Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

40K Balance

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:29:05 PM

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

How well do you think the 40K armies are balanced against each other?

In my group, people play Space Marines, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, and
Imperial Guard. Several people consider Space Marines to be undercosted, and
the Necrons to be pretty cheesy (I play both armies, so my opinion is a
little skewed - I don't see either as terribly unbalanced). Tau / IG / Dark
Eldar are seen to be about equal in power, with Orks viewed as seriously
underpowered.

What are your thoughts?

More about : 40k balance

Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:29:06 PM

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

Xis wrote:
> How well do you think the 40K armies are balanced against each other?
>
> In my group, people play Space Marines, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, and
> Imperial Guard. Several people consider Space Marines to be undercosted, and
> the Necrons to be pretty cheesy (I play both armies, so my opinion is a
> little skewed - I don't see either as terribly unbalanced). Tau / IG / Dark
> Eldar are seen to be about equal in power, with Orks viewed as seriously
> underpowered.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
>
Basically what your group says, but not for the reasons you might think.
I play Chaos Space Marines, Orks, Eldar and Tyranids so I can speak from
experience here.

<rant mode on>

Seems to me the basic point system is broken when you compare one army
to another, and that largely because of the AP sytem. I feel the AP
system is broken and the relative armor saves of the armies exaggerate
the imbalance in the AP system. The costs of every unit considers all
the facets of that unit, including it's armor save.

Space Marines basic weapon (S4, AP5) penetrates the armor of most troops
in the game. Only other Space Marines, Chaos SM, Necrons and Tau get
their save against the most basic of weapons. Take one step up to the
Heavy Bolter and no one but SM, CSM and Necron get a save. The very
armies that need the slim save offered them by their basic point costs
like Eldar, Orks and Tyranids are the ones that are denied that save
(due to the AP system) when fighting SM.

Meanwhile, look at other armies. Eldar Death Spinners, Ork Lobbas,
Necron Destroyer Cannons, Tau Missle Pods, Tyranid Venom Cannons, etc.
etc. are all high strength weapons that fail to punch through a 3+ Sv.
The survivability of even the basic SM is largely ensured against these
weapons because they cost so much that their armies can't buy a lot of
them.

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>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:51:06 PM

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

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:28:46 AM

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

John Hwang wrote:

> Steve Olk wrote:

> Black Templars are also a 1st tier army. I'm surprised you
> didn't list
> them at all. There must be a bad memory you're supressing...

Oops, I simply forgot about them. I'd say they're near the
bottom of the top tier though: lack of devs, death of rhino
rush, Emperor's champion, no relics (due to iron halo on chump),
no veteran sgt, and the old costs for bikes/assault marines
makes them less brutal then they once were. They were arguably
the best rhino rush army out there, but now they spend time with
space wolves reminiscing of better times.

>> Armies that can compete on a good day
>> Dark Eldar/Wych Cult (Winners of a recent GT)
>> Imperial Guard Shooty Army from Hell
>> Alaitoc w/ max disruption
>
> Alaitoc is a 3rd tier army. It is too narrowly focused,
> depending entirely on ranged shooting, and dying automatically
> to mechanized infantry of any type.

I stand by Alaitoc as 2nd tier. With all the infiltrate
available, the army can scatter it's snipers beautifully. Plus,
don't forget that Snipers get 2d6 armor pen, for a 1/12 chance
to glance Rhinos. And that's before you add in star cannons and
lances. Eldar, sans Serpant rush, are best as a
shooting/mobility army, and the Alaitoc list best favors that.
Maybe this is mostly theoryhammer, but 57 pt units that can
infiltrate and win you a roll on the Disruption table are good
in my eyes. For 342 pts, you get 6 of those units, and still
have room for two Defender squads with starcannons (~150pts a
pop). Add in two of those path-finders for 73 pts a squad, and
you've spent ~725pts for 8 rolls on the Table, 18 eldar sniper
rifles, 6 pathfinder rifles, two star cannons, and you still
have room for a squad of Scorps w/ Stealth, two falcons & a
wraithlord, an avatar for countercharge, farseer w/ fortune, and
three vypers w/ starcannons. That's 1850, and it throws out an
awful lot of fire power. Plus, you're looking at having at
least a handful of units start off the board or pinned thanks to
the Disruption table. Again, YMMV, but they're like the Necrons
in that they can hang tough against most armies.

> No mention of the Thousand Sons, tho we all know what tier they
> are...

I simply forgot, but they're like Iyanden in that anybody with a
1k sons army can certainly field a higher powered variant army.

>> This is a generalization, and you can argue any of my
>> positions.
>
> Of course. But keep in mind that player skill and dice luck
> are also
> important factors. A good, seasoned player with a Dark Angels
> army will still mop up against a new SM army if the dice break
> his way just a
> little. Of course, he'd do even better if he took a SM army
> himself, but I still believe experience and luck count more
> than the army list.

No doubt.

> Both Tau and Necrons are newer armies, and didn't have the
> player
> experience base that the other armies possessed. As players
> stick with them, they learn what works and how to win.

Tau in particular are building up steam. I think that as their
knowledge base grows, and they gain some Chapter Approved toys

> No kidding. And it wasn't like Marines exactly needed the
> help.

No, it's the first revision where a strong, varied popular army
was given more raw strength, more options, and has become more
popular.


> Yup.

I'm not sure what do when Hwang agrees with a post... should I
save it, or do I go take a quick shower ....

Steve Olk (formerly posted as Karyth Teel)
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:06:46 AM

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

"Hive Tyrant" <richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I5ydnUswG_o8O9jfRVn-vw@comcast.com...

> Seems to me the basic point system is broken when you compare one army to
> another, and that largely because of the AP sytem. I feel the AP system is
> broken and the relative armor saves of the armies exaggerate the imbalance
> in the AP system. The costs of every unit considers all the facets of that
> unit, including it's armor save.

I tend to agree - the AP system has alway seemed very... weird to me. An AP5
weapon will mostly bounce off 3+ and 4+ armor saves, while an AP4 weapon
will bounce off 3+ saves and completely eradicate 4+ saves. Put another way,
one weapon in my army (gauss rifles) has about the same effectiveness
against Tau and Marines, while another weapon in my army (gauss cannons) is
somewhat effective against Marines and huge against Tau.

I also agree with your point about the 5+/6+ saves; but this was a problem
in 2ed as well; marines bolt guns gave a -1 save, which reduced that 6+ to
nothing.

In this game, armor falls in to three categories:

good armor (3+ or better saves)
erratic, inconsistent armor (4+ saves) (sometimes very good, sometimes
completely useless)
no armor (5+ or worse saves)
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:28:14 AM

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

Xis wrote:
> How well do you think the 40K armies are balanced against each other?

Pretty well, within 5% or so.

> In my group, people play Space Marines, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, and
> Imperial Guard. Several people consider Space Marines to be undercosted,

That would be accurate. That's part of the reason why they're so
forgiving of minor mistakes.

> the Necrons to be pretty cheesy

The problem is that Necrons are grossly undercosted and break all of the
rules. Only the phase out drawback keeps them from being totally over
the top.

> Tau / IG / Dark Eldar are seen to be about equal in power, with

IG is a strong army, but rather narrow in capability. The others are
weaker and more finesse-oriented.

> Orks viewed as seriously underpowered.

Orks aren't a power army, never have been, never will be.

> What are your thoughts?

The new Codex revamps will help level everything out at the new,
slightly higher power level that 40k4 seems to have bumped things toward.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:31:12 AM

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

Hive Tyrant wrote:
> Xis wrote:
>> How well do you think the 40K armies are balanced against each other?

> 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.

That would really flatten things out. Too much so, in all likelihood.

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.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:32:26 AM

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

"Xis" <waiting@oblivion.patiently> wrote in message
news:W1l1e.17727$rL3.5713@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> "Hive Tyrant" <richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:I5ydnUswG_o8O9jfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>
>> Seems to me the basic point system is broken when you compare one army to
>> another, and that largely because of the AP sytem. I feel the AP system
>> is broken and the relative armor saves of the armies exaggerate the
>> imbalance in the AP system. The costs of every unit considers all the
>> facets of that unit, including it's armor save.
>
> I tend to agree - the AP system has alway seemed very... weird to me. An
> AP5 weapon will mostly bounce off 3+ and 4+ armor saves, while an AP4
> weapon will bounce off 3+ saves and completely eradicate 4+ saves. Put
> another way, one weapon in my army (gauss rifles) has about the same
> effectiveness against Tau and Marines, while another weapon in my army
> (gauss cannons) is somewhat effective against Marines and huge against
> Tau.

what's weird about that?

> I also agree with your point about the 5+/6+ saves; but this was a problem
> in 2ed as well; marines bolt guns gave a -1 save, which reduced that 6+ to
> nothing.
>
> In this game, armor falls in to three categories:
>
> good armor (3+ or better saves)
> erratic, inconsistent armor (4+ saves) (sometimes very good, sometimes
> completely useless)
> no armor (5+ or worse saves)

*shrug* Sv5+ is pretty good against most armies' basic weapons. it's only
really marines, chaos marines and tau that can ignore it completely.
technically eldar basic weapons do too, but shuriken catapults are so
short-ranged it's usually a moot point and splinter rifles cause so few
casualties in the first place that it makes relatively little difference.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 3:25:19 AM

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

In article <I5ydnUswG_o8O9jfRVn-vw@comcast.com>, Hive Tyrant,
richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Xis wrote:
> > How well do you think the 40K armies are balanced against each other?
> >
> > In my group, people play Space Marines, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, and
> > Imperial Guard. Several people consider Space Marines to be undercosted, and
> > the Necrons to be pretty cheesy (I play both armies, so my opinion is a
> > little skewed - I don't see either as terribly unbalanced). Tau / IG / Dark
> > Eldar are seen to be about equal in power, with Orks viewed as seriously
> > underpowered.
> >
> > What are your thoughts?
> >
> >
> Basically what your group says, but not for the reasons you might think.
> I play Chaos Space Marines, Orks, Eldar and Tyranids so I can speak from
> experience here.
>
> <rant mode on>
>
> Seems to me the basic point system is broken when you compare one army
> to another, and that largely because of the AP sytem. I feel the AP
> system is broken and the relative armor saves of the armies exaggerate
> the imbalance in the AP system. The costs of every unit considers all
> the facets of that unit, including it's armor save.

<snip large points cost discussion.>

> 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'd say you've missed the boat on a fine point - the points
balance system isn't 'broken' per say - it's the fact that it's non-
existent that's the problem. GW *never* sat down and created a
structured model for generating the points cost of a given model based
on its stats. GW started by creating the stats for a typical 'Tac squad
Marine w/bolter' and then priced it points wise. EVERY other model is
then priced with the 'SWAG' method (Simply a Wild Ass Guess) as to how
well it performs on the field in comparison to a Tac Marine.

You've got two points of contention here. First up is 'balance'. GW's
core systems (WFB & 40K) try to create a *very* unnatural condition
militarily speaking. And that is a fight between to nearly equal or
perfectly balanced forces. Historically, any commander smarter than say
'Joe Dirt' attempted to make every battle a one sided affair in their
favor by seeking out every and all possible advantages over their foe.

So the first area we immediately run into is a unit's point costs. GW
does not now, nor have they ever had to my knowledge a 'design
structure' of any sort for determining the points cost of various units
based on its various attributes. As noted above - they use the SWAG
method. This of course means that whether a unit's 'points cost'
accurately reflects its 'table top effectiveness' depends entirely on
the experience and judgement of the codex writer. Some writers are
DEFINITELY better than others when it comes to guesstimating the points
cost vs effectiveness of various units in an army list. The result
being that lack of a uniform points system and the SWAG method ends up
with some units performing better than their points cost would reflect
(I.e. unbalanced or cheesy), while other units consistently fail to
preform as well as they should for their cost (I.e. 'overcosted') and
never earn their points back on the table top.

Next up is 'flawed' rules. These rules result (again) in lopsided or
uneven matches in ways that the game designers *did not* intend. There
are indeed times in various games when a lopsided battle is purposely
created (or re-created) where each side typically has vastly different
objectives - like the smaller force trying to run away / survive / hold
out, while the larger force simply seeks to annihilate the smaller. But
as was already covered - GW almost always *attempts* to create even or
equal matches. In 40K, many would agree that the 'space wolves scouts'
have a flawed or broken special rule that makes them effective far
beyond their unit points cost when used. Scouts aren't usually high
priced as under normal situations they're not uber effective. However,
the S.W. scouts get to deploy *in their opponent's deployment zone* -
effectively being virtually guaranteed to get a shot on a vehicle's weak
rear armor, or tie up a Heavy support unit in HTH immediately. That
special rule makes them WAY MORE effective than similarly costed units
without that special rule. Simply put - game designers can't foresee
and cover every single possibility in a rules set with as much
variability as is found in WFB & 40K. That being the case, they can't
possibly cover all of the ways in which the rules may be used in manners
that they didn't intend.

The problem here isn't of necessity that a lot of gamers are
'purposely' cheesy (though some most certainly are). It's that GW
failed to create a system that could routinely and clearly generate
units where said unit's abilities on the battlefield are generally
reflected accurately by that unit's points cost. Add in that GW's core
systems tend to get progressively more complex as new codex/army books
come out (it'll be interesting to see what happens in 4th Ed with a lot
of the special rules already in the 'core' book), AND that GW
has a long history of not writing rules that clearly spell out both
their mechanics and intent, and one has the makings of some very
unbalanced games.

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
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 10:05:36 AM

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

Steve Olk wrote:
> John Hwang wrote:

>>Black Templars are also a 1st tier army. I'm surprised you
>>didn't list them at all. There must be a bad memory you're
>>supressing...
>
> Oops, I simply forgot about them. I'd say they're near the
> bottom of the top tier though:

I'd agree with that assessment.

> lack of devs, death of rhino rush, Emperor's champion,

IMO, this is a bonus -- the EC is just about the most points-efficient
model in the game.

> no relics (due to iron halo on chump),
> no veteran sgt, and the old costs for bikes/assault marines
> makes them less brutal then they once were. They were arguably
> the best rhino rush army out there, but now they spend time with
> space wolves reminiscing of better times.

Templars they still have their Vows, and they don't have much in the way
of Trait Disadvantages.

>>Alaitoc is a 3rd tier army. It is too narrowly focused,
>>depending entirely on ranged shooting, and dying automatically
>>to mechanized infantry of any type.
>
> I stand by Alaitoc as 2nd tier. With all the infiltrate
> available, the army can scatter it's snipers beautifully. Plus,
> don't forget that Snipers get 2d6 armor pen, for a 1/12 chance
> to glance Rhinos. And that's before you add in star cannons and
> lances. Eldar, sans Serpant rush, are best as a
> shooting/mobility army, and the Alaitoc list best favors that.

Sniper-based Alaitoc is a *static* shooting army, not a mobile shooting
army. If you max out the disruption, you've got 8x 3+ Rangers (8x 57+)
with 2-3x 5 Pathfinders (2-3x 120). That's about half of your army
points sunk into units that don't move, don't fight, and are entirely
reliant upon cover saves to stick around.

> Maybe this is mostly theoryhammer, but 57 pt units that can
> infiltrate and win you a roll on the Disruption table are good
> in my eyes. For 342 pts, you get 6 of those units, and still
> have room for two Defender squads with starcannons (~150pts a
> pop). Add in two of those path-finders for 73 pts a squad, and
> you've spent ~725pts for 8 rolls on the Table, 18 eldar sniper
> rifles, 6 pathfinder rifles, two star cannons, and you still
> have room for a squad of Scorps w/ Stealth, two falcons & a
> wraithlord, an avatar for countercharge, farseer w/ fortune, and
> three vypers w/ starcannons. That's 1850, and it throws out an
> awful lot of fire power. Plus, you're looking at having at
> least a handful of units start off the board or pinned thanks to
> the Disruption table. Again, YMMV, but they're like the Necrons
> in that they can hang tough against most armies.

With the Defenders taking a couple slots, this isn't really a max
disruption army, but I agree with most of your choices: Vypers for
mobility; Scorpions w/ Fareer and WL for resilience. The 40k4 Falcon
isn't so bad as a dual Heavy platform, but it's still awfully expensive.

>>No mention of the Thousand Sons, tho we all know what tier they
>>are...
>
> I simply forgot, but they're like Iyanden in that anybody with a
> 1k sons army can certainly field a higher powered variant army.

Yup.

>>Of course. But keep in mind that player skill and dice luck
>>are also important factors. A good, seasoned player with a
>>Dark Angels army will still mop up against a new SM army if
>>the dice break his way just a little. Of course, he'd do
>>even better if he took a SM army himself, but I still
>>believe experience and luck count more than the army list.
>
> No doubt.
>
>>Both Tau and Necrons are newer armies, and didn't have the
>>player experience base that the other armies possessed.
>>As players stick with them, they learn what works and how
>>to win.
>
> Tau in particular are building up steam. I think that as their
> knowledge base grows, and they gain some Chapter Approved toys

Tau are oddly compelling in the way that Ogre Kingdoms are compelling,
something different enough that you just wonder if you can do something
cool with them.

>>No kidding. And it wasn't like Marines exactly needed the
>>help.
>
> No, it's the first revision where a strong, varied popular army
> was given more raw strength, more options, and has become more
> popular.

The only good thing about this is that there isn't a single "bad" unit
in the book. If this is the precedent for other Codices, there are a
lot of models that can be dusted off and brought back into active play.

>>Yup.
>
> I'm not sure what do when Hwang agrees with a post... should I
> save it, or do I go take a quick shower ....
>
> Steve Olk (formerly posted as Karyth Teel)

Interesting tidbit. I always wondered what sort of name Karyth was... ;) 

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 10:05:37 AM

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

John Hwang wrote:

> Steve Olk wrote:
> >> lack of devs, death of rhino rush, Emperor's champion,
>
> IMO, this is a bonus -- the EC is just about the most
> points-efficient model in the game.

If you like him, and you're running a squad with room in a
vehicle to haul his ass, then it's a plus. If you don't want a
slow two wound model holding up your battle line, then he's a
liability. He's effecient once he's in combat, but he still
only has 3 attacks at S5. I'd rather have two veteran sgts.
with hidden powerfists for my 105 points.

>> no relics (due to iron halo on chump),
>> no veteran sgt, and the old costs for bikes/assault marines
>> makes them less brutal then they once were. They were
>> arguably the best rhino rush army out there, but now they
>> spend time with space wolves reminiscing of better times.
>
> Templars they still have their Vows, and they don't have much
> in the way of Trait Disadvantages.

Their vows are great, especially if a librarian started on the
table --> free vow move. Though, they do fall forward and are
fearless in combat, so they're annoying to get rid of.



> With the Defenders taking a couple slots, this isn't really a
> max
> disruption army, but I agree with most of your choices: Vypers
> for
> mobility; Scorpions w/ Fareer and WL for resilience. The 40k4
> Falcon isn't so bad as a dual Heavy platform, but it's still
> awfully expensive.

Expensive but durable. Any given glancing hit will only crash
the thing 1/9 of the time. that's a pain to deal with. What I
suggest is use minimum size rangers to disrupt what you can, and
then shoot the hell out of the rest with your snipers/tanks, and
finally use your assault elements to defend the homestead. I
tell you what, I'll drop it to high second tier, as an army that
can handle many army types very well, but is vulneralbe to a
couple of other types.

> Tau in particular are building up steam. I think that as
>> their knowledge base grows, and they gain some Chapter
>> Approved toys
>
> Tau are oddly compelling in the way that Ogre Kingdoms are
> compelling, something different enough that you just wonder if
> you can do something cool with them.

The guys over on Dakka have come up with a system to win with
Tau. One guy even went 5-0 at a GT, didn't get enough battle
points to win though. They have a solid ruleset, only one
really bad unit (krootox), and aside from the Suits really neat
models. I really like the Tau, and I'd like to see them
succeed. It's interesting that you mention not enough player
support to "crack" the army, cause that's the feeling about Dark
Eldar over on Dakka: that there's a winning list hidden in the
codex, it's just nobody can find it.

> The only good thing about this is that there isn't a single
> "bad" unit
> in the book. If this is the precedent for other Codices, there
> are a lot of models that can be dusted off and brought back
> into active play.

I'd argue that the Techmarine isn't a "good" unit. It's not bad,
but it's really mediocre. But I agree, while Scouts didn't get
the boost I thought they needed, scout bikes did, as did bikes,
terminators, assault squads, command squads, etc.

> Interesting tidbit. I always wondered what sort of name Karyth
> was... ;) 

Yeah, it was something I made up when I was a kid. My mom asked
who made a mess or something, and I replied "Karyth Teel." It
kind of stuck as my back up internet handle. But I just
installed linux, and I just got my name. So I post under that
now.

Steve
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 12:28:58 PM

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

"Xis" wrote...
> How well do you think the 40K armies are balanced against each other?
>
> In my group, people play Space Marines, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, and
> Imperial Guard. Several people consider Space Marines to be undercosted, and
> the Necrons to be pretty cheesy (I play both armies, so my opinion is a
> little skewed - I don't see either as terribly unbalanced). Tau / IG / Dark
> Eldar are seen to be about equal in power, with Orks viewed as seriously
> underpowered.
>
> What are your thoughts?

In my group, which is admittedly quite small, we've come up with a few
observations. Based on tabletop results, here's how I'd rank the armies I've
seen in action:

Necrons - Tier 1, and just too damned tough.
Codex Marines - Tier 1, but by no means overpowered.
Chaos - Tier 1, though there are a lot of options and building a good force can
be tricky. All we've seen so far are Black Legion and a couple of the unaligned
legions.

Witchhunters - Tier 2. High tier 2. The Sisters shoot, and save, as well as
Marines, and there are more of them.
Dark Eldar - Tier 2... they've got potential, but we're not 100% sure what.
Eldar - Tier 2. A dying race because they leave so many guardians flat on the
ground after every battle!
Tyranids - Tier 2 at best. Seriously in need of a new Codex! Warriors in
particular are points on a stick for an opponent.

LatD - Tier 3. The disadvantages of both Chaos and IG.
Tau - Tier 3. No one here has figured out how to play Tau effectively. I have
never seen them win a game.

Of course, this may be biased by the high frequency of power armored troops in
this particular group. I've never seen Orks or IG in action, so I'm not sure
how to rank the horde armies.
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

I went to a seafood buffet at the gymnasium last week ... and pulled a mussel.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 6:39:52 PM

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

"Hive Tyrant" <richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I5ydnUswG_o8O9jfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
<<>>
> Seems to me the basic point system is broken when you compare one army to
> another, and that largely because of the AP sytem. I

Whilst you could fiddle about with the points system a bit.
It won't fix things though.
Papering over the cracks.
IMO, it's not possible to design a fair points system that would work for
WFB or 40K.
There are too many extremes in the troop types.

The points fiasco is exacerbated by people playing strangers.
This is a recipe for players to try and out-min-max one another.
Which, incidentally, encourages players to buy more figures in their search
for the most points-efficient killer list.

This would be why many of us who play non-GW games play scenarios where we
design both sides, terrain and victory conditions whilst ignoring the
vagaries of a ruleset's point system.

If you're fed up with the various logial inconsistencies in 40k then maybe
you also want to look at a different set of rules. I would suggest
stargrunt 2 is a good set to look at.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 7:26:04 AM

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

Steve Olk wrote:
> John Hwang wrote:

>>>>lack of devs, death of rhino rush, Emperor's champion,
>>
>>IMO, this is a bonus -- the EC is just about the most
>>points-efficient model in the game.
>
> If you like him, and you're running a squad with room in a
> vehicle to haul his ass, then it's a plus. If you don't want a
> slow two wound model holding up your battle line, then he's a
> liability. He's effecient once he's in combat, but he still
> only has 3 attacks at S5. I'd rather have two veteran sgts.
> with hidden powerfists for my 105 points.

While you'd clean house against ordinary or elite troops, you'd still
suffer against enemy ICs. The EC solves the problem of enemy HtH models
very neatly.

>>Templars they still have their Vows, and they don't have much
>>in the way of Trait Disadvantages.
>
> Their vows are great, especially if a librarian started on the
> table --> free vow move. Though, they do fall forward and are
> fearless in combat, so they're annoying to get rid of.

Which is why I consider them to be a good army. IMO, BT are like the
BA, but made precise.

>>With the Defenders taking a couple slots, this isn't really a
>>max disruption army, but I agree with most of your choices:
>>Vypers for mobility; Scorpions w/ Fareer and WL for
>>resilience. The 40k4 Falcon isn't so bad as a dual Heavy
>>platform, but it's still awfully expensive.
>
> Expensive but durable. Any given glancing hit will only crash
> the thing 1/9 of the time. that's a pain to deal with. What I
> suggest is use minimum size rangers to disrupt what you can, and
> then shoot the hell out of the rest with your snipers/tanks, and
> finally use your assault elements to defend the homestead.

Yup. And Fast elements to grab objectives at the very end.

> I tell you what, I'll drop it to high second tier, as an army that
> can handle many army types very well, but is vulneralbe to a
> couple of other types.

OK. My problem with Alaitoc is that it doesn't have a lot of options in
construction or play style. Also, Alaitoc doesn't have the raw power of
the other 1st tier armies to cover for its narrowness. Most of the
other 1st tier armies can steamroller their way over an enemy, given a
little bit of luck or a few strategic breaks. Alaitoc needs a good
series of disruption rolls to knock the opponent back a bit, to try and
manage the flow of the game. To me, that makes Alaitoc a bit more of a
finesse / tempo army than a true power army.

>>Tau are oddly compelling in the way that Ogre Kingdoms are
>>compelling, something different enough that you just wonder if
>>you can do something cool with them.
>
> The guys over on Dakka have come up with a system to win with
> Tau. One guy even went 5-0 at a GT, didn't get enough battle
> points to win though. They have a solid ruleset, only one
> really bad unit (krootox), and aside from the Suits really neat
> models. I really like the Tau, and I'd like to see them
> succeed.

I think Tau will, with a few more options and tweaks. They occupy a

> It's interesting that you mention not enough player support
> to "crack" the army, cause that's the feeling about Dark
> Eldar over on Dakka: that there's a winning list hidden in the
> codex, it's just nobody can find it.

IMO, the problem with Dark Eldar is that they're just too darn fragile.
The DE have taken the fast & fragile "Eldarness" just a bit too far
to allow for consistent power gaming. It's just a little bit too easy
for the opponent to get a good series against the DE, tipping the game
irretrievably past critical. Fluff-wise, DE can't be a horde army, but
it's hard to bump them up to a 10ppm base with a S3 T3 Sv5+ baseline.

>>The only good thing about this is that there isn't a single
>>"bad" unit in the book. If this is the precedent for other
>>Codices, there are a lot of models that can be dusted off
>>and brought back into active play.
>
> I'd argue that the Techmarine isn't a "good" unit. It's not bad,
> but it's really mediocre.

IMO, the Techmarine is the kind of model that many other lists would
*love* to have, but he really pales compared with the alternative ICs
(e.g. Chaplain & Librarian).

> But I agree, while Scouts didn't get the boost I
> thought they needed, scout bikes did, as did bikes,
> terminators, assault squads, command squads, etc.

Scouts never should have been unrestricted Troops choices. They should
have been 0-1 per Tac squad, like the AF per IG Platoon. So having them
a bit behind the curve is good.

> Yeah, it was something I made up when I was a kid. My mom asked
> who made a mess or something, and I replied "Karyth Teel."

Heh.

> It kind of stuck as my back up internet handle. But I just
> installed linux, and I just got my name. So I post under that
> now.

Which distro?

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:37:09 PM

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

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, and just live with it?
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:46:15 PM

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

Myrmidon wrote:

> I'd say you've missed the boat on a fine point - the points
> balance system isn't 'broken' per say - it's the fact that it's non-
> existent that's the problem.

That's the truth. Points costs aside though, it's the AP system that
really rubs me wrong.

<Much well thought out balance exploration here>

> The problem here isn't of necessity that a lot of gamers are
> 'purposely' cheesy (though some most certainly are). It's that GW
> failed to create a system that could routinely and clearly generate
> units where said unit's abilities on the battlefield are generally
> reflected accurately by that unit's points cost.

Again, the WAG method of costing just exaggerates the AP systems
shortcomings. Like Hwang said, it's a crutch for the SM player. I don't
see how anyone can look at the AP system and not see how it's geared
towards helping the SMeq. There is a hard line at AP4 that few weapons
cross. Guess who gets most of them? Sure, every race gets something that
penetrates Sv 3+, but they cost a lot.

It's as if the SM gets a 3+ Invulnerable save, because little to nothing
in your non-SM army can bypass the save.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:33:39 PM

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

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:

> IMO, the problem with Dark Eldar is that they're just too darn fragile.

No kidding about that. I have lost a few games against the Dark Eldar, but
the games I lost always went like this:

Turn 1: Lots of Dark Eldar Die
Turn 2: Lots of Dark Eldar Die
Turn 3: Lots of Dark Eldar Die
Turn 4: His two remaining models (Leader/Talos) reach HTH, lots of Necrons
die
Turn 5: Lots of Necrons die in HTH
Turn 6: Phase Out

95% of his army is just crumples, only one or two relatively tough HTH
monsters do all the work.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 6:28:39 PM

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

"Xis" <waiting@oblivion.patiently> wrote in message news:<BZg1e.17580$rL3.16024@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
> How well do you think the 40K armies are balanced against each other?
>
> In my group, people play Space Marines, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau, and
> Imperial Guard. Several people consider Space Marines to be undercosted, and
> the Necrons to be pretty cheesy (I play both armies, so my opinion is a
> little skewed - I don't see either as terribly unbalanced). Tau / IG / Dark
> Eldar are seen to be about equal in power, with Orks viewed as seriously
> underpowered.
>
> What are your thoughts?

SM: Haven't seen them played under 4th Ed., thouigh they look
reasonably balanced.

Necrons: Don't much care. Not cheesy, just very dull to play against.

Orks: Definitely seriously underpowered in standard Codex form.

Dark Eldar: Possibly a little weak following the 4th Ed. revisions,
but effective when played well.

Tau: Definitely balanced, but another army that can be tricky to play
well.

IG: Pretty balanced, but probably the most powerful of the balanced
armies if that makes any sense - they're easier to win with than many
of the others, but nothing in the list is undercosted or over-the-top.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 6:34:28 PM

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

Myrmidon <ImNot@home.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1cafbb9186d4bc1398a4e1@news-server.woh.rr.com>...
> In article <I5ydnUswG_o8O9jfRVn-vw@comcast.com>, Hive Tyrant,
> richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> > Xis wrote:

> You've got two points of contention here. First up is 'balance'. GW's
> core systems (WFB & 40K) try to create a *very* unnatural condition
> militarily speaking. And that is a fight between to nearly equal or
> perfectly balanced forces. Historically, any commander smarter than say
> 'Joe Dirt' attempted to make every battle a one sided affair in their
> favor by seeking out every and all possible advantages over their foe.

True, but then this is an abstraction used by any wargame that isn't
wholly based on set scenarios.

> So the first area we immediately run into is a unit's point costs. GW
> does not now, nor have they ever had to my knowledge a 'design
> structure' of any sort for determining the points cost of various units
> based on its various attributes.

The WFB4 rulebook contained a breakdown of points costs as they
related to individual stats, IIRC. Oddly enough it produced a less
balanced system than WFB6.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 10:10:44 PM

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...

> Myrmidon wrote:
>
> > I'd say you've missed the boat on a fine point - the points
> > balance system isn't 'broken' per say - it's the fact that it's non-
> > existent that's the problem.
>
> That's the truth. Points costs aside though, it's the AP system that
> really rubs me wrong.
>
> <Much well thought out balance exploration here>
>
> > The problem here isn't of necessity that a lot of gamers are
> > 'purposely' cheesy (though some most certainly are). It's that GW
> > failed to create a system that could routinely and clearly generate
> > units where said unit's abilities on the battlefield are generally
> > reflected accurately by that unit's points cost.
>
> Again, the WAG method of costing just exaggerates the AP systems
> shortcomings. Like Hwang said, it's a crutch for the SM player. I don't
> see how anyone can look at the AP system and not see how it's geared
> towards helping the SMeq. There is a hard line at AP4 that few weapons
> cross. Guess who gets most of them? Sure, every race gets something that
> penetrates Sv 3+, but they cost a lot.
>
> It's as if the SM gets a 3+ Invulnerable save, because little to nothing
> in your non-SM army can bypass the save.
>
This is how your complaint is coming across to my mind...

"WAH! Games Workshop skewed the rules so that the toughest bastards in the
known universe don't get hurt as often as the weakest ones do..."

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.

I think the end result (being that Marines are tough bastards) justifies
the fluff that has been written about them...

--
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
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 12:01:31 AM

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

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.

--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 12:22:47 AM

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

In article <TKKdnTq8YYq-ltXfRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Hive Tyrant wrote:
> Myrmidon wrote:
>
>> I'd say you've missed the boat on a fine point - the points
>> balance system isn't 'broken' per say - it's the fact that it's non-
>> existent that's the problem.
>
> That's the truth. Points costs aside though, it's the AP system that
> really rubs me wrong.

I like the AP system. In v3 and v4 armour is actually useful, as
opposed to mostly pointless as it was in v2 (don't remember enough
from RT to compare).

--
Joakim
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 4:43:23 AM

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

"Hive Tyrant" <richbusby@hatespam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TKKdnTq8YYq-ltXfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Again, the WAG method of costing just exaggerates the AP systems
> shortcomings.

You've got that backwards. It's the AP system that makes accurate pricing
of units' armor more difficult because it's sooooooo dependant on what
weapons all the other armies have available. Pricing toughness, on the
other hand, is pretty straight forward except for insta-kill considerations.
To make things even more difficult, GW doesn't write all of it's army lists
at the same time so the value of a given armor type can go up and down with
each new codex.

> It's as if the SM gets a 3+ Invulnerable save, because little to nothing
> in your non-SM army can bypass the save.

Which army? Tyranids? Orks? Neither of those armies are particularly good
at shooting anyone, 3+ armor or not. The only base non-assault army list
that doesn't have access to lots of AP 3 or better weapons is Necrons. Some
of the sub-lists are pretty light on good AP (Thousand Sons comes to mind)
but the sub-list are mainly just a way to customize/specialize their base
list.


--

-smithdoerr
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 5:12:59 AM

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

"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.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 6:26:58 AM

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

In article <vY12e.21737$rL3.20002@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, Xis,
waiting@oblivion.patiently Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> "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.

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.

Myr

--
#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
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 8:06:07 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 9:19:42 AM

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
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 9:43:49 AM

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
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 9:43:50 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 10:08:53 AM

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
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 12:55:40 PM

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."
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 5:07:52 PM

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
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 5:07:53 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 8:41:10 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 8:54:51 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 9:12:35 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 9:12:36 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 9:12:37 PM

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...
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 9:12:38 PM

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
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 10:18:40 PM

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
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 10:25:54 PM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 2:45:50 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:17:19 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:18:40 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:55:04 AM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 3:53:30 PM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:53:06 PM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 10:19:42 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 10:23:23 PM

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).
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:32:07 AM

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
!