|
|
Post by No One on Oct 27, 2016 14:55:23 GMT
/ settles back and prepares to be flamed I'd prefer to keep the fire in here to a minimum thank you  . Something else to consider - while statistically, it is better to not, a more accurate statement would be that: Statistically, it's worse to have insurance - if you have the means to cover it. That second part is a big one. Essentially, in a lot of situations, there's just no alternative (especially for stuff like life insurances - if you already somehow had the rest of your life's income before hand...what've you been doing?). But if there was that alternative? Would you? (Semi-related: Was reading something for Finance at Uni - the guy basically had his insurance payouts as low as possible to reduce premiums. All of the money saved by that he put aside as his own 'insurance' - anytime that he needed insurance, take out of the savings as well. And was doing pretty well with it - but again, it's sort of an 'option' thing - he had the time to let it 'build up', so that the savings could cover expenses. If issues had arisen earlier, there wouldn't have been that extra money - but he did still have insurance, so would've been able to get by. Risk mitigation, essentially). Arbitrary number is arbitrary? . But essentially agree, in general terms - a unit that could deal 1 wound, guaranteed, would (in general) be worth more than 1 that had 4 shots, hitting and wounding on 4s (I mean, I'd probably want both - 1 for the 'extra potential', but the first would be my immediate pick I think, assuming all else equal). However, that doesn't mean aberrants fit that. For 2 reasons: The first is the big one. Let's look at the big things that you mention that mitigate randomness: They're all, essentially, rerolls. What does aberrants not have? Rerolls (in a general sense - yes, they can get hatred. But to have S10 and hatred? That's...quite a few hoops to jump through, and would apply just as much to the acolytes/metamorphs). In fact, they have less dice to hit with, and hit less per dice as well. Now, they do have the potential to remove an entire save out of play essentially guaranteed (fnp for T5 at S10, T4 at S8 - other Ts are also IDed by metamorphs. Also armour, though that gets very iffy with rends), which would likely counteract the worse hit rolls. But enough to counteract the hit rolls and the large difference in potential number of wounds (against anything other than basically endurance/IH bikers without an invul)? I'm not enthused about stat-hammering it, but I don't see it happening. The second...how much do you value 'certainty' over 'output'. For a (hyperbolic) comparison: If you were offered $100 guaranteed, or a 75% chance of $1000, which would you take? Or 50% chance of $100 000? Or, for 40k: guaranteed 1 wound no saves, or 50 attacks, hitting on 4s, wounding on 4s with no saves? And, that...well, personally my method of reducing randomness is to chuck enough dice at it, which I've found to balance out quite well. (I mean, you mention games where rending hasn't done anything - and, aside from games with no meaningful rending combat, I don't think that's happened to me yet. Combats with no rends, definitely. But usually followed by a couple of rends in the next one, or it happens after a good rending combat - and usually with lessened numbers. And even with no rends, there's usually a nice amount of wounds to fail saves on). |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Oct 27, 2016 15:12:49 GMT
The goal with my own numbers was to do a simple, even comparison between the three units, and not give real world examples of how much damage they can do. You are correct in the Banner, you lose a model but gain more extra hits from the extra weapon skill. I didn't give it to them because Abberants don't have access to a banner. Which, of course, is one more strike against them. I could be wrong, but doesn't the Iconward banner count as both FNP and a cult Icon? I'm pretty sure I remember it doing so. Don't have the codex on me ATM. It counts as FNP and FC. There is no bubble +1 WS effect. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 27, 2016 15:57:49 GMT
I could be wrong, but doesn't the Iconward banner count as both FNP and a cult Icon? I'm pretty sure I remember it doing so. Don't have the codex on me ATM. It counts as FNP and FC. There is no bubble +1 WS effect. FC is probably a better buff anyway unless you need a 6 to wound in either case. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 27, 2016 16:02:58 GMT
/ settles back and prepares to be flamed I'd prefer to keep the fire in here to a minimum thank you . Something else to consider - while statistically, it is better to not, a more accurate statement would be that: Statistically, it's worse to have insurance - if you have the means to cover it. That second part is a big one. Essentially, in a lot of situations, there's just no alternative (especially for stuff like life insurances - if you already somehow had the rest of your life's income before hand...what've you been doing?). But if there was that alternative? Would you? (Semi-related: Was reading something for Finance at Uni - the guy basically had his insurance payouts as low as possible to reduce premiums. All of the money saved by that he put aside as his own 'insurance' - anytime that he needed insurance, take out of the savings as well. And was doing pretty well with it - but again, it's sort of an 'option' thing - he had the time to let it 'build up', so that the savings could cover expenses. If issues had arisen earlier, there wouldn't have been that extra money - but he did still have insurance, so would've been able to get by. Risk mitigation, essentially). Arbitrary number is arbitrary? . But essentially agree, in general terms - a unit that could deal 1 wound, guaranteed, would (in general) be worth more than 1 that had 4 shots, hitting and wounding on 4s (I mean, I'd probably want both - 1 for the 'extra potential', but the first would be my immediate pick I think, assuming all else equal). However, that doesn't mean aberrants fit that. For 2 reasons: The first is the big one. Let's look at the big things that you mention that mitigate randomness: They're all, essentially, rerolls. What does aberrants not have? Rerolls (in a general sense - yes, they can get hatred. But to have S10 and hatred? That's...quite a few hoops to jump through, and would apply just as much to the acolytes/metamorphs). In fact, they have less dice to hit with, and hit less per dice as well. Now, they do have the potential to remove an entire save out of play essentially guaranteed (fnp for T5 at S10, T4 at S8 - other Ts are also IDed by metamorphs. Also armour, though that gets very iffy with rends), which would likely counteract the worse hit rolls. But enough to counteract the hit rolls and the large difference in potential number of wounds (against anything other than basically endurance/IH bikers without an invul)? I'm not enthused about stat-hammering it, but I don't see it happening. The second...how much do you value 'certainty' over 'output'. For a (hyperbolic) comparison: If you were offered $100 guaranteed, or a 75% chance of $1000, which would you take? Or 50% chance of $100 000? Or, for 40k: guaranteed 1 wound no saves, or 50 attacks, hitting on 4s, wounding on 4s with no saves? And, that...well, personally my method of reducing randomness is to chuck enough dice at it, which I've found to balance out quite well. (I mean, you mention games where rending hasn't done anything - and, aside from games with no meaningful rending combat, I don't think that's happened to me yet. Combats with no rends, definitely. But usually followed by a couple of rends in the next one, or it happens after a good rending combat - and usually with lessened numbers. And even with no rends, there's usually a nice amount of wounds to fail saves on). I don't completely disagree with what you said here. But again, the big deals for them are 1- the ease with which you can eliminate drop pods and marines (granted the acolytes are better at the later, but pods are better dealth with by aberrants) and 2- their ability to survive to score the objective. The killing output is a factor, but the scoring ability is probably a bigger one. Tervigons are nearly a complete waste without Obsec on spawned gaunts. Killing is only half the battle, the survivability of the aberrants is where there real and consistent value lies. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Oct 27, 2016 16:32:40 GMT
The counter to that is: if T4 multiwound is good, why are Nid Warriors bad?
To be fair though - being able to zip around as they like is pretty good. They are also kitted with far better weapons for their 30pt cost. But otherwise they have all the same weaknesses as Nid Warriors (trading 4+ armor for 5+ 5+ instead), being susceptible to S8 ID.
For points spent, whatever killed 15 Acolytes can probably kill 4 Abberants...
Being dedicated drop pod and contents sweep - yes, they would do well against this. They'd also do well against other vehicles. They don't ever outperform 10 Acolytes with two Saws though. But they are tanker than 10 Acolytes with said saws at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by nalathani on Oct 27, 2016 18:47:21 GMT
Being dedicated drop pod and contents sweep - yes, they would do well against this. They'd also do well against other vehicles. They don't ever outperform 10 Acolytes with two Saws though. But they are tanker than 10 Acolytes with said saws at least. This is the eternal problem. 9 Acolytes with 2 saws (122 pts) deals 5.74 hull points to an AV12 vehicle. 15 Acolytes(120 pts) deal 4.44 hull points to an AV12 vehicle. 4 Abberants with hammers (120 pts) deal 4 hull points to an AV 12 vehicle. Pretty much any version of acolytes do more damage to vehicles because rending with tons of attacks is just so damned good against everything. The 15 acolytes are more resilient because of the sheer # of wounds, though more susceptible to templates. The 9 with 2 saws are less so when you count T4 and FNP. However, throw in battle cannons, melta guns, missles, power fists, etc and the Aberrants suddenly are much less resilient. I'd say for non-tournament games where people are just using what models they have and want to have fun, Hammerrants are fine, they perform pretty close to the acolytes against vehicles and tough targets. I'd just avoid the picks, they're never as good and against anything with 2+ armor are incredibly awful. |
|
|
|
Post by russellr on Oct 28, 2016 1:11:08 GMT
Personally I would prefer 3 units of 5 acolytes with no upgrades, instead of 1 unit of 4 abs. MSU is king for this army, in my opinion of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Oct 28, 2016 1:32:29 GMT
FC is probably a better buff anyway unless you need a 6 to wound in either case. Nope - the increase in number of hits, rends and wounds beats out the increased number of wounds in most cases. About all it doesn't is some medium toughness with moderate saves and/or invuls. Still beats out, say, T4 4+, and is exactly the same for T4 no save. Add onto that it works even when you don't charge...only really outright better for vehicles (or WS3/6 - 5 at least has defensive use). Now, I didn't respond to this bit because I don't play ITC, so I don't really have any experience to comment on that. Edit: Though I notice you said 'till the start of your next turn' previously. So...wouldn't this mean they couldn't score if someone dropped a pod next to them, since, ob sec? And it'd still need to remove both to prevent them from scoring (which they can't really do...ever). But...acolytes are roughly equivalent for survivability, losing out (just) S3-5 (S4 has an aberrant on 1 wound left - not even enough to reliably tank overwatch and return hits). But winning on S6+. Metamorphs aren't as survivable, though come close on S6/7. Banner helps, but even then it's only ~an extra wound. And when you get down to 1 model left, neither really has any hitting power left (except against pods - that I'll grant, though it's still not reliable, <50% chance of killing it), especially when factoring in overwatch (and return hits in the case of aberrants). In other words...if you're just wanting an objective holder, possibly just CAD acolytes for ob sec? Or just 2/3 units? And if they haven't lost much (how much, I'm not sure - haven't done pod stuff yet), acolytes(?)/metamorphs are much better pod+occupants poppers. Pseudo-edit: Done a bit of mucking around, nothing properly concrete though, and aberrants stack up quite well against the pod itself (since it can't dodge  ) but horribly against the occupants, at least against metamorphs. Probably the same sort of thing against acolytes, since they do even worse vs pods. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 28, 2016 9:58:09 GMT
I get it. Nobody likes aberrants. Nobody can even fathom a way they could ever be useful. Fine. I'll use them. They'll find a place in my lists. I'm done trying to extol their possible use. If you don't want to use them don't
|
|
|
|
Post by russellr on Oct 28, 2016 11:03:11 GMT
I get it. Nobody likes aberrants. Nobody can even fathom a way they could ever be useful. Fine. I'll use them. They'll find a place in my lists. I'm done trying to extol their possible use. If you don't want to use them don't Most people who play stand-alone gsc will still use them. If only because of a certain box set which has them lol. |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Oct 28, 2016 11:53:56 GMT
I get it. Nobody likes aberrants. Nobody can even fathom a way they could ever be useful. Fine. I'll use them. They'll find a place in my lists. I'm done trying to extol their possible use. If you don't want to use them don't Jeez matt, way to be needlessly negative . I'm not saying they're useless (and as above, I'll probably end up using them at least once). I'm essentially saying that most of the situations where they're good, other units will perform better. Whether those few situations where they do perform better is enough to warrant their inclusion over other units...well, I don't think so. But, seeing as this is 'GSC Maths' and not 'Aberrants: Good or Bad', I'd prefer an (ideally - I'm realistic enough to realise there's going to be some) unbiased observation more relating to the maths involved (this can include requests or whatever, or why it may or may not be relevant, but I don't exactly want to go off on a 'mathhammer is useless' tangent in a thread I made for matthammer ). Essentially, you keep coming up with situations where you think aberrants would be good - and then I've posted a sort of 'devil's advocate' view based on what I've done of the maths. I mean, you're of course free to ignore it - but there was a reason I phrased that entire post as I did. It was intended as a more 'food for thought' than 'your choices are horrible and you should feel bad' . I mean: Metamorphs aren't as survivable, though come close on S6/7. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Oct 28, 2016 16:25:51 GMT
I get it. Nobody likes aberrants. Nobody can even fathom a way they could ever be useful. Fine. I'll use them. They'll find a place in my lists. I'm done trying to extol their possible use. If you don't want to use them don't I like abberants. It's almost like they're meant to be bodyguards. They give you additional options as well when you want to crack things open. If they were 4+ they'd have an extremely well defined roll in GSC. But for their ID potential? Questionable, considering you need two moving parts to have a shot at it - this is the exact reason why zoanthrope WL batteries aren't good despite the specialist nature. And we already established their standard damage output is extremely lacking. Like you mentioned elsewhere Matt, they need to be able to do what you're bringing them for. If there are better options or its just not reliable.... Then what? The good general still make them work, but it will just take more effort than it should is all. I'd take them to hide my Iconward in, surrounded by BC units . But not much else I think. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 28, 2016 17:36:36 GMT
Like you mentioned elsewhere Matt, they need to be able to do what you're bringing them for. If there are better options or its just not reliable.... Endurance for a 3+ FNP? That's just off the top of my head. We haven't really explored any of their options yet. |
|
|
|
Post by russellr on Oct 28, 2016 18:11:04 GMT
My thread here: thetyranidhive.proboards.com/thread/51815/common-enemy-units-gsc-asapWas designed to be turned into a Mathhammer thread. Essentially I was trying to get the list of units high on the priority list and then work out the ways to best kill them. This thread is useful, but could be improved by adding vehicles as the targets. A good comparison needs Monolith, Drop Pod, and stuff with AV10. And Imperial Knights. And Wraithknights. And some stuff that people mentioned in the above thread  |
|
|
|
Post by russellr on Oct 28, 2016 18:20:46 GMT
Like you mentioned elsewhere Matt, they need to be able to do what you're bringing them for. If there are better options or its just not reliable.... Endurance for a 3+ FNP? That's just off the top of my head. We haven't really explored any of their options yet. Endurance gives 4+ FNP. The aberrant's FNP would be overridden by that 4+, and thus useless, correct? On the other hand, a large unit of acolytes with 4+ FNP, changed to 3+ due to a friendly iconward ...
|
|
.
) but horribly against the occupants, at least against metamorphs. Probably the same sort of thing against acolytes, since they do even worse vs pods.