Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...

 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:36 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Kagetora @ Oct. 31 2007,22:06)
QUOTE
Not trying to be combative here...just calling it like I see it.  I find that to be a pretty weak argument against better Carnis too.

No worries, but I would like you to see you play some games before having too firm an opinion about it...  I was a 4+RA fan too before lots of games... not that I'm totally against the idea now, I just don't think it has as much recommending it as you seem to think.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm
Posts: 85

(Markconz @ Nov. 01 2007,01:36)
QUOTE

(Kagetora @ Oct. 31 2007,22:06)
QUOTE
Not trying to be combative here...just calling it like I see it. ?I find that to be a pretty weak argument against better Carnis too.

No worries, but I would like you to see you play some games before having too firm an opinion about it... ?I was a 4+RA fan too before lots of games... not that I'm totally against the idea now, I just don't think it has as much recommending it as you seem to think.

Fair enough.

To be honest, however, I doubt more games are going to change my mind about Carnis.

I can easily field, for 50 points more per group (a pittance in a 3k list when you only have 1-2 formations with such units), all of the Haruspex and/or Malefactors I could want.  They are better by far than Carnifex at this point.  Many, many times more survivable and more "killy" as well.

So, as I watch my Carnis die horribly to every MW shot that wanders my way, I will be wishing they had SOME form of save against such attacks.  At some point I am pretty certain I will simply stop using them and begin taking formations with nothing but the tougher monsters.

Why spend 100 points for something that dies easily when you can spend 50% more for something that lives 100% longer, kills more, and is faster?  Simple math there.  The +1 Spawning point is pretty meaningless when you are losing literally half the number of models, and you can swing by the Hive Node to pick up an extra model or two, or just end up more than 30cm from the enemy.

Seriously, the Carni just doesn't pass muster.  Your opponent can't let them get to him or her, but they won't have any trouble stopping them in most cases.

It not necessarily all about overall game balance, or specific abilities, or anything else.  Its actually about making every unit useful and valuable, so you go "Hmmm...damn.  I just don't know where to spend my points.  Everything is fairly good, has a purpose, and its hard to choose."

The Carni's purpose should not be ablative armor for Tyrants and Haruspex.  The choice should instead be..."Do I want extra models in the way of the cheaper Carnifex, or faster move and more attacks, but fewer models in the way of the other creatures?"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:54 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Why spend 100 points for something that dies easily when you can spend 50% more for something that lives 100% longer, kills more, and is faster?


This is a rather hyperbolic comparison.  The claim that the assault spawn live "100% longer" is just plain wrong against anything but a list with all MW shots that does no assaults whatsoever.  The saves against normal AT attacks and hits in assault are only slightly different and because Nids tend to take a lot of casualties from hackdown hits after lost FF Fearless is a substantial improvement in durability.  That more than makes up for the armor difference in assaults.  A more reasonable assessment would be something like +50% durability for the assault spawn.

Speed?  Not really an advantage.  20cm prevents garrisons and while it allows a bit more flexibility if the swarm needs to shift directions during the game, the swarm is still tied to 15cm move Synapse Creatures.  Personally, I think the 15cm move is a substantial advantage in this case simply by virtue of the additional flexbility to garrison.

Crunching some numbers against the Haruspex (because it's the most direct comparison to the Carni with regards to abilities and role):

Durability:  I'd say give the Haruspex +50%.  I think that's plenty generous, giving almost no credit to Fearless.

Firepower:  Identical FF.  Haruspex has +67% in CC, but as we know, that's far less valuable than FF.  I'd say the Haruspex has no more than +25% offensive firepower over the Carni (that's half of the CC benefit, cut down for the lower proportional effectiveness v FF).

Speed:  I don't think there's an advantage at all due to the garrison and synapse issues, but let's pretend it makes a substantial difference in reaching CC and call it a force multiplier for the Haruspex.  Speed differentials generally count for about half when doing a square root rule comparison.  Let's give a full +30% advantage for this.  That's ridiculously overblown, but we're trying to give every advantage to the Haruspoex over the Carni.

Square root rule on those factors is:
SQRT (1.5*1.25*1.3) = 1.56

1.56 * 33.3 point Carni = 52 points for the Haruspex

Rounding everything strongly in the Haruspex's favor, we find that there is a 4% discrepancy in theoretical point values.  Heck, even if we grant you the full 100% durability benefit you claim and put the movement benefit back down to something reasonable, like +15% (still more than the +0% I'd give it), you end up with:

SQRT (2*1.25*1.15) * 33.3 point Carnie = 56.5 points for the Haruspex; not much of an advantage.

The square root rule is certainly not the end-all, be-all of point determinations but it is pretty consistent and makes a good starting point.  Actual game-use may show the Carni to underperform in play.  It's just not likely to be anywhere near the no-brainer discrepancy you're claiming.

After doing that analysis, I think all the rounding I did in the Haruspex's favor means the Carnifex are actually the better buy.

===

Malefactors are a different can of worms, due to their FF focus.  There might be an issue with them simply because their effective firepower is going to be so much greater.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm
Posts: 85
Its an interesting analysis, Neal, but I disagree with some points.  Bear in mind I am not a math major.

Carnifex:  67% save rate vs AT fire, 0% save rate vs MW fire.

Haruspex:  75% save rate vs AT fire, 50% save rate vs MW fire.

Those are simple numbers.  Against AT fire, you will lose a Carni one-in-three times.  One-in-four for the Haruspex.  That may not seem like much, until you add in the saves vs MW fire.  At that point, the advantage of the Haruspex is literally infinite over the Carni.

As far as your assumption that that amounts to only a 50% increase in survivability, I question how you make that assumption.  That appears to be pure speculation.

In fact, it is.  It is impossible for either myself or you to work through all of the possible permutations of enemy lists vs the Tyranids, potential fire directed at them, terrain effects, etc. etc. etc.  Thats literally supercomputer stuff, considering the pure number of variables.

So, I base my rather off-the-cuff 100% additional survivability on this assumption:

My opponents aren't idiots, and they will attempt to direct the most efficient killing technique at the most appropriate target.

Thus, they aren't going to be wasting a lot of time (and firepower) directing simple AT fire or mixed AP/AT fire at a Tyrant/Carni/Haru formation.  They are going to concentrate any and all MW fire they have available at that very appropriate target.  Its obviously my job to prevent that.

Many of the lists have exceptional MW firepower, especially the Orks and Eldar.  SM, not so much, to be sure, unless they load up on Titans.  IG can scrounge up plenty if they wish to.

And your opponent is going to concentrate that firepower on the appropriate formation.  If they DON'T then all this is academic...you'll most likely beat them if they simply make poor decisions and play badly.

As such, it is my contention that the Haruspex IS 100% more survivable than a Carni at this point.  At least.  I am not simply looking at pure statistics on paper...I am thinking about what exists in a real-life enemy list, and how they are going to use it.  Revenants, Scorpions, MW-BP barrages from the Orks, Titan Weapons, Shadowswords, Baneblades, Orbital MW Bombardments, MW CC attacks, these are the things your Carnis are going to get hit with.  A smart opponent will save simple AT fire or mixed fire for the other, softer formations (such as ones that include LV's, mixed INF/LV/AV formations, or pummeling WEs/Bio-Titans, who have no better damage resistance than a Haruspex, and cost much more).  Knowing their weakness, a canny opponent will concentrate on it.

Your analysis may look ok on paper, bearing in mind you took into account almost no actual gameplay variables, but it won't hold up in an actual game, IMO.  Unless your opponent is a fool.   :;):


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:09 am
Posts: 276
Not wanting to pee on your fire Kagetora but shots from MWs are allocated by the player being shot at and can therfore be allocated to gaunts whereas AT bypasses them and hit the carnies.

So whilst its true that MW shots that are allocated to carnies are fatal - you simply place your carnies deeper into the swarm to prevent them being MW sniped.

Lightbringer
:cool:

_________________
Overseer Lightbringer II


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Lightbringer: That only happened under the now-abandoned experimental hit allocation rule.

The rulebook specifies an impartial order in which hits are applied.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:09 am
Posts: 276
Eek - abandoned!? I missed that one!

Ah - there's my coat..... :D

Lightbringer
:cool:

_________________
Overseer Lightbringer II


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 02 2007,11:30)
QUOTE
Lightbringer: That only happened under the now-abandoned experimental hit allocation rule.

It's the "two stage" rule now, correct?

That actually makes Carnifex remarkably more vulnerable, as AP fire will most likely clear the "riff-raff" leaving the Carnies exposed for MW allocation...

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Yes it's back to standard book rules.

But why aren't the riff-raff getting themselves some cover saves like proper tyranids?!? :D

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 02 2007,15:20)
QUOTE
But why aren't the riff-raff getting themselves some cover saves like proper tyranids?!? :D

Cuz they're engaging a smart enemy who puts formations on overwatch... ;)

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:38 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA
SHHHH not too loud.  DS will hear.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA

(Dave @ Nov. 02 2007,10:38)
QUOTE
SHHHH not too loud.  DS will hear.

As if I ever have the luxury of putting detachments on overwatch.  :p

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:29 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
As far as your assumption that that amounts to only a 50% increase in survivability, I question how you make that assumption.  That appears to be pure speculation.


No, it's simple math.  It is a comparison of the amount of firepower required to kill the units.  Damage inflicted is what matters, not what their chances to save are.  The only speculative part is in determining what portion of firepower will be MW (more on that below).

Looking at it from the chance to make the save is backwards.  If you compare the ratios of saving throw you end up with conclusions like the Haruspex's advantage against MW being "infinite."  Clearly, it does not take an infinite amount of MW firepower against a Haruspex to equal the damage of a single MW attack against a Carnifex.

The chance to save is related to the damage done per shot, but it's inverted.  For example, a 4+ save is 50% or 1/2 the time.  That's twice as tough as no save at all because it takes twice the firepower to average one kill (inverse of the 1/2 chance to save = 2 times as tough).

v AT (and generic hits in assault) - It takes 4 shots to kill one Haruspex v 3 for Carni (on average) - +33% tougher
v MW - 2 shots to 1 - +100%
v TK - 1:1 - +0%
v Lance - 3:4 - -33% (Haruspex come off worse)

The large majority of firepower allocated to AVs in most Epic games is AT or normal assault hits.  MW is a distinct minority.  TK an even smaller minority.  Lance smaller than that.

If you figure 1/5 of all fire is MW, which is pretty high, and calculate damage that 1 MW and 4 normal hits cause, you get:
Haruspex:  1.5
Carnifex:  2.33

That's ~50% more damage to the Carnies.  It's actually 1.55 and change but I rounded down because there might be occasional TK and Lance shots.  Even if you increase the ratio and assume the formations will receive 1/4 of all firepower as MW, you still only get a +60% durability.

Fearless:  All of that number-crunching is not taking into account Fearless hackdowns, which are in my experience a very substantial portion of Nid casualties.  Carnifex are immune to all those hits while Haruspex armor means nothing.  If only 1 out of 10 Haruspex casualties is from a hackdown (that's probably less than 1 per game for most army lists, so pretty conservative in that respect), that drops the proportional toughness by ~10%.  You're down to +40-50%.

Numbers:  Normally, numbers don't mean anything in a unit-to-unit comparions, but it does for the Nids because of the Synapse vulnerability.  A Synapse dying means major problems for the swarm, possibly killing it entirely.  More Carnies means less hits allocated to the Tyrant and less hits means less possibility of a bad save crushing the entire swarm.  Any quantification of this would be SWAG, but I think it's safe to say that it is in favor of the Carnifex, so we should probably round down a bit.

Unless the ratio of MW to normal hits is greater than 1:3, you are definitely under +50% toughness for the Haruspex.  I actually think that something like 35-40% would be more accurate.

==

Of course, all that hinges on that MW ratio.  I think assuming 1/4 of all hits are MW is very high.  Certainly, you will have some few armies that will do more than that, but there will be many who do far less than that.

Eldar and Orks can have a lot of MW, but frequently they do not.  For example, an assault oriented Eldar list will be doing lots of normal, non-MW hits in assault.  And, of course, Lance weapons can also be quite common in Eldar lists, rendering Haruspex's more vulnerable than Carnifex, offsetting some the MW advantage.

Lots of Ork lists avoid Gargants and Soopagunz and go with Zzaps instead.  Take a look at the lists people post for tournaments and batreps and you'll see the Orks rarely have more than about 4 templates of MW barrages.  Ferals can't have more than 1 MW per formation, which is often easily suppressed.  Speed Freeks have limited access to MW as well.  Neither Ferals nor Freeks have MWBP.

IG actually have very little MW, instead having easy access to high quality AT (good to-hit rolls) and plentiful TK.  That makes them really good against big WE targets, but it doesn't help much in a Carni/Haruspex comparison.

SMs are on the low end, but probably have just slightly more MW than IG (though are missing good AT fire and TK, making WEs an issue for them).

Black Legion are up there with a Soopa-gun heavy Ork force with the way they are commonly fielded, i.e. Decimators and Ferals.  I think of all the official army lists, they are probably the ones that will be most consistently heavy on MW.

L&D:  Little MW, comparable to IG.

Considering multiple games against "blind" opponents in a tournament setting, I don't think there's any way that more than 1/4 of hits were MW.  Even against a specific formation that you know will be a high priority MW target, that's pretty strong.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm
Posts: 85
Well, Neal, I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree with it mostly for two reasons.

#1 is that I don't think Tournament Play should be the end-all and be-all deciding factor of Epic rules, any more than it should be for the other GW game systems.  I don't attend Epic Tournaments (although I probably would if any were held locally), although I do attend RTT's and some GT's on a regular basis, and Tournament play is very different from casual or campaign play.  If all you focus on is Tournament play, you are seriously short-changing the system.

#2 is that, in my personal experience, you are seriously shorting the estimation on the number of MW shots that show up in a typical army.  At least locally, people cram as much MW weaponry into their lists as they can afford in most instances, as it is so vastly superior to regular weaponry.  Don't get me wrong...they often have plenty of the latter as well, but it tends to be of the cheaper variety, i.e. mass firepower with worse to-hit numbers.

I, myself, seem to never leave home without a variety of MW firepower in my other lists...Eldar and Feral Orks (who DO have MW in ABUNDANCE, btw...my Steam Gargant Horde drops a 12BP MW Barrage every turn, on top of the 5+ MW shot they have, and the 5+ MW shots from every other formation with a Wyrdboy).  And, at 3k points, I STILL don't have enough room to spread them out in my DZ...I have too many little guys.

Its not as if fielding MW is difficult.

But, as I said, thats MY experience.  Perhaps where you play people leave all the MW stuff at home.  I find that a little odd, actually, but, hey, to each his own.

And, its not about what percentage of an army has MW weaponry...its about how whatever they have will be concentrated on the Carnis, because there is little or no point in shooting it at the INF formations.

And I have yet to see a Wyrdboy get Suppressed OR an Ork Horde without a bazillion Soopagunz.  Eldar ALWAYS have EoV/Titans, and, as you said, Chaos has plenty of access.

I tend to agree with your assessment of Marines, and I don't really think its going to be a problem against them.

BTW, it really doesn't matter which end of the dice rolling you start at...to hit or armor saves...the percentages work out exactly the same.  Whats in contention here seems to be the composition of the enemy list and how it will be used.  I guess thats just something we'll have to disagree on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Kagetora @ Nov. 02 2007,23:11)
QUOTE
#1 is that I don't think Tournament Play should be the end-all and be-all deciding factor of Epic rules, any more than it should be for the other GW game systems. ?I don't attend Epic Tournaments (although I probably would if any were held locally), although I do attend RTT's and some GT's on a regular basis, and Tournament play is very different from casual or campaign play. ?If all you focus on is Tournament play, you are seriously short-changing the system.

Just to clarify things here again, the talk of "Tournament Play" is not in reference to going to tournaments and competing, it refers to the "Tournament Scenario", which is what, at its base, the army lists are for.

Yes, they are useful for all kinds of other things, that's the beauty of the system. ?But the army list are designed around the concept of two strangers meeting and playing a game of EPIC without knowing what army the other is fielding and making *that* fair and balanced... everything else is gravy (or icing, of you like sweets). ?

"Friendly" games are, by their definition, much more flexible and forgiving. ?Campaign play with known armies is a whole other beast as well and the basic lists aren't designed to fit seamlessly into that style of gameplay, but they *can* be used as a spring-board.

To design lists that work near flawlessly for all types of gameplay is impossible, so we work to perfect them for the most broad and accessible type of play: the Tournament Scenario.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net