Land Speeder Vengeance in 8th

[SnakeChisler]

 

I would miss with every PC except Sammies or when targeting units that had a tight disembark and were doomed if I hit in the past. No half measures, miss everything or Hit and kill nearly whole squads.

Too much random then too, just learn to aim the damned thing already.

 

Now the real problem is nearly everyone gets instagibbed on a gets hot, what a terribad rule. GW, change that for crying out loud. Plasma is not that great that it needs such a hinderance, never has been either.

 

I'm basically never using super charge unless in a desperation move or in the last round (assuming the models dying won't affect anything). So having the option to not get hot makes plasma hugely better. I actually like most plasma, I just hate the idea of random shots fired entirely. I hate it on plasma, I hate it on demolishers, I hate it on flamers. Everything that has random number of shots seems over priced to me.

40k is a dice game and I love random it creates epic highs and also failures

 

Trying to engineer random out of the game too much kills interaction and engaging with your opponent.

 

You've also got command points which I think are brilliant.

[shabbadoo]

Randomness of this level is not a feature of all of 40K though, just specifically of 40K *ORKS*. So, most everyone has something that seems more like Ork-ish tech now. Between the randomness of shooting, randomness of wounding, and randomness of saving, we really did not need so much more randomness for number of shots. I probably won't play much with units that fire d3 or d6 shots over playing with a unit that fires multiple guaranteed shots all of the time, unless they are Orks.

[Ronin_eX]

The key thing I think that gets ignored with the new blast/template paradigm is that it is a lot easier to balance on GW's end than a scattering template.

 

In reality, that scattering template is every bit as random and capricious as any other die roll (what with it being a die roll).  Especially when it came to the small template.  The average deviation usually meant it was scattering off of its target 2/3rds of the time.  In general, blast weapons were random, capricious, but also hard to balance from a cost perspective because their worth increased as your opponent's skill decreased.  In general, I'm not a fan of a weapon that only works to its full potential when my opponent makes mistakes.  That makes for a gotcha weapon that reduces in effectiveness as your opponent becomes more skilled.  So balancing comes on a razor's edge.  If GW assumes a dumb opponent and highly effective templates, then they are overcosted.  If GW assumes a smart opponent and ineffective templates then they are likely costed too low.

 

Now, if we look at the variable hit weapons on display in this edition, you'll notice a trend.  They are actually quite reasonably priced compared to weapons with static rates of fire.

 

Despite the above outlined performance averages, the plasma cannon comes in cheaper than its nearest competitors and can perform a great many roles effectively.  Flamers are still the cheapest available special and synergize the best with the new advance+shoot rule that assault weapons get.  The predator autocannon is a viciously more effective anti-infantry weapon than the lascannon, costs a point less, and still deals more damage on average than the lascannon will to T8/Sv3+ vehicles (only by a hair, but for the rest of the profile, that's fantastic).  The frag missile portion of the missile launcher appears to add little to the cost compared to the krak profile.

 

Basically, by giving them a random but largely set number of hits, GW can actually balance the risk versus reward of having a weapon that isn't 100% reliable (just as templates have never been).  This has made blast and template weapons quite reasonably priced for their average effectiveness and they no longer rely on your opponent making mistakes and playing sloppy to get the most effect out of them.

 

In general, a lot of folks are just kind of pegging on their general confirmation bias.  All those times your generally useless demolisher cannon finally hit that unit of chaos terminators square on and removed them from the board.  Or that time your Ork opponent forgot to properly space things because he was courteous and didn't want to make you sit through a three hour movement phase and you hit the clumped mass with four flamers and decimated them.  While possibilities in older editions, they were also generally the outlier.

 

Small templates were borderline useless due to scatter and unit spacing.  Large templates rarely hit well enough to deal heavy damage (and cover often mitigated it anyways).  And templates were good, but basically existed only to punish horde armies that were already not doing too well.

 

The number of hits template weapons had in previous versions already was random, but it was random based on the roll of the dice and your opponent's skill.  A good opponent could render plasma cannons useless, a bad opponent could make flamers worth their weight in gold.  That is a mess that is nearly impossible to properly balance and already puts templates behind weapons with static rates of fire because those can't be mitigated by enemy skill.

 

Basically, view a random number of hits as a discount on a weapon that would have cost more if it came with a guaranteed number of shots.  This does mean they become a risk versus reward proposition.  You risk the odd dry turn in hopes of scoring the occasional hit that punches way above the gun's normal weight class (like when your demolisher hits something for 20+ damage).  And in general, they hew closer the the average (and thus gain consistency) the more of them you have.

 

A single plasma cannon is a bit of a gambit, but a devastator squad with 4 will actually pump out surprisingly reliable firepower from turn to turn.

 

As always, it is best to flush any preconceptions from old editions down the drain and look at what is actually there instead of lamenting how it isn't like it used to be.  Are variable RoF weapons useful?  Overpriced?  Underpriced?  We can't tell based on how things were done it RT to 7th, we can only tell based on how they perform in 8th.

 

My current napkin math shows them being generally cheaper than they would be if they simply had a static number of shots equal to their average rate of fire which actually makes them a good bargain over the course of a game where the booms and busts are likely to balance each other out and give you the average result you would have gotten from a more expensive weapon.

 

Either way, the way one tells whether these new variable hit weapons are good or bad is not to look at how they performed in 7th, but to look at how they actually perform in 8th.

[Elios Harg]

The key thing I think that gets ignored with the new blast/template paradigm is that it is a lot easier to balance on GW's end than a scattering template.

 

In reality, that scattering template is every bit as random and capricious as any other die roll (what with it being a die roll).  Especially when it came to the small template.  The average deviation usually meant it was scattering off of its target 2/3rds of the time.  In general, blast weapons were random, capricious, but also hard to balance from a cost perspective because their worth increased as your opponent's skill decreased.  In general, I'm not a fan of a weapon that only works to its full potential when my opponent makes mistakes.  That makes for a gotcha weapon that reduces in effectiveness as your opponent becomes more skilled.  So balancing comes on a razor's edge.  If GW assumes a dumb opponent and highly effective templates, then they are overcosted.  If GW assumes a smart opponent and ineffective templates then they are likely costed too low.

 

Now, if we look at the variable hit weapons on display in this edition, you'll notice a trend.  They are actually quite reasonably priced compared to weapons with static rates of fire.

 

Despite the above outlined performance averages, the plasma cannon comes in cheaper than its nearest competitors and can perform a great many roles effectively.  Flamers are still the cheapest available special and synergize the best with the new advance+shoot rule that assault weapons get.  The predator autocannon is a viciously more effective anti-infantry weapon than the lascannon, costs a point less, and still deals more damage on average than the lascannon will to T8/Sv3+ vehicles (only by a hair, but for the rest of the profile, that's fantastic).  The frag missile portion of the missile launcher appears to add little to the cost compared to the krak profile.

 

Basically, by giving them a random but largely set number of hits, GW can actually balance the risk versus reward of having a weapon that isn't 100% reliable (just as templates have never been).  This has made blast and template weapons quite reasonably priced for their average effectiveness and they no longer rely on your opponent making mistakes and playing sloppy to get the most effect out of them.

 

In general, a lot of folks are just kind of pegging on their general confirmation bias.  All those times your generally useless demolisher cannon finally hit that unit of chaos terminators square on and removed them from the board.  Or that time your Ork opponent forgot to properly space things because he was courteous and didn't want to make you sit through a three hour movement phase and you hit the clumped mass with four flamers and decimated them.  While possibilities in older editions, they were also generally the outlier.

 

Small templates were borderline useless due to scatter and unit spacing.  Large templates rarely hit well enough to deal heavy damage (and cover often mitigated it anyways).  And templates were good, but basically existed only to punish horde armies that were already not doing too well.

 

The number of hits template weapons had in previous versions already was random, but it was random based on the roll of the dice and your opponent's skill.  A good opponent could render plasma cannons useless, a bad opponent could make flamers worth their weight in gold.  That is a mess that is nearly impossible to properly balance and already puts templates behind weapons with static rates of fire because those can't be mitigated by enemy skill.

 

Basically, view a random number of hits as a discount on a weapon that would have cost more if it came with a guaranteed number of shots.  This does mean they become a risk versus reward proposition.  You risk the odd dry turn in hopes of scoring the occasional hit that punches way above the gun's normal weight class (like when your demolisher hits something for 20+ damage).  And in general, they hew closer the the average (and thus gain consistency) the more of them you have.

 

A single plasma cannon is a bit of a gambit, but a devastator squad with 4 will actually pump out surprisingly reliable firepower from turn to turn.

 

As always, it is best to flush any preconceptions from old editions down the drain and look at what is actually there instead of lamenting how it isn't like it used to be.  Are variable RoF weapons useful?  Overpriced?  Underpriced?  We can't tell based on how things were done it RT to 7th, we can only tell based on how they perform in 8th.

 

My current napkin math shows them being generally cheaper than they would be if they simply had a static number of shots equal to their average rate of fire which actually makes them a good bargain over the course of a game where the booms and busts are likely to balance each other out and give you the average result you would have gotten from a more expensive weapon.

 

Either way, the way one tells whether these new variable hit weapons are good or bad is not to look at how they performed in 7th, but to look at how they actually perform in 8th.

I disagree with the assessment that variable ROF weapons are reasonably priced.

 

Heavy Flamer is 4 points cheaper than an assault cannon. It has 1/3 the range, 1 less S, and only fires the same number of shots 1/6 of the time (while averaging about half the shots). In exchange for this it automatically hits. Considering that an assault cannon will average hitting about 3-4 times (depending on moving or not) and a heavy flamer will average hitting about 3-4 times. The massively lower range and 1 less S is ONLY worth a 4 point discount? Bear in mind, the limited range of a heavy flamer means it can NEVER be used while deep striking.

 

According to jbaeza94's heavy weapons analysis (his rounds of shooting to kill each model seems off, but his damage per round of shooting at each target seems pretty accurate), the plasma cannon will get outperformed by the assault cannon against basically everything (including non-storm shield wielding terminators, which I would consider to be an optimal target for plasma cannons). This difference in efficiency varies from a little more than half as efficient vs dire avengers, guardsmen, and space marines to about 2/3 as efficient vs. terminators and land raiders. The best use for plasma cannons is apparently against medium vehicles such as Rhinos (basically T7) and even here, it gets outperformed by the assault cannon. In case anyone is curious, a T6 Sv3+ model would also favor the assault cannon significantly, (about 40% more efficient than the plasma). In essence, the plasma cannon can ONLY outperform the equally costed assault cannon when supercharging. The supercharged plasma is about twice as effective against terminators, rhinos, and land raiders. So the lower effectiveness of the plasma cannon must be balanced out by the extra range and the risky ability to supercharge. Considering the 1 in 3  average chance per round (sometimes it spikes to a 50% chance when getting 3 shots) of killing himself while supercharging, I don't think it is worth it except in the most desperate of measures. With a re-roll bubble, the risk is still probably not worth it:

 

M = Chance to miss = 1/2

G = Chance to get hot on the re-roll = 1/6

 

1 Shot:

 

P(M1 * G1) = 1/2 * 1/6 = 1/12 

 

2 shots:

 

P(M1 * G1 + M2 * G2) = 1/2 * 1/6 + 1/2 * 1/6 = 2/12 = 1/6

 

3 shots: 

 

P(M1 * G1 + M2 * G2 + M3 * G3) = 1/2 * 1/6 + 1/2 * 1/6 + 1/2 * 1/6 = 3/12 = 1/4

 

Remember, it doesn't matter if your first roll gets hot, it only matters if it has to re-roll and the subsequent re-roll then gets hot. This essentially means that the re-roll bubble makes you about half as likely to get hot.

 

What does this mean? That I am about half as likely (1/6) to kill myself as I am to inflict damage on a land raider in a given supercharge volley. Granted, the model is slain AFTER resolving shots, so it is possible that I both do damage to the land raider AND kill myself. Thus, supercharging seems to only be worth it in desperation (i.e. you are probably going to lose the model anyway if you do not supercharge) and during the last round or two when surviving to shoot again may not mean as much as killing/damaging something right now.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Yup, Gets hot in combination with many shots will be a problem. ACs for the win.

 

All weapons get relatively less effective as the opponent gets more skilled too BTW Ronin mate, blast weapons don't have the monopoly on that. ;)

[Ronin_eX]

Yup, Gets hot in combination with many shots will be a problem. ACs for the win.

All weapons get relatively less effective as the opponent gets more skilled too BTW Ronin mate, blast weapons don't have the monopoly on that.

Not in the same way a blast weapon does. Spacing my models 2" apart doesn't cause an assault cannon to lose shots, and clumping my army together doesn't cause the lascannon to kill more models. The gain or loss of effectiveness of a blast weapon is entirely at the mercy of your opponent. There is nothing you can do to plan around it, it creates no interesting counterplay like good use of cover mechanics would for other weapons.

In general, a weapon can be considered poor in competitive terms if it requires your opponent to screw up for you to get optimal use from.

Optimal use for most weapons comes from my decisions and the enemy mitigates those. In the case of blast weapons, I am at the mercy of my opponent and there is little I can do to mitigate their efforts to decrease the efficacy of my weaponry.

Player skill will always be a factor, yes, but with blast weaponry, it is the major factor.

And I will grant that the heavy flamer is kind of a pants choice and that the assault cannon is still probably a terminator's best costed heavy weapon. But things like that appear to be more the exception than the rule and while the plasma cannon still isn't a great choice for terminators compared to the assault cannon, not every unit has the choice between the two and this may point toward the assault cannon being undercosted for its effectiveness rather than things like the heavy flamer or plasma cannon being undercosted. Might be something to bring up the next time a Chapter Approved comes along to update costs. ;)

[Interrogator Stobz]

We'll have to disagree on the main thing then, looks like we do agree on the rest.

 

I used to kill vehicles and then plasma cannon the clumped up contents, that was the skill I used to make them better than fixed shot weapons. If I couldn't achieve that then hitting one dude was sufficient, because gets hot would not likely kill my model, the multiple chances now bother me but only play and time will tell. If the opposition moves into cover they also mitigate stuff too.

It's all about skill, and play style as you say.

The new mechanism is one that I don't like due to my old play style. I'm sure I'll adapt.

 

:D