No One's Maths Thread (Mostly GSC)

[No One]

kazetanade said:

You're comparing a 1/6 chance of success vs a 1/72 chance of similar impact failure. Word bearers have a 3+ for conjuration, spell familiar to reroll failed psychic, then take 4 turns to perils themselves to dead unless they roll 1 and fail ld10.

Not quite. While that's the case individually, taken as an aggregate - you're probably looking at similar odds (without knowing how many dice/how many CA, can't say definitively - but my rough calcs peg it within 0.2% of each other, both at <1%). i.e. (Specifically with regard to 6s) You have consistency in something happening, with multiple units over multiple turns. What you do not have, is consistency of something on a per unit basis, and with low unit count, on a per turn basis.

Functionally you are correct though, since for a small unit count, consistency of something over multiple turns just isn't going to cut it. You need some way of gaining more consistency (which basically boils down to 'more stuff', since sub up's as consistent as we can get), or a way to take advantage of the actually consistent results (i.e. the 3+). Which would mainly revolve around objectives (not hugely relevant for you) and board control (which fearless would be more relevant than hatred for - though I'm surprised it wasn't more 'mutual kills' than being swept - I know that was my experience with daemons, outside the annoying occasions where I failed fear/died to HoW. But I still just died either way). Either area denial, or aggressive sacrificial control. Can't really think of any other way to utilise a small force like that - it doesn't have the survivability/offensive output to really be a major 'threat', and doesn't have the consistency to pick apart key units. Maybe distraction, trying to separate the opponents forces?

One thing though - smaller units (probably) would've done more for you here, for the greater chance of a 6, and just go after weaker units. (I definitely think that's likely to be a better use of smaller GSC additions - keep it cheap, 5-8 man units, just going after easy pickings/tarpits and objectives).

[kazetanade]

No One will edit other points you mention later, just want to respond to the last one.

The mission pack has been released and its extremely punishing to MSU. *every* mission has 1, 3, 6 VP rewards for killing entire units. Only the one I played has VP for controlling double the number of objectives. The rest have VP for killing HQs, killing SH/GCs, killing HS, being within 12" of rightly table edge per turn. All the VPs apart from the 1,3,6 units killed VP, award a maximum of 3 VP.

Like you can probably guess, running MSU units everywhere would be.... painful. There wouldn't even be any target priority needed, just kill whatever they can reach.

Outside this, I guess I pretty much came to your conclusion. Which isn't very different from our theory hammer way back at GSC release, I just forgot to apply it to my own list building.

[kazetanade]

No One following the direction above, I'm considering a 6 FMC list + double Sub Up with total of 8 Acolytes and 6 Metamorphs, all with hand flamers. The MSU will hurt, so I'm curious about comparing this output vs both Neophyte spam (lasgun/shotgun + flamer/GL) vs 65 point Acolytes in melee (or more comparibly, 2 MSU w/ flamers vs a standard 10-15 men Acolyte squad) and vs 130 point clawd Metamorphs.

The idea being to capitalize on rolling 4-6 rather than just 6, and whether I can generate enough heat from these flamer attacks and potential charges compared to fearless mass bodies with Magii spam (because 20 bodies oof Neophytes per unit for 6 units is a chore to cut through, but on the flip side it could actually stop my own FMC movement by taking up all the real estste.

What are your thoughts?

[No One]

Assumption with flamers: 3 hits for 4, 6 hits total for 5, 5 hits for 6. Not going to be completely accurate (especially the 5 if anything actually die ), but I'd think should be close enough.

Hilariously, after accounting for different CA (is very rudimentary though - not statistically accurate, but should give a benchmark) - hand flamer output is over double neophytes against T4 (and, since they're all the same strength basically, probably every other toughness/save as well) at 2.8 vs 1.4 against T4 3+. This is just for shooting (I'm sure you can figure out who wins in assault ).

Comparing to 15 acolytes...in a lot of ways, pretty favourably. 15 acolytes in assault is 11.1 wounds against T4 3+, but if you only consider their output out of CA, that drops down to 3.3 i.e. basically half that of the flamer squad's shooting output. Add on the autopistols, and it's not as bad a comparison - but when you consider it as a whole vs both? (Since claws have 2 less autpistol shots, they're slightly worse than the stock acolytes at 4.4.)

15 acolytes - "4.6 wounds"
10 acolytes w/flamers - "7.9 wounds"

(The fact that this is 2 units vs 1 means that the numbers are probably even less accurate).

I'd give that fairly large error bars from how I accounted for CA (like, +/- 1 wound large ) but still, that's still relatively definitively in the flamers favour (at least from a purely average matthammer PoV - the 2 MSU units vs 1 and 15 models vs 10 presents different challenges with regard to consistency and accuracy of output. There's also the issue of higher numbers dying from shooting potentially stopping the assault. Other pros and cons re: save/toughness/cover/AV as well).

Might try to do something more comprehensive/accurate later, but pretty tired at the moment and uni's looking to be busy over the week.

[almostmercury]

I rarely shoot with acolytes charging with 6s. Either I can't hurt what I'm shooting, or I have a very real chance of increasing the distance I need to charge, often through terrain.

Solid choice for 4s and 5s though.

[kazetanade]

No One didn't quite get the comparison for 15 Acolytes coming out of CA, but basically apart from the roll of 6 on the 15 men unit, the double MSU actually win out? And even then, the win isn't much different considering the increased chance of a MSU 6 roll as well, I wager.

So in essence, hand flamers are really good against most things you'd shoot autopistols at, and compare favorably for their points, and are potent enough that Neophyte shooting for similar points is worse? While being useful on almost every roll result?

This is broken man. Acolytes do every damn thing in this codex. I really have to try this hand flamer thing.

[No One]

kazetanade said:

No One didn't quite get the comparison for 15 Acolytes coming out of CA, but basically apart from the roll of 6 on the 15 men unit, the double MSU actually win out? And even then, the win isn't much different considering the increased chance of a MSU 6 roll as well, I wager.

It was basically "odds of each CA result X no of wounds if CA result achieved" (so, 0.3 X ~11 for the assault portion of the 15 man). What I did isn't at all accurate (since it's basically looking at the odds of getting a 5 - and then taking that 5 even if you got a 6, say), but it should give a bench mark. In essence, it's comparing the 'average' output, rather than the 'burst' output - interestingly, flamers actually win on that as well...just (ignoring the very major issue with killing too many to make the charge - when you need ~4-5 dead from flamers to equal the 15 man's charge potential...things aren't looking good for making the charge ).

So in essence, hand flamers are really good against most things you'd shoot autopistols at, and compare favorably for their points, and are potent enough that Neophyte shooting for similar points is worse? While being useful on almost every roll result?

This is broken man. Acolytes do every damn thing in this codex. I really have to try this hand flamer thing.

Umm...probably. I doubt I'd call it 'broken', but having been pretty consistently surprised by what I can do with the autopistols (i.e. 'something'), I'm considering it a lot more than I was previously (thinking about proxying all with flamers, or just having replacing stuff with the 5 from the one box set I have ).

(Will probably want to have a look at just what happens with the 4/5 results, since the multi-flamer->charge is probably not a consistently good idea. But from results so far, I'd say that's likely to be 'viable', if by no means 'must take').

[kazetanade]

There's something to be said for a comparison of 600 points worth of GSC compared to 1850 of GSC.

What you value would be rather different the smaller the points allotted.

Autopistols have killed 3/5 Wraithguard for me over 2 turns so I have no complaints on how well they work - this is more to make my 600 points of GSC do work at all times rather than wait for an almighty 6 which may or may not come. Really need to try this now.

[gigasnail]

there was a GSC list supposed to have gone undefeated until the final 8 at adepticon, but i have no other information yet.

[kazetanade]

No One a month later i got to test tube hand flamers with a cobbled together list (2FCs, a min sized BC with hand flamers + mining lasers, 2 leman russes because i never used tanks before and i didnt have enough models).

5 man flamers are perfect, easily doubling and tripling the wounds dealt by my previous experience, and being fully capable of killing eldar scum in combat with minal effort (apart from the warlord which i made it a point to not charge with 5 guys). Sadly they failed to kill a single unit, with T4 3+ getting away from 16 wounds dealt with 0 failed saves and a guardian unit escaping with a single weapons platform alive.

This approach is quite bad for Ynnari though - the MSU bites you in the ass rather hard when it lets warp spiders and scatbikes and reavers shoot twice at you due to two soul bursts per dead unit. Being able to cripple half his units was a great boon but with double FC and the tanks i just didnt have enough flamers to cripple enough things before getting smothered in soul burst chainfire.

Unit placement is also an issue - at one point i was scratching my head on where to place the flamers since 6 inch + away meant very few places to eat at units i wanted to. With 7-8+ units doing this maybe i could take advantage of just picking off weaker frontier units instead. But even in a normal SU mass approach i think having like 3 flamer units is a good idea, the saturation feels good with so few. Or maybe it was just all the 5s i rolled.

On a side note, FC performed stupidly good. They never made their points back in combat, but one of them ate an entire armys shooting turn 1 and lost 5 models. The second one ate 2/3 of an armys shooting and got charged by reavers and two units of scorpions and one guardians unit and warlord/autarch pair - still had 2 genestealers surviving after all of that abuse and managed to hit back and break open a few of the charging units. They tanked like real bosses and i dare say held up almost as well as a guilliman would. Sadly there just wasnt enough on the board to support their valiant effort. FC is right now my best performing formation. Two may be a bit too much though i really need more support for them.

[No One]

kazetanade said:

Unit placement is also an issue - at one point i was scratching my head on where to place the flamers since 6 inch + away meant very few places to eat at units i wanted to. With 7-8+ units doing this maybe i could take advantage of just picking off weaker frontier units instead. But even in a normal SU mass approach i think having like 3 flamer units is a good idea, the saturation feels good with so few. Or maybe it was just all the 5s i rolled.

Yeah, something I've thought of a bit. Especially if going into larger squads as well (I'm thinking of just taking my normal sub up, and just giving them all flamers, just to see what happens) - start to get in the way of your own flamers. There's only so much room in front of the enemy - if you go into 'ranks' (which I find happens a lot, especially if the opponent castles up), only the front 'rank' will get to shoot. I'll be interested to see what they're like in 8th - with D6 auto hits, even at full 8", that's going to give them a lot more consistency of output (assuming that the GSC codex is mostly the same as current - I damn well hope it is!).

[kazetanade]

personally i think flamers on a big unit is a bad idea - if you failed a 6 and the enemy has the firepower to erase several units at once, then you dont want to waste manpower in this way. A 5 man is a throwaway unit you can afford to lose to achieve tactical play, a 10 man unit is not a throwaway unit even if it is still a suicide unit.

Further, 10 flamers wont fit in 8". It was difficult to fit 5 due to the 6" away restriction on 4 and 5, enemy units aren't in isolation for you to surround usually unless you have Flyrants doing work. Some i could fit 5 on the pherepherals, some i could only fit about 3 in the gaps. If you could double team 2 units of flamers on 1 enemy unit though..... roooaaaaast.

Of course if you have way more hitting power than they have guns to remove it then its a safe bet.

[gigasnail]

be a lot easier to use, assuming all regular flamer weapons are the 8" range, d6 hits, now that you don't have to worry about not putting the template over your own doods.

[kazetanade]

Apr 28, 2017 6:12:39 GMT gigasnail said:

be a lot easier to use, assuming all regular flamer weapons are the 8" range, d6 hits, now that you don't have to worry about not putting the template over your own doods.

This is true, but you still can't fit physically 10 models in the space between 6" to 8" unless the opponent doesnt cover the inbetween of his units properly (spacing them 7++ inch awat from each other). 5 would be beautiful almost always though since there's barely enough of a crack in general.

gigasnail since we have you here might as well ask your opinion how do you think FC is best supported? (Or how best to use its potential).

[gigasnail]

whether they'll fit or not probably depends a lot more on how the enemy is arranged on the table than anything else.

i'm unconvinced FC isn't a troll formation, because of its cost and size. i would prefer smaller units; something like FC to me just gives wyvern and renegade artillery something to giggle over. i'm not disputing it's straight up #beastmode if it tangles with something.

guys i have barely played in months, i'm really not the person to ask at this point. if i were backing FC up, it would be with sub uprising and min/max HFD with dakka flyrants and mucolids only. i would start w/ 2 flyrants and see what the rest of it looks like, and still try to squeeze in 3 w/o compromising SU. i have a decent looking sub/HFD on the other PC, but the SU is pretty beefed up so i'd have to seriously reduce it to put in FC.