Hi!

A couple of clarifications.

Ork gargants do NOT have void shields, thus no shield generator. They have POWER fields. They are small devices that over load with one hit and burn out. Shields on gargants are a one shot affair. Once gone they are gone for the rest of the game, thus there is no need to have a hit location for them (on top of this they flicker too).

Regarding the reavers lack of a carapace/shield incapacitating hit, in game terms, its moot. Once its shields are stripped the hit location tables offer much higher yield targets (head, reactor). Even if a carapace/shield generator target were available most season players would go after other high yield targets.

So basically, on a standard d6 damage table, besides a fluff justification, there is no real need in game mechanics terms to add this. This stems from my experience in actual games over the course of 21 years (18 years since 2nd edition and 13 since netepic started) and hundreds of games played.

Now what I do favor is Dwarf Supreme d10 based damage tables. Not only does include the carapace/shield generator, but from a mechanical perspective the d10 makes titan weapons with damage bonus more useful and realistic (in the d6 system damage bonuses usually means auto-kill). I've used his ideas in games and my conclusions are that it makes titans more robust, validates strategies like knocking out shields more viable as well as making damage bonuses more significant (on a d10 a bonus of +2 is significantly different from a +5 bonus).

In summary, the "solution", is to include the carapace/shield generators on units missing it when using d10 based damage system. The original d6 system does not offer sufficient variance to include a change that has no real game impact.

Hate to put you on the spot Dwarf Supreme, but your d10 damage system is one of those "must have" things to be included in the "extra rules" book (formerly known as the optional book). So we really need to get from you as much as you have. Create a thread and post them as time permits.

If you get the ball rolling, I will dive into it to get all the units we need done for inclusion in that last book.

Let me know when the thread gets posted.

Primarch

I don't mind being put on the spot. I do/did have an old thread when I originally posted them. However, I'll probably just start a new one.

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

Hi!

Thanks!

I'm giving this and the proxy issue priority. These two points are long overdue and need to get done.

Primarch

Okay, first, the Reaver/Warlord comparison is made for a couple reasons.

First, the warlord is (based on point value) a much more robust titan. To be specific, a Reaver costs 60% of what a warlord costs BEFORE you start adding weapons. Since the Warlord carries a larger number of hard points and can carry heavier weapons, it is actually capable of a much higher point value count. Thus the point to point ratio should remain .6:1 or lower.
This means that the reaver should only be able to withstand 60% of what a warlord should.
However when you look at the reaver you notice some things.
1. The Reaver has 67% of the shields that the Warlord has.
2. The Reaver has 75% of the weapons mounts
3. The Reaver has the same damage tables as the Warlord (and thus has the same survivability in terms of being able to take a hit)

Now, since it has less shields (4 instead of the 6 used by the Warlord) it will statistically only be able to raise 2 shields for every 3 that the warlord raises (Void shields come back up on a 4+ roll, so it's a flat 50% per shield to restore one, so out of 6 dice 3 will come up for a war lord each round, and 2 out of 4 for a reaver) So it has the ability to regenerate 67% (2/3) as many shields as a warlord over time)

These alone show that while the reaver is weaker than the warlord, that points-wise they already give a better than .6:1 cost to benefit ratio. Bottom line is that the Reaver is a bargain already.


Correct
The reactor hit is obviously a better hit since it drops the void shields as well as having an excellent chance that the titan will explode. But the reactor on a reaver is low to the ground in terms of the model, meaning it's got a lot better chance to use over to it's advantage to keep the reactor from being targeted. Sometimes the prime hit isn't there to be taken. But that Carapace is always nice and high up there. Yeah it's got a good save on the warlord, but it's still got a pretty good chance to kill the titan and make it go BOOM (killing nearby units)



Okay, let's talk about this strategy for a second. The goal of any hit is to get as much out of that hit as possible. If you target the head, there's a problem. When you target you MUST roll the two targeting dice (labled up down left right and blanks) and apply the result to determine where it hits).

Targeting the head from the front is fine, but targeting it from the side, well, you're most likely to stay within the 9 hit locations in that block of 3 by 3. And of those, you have 3 that are blanks, which result in misses if you land on them. that creates a base minimum of 33% chance of a miss, whereas a CBM shot gets you a chance at a weapon flashback, a chance at a carapace hit, and a head shot and mostly eliminate all chances of the hit turning into a miss.

Now, concerning armor saves. One thing to remember about void shields is that they block all shots without going down unless they have a -1 or greater save modifier. So any weapon targeted on a titan is going to be a -2 or better, and thus any save is going to go down by 2 as well, that 1+ carapace save is now a 3+ on average, and worse for most heavy titan class weapons.

Now, that said let's examine the head hit vs the carapace hit in terms of efficacy since they're both 1+ save locations.

Head.
1-2 Damaged. CAF halved and roll 4+ to give the titan orders.
3 Crippled. CAF halved for the rest of the game.
4 Crippled. Same as 1-2, for the rest of the game.
5-6 Destroyed and the titan falls.

So here it's a choice between
1. a 33% chance of a repairable event and 4+ activation
2. a 16% chance of CAF halved (which cannot be repaired)
3. a 16% chance of both (which cannot be repaired)
or
4. a 33% chance of killing the titan on the spot, but no explosion.

As compared to a carapace hit which is as follows.
1-2. The void shield generators are shut down and the shields may not be used until repaired.
3-4. The Titan’s void shield generators are shut down and the shields may not be used any further in the game.
5. The shields are in danger of overloading and you must shut them down before they explode. Roll a D6. On 5-6 the shields are safely shut down, on 1-4 they explode as 6 (below):
6. The Titan’s void shields overload and explode. The Titan is destroyed but remains standing. Any models within 2D6 cm are automatically hit at 0 TSM.

which yields
1. A 33% chance of void shields down but repairable.
2. A 33% chance of void shields out for the game.
3. A 16% chance killing the shields, plus an extra 67% chance of killing the titan and doing hits to all targets in 2-12 cm.
4. A 16% chance for a flat outright kill and explosion as in #3.

That means you have a base 25% chance of killing a titan with a carapace hit but with the added bonus of potentially killing anything within 12 cm radius of it. That's a potential 24 cm diameter pieplate.

Yes, a head hit is a better single kill, but a carapace hit has the potential for more collateral damage to enemy troops.


I agree, a reactor hit IS a great place to hit, not only can you knock out the void shields till it's repaired, but you have a 33 percent chance for outright reactor explodes, and a chance for explosion on a "crippled" roll too. By far a good hit, IF your targeting dice don't turn the hit into a miss.
However, why you might target anything else? Well, for one, the reactor on reavers is low to the ground, It's far more likely to be obscured by cover than the reactor on a warlord. Whereas the carapace on a reaver would be high, and always visible, and would occupy 3 hit boxes (the same hit boxes as the carapace weapon)



Again, I agree, the target of opportunity would be the reactor, unless covered by cover. But again I point out that the reactor may well be obscured due to the low profile and thus not a viable target.
There's nothing wrong with having a secondary target that might not be as good as a target as the reactor, but a better one than a simple weapon hit.


As I noted above, prime targets are not always available, sometimes you have to settle for a secondary target. Let's say the reactor is obscured by a piece if cover, but the carapace is open for a hit, you could then choose between a carapace weapon hit, an arm weapon, or a carapace hit? I'd go for the carapace because at least it has a better chance to kill the titan than a weapon hit would.

Pretty much what I said here.



Here's what the sheets would look like
Reaver Goth (note it has a carapace mount.)


And this is what a reaver with it's weapon mount either blown off, or not filled (as in the case of the reaver hun)

1/6 chance of a total miss (avoid an 'R' on the 'L/R/Hit' die and you hit something).

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Why are you modifying the save by -2? A weapon needs only a -1 save modifier to knock down a void shield and thus be able to damage a Titan.

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

Hmm, I figured that would be mostly obvious. But I'll explain.

On average, most non-titan units that end up attacking a titan body have a -2 save modifier or marginally better.
If you have troops with -1 or better, you will use the majority of the -1 modifier troops to first knock down void shields leaving the -2 or better value troops to attack the actual titan itself. Further, the -2 or better troops usually have a better or equal to hit roll, thus further weighting the resulting hits toward the -2 category.

Further, now neglecting non titan attackers and shifting focus to titan v titan hits, if we examine a sampling of titan weapons (using the imperial weapons as a baseline) we see the following. (number following the mod indicates how many items in each modifier category)

0 modifiers (5): Carapace multilaser, inferno gun, laser blaster, MRL Shotgun mode, Vulcan mega bolter
-1 modifier(5):Cerebus AA gun Gattling Blaster, Hellstrike, MRL Pen mode,Weapon head
-2(4):Barage Missle Launcher, deathstrike cannon, Harpoon missile, Turbo laser
-3(4):Doom burner, melta cannon, plasma cannon, quake cannon,
-4(2):Volcano cannon, plasma blast gun,
*-6:Plasma destructor

* opted to neglect the plasma destructor from calculations since it's a comparatively rare item to see on the battlefield)
we average their total save modifiers.
0+5+8+12+8=33/20 (the total weapons in the list being averaged)=1.7 (most significant digit) which is therefore a -2 mod average.

Now, that said, most of the -0 or -1 weapons systems are rarely used, particularly the weapon heads, further weighting the average "to save modifiers" to the greater negative values, but in the interest of conservative probabilities a baseline should not underestimate the usage of low value items and thus inflate values.

Now, if you feel that this average isn't comprehensive enough, I suppose I could track down all the weapons used by other races as well, and bring them into the average. But the Imperial forces are supposed to fill the baseline for the game in terms of balance.

I was referring to the probability of missing the head, not that of missing the target completely.

2 in 6 results on each die end up scattering your hit.

However, none of this has anything to do with whether or not the reaver is or is not unbalanced.

Again, I point you to the cost for the base titan.

It' is 60% of the cost of a Warlord, and yet it has greater than 60% of the shields, weapons and survivability of that which it's being compared to.

Well a Warhound is 25% of the cost (125 points versus 500) but has 33% of the void shields and 50% of the weapon slots compared to a Warlord so clearly this is even worse - right?

In my view the extra cost of the Warlord includes more subtle points that means direct comparison is not straighforward - for example the ability to use every weapon. I offer a number of examples of how this is so:
1) Plasma Destuctors might be rare in your games but a Warlord with one and a fire control tower plus two cheap CC weapons is relatively inexpensive (750 points??) yet shooty and (I thought) quite popular. Not possible with a Reaver.
2) A Warlord with a Deathstrike head actually gives you 5 weapon points to the Reavers 3 - hence back to your 60% ratio, plus you can chuck on a Carapace Landing Pad to make it a more effective Siege variant than any Reaver.
3) Two carapace locations = 2 support missile slots means Warlords are a more efficient delivery system for these compared to Reavers if Warp Missiles float your boat.

Remember also a weapon on a Warlord could be thought of as worth more than one on a Reaver - the greater survivability of the Warlord means on average it will last longer and shoot more stuff - yet weapons are costed equally no matter the size of Titan. This is why two Warhounds, both equipped with two Quake Cannon should cost less than a Warlord with four Quake Cannon.

To sum up my point is comparisons are tricky and can be misleading. Playtesting is probably the best indicator if the Reaver is overpowered compared to a Warlord and I'm not sure the evidence for that is there.

Look, we're getting away from the primary point here, which is, "Is it fair for a Reaver to get all the benefits of void shields, but none of the drawbacks?"

A void shield gives you complete immunity from all attacks that are not -1 TSM or better.
Individual Void Shields come back up 50% of the time (4+)
all this comes with the drawbacks that they can be destroyed and that Void Shield generators NORMALLY carry a risk that a hit to them will cause them to explode.

This has been the way that VSGs have been treated in AT, in SM, and even in normal 40k. Why should they be any different in netepic? Clearly there was a mistake made in sm2 and it was likely a simple clerical error. Why not correct it?

Compare VSGs to eldar or ork shields
For eldar, you get defense saves without mods counting, but at the cost being open to area effects and having shitty saves for the generators (wings can be hit from all directions and have extremely shitty saves (3+)
For Orks you get lots of power fields, but they flicker and are gone when they're gone.

For every benefit, there's a drawback. It's logical and adds balance.

The reaver however gets all the benefits of VSGs, but does not suffer the risk of losing them, or of having them explode like they do on the warlord and other titans.

I've yet to see one person give me a single good reason why the reaver should not experience the same risks of VSG hits that the Warlord and other titans do.

Is it because someone felt that its point cost is too high and thus arbitrarily removing that risk of VSG hits rebalanced it?
Is it because a clerical error was made? and if so, why are we not correcting it?
Is it because we're afraid a change to the Reaver might confuse people?
or
Is there an actual valid in-game reason (that I'm just not seeing) for it to not have the risk of losing VSGs?

If there is an actual in-game reason, then I'd love to hear it.

Ifurita, you have given a lot of convoluted supporting evidence for the survivability claim, but as yet, still not proven it. Please can show me the statistical analysis (i.e. math) to back up the following claim:

"Reaver survivability is significantly greater without a Carapace hit location".

It should include the following:
*precise definition of 'survivability'
*any assumptions
*any estimations

Please separate description/notes from the actual math.

My feeling on this is that the difference is marginal and/or we need to make some estimations with a high margin of error, however I'm looking forward to finding out either way.

p.s. i'm not arguing against a change in rules, just your claim of survivability

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

The only reason any of this has become convoluted is because there's been a constant effort from some to keep moving the goalposts of what proof they're willing to accept.

We've already established that this is clearly an ERROR on someone's part at GW. That the reaver was never intended to not have void shield hits by the designers. It's clearly a human error because in every other iteration of GW rules that include the reaver (save Epic:A), it HAS always had void shield generators that were able to be destroyed.

In AT VSG's could be hit on the reaver
In SM1, the same was true.
In its SM2 launch in 142 it had hits to the VSGs laid out.
In 40k, the rules that GW and FW both released for the reaver you could hit the VSGs.

In each of these releases it's been clear, the intent is that it had VSGs that could be hit.
It's clear that they didn't intend for this situation to exist like it does in Netepic.

At that point it stopped being about whether it was a mistake, and started becoming about whether it affected the game, at which point I suggested an open source simulation so that everyone could see it was on the up and up. At which point some people seemed a little antsy about a simulation being run and they tried to shift focus again.

If there is convolution in play here, it's not from me.

As to your proof demands. Dude, I'd really suggest you read what you posted and really think about how you just came across. Because right now, I'm thinking that you didn't intend to come off like you did.

As to what "survivability" means, it's a common phrase used by Intel analysts for the battlefield longevity of a combat unit, or at least it was when I worked at AFIWC-HQ as one. It's a term that indicates what a unit's statistical mortality is in a combat environment based on the battle tempo it is engaged in.

A Unit that can maintain a certain battle tempo for sustained periods without becoming functionally degraded is considered to have a high survivability rating.

A unit that becomes functionally degraded quickly is said to have a low survivability rating, owing to the fact that the term "functionally degraded" is a euphemism for "die" or "become a casualty"

Just to be clear, unequivocal and non-convoluted. While the ommission of a "void shields are destroyed" result on the Reaver might be a long standing mistake, it seems clear that it has had no discernable effect on the game and that 80% of the community doesn't think there is anything that requires correction. Feel free to continue the discussion for academic purposes if you like, and of course you are more than welcome to houserule things, but no change to the current template will be made.

That's funny zap, when did you become the person that decides what will and will not be changed? Last I checked, that was something for WMN and Primarch to decide. And Primarch seems to favor Dwarf Supreme's d10 crit tables which apparently do include VSG hits.

Also, why the rush to shut down this conversation, eh? I mean this has only been up a week and I've only just gotten started on the simulation program I'm writing. You're not suggesting that we make up our minds without having actually investigated the issue, are you?