Purifiers

[DeathKorpsman]

I wouldn't have a problem if that's the way my opponent wanted me to play it, but I'm going to stick with one model per die until I see something that isn't ambiguous. As was pointed out, the math is sort of the same except your average is going to be better when you roll more dice.

 

 

Average remains the save. It's the distribution that changes.

 

If you're going to be technical, yes. To someone who cares about math the average doesn't actually change. Thank you very much for correcting that.

 

In game terms, or practical usage, the larger number of rolls is going to average out better and be more consistent.

 

No, it doesn't average out better.

 

Which would you rather have? Let's say a squad of 5 purifiers charged 30 ork boyz.

 

Would you rather have 50% of the time, 5 purifiers survived and completely wipe out 30 ork boyz?

Or would you rather have, 50% of the time, at most 2.4 purifiers is left with at least 14.4 ork boys still standing (before fearless and drag down rule)?

 

Would you rather have, 90% of the time, at least 2 purifiers are dead with 0% probability of 0 dead? Or would you rather have, 50% of the time, 0 purifiers are dead?

 

Your percentages aren't making any sense. What are you trying to say?

 

Well, you're stuck on this average thing so I'll stop using the word. They do become more consistent with the 1 die per model rule and that is a fact. They wouldn't be all or nothing anymore, which they really shouldn't be from a gameplay perspective. 2 models should not have a statistically decent chance of completely wiping out a 40 ork boyz mob. And I don't just mean winning combat and whittling the mob down over several turns, I mean killing them outright with the use of one power. Those same two purifiers have the same chances, really, to do that with probably a second 40 ork boyz mob and still potentially be alive afterwords. That just screams misinterpretation.

 

Rather than take the abusive interpretation that can drastically affect how a given assault phase turns out, I'd rather take the consistent interpretation that mirrors every other similar ability in the game and leaves the no wounds vs. all wounds results as statistical improbabilities instead of statistical likelihoods. I like being able to play the same people again and wiping out one or two of their 200 point horde units like it was nothing isn't the way to do it. If it gets FAQ'd, as ludicrous as that would be, to mirror your stance on it I would go along with it since I'm not a rules writer. I'd think it horribly unbalanced though.

[lorider2]

I also assumed it was roll one die per model, but for what it is worth in the scanned pdf version an early note does say "4+ wound on everyone" - so while it doesn't make much sense to me, maybe that is what was intended after all.

[CheezeFezt]

Your percentages aren't making any sense. What are you trying to say?

 

I'm saying your statement that more dice roll = better is not true.

 

They do become more consistent with the 1 die per model rule and that is a fact. They wouldn't be all or nothing anymore, which they really shouldn't be from a gameplay perspective.

 

If you're trying to say the gameplay perspective is to have predictable result, then I have to question why you want to play a game based on dice.

 

2 models should not have a statistically decent chance of completely wiping out a 40 ork boyz mob. And I don't just mean winning combat and whittling the mob down over several turns, I mean killing them outright with the use of one power. Those same two purifiers have the same chances, really, to do that with probably a second 40 ork boyz mob and still potentially be alive afterwords.

 

If you're trying to say Cleansing Flame is unbalanced, I agree. If I were the writer, I would had written "model engaged in close combat with the grey knights unit"; eg within 2" of model in base-to-base contact with GK purifier.

 

Rather than take the abusive interpretation that can drastically affect how a given assault phase turns out,

 

The reason why you were originally arguing for 1 per model was it was "better", which I presume means better for the purifier. I was pointing out that is not true.

 

That just screams misinterpretation.

 

Abusive. Misinterpretation. What is up with the ad hominem.

 

I'd rather take the consistent interpretation that mirrors every other similar ability in the game and leaves the no wounds vs. all wounds results as statistical improbabilities instead of statistical likelihoods. I like being able to play the same people again and wiping out one or two of their 200 point horde units like it was nothing isn't the way to do it. If it gets FAQ'd, as ludicrous as that would be, to mirror your stance on it I would go along with it since I'm not a rules writer. I'd think it horribly unbalanced though.

 

The way I personally play the game is ask my opponent how he want to play, and play it his way. It's amazing how few arguments crop up when playing this way.

 

I was merely pointing out that 1 per model isn't better than 1 only. It's merely different.

 

Consistently killing 20 out of 40 orkies is unbalanced too. It takes 48 purifiers in close combat to do the same. And you can flame with just one purifier.

 

Or you can split your 10-man purifiers squad into 2 combat squads, position them to be mutually defensible so they're usually in the same assault. Taunt your opponent to send all his boyz against them. 120 orkies vs 10 purifiers. Flame twice. Consistently kill 120 orkies.

 

The power is unbalanced regardless of rolling 1 per or 1 total.

[DeathKorpsman]

Your percentages aren't making any sense. What are you trying to say?

 

I'm saying your statement that more dice roll = better is not true.

 

You could have just said that. I'd still disagree.

 

They do become more consistent with the 1 die per model rule and that is a fact. They wouldn't be all or nothing anymore, which they really shouldn't be from a gameplay perspective.

 

If you're trying to say one shouldn't play game with dice (consistent result), then I have to question why you want to play game based on dice. If the game perspective is consistent result, the game should be based on d100. Can't get much more consistent than that.

 

And this right before you accuse me of using ad hominems. If we're going to not attribute things to each other passively, then lets not shall we? This definitely isn't what I mean, since I enjoy playing a game (many of them) with dice. Rolling one die per model is more consistent and will have less of an impact on any given combat. It won't be an insta-win or insta-lose power, which is clearly not how it is supposed to work. It is a power that will knock off some models but won't completely upset the outcome of any given combat unless it was already in doubt.

 

2 models should not have a statistically decent chance of completely wiping out a 40 ork boyz mob. And I don't just mean winning combat and whittling the mob down over several turns, I mean killing them outright with the use of one power. Those same two purifiers have the same chances, really, to do that with probably a second 40 ork boyz mob and still potentially be alive afterwords.

 

If you're trying to say Cleansing Flame is unbalanced, I agree. If I were the writer, I would had written "model engaged in close combat with the grey knights unit"; eg within 2" of model in base-to-base contact with GK purifier.

 

I'm trying to say that 1 die per model is not unbalanced, while your interpretation is unbalanced. Pretty simple.

 

Rather than take the abusive interpretation that can drastically affect how a given assault phase turns out,

 

The reason why you were originally arguing for 1 per model was it was "better", which I presume means better for the purifier. I was pointing out that is not true.

 

By 'better' I mean a better interpretation in regards to the rules. I am always looking for the better, more balanced interpretation rather than the one that is better for my army.

 

That just screams misinterpretation.

Abusive. Misinterpretation. What is up with the ad hominem.

 

There wasn't one from my end, but if you feel there was then maybe I should have intended it.

 

I'd rather take the consistent interpretation that mirrors every other similar ability in the game and leaves the no wounds vs. all wounds results as statistical improbabilities instead of statistical likelihoods. I like being able to play the same people again and wiping out one or two of their 200 point horde units like it was nothing isn't the way to do it. If it gets FAQ'd, as ludicrous as that would be, to mirror your stance on it I would go along with it since I'm not a rules writer. I'd think it horribly unbalanced though.

 

The way I personally play the game is ask my opponent how he want to play, and play it his way. It's amazing how few arguments crop up when playing this way.

 

Great. Most people like to play by the rules, so clearing up how those work is important.

 

I was merely pointing out that 1 per model isn't better than 1 only. It's merely different.

 

Consistently killing 20 out of 40 orkies is unbalanced too. It takes 48 purifiers in close combat to do the same. And you can flame with just one purifier. So the power is unbalanced regardless of rolling 1 per or 1 total.

 

It doesn't seem unbalanced with a one die per model use of the power because the chances of completely wiping out an opposing unit before any swings are even made is very remote. With your interpretation, that chance goes from remote to likely. That does not fit the way GW has written rules in the past. There's plenty of stuff that makes a squad more killly, but nothing I can find that just insta-kills an enemy unit regardless of size. Plenty of that in Warhammer Fantasy, but not 40k. One die roll being the deciding factor between completely wiping out a unit or not seems, from a rules perspective, downright silly. One die per model is still a strong power, which horde armies will dislike, but it will still allow for the possibility of a horde unit to overrun a Purifier unit before being burned to death.

[MontyBob]

As OP have mentioned in fluff terms and in good sportsmanship terms it would be better to roll 1 dice per mini affected.

 

I for one would feel distinctly beardy making one roll per unit in combat on a power that doesn't specifically say 'unit'. It says 'models'. Hence one roll per model.

 

/two pence worth.

[CheezeFezt]

As OP have mentioned in fluff terms and in good sportsmanship terms it would be better to roll 1 dice per mini affected.

 

I for one would feel distinctly beardy making one roll per unit in combat on a power that doesn't specifically say 'unit'. It says 'models'. Hence one roll per model.

 

/two pence worth.

 

I would venture if we have a poll asking if you were the lead designer, would you play this one dice per model, that 99% of the peep would say yes (including me).

 

But in going back to the OP, he played it as one per model. It was his OPPONENT who said it should be one total. His OPPONENT said he wasn't happy with one per model. The OP then ask for help on which way it should play. How it's written could be read either way.

 

If his opponent insists on playing one total, the OP can bring up the probability analysis and ask, you sure you want to play it that way, where 50% of the time, I get a I-WIN button.

[Wildfire]

I think DK isn't trying to say more dice will equal more wounds on average when he says "better". Clearly anyone with grade school math can see that isn't the case. I believe he's trying to say he prefers to roll many dice because he dislikes the all-or-nothing of the other interpretation of the rule. If he dislikes method #1, and likes method #2, then method #2 is "better" in his opinion, even though the total average wounds will be the same.

 

Am I correct, DK?

[DeathKorpsman]

I think DK isn't trying to say more dice will equal more wounds on average when he says "better". Clearly anyone with grade school math can see that isn't the case. I believe he's trying to say he prefers to roll many dice because he dislikes the all-or-nothing of the other interpretation of the rule. If he dislikes method #1, and likes method #2, then method #2 is "better" in his opinion, even though the total average wounds will be the same.

 

Am I correct, DK?

 

Right on the nose, good sir. All or nothing just seems silly on any scale, but more so as the model count increases. Over the course of many combats, the averages are no different. What is different is the possible outcomes. Using the "one die for the whole shebang" method actually has a good chance of totally changing the outcome of a given assault. That has a real game balance effect. The one die per model is still really good, with a remote chance of doing the same thing, but you're not going to see it totally wiping out squads half the time. That makes the second method only really having an impact on a given combat if the result was initially in doubt, as I said above.

 

Cheezyfest has a point that if the opponent asks for it, let him have it the way he wants in this case. Once an FAQ rolls out, we'll know for sure (or have something else to scream at GW about for not including it).