>they cost as little as 15 points.
>>
>>In WFB the strength of the weapon modifies the save. For every point
>>above a certain S the save is modified by -1. I think if you did this
>>with 40K and got rid of the AP system it would go a long way towards
>>leveling the playing field.
>>
>><rant mode off>
>
>
> I agree with the problem, but disagree with the solution. S shouldn't
> factor into the armor save. Why? Because higher S has ALREADY made a kill
> more likely, adding a save mod on top of that is just making one stat do
> double duty. In my opinion, the armor mods should only refer to how
> effectively the weapon penetrates armor *compared to other weapons of the
> same S value*
>
> I think it should modified so that las weapons (maybe pulse weapons also)
> are a -1 save modifier, anti-armor weapons (Autocannons, rail guns,
> plasma guns, etc.) should be -2, and magic phase-through-anything weapons
> (C'tan phase weapons, bright lances, D-cannons, maybe melta weapons,
> whatever) should be -3. Or maybe have them range from -1 to -4. But under
> this division, a bolter wouldn't have a better save mod than an autogun,
> because it's ALREADY more likely to kill. A lascannon would have the same
> save mod as a lasgun, because they're just different strengths of the
> same technology.

You get some very odd situations there, after all, a lascannon is
supposed to use a single high-power blast burn through the hulls of
heavy vehicles, but standard SM armour remains fairly effective at
blocking it.

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Lt. Cmdr. Jim" <ltcmdrjim@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3atd48F6aksjsU1@individual.net:


>> I think it should modified so that las weapons (maybe pulse weapons
>> also) are a -1 save modifier, anti-armor weapons (Autocannons, rail
>> guns, plasma guns, etc.) should be -2, and magic
>> phase-through-anything weapons (C'tan phase weapons, bright lances,
>> D-cannons, maybe melta weapons, whatever) should be -3. Or maybe have
>> them range from -1 to -4. But under this division, a bolter wouldn't
>> have a better save mod than an autogun, because it's ALREADY more
>> likely to kill. A lascannon would have the same save mod as a lasgun,
>> because they're just different strengths of the same technology.
>
> You get some very odd situations there, after all, a lascannon is
> supposed to use a single high-power blast burn through the hulls of
> heavy vehicles, but standard SM armour remains fairly effective at
> blocking it.
>

That's an artifact of the d6 system that Games Workshop uses, since a S9
weapon is no better than a S6 weapon against a marine. Possibly another
tweak would be in order, so that continuing to increase S past the point
where you need a 2 to wound would actually have an effect. Maybe a
second, lower to-wound roll, although that would be a bit awkward.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Chipacabra wrote:

> That's an artifact of the d6 system that Games Workshop uses, since a S9
> weapon is no better than a S6 weapon against a marine. Possibly another
> tweak would be in order, so that continuing to increase S past the point
> where you need a 2 to wound would actually have an effect. Maybe a
> second, lower to-wound roll, although that would be a bit awkward.

I think you just stumbled onto something.

For every point above the level where you need a 2 to wound, start
adjusting the save by -1.

That could work...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Hive Tyrant <richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net> wrote in message news:<C-OdneE7rLF0AtTfRVn-jQ@comcast.com>...
> Chipacabra wrote:
>
> > That's an artifact of the d6 system that Games Workshop uses, since a S9
> > weapon is no better than a S6 weapon against a marine. Possibly another
> > tweak would be in order, so that continuing to increase S past the point
> > where you need a 2 to wound would actually have an effect. Maybe a
> > second, lower to-wound roll, although that would be a bit awkward.
>
> I think you just stumbled onto something.
>
> For every point above the level where you need a 2 to wound, start
> adjusting the save by -1.
>
> That could work...

Not very realistic to have a deathspinner (say) reduce a Guardsman's
save by -3 and a Marine's by -2 simply because the Guardsman has a
point less toughness (for that matter it's hardly thematic for it to
be better at punching through heavy armour than an AP4 heavy bolter),
and in any case the majority of high-powered weapons ignore most saves
anyway. A fixed modifier system based on AP (AP- or 6 - no modifier,
AP5 = -1, AP4 = -2, AP3 = -3, AP2 = -4, AP1 = -5) would be a better
solution, as weapons with AP above 4 remain relatively rare and this
system produces results roughly equivalent to the current AP system
(as saves are reduced to 6+ and therefore effectively nonexistent by
weapons with the equivalent AP) while allowing weaker weapons to have
some effect against heavier armour.

Compared with 2nd Ed. heavy weapons are proportionately less abundant
and the extreme save modifiers are more limited (no -2 Sv shuriken
catapults, for instance), so there would be fewer problems than that
system generated (remember, this was the system that had to increase
Marines' toughness, then their save, and then give Terminators 2D6
saves, just to give the army a semblance of survivability, and the
general consensus during 2nd Ed. was that they still weren't
competitive).

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Hive Tyrant entered the world pub known
as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
<snip>
> I stand by my original contention that the AP system skews results
> toward the Space Marines.
>
Which is exactly as it should be, because Space Marines are supposed to be
"Super Soldiers" Genetically enhanced fighting machines that can take on and
beat any other army in the universe. Read the fluff, it's all in there...
--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Lt. Cmdr. Jim entered the world pub
known as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> Chipacabra wrote:
> > Hive Tyrant <richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net> wrote in
> > news:I5ydnUswG_o8O9jfRVn-vw@comcast.com:
> >
> >
> >>To illustrate the point: A Tyranid venom cannon costs 45 points and
> >>can't even penetrate armor or a 3+ save. A SM lascannon costs at most
> >>25 points and punches everything a Nid army can field. In a tac squad
> >>they cost as little as 15 points.
> >>
> >>In WFB the strength of the weapon modifies the save. For every point
> >>above a certain S the save is modified by -1. I think if you did this
> >>with 40K and got rid of the AP system it would go a long way towards
> >>leveling the playing field.
> >>
> >><rant mode off>
> >
> >
> > I agree with the problem, but disagree with the solution. S shouldn't
> > factor into the armor save. Why? Because higher S has ALREADY made a kill
> > more likely, adding a save mod on top of that is just making one stat do
> > double duty. In my opinion, the armor mods should only refer to how
> > effectively the weapon penetrates armor *compared to other weapons of the
> > same S value*
> >
> > I think it should modified so that las weapons (maybe pulse weapons also)
> > are a -1 save modifier, anti-armor weapons (Autocannons, rail guns,
> > plasma guns, etc.) should be -2, and magic phase-through-anything weapons
> > (C'tan phase weapons, bright lances, D-cannons, maybe melta weapons,
> > whatever) should be -3. Or maybe have them range from -1 to -4. But under
> > this division, a bolter wouldn't have a better save mod than an autogun,
> > because it's ALREADY more likely to kill. A lascannon would have the same
> > save mod as a lasgun, because they're just different strengths of the
> > same technology.
>
> You get some very odd situations there, after all, a lascannon is
> supposed to use a single high-power blast burn through the hulls of
> heavy vehicles, but standard SM armour remains fairly effective at
> blocking it.
>
>
HUH? Did they change that? Last I checked a Las Cannon was Str 9, AP2 that
means no save and instant kill for toughness 4 Space Marines...
--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Xis" <waiting@oblivion.patiently> wrote:

> "Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote:
>
>> The error of that theory is that it *assumes* that a Marine is
>> going to inflict 1 wounding hit per turn - which is not the case. I
>> understand your logic - it just isn't statistically correct.
>
> Look at it this way (and correct me wherever I'm wrong)-
>
> Orks have a BS of 2, so they need to roll 5's to hit - they only hit 1/3
> of the time.
> They shoot S4 weapons? (not very familiar with Orks) - that wounds a
> Marine 1/2 the time.
> Thanks to the Marine's power armor, only one 1/3 of the wounding hits
> actually kill a marine.
>
> So for each shot an Ork makes, (1/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = (1/18) of a Marine
> dies. On average, it takes 18 Orks shooting a turn to kill 1 marine.
>
> A Marine has BS 4, so they need 3's to hit - they hit 2/3 of the time.
> Again S4 vs T4 means 1/2 of the hits wound.
> And Orks get no armor save against the Marine's weapons.
>
> So for each shot a Marine makes, (2/3)*(1/2) = (2/6) = (1/3) of an Ork
> dies. On average, it takes 3 Marines shooting a turn to kill 1 ork.
>
> So, in order for the firefight to be balanced, there needs to be *6* Orks
> per Marine!
>
> Of course, this completely ignores other troops in the army, hand-to-hand,
> cover saves, and lots of other stuff. So I know my logic is flawed in lots
> of ways - but *statistically* - it is correct.

Yeah, I'm replying to myself - I realized I made a boo-boo in my logic. All
of the above math is correct, but it shows how many marines/orks you need to
get equivilant kill rates - 18 Orks kill 1 marine a turn, and 3 Marines kill
1 Ork a turn. This isn't a fair fight! After three turns, there would be no
marines left, but still 15 Orks. What I *should* have calculated was
equivilant percentages.

Here's some more math:

M= # of Marines
O= # of Orks

Percentage of Orks killed per turn = (1/3)*M/O
Percentage of Marines killed per turn = (1/18)*O/M

Set 'em equal: (1/3)*M/O = (1/18)*(O/M)
Multiply By 18: (6)*M/O = (O/M)
Multiply By (M*O): 6*M*M = O*O
Get the Square Root: O = 2.45 M

So, to have an even firefight (assuming long range, and no cover), you need
2.45 Orks for each Marine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Chipacabra wrote:
> "Lt. Cmdr. Jim" <ltcmdrjim@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:3atd48F6aksjsU1@individual.net:
>
>>>I think it should modified so that las weapons (maybe pulse weapons
>>>also) are a -1 save modifier, anti-armor weapons (Autocannons, rail
>>>guns, plasma guns, etc.) should be -2, and magic
>>>phase-through-anything weapons (C'tan phase weapons, bright lances,
>>>D-cannons, maybe melta weapons, whatever) should be -3. Or maybe have
>>>them range from -1 to -4. But under this division, a bolter wouldn't
>>>have a better save mod than an autogun, because it's ALREADY more
>>>likely to kill. A lascannon would have the same save mod as a lasgun,
>>>because they're just different strengths of the same technology.
>>
>>You get some very odd situations there, after all, a lascannon is
>>supposed to use a single high-power blast burn through the hulls of
>>heavy vehicles, but standard SM armour remains fairly effective at
>>blocking it.
>
> That's an artifact of the d6 system that Games Workshop uses, since a S9
> weapon is no better than a S6 weapon against a marine. Possibly another
> tweak would be in order, so that continuing to increase S past the point
> where you need a 2 to wound would actually have an effect. Maybe a
> second, lower to-wound roll, although that would be a bit awkward.

Well, there's the Instant Death effect, but appart from that, I suppose
the theory is that there's a point where weapons just make you dead, and
you can't get any deader than that.

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Jim M wrote:
> It was a cold day in September when Lt. Cmdr. Jim entered the world pub
> known as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
>
>
>>Chipacabra wrote:
>>
>>>Hive Tyrant <richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net> wrote in
>>>news:I5ydnUswG_o8O9jfRVn-vw@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>To illustrate the point: A Tyranid venom cannon costs 45 points and
>>>>can't even penetrate armor or a 3+ save. A SM lascannon costs at most
>>>>25 points and punches everything a Nid army can field. In a tac squad
>>>>they cost as little as 15 points.
>>>>
>>>>In WFB the strength of the weapon modifies the save. For every point
>>>>above a certain S the save is modified by -1. I think if you did this
>>>>with 40K and got rid of the AP system it would go a long way towards
>>>>leveling the playing field.
>>>>
>>>><rant mode off>
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree with the problem, but disagree with the solution. S shouldn't
>>>factor into the armor save. Why? Because higher S has ALREADY made a kill
>>>more likely, adding a save mod on top of that is just making one stat do
>>>double duty. In my opinion, the armor mods should only refer to how
>>>effectively the weapon penetrates armor *compared to other weapons of the
>>>same S value*
>>>
>>>I think it should modified so that las weapons (maybe pulse weapons also)
>>>are a -1 save modifier, anti-armor weapons (Autocannons, rail guns,
>>>plasma guns, etc.) should be -2, and magic phase-through-anything weapons
>>>(C'tan phase weapons, bright lances, D-cannons, maybe melta weapons,
>>>whatever) should be -3. Or maybe have them range from -1 to -4. But under
>>>this division, a bolter wouldn't have a better save mod than an autogun,
>>>because it's ALREADY more likely to kill. A lascannon would have the same
>>>save mod as a lasgun, because they're just different strengths of the
>>>same technology.
>>
>>You get some very odd situations there, after all, a lascannon is
>>supposed to use a single high-power blast burn through the hulls of
>>heavy vehicles, but standard SM armour remains fairly effective at
>>blocking it.
>
> HUH? Did they change that? Last I checked a Las Cannon was Str 9, AP2 that
> means no save and instant kill for toughness 4 Space Marines...

Under the proposed modifications above, not the existing system.

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <yUk2e.5$tI6.2@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, Xis,
waiting@oblivion.patiently Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> "Xis" <waiting@oblivion.patiently> wrote:
>
> > "Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The error of that theory is that it *assumes* that a Marine is
> >> going to inflict 1 wounding hit per turn - which is not the case. I
> >> understand your logic - it just isn't statistically correct.
> >
> > Look at it this way (and correct me wherever I'm wrong)-
> >
> > Orks have a BS of 2, so they need to roll 5's to hit - they only hit 1/3
> > of the time.
> > They shoot S4 weapons? (not very familiar with Orks) - that wounds a
> > Marine 1/2 the time.
> > Thanks to the Marine's power armor, only one 1/3 of the wounding hits
> > actually kill a marine.
> >
> > So for each shot an Ork makes, (1/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = (1/18) of a Marine
> > dies. On average, it takes 18 Orks shooting a turn to kill 1 marine.
> >
> > A Marine has BS 4, so they need 3's to hit - they hit 2/3 of the time.
> > Again S4 vs T4 means 1/2 of the hits wound.
> > And Orks get no armor save against the Marine's weapons.
> >
> > So for each shot a Marine makes, (2/3)*(1/2) = (2/6) = (1/3) of an Ork
> > dies. On average, it takes 3 Marines shooting a turn to kill 1 ork.
> >
> > So, in order for the firefight to be balanced, there needs to be *6* Orks
> > per Marine!
> >
> > Of course, this completely ignores other troops in the army, hand-to-hand,
> > cover saves, and lots of other stuff. So I know my logic is flawed in lots
> > of ways - but *statistically* - it is correct.
>
> Yeah, I'm replying to myself - I realized I made a boo-boo in my logic. All
> of the above math is correct, but it shows how many marines/orks you need to
> get equivilant kill rates - 18 Orks kill 1 marine a turn, and 3 Marines kill
> 1 Ork a turn. This isn't a fair fight! After three turns, there would be no
> marines left, but still 15 Orks. What I *should* have calculated was
> equivilant percentages.
>
> Here's some more math:
>
> M= # of Marines
> O= # of Orks
>
> Percentage of Orks killed per turn = (1/3)*M/O
> Percentage of Marines killed per turn = (1/18)*O/M
>
> Set 'em equal: (1/3)*M/O = (1/18)*(O/M)
> Multiply By 18: (6)*M/O = (O/M)
> Multiply By (M*O): 6*M*M = O*O
> Get the Square Root: O = 2.45 M
>
> So, to have an even firefight (assuming long range, and no cover), you need
> 2.45 Orks for each Marine.

Fair enough - like I said, they never had a solid framework from
which to start the process to begin with. Nor would I argue that the
Orks and certain Eldar units need reworked to make them viable.
(Besides which I miss a lot of the cool/wacky Ork stuff & fluff from 2nd
Ed that made them unpredictably fun to play with or against.) I'm sort
of cringing at what 'uber-cheddar' the new Nid codex may bring - and I'm
a die-hard Nids fan.

Myrmidon


--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.

- Eric Noland

# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army

- Roy Cox

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/

****

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On 28 Mar 2005 14:28:39 -0800, pbowles@aol.com (Philip Bowles) wrote:

>Orks: Definitely seriously underpowered in standard Codex form.

Orks are screwed. I've been trying to work with them, but I might
give up and go with the Mortificators force I'm building. I'm sick of
walking into massed bolter fire (which you have to do to charge).
There's few options. One of them is to load up on Trukk Boyz mobs -
something I'm in the procress of building. The other is to try to run
Kult of Speed, which is not really an option in 40K4.

I thought about using Shoota Boyz because of the new rapid fire rules,
but gave up because they were useless when I thought about it (except
maybe against Tyranid Gaunts). Dreadnoughts are attracting too much
firepower, and when they don't get shot, they usually get picked on by
another Dreadnought with higher I. My trukks are getting blown away
too easily, pinning my mobs, who then get picked away with massed
firepower.

Another trick is Stormboyz, but they need help or they get swarmed and
destroyed fast.

My best option is to create three Trukk mobs, a Warboss's Nobz mob in
a Trukk, and two Stormboyz mobs (I actually have enough models, could
try for three if I put all my old Stormboyz in a mob), this will give
me a quick force that might be able to make it into close combat quick
enough to do something.

I'm going to see if I can pull together the Ork community and have a
Druchii.net-type experience with the GW designers. Maybe if I get
them involved and get them to listen to the community, Orks can be
made useful again.

But until they get a new codex or something, they are practically
unplayable... to the point of almost convincing me, darned near the
Orkiest player in the United States, to give up on them.
-Erik

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Xis entered the world pub known as
rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> "Xis" <waiting@oblivion.patiently> wrote:
>
> > "Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The error of that theory is that it *assumes* that a Marine is
> >> going to inflict 1 wounding hit per turn - which is not the case. I
> >> understand your logic - it just isn't statistically correct.
> >
> > Look at it this way (and correct me wherever I'm wrong)-
> >
> > Orks have a BS of 2, so they need to roll 5's to hit - they only hit 1/3
> > of the time.
> > They shoot S4 weapons? (not very familiar with Orks) - that wounds a
> > Marine 1/2 the time.
> > Thanks to the Marine's power armor, only one 1/3 of the wounding hits
> > actually kill a marine.
> >
> > So for each shot an Ork makes, (1/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = (1/18) of a Marine
> > dies. On average, it takes 18 Orks shooting a turn to kill 1 marine.
> >
> > A Marine has BS 4, so they need 3's to hit - they hit 2/3 of the time.
> > Again S4 vs T4 means 1/2 of the hits wound.
> > And Orks get no armor save against the Marine's weapons.
> >
> > So for each shot a Marine makes, (2/3)*(1/2) = (2/6) = (1/3) of an Ork
> > dies. On average, it takes 3 Marines shooting a turn to kill 1 ork.
> >
> > So, in order for the firefight to be balanced, there needs to be *6* Orks
> > per Marine!
> >
> > Of course, this completely ignores other troops in the army, hand-to-hand,
> > cover saves, and lots of other stuff. So I know my logic is flawed in lots
> > of ways - but *statistically* - it is correct.
>
> Yeah, I'm replying to myself - I realized I made a boo-boo in my logic. All
> of the above math is correct, but it shows how many marines/orks you need to
> get equivilant kill rates - 18 Orks kill 1 marine a turn, and 3 Marines kill
> 1 Ork a turn. This isn't a fair fight! After three turns, there would be no
> marines left, but still 15 Orks. What I *should* have calculated was
> equivilant percentages.
>
> Here's some more math:
>
> M= # of Marines
> O= # of Orks
>
> Percentage of Orks killed per turn = (1/3)*M/O
> Percentage of Marines killed per turn = (1/18)*O/M
>
> Set 'em equal: (1/3)*M/O = (1/18)*(O/M)
> Multiply By 18: (6)*M/O = (O/M)
> Multiply By (M*O): 6*M*M = O*O
> Get the Square Root: O = 2.45 M
>
> So, to have an even firefight (assuming long range, and no cover), you need
> 2.45 Orks for each Marine.
>

Which basically means that a maxed out Ork Mob (30) is more than a match for
a maxed out Marine Squad (10)...

Isn't that the exact opposite of what you were saying...
--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote:

> Fair enough - like I said, they never had a solid framework from
> which to start the process to begin with. Nor would I argue that the
> Orks and certain Eldar units need reworked to make them viable.

I'm not saying basic Orks are bad (altough they might be) - I'm just
responding to the Jim's argument that they can win a shooting match with
marines. In hand-to-hand, the numbers come out differently.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Jim M" <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Which basically means that a maxed out Ork Mob (30) is more than a match
> for
> a maxed out Marine Squad (10)...
>
> Isn't that the exact opposite of what you were saying...

Erm, if you are claiming that Orks can outshoot Marines when they have twice
as many points to spend, then I really can't argue with you.

Comparing maxed-out squad to maxed-out squad is... odd. By your reasoning,
Necrons are way better at shooting than Marines because a maxed-out unit of
Necron Warriors (20) will crush a maxed-out unit of marines (10).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Xis entered the world pub known as
rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> "Jim M" <hnjcomics@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which basically means that a maxed out Ork Mob (30) is more than a match
> > for
> > a maxed out Marine Squad (10)...
> >
> > Isn't that the exact opposite of what you were saying...
>
> Erm, if you are claiming that Orks can outshoot Marines when they have twice
> as many points to spend, then I really can't argue with you.
>
> Comparing maxed-out squad to maxed-out squad is... odd. By your reasoning,
> Necrons are way better at shooting than Marines because a maxed-out unit of
> Necron Warriors (20) will crush a maxed-out unit of marines (10).
>
>
>
The problem is that is the way units are meant to be fielded, GW tries to
get you to max out your units. So they make maxed out units pretty much the
only way to beat marines...
--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com