In 8th, Are marines the wrong baseline?

[Panzer]

 

 

 

Except that it's not the points system that's at fault here. It's the points given to specific units.

Same thing brother SF, just a different way of saying it.

An Ogryn is more survivable than a terminator, and costs 10 points less per model because it's T5 makes most small arms less efficient than the non modifier to saves from bolters.

 

 

Not really. Saying the points system is at fault is saying that it can never be done right no matter what a unit is costed. I'm saying it can be done right if the unit is costed correctly.

 

Also that's not even true.

A Terminator is more survivable. It takes 27 Lasgun shots to kill an Ogryn and 72 to kill a Terminator. 27 Bolter shots for the Ogryn, 48 for the Terminator. 14.4 Heavy Bolter shots for the Ogryn, 18 for the Terminator. 4.5 overcharged Plasma shots for the Ogryn, 3.6 for the Terminator.

If we take the point difference into account then a Terminator is still more efficient against Lasguns and Bolter, almost as efficient against Heavy Bolter and worse against overcharged Plasma (which was kinda obvious in the first place).

 

I'm not saying it CAN'T be done right, just that it is not done right ATM, I agree with you 100% on that.

 

Also, when have you -ever- played a game of 40k that went by mathematical probability?

 

 

Well in that case saying the points SYSTEM is at fault is plain and simply wrong. The system is not at fault. The way the system is used is at fault (aka it's getting used poorly at times).

 

Oh those games do happen from time to time. About as often as games where everything goes wrong for one side. However I don't see how that's relevant in any kind or form when talking about which unit is generally more survivable lol

[Panzer]

I've just read through all 10 pages of this (hey, it's Friday, and it's lunchtime, and it's been a long week ) and I think what we're missing is that 40k has never been about one on one stats, it's a game about units. What's the point in costing an individual Tactical Marine, when you're fielding him with 8 other guys and a Sergeant? Or one Ork, when there's another 18 Orks and Nob standing with him.

 

How about looking at the wounds, firepower and attacks of the unit as a whole, and making sure that's costed effectively against other whole units?

So that my 200pts has the same chance of beating your 200pts as your 200pts has of beating mine.

It doesn't have to mean homogeneity though - I might decide to chop yours into tiny pieces, you might decide to nuke mine from orbit, or mini-nuke it then chop the survivors into tiny pieces.

 

Also going back a few pages re play-testing - you don't need to physically play 10,000 games to see which units are out of whack. You can load all the points into a computer and run those 10,000, or millions, or billions of variations and get statistically usable results, and then tweak them and re-run them until you've sorted the anomalies and levelled the values out.

Sports websites run simulations to find the greatest team ever ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/page/3/?s=ELO ), and the methodology is well established, so there's no reason why it couldn't be used on 40k.

 

Because there's no such thing as "whole" units in a game where you can take units with any size between 5-10 or 10-40. Actually "whole" units would be "max sized" units and most people rather use "min sized" units. Also because nothing's stopping you from taking four 5-man units to compare to one 20-man unit so it just goes back to comparing it model per model and how much they cost. ;)