completely understandable. However if he is unclear as to how you developed those numbers then the opposing debater can't acknowledge them... debating them gives them a merit that indicates acceptance of premise in their generation, an that is what Canas was questioning... not your ability to math, nor his ability to understand the math. To address "then she should say that".. he did: "Yes I know, I ignored it because your example about the archers is confusing and I have no idea how you got your numbers, so I'd like to know how you get there first." this is not a statement of not understanding the math... its a statement of questioning the premise of the math's accuracy. similar to saying a statistic is incorrect because it doesn't take into account certain things (I have a sociology degree so this is the best example I can come up with lol). your friend that is presenting the stat may have perfect math... based on the data they DID take into account... but that doesn't mean the stat is accurate if the data they didn't take into account skews it away... even if they didn't intentionally exclude the data. in short, he understood the math, it just wasn't clear how you came up with some of number-generating data to perform the math and present the answers you did.
Another Savage Orc has lumbered into the Warhammer Community studio: Very nice, very Orcy, and wearing a Lizard skin that Lizardman players can paint up as matching that of their Saurus (I did this with my unit of 10 to give my Lizardmen a grudge to settle!) And the first model of the Ossiarch warband has a silhouette: Given that he's got a crest very much like the Soulreaper, I hope he has a face like the Soulreaper. The Soulreaper is by far the best model in the range, largely because it hasn't got the Joker faces and has a more Necron-like face: Why GW didn't give all the models these faces I don't know. It's almost as if this chap was the first to be designed, and then the designers thought "Nah let's give the rest weird rictus-grin Joker faces to differentiate them from Necrons", despite the fact that it's pretty obvious they were intended to be AoS Necrons in the first place. If they had done this (and avoided putting that face and arms in the crotch of the Harvester) I would have liked the Ossiarch more (they still wouldn't have been Tomb Kings but they'd have been the closest official thing to it). As it is I would only collect them now if GW gave me a load of spare Necron heads to give to all the ones with Joker faces, with the crania painted bone and the faces painted metal so it'd look as though they were wearing helmets. They're also hosting another preview this Saturday - a 'Lords of the Mortal Realms' special, with some more silhouettes previewed: The one on the right is obviously going to be something for the hideous upcoming Vampire faction, the one on the left I think will be something else for Lumineth as he bears resemblance to the mage from the Direchasm box, but the model in the middle is trickier. I'd say Slaves to Darkness as it's wearing a pelt, but why would Slaves to Darkness be getting another model, given we've seen all the models in their upcoming warband?
yes he did.... after he continued the argument bringing up both skinks that hadn't been included and then justifying the warscrolls weakness as being a token support ranged unit and THEN bringing up the confusion. if he was going to continue the argument anyway even with the misunderstanding then why just address the one part? i did the same thing for 5 units what makes ungors special? why if the archers confuse him so much did he not continue to reinforce his point but using the rest of it? why if the confusion was keeping him from addressing the argument did he continue to address the argument? i don't meen to call you honor into contention Canis but i have to defend my stance from ILKAIN now and that means bringing up the thought proses that lead to it that i didn't think was worth bringing up in the original post
Well, that's good for anyone who doesn't play them, don't want them dominating the meta as ridiculously as they did before
it might be a bit to much of a step in the other direction but yes they shouldn't be the doom that they where last year
Right, forgot the re-rolls. Keep forgetting hand of glory is a thing. More favourable for the skinks but still not a terribly large difference. An average of 16 hits + 8 mortal wounds v.s. 20 hits at -1 rend isn't exactly massive, or at least not as massive a difference as I'd expect between a raw warscroll & a fully supported horde unit. I mean, yeah skinks are better. But given that it's a full horde unit + multiple support heroes in a shoot-y faction v.s. a raw warscroll with 0 support in a melee focussed faction some difference is to be expected. And 20 hits at -1 rend is powerfull enough that it'l do some significant damage against most targets. Maybe not enough to kill it, but more than enough that you don't want to allow them to just shoot at you for a while. It's either take half a unit, or acknowledge that one side is at a nearly 100 points disadvantage. I'd rather take half a unit for the sake of the comparison. If you don't state explicitly you're comparing against a save of X I'm going to assume you are comparing raw hits. Like @ILKAIN has pointed out, your stats made no sense to me because I was under the impression you were looking at raw hits, not at wounds against a 4+ save. Hence I get confused, and hence I'd first like to figure that one out before moving on to whatever other examples as there's likely to be the same issue there as well. The numbers still seem odd, but I'm guessing that's due to rounding since the Ungors against a 4+ save get to 1.75 wounds on average which would round to the 2 damage you claimed earlier. Not a fan of those roundings, it makes things look a bit skewed at times, especially when you're combining multiple rolls. Especially if you then also start rounding them at every step, it can skew things quite severly at times. You can see it in your tables below as well. Because assuming the same issue that is confusing me for the archers is present in the other comparisons there's little point in continuing discussing them all at once I'd rather finish discussing one, and hopefully clear up the confusion in the process. Than try to make 5 seperate comparisons all of which seem to have made an assumption somewhere that's confusing me. Anyway, I'l try to be clearer about what confuses me in the future. Like I pointed out above, rounding is causing a skew. A fully buffed skink has a ~0.1944 chance of hitting, and a ~0.09 chance of causing a mortal wound. With 80 skinks that would average to ~15.55 hits and ~7.778 mortal wounds. Against a save of 4+ that would average ~7.778 regular wounds and 7.778 mortal wounds for an average of 15.55 total damage. Yet your average is somehow skewed to go around 19. This is assuming the following buffs: skink priest command ability (+1 to hit), starpriest venom, starpriest hand of glory. Unless you have another buff somewhere that average of 19 is too high. More rounding skewing. blissbarbs have a ~0.33 chance of scoring a hit, with 28.5 of em that's 57 attacks, which results in 19 hits at -1 rend, which against a 4+ save would average around 12.667, not in between 11 and 12 like you'd think looking at this table. Anyway, without rounding skewing fully buffed skinks average 15.55 damage and Blissbarbs average 12.667 damage against a 4+ save. That is not exactly a tremendous difference. Not going into the ungor comparison for now as the same skewing is present there too (ungors with horde bonus have a 0.33 chance of hitting, with 43 ungors that results in 14,13 hits, against a 4+ save that's 7,167 wounds. Yet your table puts their average somewhere in between 9 & 10) and there's little point in comparing multiple skewed lists at once. Would rather figure out where the skewing is coming from (or if I'm making a mistake, that's also always a possibility) Sure send em, I'm curious what's skewing the averages so much. I think this may be the best description of them. Most of their warscrolls aren't exactly weak. They're just not as ridiculously powerfull as the previous round of Slaanesh. There's no obviously good warscroll or combo immeadiatly visible. So it just looks sorta meh.
I hadn't noticed that the Bonesplitterz were wearing scaly skin. I have some still in plastic, but will take this the same way, paint them like my Lizards. There was a tease with a Weirdnob/Shaman silhouette with the reveal of the first member of this Warband. It looks promising: That already looks so good and tough as hell, also There is already a Rumour Engine spotted: My guess is that they are all from the Warhammer Quest Cursed City. You can spot the one on the right in the introduction clip: The one in the middle seems to be the master/ruler of the Cursed City and in the same clip you see him sitting on his throne, with the wolfs pelt on his shoulders: The one on the left I am not sure of, he or she is does not feature in the clip. So it is possible that it is not from the Warhammer quest. Though It looks like the staff resembles another Rumour Engine: Thus far my comments, lol Grrr, Imrahil
ok first of all i must apologise in my rush last night i made several mistakes in my calculations revised ones are at the bottom tripple checked to make sure i didn't do it a second time. sorry for being snarky skinks aren't realy a very good egsample of a fully buffed shooting unit if you want a better comparison to what is considered GOOD then you would take 30 iron drakes and their back up. yes comparing a fully buffed unit to a unbuffed unit is unfair(something i acknowledged in my post that you cut out) but that wasn't my argument. YOU where the one to make that comparison i was just addressing YOUR claim. you can't move the goal posts now and blame me for it. or you can just do 33 blissbarb 480 points and 50 skinks + starpriest and priest 490 points there you go a difference of 10 points and now we don't have to work with half a blissbarb model. yes you can't get 50 skinks in a unit but as you said for the sake of comparison and at least my comparison doesn't require cutting a man in half then you have not been paying attention to ANY of my math breakdowns in any conversation i have ever had. nor have you been paying attention to general mathhammer rundowns. comparing to a 4+ save is standard it is not only what i always do but it is what any mathhammer practitioner does in light rundowns 4+ is standard allowing to factor in both MW and rend. then where not paying attention as i said damage in each of my examples not hits meaning i was adjusting for the save. i didn't roundas stated i used a damage spread hence why i put 2(32%) as that is the most likely outcome in a small unit again didn't round the skew comes from several sources that where admitted in the original point and my bad math that we will address . the only rounding that is done is to the nearest % point. ok as said before i dun messed up so lets do it right this time the actual chart would be for skinks 1%7 1%8 2%9 4%10 5%11 7%12 9%13 10%14 11%15 10%16 9%17 8%18 7%19 5%20 4%21 2%22 2%23 1%24 1%25 for blissbarb 1%6 2%7 4%8 7%9 9%10 11%11 13%12 12%13 11%14 9%15 7%16 5%17 3%18 2%19 1%20 and ungors 1%2 4%3 8%4 12%5 15%6 16%7 15%8 11%9 8%10 5%11 2%12 1%13 so between a 1-5 damage difference between skinks and BBs and a 5- 7 difference between BBs and ungors so yes the ungors are not realy comparable damage wise they do get a bunch of other things 4"pile in +1 to run 6" move after setup +14.5 wounds and models for objectives but they do not cut it as far as damage goes.
now lets make sure my other math isn't a mess slaangore move 8 wounds 9(in total) save 5 3 for 140 two attack profiles with 9 4/3/-1/1 attacks and 2 4/3/-1/2 and ancillary MW at the end of combat when not charging they have 4%1 11%2 18%3 20%4 18%5 13%6 8%7 4%8 2%9 when charging they have 2%1 6%2 11%3 16%4 18%5 17%6 13%7 9%8 5%9 3%10 1%11 i compared them to bulgors move 7 wounds 12 save 5 3 for 140 two attack profiles(well 3 but we are using the better of the two) great ax 7 attacks 4/3/-2/3 and horns 6 attacks 4/4/-/1 and additional mortal wounds on 6s to wound 1%0 3%1 3%2 6%3 9%4 8%5 9%6 11%7 10%8 9%9 8%10 7%11 5%12 4%13 3%14 2%15 1%16 yep slaangors are still crap next myrmadesh move 6 wounds 10 save 4+rerolling saves in melee 5 for 150 10 attacks 3/3/-1/1 with MW on 6s to wound in adition to normal damage 1%0 5%1 13%2 20%3 22%4 18%5 11%6 6%7 2%8 i compared them to bestigor move 6 wounds 10 save 4+ 10 for 120 or 30 for 300 attacks 20 4/3/-1/1 a bit complicated they can reroll 1s to hit when fighting units of 10+ or order they get +1 attack on the charge. so 4 prophiles coming up. inadition they have +1 to run and can pile in from 4" again one of the best defensive abilities in the game(it also alows them to charge in your turn even when they start out tied up in melee) and can run and charge. when not charging and no rerolls 4%1 10%2 17%3 21%4 19%5 14%6 8%7 4%8 1%9 when not charging and rerolling 1s 2%1 6%2 12%3 18%4 20%5 18%6 12%7 7%8 3%9 1%10 when charging but no rerolls 2%2 5%3 10%4 14%5 17%6 17%7 14%8 10%9 6%10 3%11 1%12 charging and rerolls 2%3 5%4 9%5 13%6 16%7 16%8 14%9 10%10 6%11 4%12 2%13 so over all much better last is hell striders move 14 save 4 wounds10 150 for 5 they have two weapons profiles. spears 10 attacks 3/4/-/1 2 on the charge and tongues 10 attacks 3/4/-/1 they also make you reroll 1s on battle shock tests and can reroll charges. when not charging 3%0 10%1 20%2 24%3 20%4 13%5 6%6 3%7 1%8 charging 3%05%110%213%315%415%513%610%77%85%93%101%11 i compared them to centagors move 14 wounds 10 save 3+ 4+ if they want to kill something 5 for 80(almost half the price two prophiles spears 2 4 3 when drunk/4/-/1 and claws 10 attacks 5 4 when drunk/5/-/1 they can run and charge and when charging reroll spear wounds not charging 7%0 20%1 27%2 23%3 14%4 6%5 2%6 charging 1%0 6%1 15%2 21%3 22%4 17%5 10%6 5%7 2%8 so an 2 damage less over all but more durable and half the cost ok lets hope i didn't screw all that up. i did triple check it but feel free to go over it just in case
I rate the hedonites battletome. The subfactions are underwhelming and the mortals on foot i think dont do well into the current meta. But ive been running a seeker cavalcade list that im Forming on tts and has gone really well With lots of positive feedback.
No problem. I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm saying that 12.55 damage for an unsupported raw warscrolls is decent when compared to the 15.55 of a fully supported horde. Yeah, the 15.55 is better, but a raw warscroll, from an army that has a melee focus, getting even remotely close is decent. At that point you can no longer buff all 50 skinks, or need to bring an extra priest & starpriest, so imho I'd rather have half a blissbarb than 40 buffed skinks and 10 unbuffed skinks given that it's a pure statistical comparison. In most examples I've seen you give you've included a line stating it was against a save of X, in fact most examples I've seen from you you gave multiple tables against different saves. Aside from that, imho a bad practise to assume a certain save as that colours the output. Say we're comparing an attack that does 20 hits with an attack that does 10 hits and 5 mortal wounds. Against a save of 4+ it looks like they are on average equal. But they each have distinct (dis)advantages that are (largely) lost if you only look at the final values after save. You've used buckets, presumably where 0.001 - 1 damage goes in the first bucket, 1.0001 - 2 damage goes in the second etc. And possibly used a similar bucket approach for how many hit rolls pass, how many wound rolls pass etc. This causes rounding errors. The easiest example are the ungors. Their average output against a 4+ save is 1.75 damage, obviously in the real game this can't happen, so this goes in the bucket for 2 damage. Hence the average moves from 1.75 to 2. Depending on how often you bucket (e.g. do you bucket after each roll, or only the final result) it can skew things a lot. That looks a lot better, still a bit skewed due to the buckets, but no longer as problematic. Seems you only use the buckets at the last step which is acceptable, worst case it skews it one damage (e.g. 1.01 getting skewed to 2, because technicly it's more than 1 damage) Yup, which was kind of my point. Damage-wise the blissbarbs do fine enough, especially if you use them as support or skirmishers. They're also decently fast since they can always run. And they don't need any support to do this. This should make them reasonable skirmishers/support/MSU objective grabbers.The issue is that they're quite expensive while still being easy to kill, which doesn't fit very well with being support/skirmishers. If they're actually too expensive or not I'm not sure. I'd have to see what kinda lists you can build and what further bonusses they can get from subfactions/battallions/artifacts/heroes/etc. But as is I'd say they have a solid enough warscroll to be potentially usefull. As for the other units: Slaangor: no idea what they were thinking here they're bad. It almost seems like the claws were supposed to be 2 damage & the gilded weapon 3. Maybe they made a typo? Maybe they're supposed to benefit massivly from some buff or allegiance ability? Maybe their obsessive violence ability was supposed to work differently? Who knows. Myrmidesh: seems to be Slaanesh's defensive unit, bestigors have better damage, but the myrmidesh are significantly better defensivly (4+ save v.s. 4+ re-rolling in melee). And for a basic defensive unit, they still do reasonable damage, given that they have rend & mortal wounds and natural exploding 6's from the allegiance abilities. And their pointcost is what I'd expect for something like this. Add in some supporting heroes and the subfaction abilities and the like and that should be plenty usefull. Again, solid core, potentially usefull. Hellstriders: They're fairly underwhelming. I think the issue here might be that Slaanesh has a ridiculous amount of cavalry, and cavalry-adjecent units. 4 different proper cavalry units (seekers, hellstriders, Slickblade and hellbarb seekers), 2 chariots & on top of that there's the fiends with similar damage profiles and speed. All of which are competing for similar niches, and the hellstriders seem to simply be the weakest of the lot. No idea why they're a 150 points though. Anyway, they could probably drop some of them without losing out on anything.
As an aside, what is their new summoning mechanic? I saw something floating around about regular units now being able of generating depravity points, but I can't find any actual description. If that's the case that might explain why everything is suddenly so expensive.
for evey unit in the battle that takes damage but is not destroyed they get a summoning point. so if a 10 wound unit takes 3 damage you get one but if they take 11 and die you don't. both you and your opponent not great when you are made out of paper or if you are swinging into a heavy anvil like fire slayers it takes 12 points to max out and 4 to summon anything
sure it's a matter of preference at that point most times i have more then a hour to run stats and i can do a full spread. it takes me a full week working 6ish hours a day to make a deep mathhammer rundown of a army and i kind of need the book well yes hence the light mathhammer term. no one can spend 3 hours doing a full spread every time so we use 4. um no, no buckets that's not how dice work. there is no .57 or 1.0001 on a dice there is only 1 2 3 4 5 6 when working with % you find the exact % chance. a unit will never do 1.75 damage it will only do 2 damage 32% of the time. there is only one "bucket" at then end as we are only working with 3 dice it's not a hard calculation to do all at once. you can tell how highly the difference is by seing which side of the %table has higher % of you have 1 28% 2 32% 3 18% then you know that the (ug) average is greater then 1 but less then 2 as getting 1 damage is more likely then getting 3 averages with dice are misleading as the average on 1d6 is 3.5 something you will never encounter. they do make easy bullet points but not good statistics. 1.01 would go in the 1 bucket as that is how rounding works so worst case it scews it .49 as a perfect .5 would have a perfect bell curve so you could tell that it was exactly .5 chaos warriors are 5 for 90 and have the same defencive stats. their army also grants exploding 6s they have a weapon load out that does the same damage or a shield that grants MW protection. is mws on 6s to wound and the reroll saves always being on really worth 60 points? especially since a 4+ rerolling save is not that good a defensive unit heck twin souls are about at durable half the time(literaly) and they are similarly awful. i mean the heavy version isn't all that much better slickblades are 200 for 5 loose the double damage on the charge and the 4+ save in exchange for more wounds and a more consistent attack 20 wounds 14 move save 5+ two weapon profiles 15 attacks spears 3/3/-1/1 and tongues 10 3/3/-/1 with the spears giving MWs on 6s to wound 1%3 4%4 7%5 11%6 14%7 16%8 15%9 12%10 9%11 5%12 3%13 1%14 so about 3 damage more then hell striders charging and 10 wound gain but a save loss for 50 points not sure if that is worth it we can compare them to centagores if you like 200 points is 12.5 centagors having 25 wounds at a 3+ save and damage of 2%3 4%4 7%5 11%6 14%7 15%8 14%9 12%10 8%11 5%12 3%13 2%14 when charging drunk. they also seem to loose out in that comparison
The summoning mechanic feels like something you can really take advantage of with specific lists. How have you found it?
That wasn't how I understood it, because damage is allocated one at a time, so a 2 wound unit that takes two damage would generate 1 depravity point, for the wound it suffered that didn't kill it.... don't bring multi- wound models to the fight against them.