|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 28, 2016 18:47:19 GMT
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? If you condsider a 3+ FNP "useless" I guess so. 3+ FNP on a T:4 platform is a different animal altogether from a 3+ FNP on a T:3 platform. S:8 shooting is not wide spread, if they waste all their S:8 shooting on the aberrants I bet I win that game. S:6 shooting is everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by russellr on Oct 28, 2016 18:59:02 GMT
Endurance gives 4+ FNP. The aberrant's FNP would be overridden by that 4+, and thus useless, correct? [/p][/quote] If you condsider a 3+ FNP "useless" I guess so. 3+ FNP on a T:4 platform is a different animal altogether from a 3+ FNP on a T:3 platform. S:8 shooting is not wide spread, if they waste all their S:8 shooting on the aberrants I bet I win that game. S:6 shooting is everywhere. [/quote] (All the above is part of the quote) I may have phrased that badly. 3+ ftp is awesome. But their original fnp doesn't matter. Acolytes with endurance and an iconward get the same fnp as aberrant with endurance and an iconward. Thus you're wasting points putting endurance on aberrants. Hence my useless comment. It's not worthless but there's much better units to put endurance on. |
|
|
|
Post by Hive Bahamut on Oct 28, 2016 23:10:44 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 They CAN be useful, but so can a butterknife when you're trapped under a rock. Context is everything. I have used them in 6/10 games (10 or so more in WD era,) and they have killed exactly 3 marines, 2 Terminators, and a couple HP off a pod. That is a lot of nothing for a premium price. The picks are entirely useless, and the unit gets its ass kicked by overwatch and going entirely last without any means of staying alive. I use them because a unit of Stubborn (think Magus and Shadows interacting etc,) FNP T4 is about right for the Iconward, a Magus with offensive powers, or simple placeholders against transports. Not a single game have I gone "Man I'm sure glad I took the Abberants." Which is about the only unit I can say that about. Even the Neophytes have saved me with some lucky AP1 shooting from those Seismic Cannons. Which is sad to say, as I really like the Sculpts, and laugh when I think about their inbred "oopsies" nature. These are the children who lived in closets, whose parents were shamed but couldn't face euthanizing their beloved child. And then GW made them redundant in an army where S8 in combat isn't that hard. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 28, 2016 23:37:54 GMT
The counter to that is: if T4 multiwound is good, why are Nid Warriors bad? To be fair, warriors exist in a world of T:6 MCs. Aberrants exist in a world of T:3 single wound models. In a world of T:3 single single wound models, the T:4 2 wound model is king (to parody the quote "in a world of blind men, the one eyed man is king."). |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 28, 2016 23:40:41 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 They CAN be useful, but so can a butterknife when you're trapped under a rock. Context is everything. I have used them in 6/10 games (10 or so more in WD era,) and they have killed exactly 3 marines, 2 Terminators, and a couple HP off a pod. That is a lot of nothing for a premium price. The picks are entirely useless, and the unit gets its ass kicked by overwatch and going entirely last without any means of staying alive. I use them because a unit of Stubborn (think Magus and Shadows interacting etc,) FNP T4 is about right for the Iconward, a Magus with offensive powers, or simple placeholders against transports. Not a single game have I gone "Man I'm sure glad I took the Abberants." Which is about the only unit I can say that about. Even the Neophytes have saved me with some lucky AP1 shooting from those Seismic Cannons. Which is sad to say, as I really like the Sculpts, and laugh when I think about their inbred "oopsies" nature. These are the children who lived in closets, whose parents were shamed but couldn't face euthanizing their beloved child. And then GW made them redundant in an army where S8 in combat isn't that hard. THAT'S what I want to hear: How they work in games. Did you try keeping them backfield to hold objectives? Did they have an Iconward? What role did you expect them to play? On paper the mawloc isn't very good/reliable. In game with 6 they rock. Context is everything. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Oct 28, 2016 23:47:26 GMT
Unfortunately, Abberrants represents the poor life choices in Tyranid army design - costed in survivability with below average effective combat/shooting.
3+ fnp is stellar though - but with only 2 Psykers I'm not wasting that many spellslots to fish for Endurance. And even when I do - do you not have better things to cast it on, like First Curse? Unless you've hidden your Patty in the Abberants for some reason...
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Oct 29, 2016 1:39:41 GMT
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  That was the plan. Might do up vehicle stuff today or tomorrow, depends on how I'm going for time. As to the things in the other thread...with the exception of vehicles, basically all of them are covered (or basically) by something on the first page, since those are just profiles, and that's...pretty generic. Where as, the 'threats' were more often to do with weapon types, or other things that profiles can't exactly account for (i.e. scat bikes are a threat not because they've got a T4 3+, but because of the mobility and firepower. But if you want to know what can kill them, well, anything but aberrants really - T4 3+ is the first one in the table, and works just as well for killing marines as Eldar bikes (basically - they'd actually hit first). The issue is getting there, which is shared by them all equally). Though...hmm, might add T5 2+ (cents) into that, and possibly a WK (which I didn't do, since my spreadsheet doesn't like very high T - starts giving me negative wounds...not really difficult, can basically just look at rending - just more steps.) Also, mattblowers, kazetanade, Hive Bahamut: If you're going to have a general discussion about aberrants, that's fine. But if it doesn't actually pertain to the thread (i.e. actually involving either the numbers I've posted, or wanting me to do some others, even if only tangentially as a point of discussion), can you please move it elsewhere? |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Nov 5, 2016 6:39:55 GMT
OK, done something else up with regards to seismic and vehicles (thanks almostmercury for pointing this out!).
Probability (as a percentage) of destroying a 3 hp vehicle (including explodes). Double seismic in each unit (of course), flyrant just for comparison (though I like those odds of taking down AV 10 - didn't realise they were that good):
AV 1 unit: 2 units: Flyrant:
10 28.43% 77.53% 95.43%
11 20.58% 62.63% 73.82%
12 15.19% 45.84% 25.78%
13 12.10% 30.94% 0.00%
In other words, 1's pretty poor. But 2, decent odds.
Now, russellr , vehicles:
No buffs:
AV Acolytes Aberrants Metamorphs (claws)
10 6.22 8.44 13.33
11 6.22 6.67 8.89
12 4.15 4.89 4.44
13 2.07 3.11 4.44
14 0.00 1.33 2.96
Might from Beyond:
AV Acolytes Aberrants Metamorphs (claws)
10 15.56 13.63 22.22
11 7.78 11.26 16.67
12 7.78 8.89 11.11
13 5.19 6.52 5.56
14 2.59 4.15 5.56
Might from Beyond+Banner:
AV Acolytes Aberrants Metamorphs (claws)
10 23.33 16.00 27.78
11 15.56 13.63 22.22
12 7.78 11.26 16.67
13 7.78 8.89 11.11
14 5.19 6.52 7.41
As before, hits put aberrants ahead eventually, but due to the fact that vehicles are WS1 and can't strike back (with the exception of knights, where...aberrants really don't stack up that well) this happens faster. About 10 S4 hits puts them ~even with metamorphs with banner and might from beyond, ~7/8 depending on AV without. Acolytes stack up quite well with buffs vs AV10/11, but nothing else really (note: this is stock without saws. Adding saws could be done, but...I'm not going to bother at the moment).
Vs Wraithknight: Well,
On the charge:
Acolytes: 4.15
Aberrants: 2 (this is, of course, assuming the WK wiffs it's attacks)
Metamorphs: 3
Tad annoying to do, so...yeah, not going to bother too much with mucking about with it unless you really want. Though all buffs (since that one actually works):
Acol: Aber: Meta:
5.19 4.44 6.17
Edit: Blergh, apologies for the formatting. It did look actually pretty nice in the reply box...until I actually posted it.
Edit 2: You mentioned pods, so, vs pods (didn't think to account for open topped, but eh): Acolytes: Aber: Metamorphs: Stock: 6.22 7.33 6.67
MfB: 11.67 13.33 16.67
MfB+Banner: 11.67 16.89 25.00
|
|
|
|
Post by russellr on Nov 5, 2016 8:46:57 GMT
Nice work, when you say banner do you mean the furious charge banner and not the WS banner? Important difference I think |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Nov 5, 2016 9:18:35 GMT
Yeah, iconward banner (otherwise it'd not change at all, and be completely useless - at least as far as vehicles are concerned). Units are the same as first page (so acolytes+metamorphs both have the in unit banner), and my standard assumption for acolytes/metamorphs is banner for anything other than min units basically.
|
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Nov 5, 2016 14:10:59 GMT
No One, how does the Seismic Cannons+ rest of unit match up against Flyrants in terms of points spent? I think you have numbers for both range bands against marines, but I'm not sure they've been compared to a Flyrant.
Your numbers for tanks kind of reaffirm how well the Seismic could perform compared to our traditional choices, which is what I thought at first and recently changed my mind about - and if they stack up well against other targets then I'd have to retract my opinion in the BC V NC discussion thread and seriously consider them in list building again.
|
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Nov 5, 2016 14:14:04 GMT
Also, can you explain how does your spreadsheet do the "after taking this many hits from S4 on both units, Acolytes will perform as well as or better" part of your calculations?
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Nov 5, 2016 14:23:24 GMT
No One, how does the Seismic Cannons+ rest of unit match up against Flyrants in terms of points spent? I think you have numbers for both range bands against marines, but I'm not sure they've been compared to a Flyrant.
For 2 units (180 pts) vs 1 flyrant: (Excuse the formatting)
Edit: +Las is including lasguns in double tap range - the (0-12) and (12-24) are the two different range bands for seismic, and seismic only (I wish BB code had an easier to use table...)
Flyrant (0-12) (12-24) +Las (0-12) +Las (12-24)
T4 3+ 2.96 3.33 2.67 5.11 4.44
T4 3+ 5++ 2.96 2.22 2.22 4.00 4.00
T4 4+ 5++ 2.96 2.22 3.56 4.00 5.33
T6 3+ 1.78 3.33 1.78 4.22 2.67
T6 2+ 5++ 0.89 0.89 1.11 1.33 1.56
T5 3+ 4++ 2.37 1.67 1.56 2.56 2.44
T4 2+ 5++ 1.48 0.89 1.56 1.78 2.44
Edit: I just realised these numbers would mean nothing, since you aren't looking at my spreadsheet for what they correspond to...woops. Fixed.
Basically, by looking at the number of expected casualties from X number of S: Y hits and taking those from the number of 'models' that contribute to the 'total' hits.
i.e. Hits is basically 4x(14-Dead) for acolytes (except able to account for charge/might from beyond), 4x(4-Dead) for aberrants. Which would obviously be different for aberrants.
|
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Nov 5, 2016 14:35:59 GMT
It Looks like I've seriously underestimated the Seismic Cannon... thanks No One
|
|
|
|
Post by almostmercury on Nov 5, 2016 16:55:45 GMT
I'm gonna have to explore the various buff spells available to us.
This is awesome, thanks!
|
|
