A Different Look at Combat Doctrines [Warning - Chart Heavy]

[jaxom]

I'm sure this math has been done somewhere, but I haven't seen it on the B&C recently and with all the discussion of Codex: Space Marines jumping the shark it got me thinking. There was a nagging voice in my head that the order was wrong: the new codex didn't bring Marines into eighth edition proper, but brought all the other factions to eighth edition as Marine players knew it. I wanted to see if that were the case.

 

Terminator Equivalent (TEQ, T4, 2+/5++ Sv), Marine Equivalent (MEQ, T4, 3+ Sv), and Guard Equivalent (GEQ, T3, 5+ Sv) chosen for comparisons as they provide baselines common to many armies. The drastic changes to vehicles between 7th and 8th editions meant it would be a different set of calculations so I didn't do it for the initial run and probably won't.

 

The focus is on the changes to weapons. Ballistic Skill stayed constant between editions so I left it out and just looked at the to wound roll and the saving throw roll. I did not go into damage vs wounds because in my head the wound roll is a sort of rate-determining step and could serve as a preliminary analysis. If I move forward I would probably either standardize with Casualties per 10 Hits or Casualties per 10 BS4+ Shots and Casualties per 10 BS3+ Shots.

 

Eighth Edition Pre-C:SM

 

Big picture to start: the overall percent differences for various standard Imperial weapons to wound chance.

 

 

Interestingly, the positive percent difference of GEQs against bolters and heavy bolters matches that of MEQs against normal plasma and krak (S8 AP3 becoming S8 AP-2). Terminators are it the hardest at both ends of the spectrum with anti-infantry and anti-tank both becoming more effective. Grav weapons are an outlier in some regards because their unique save-based wound mechanic was changed to simply S5 while the AP went from AP2 to AP-3.

 

However, the percent differences don't actually show the changes in the actually wound chances.

 

Bigger versions:

https://imgur.com/NKTxlEg

https://imgur.com/Yf2gRXV

https://imgur.com/tmgKCjt

 

This is where it takes an intuitive leap because I don't have the frequency data to apply. TEQs and MEQs are negatively impacted by relatively common anti-infantry and anti-light vehicle weapons (high strength, low AP weapons with more than one shot pre-eighth edition). GEQs are positively impacted by the same and the even more ubiquitous bolter while the changes have no impact on heavier weapons. TEQs and MEQs do better in that regard, but the rate of return should be lower due to the lower rate of fire and/or lower incidence of taking heavier weapons. The conclusion seems to support the anecdotal evidence that MEQs and TEQs "die easier" in eighth edition compared to GEQs who have always died easy, but less so in eighth edition. A direct comparison of change to wound in each edition also supports this:

 

Bigger versions:

https://imgur.com/nFcVtKl

https://imgur.com/6DSNpkh

 

Weapons likely to have higher rates of fire and higher incidence per force have increased wound chances for TEQs and MEQs while having lower wound chances for GEQs. Of future interest would be competitive list analysis since eighth edition began to see if there are noticeable trends in how many plasmaguns, krak equivalent (wound TEQ/MEQ/GEQ on 2+, AP-2), demolisher equivalent (wound TEQ/MEQ/GEQ on 2+, AP-3) were taken compared to heavy bolters and autocannons.

 

Eighth Edition Post-C:SM

 

Overall percent difference for TEQ, MEQ, and GEQ between no combat doctrine active and combat doctrine active for each relevant weapon.

 

 

I call this chart, "Shark Hysteria in Graphic Form." TEQs and MEQs once again appear to be impacted the most. However, more so than previously, the scale of the changes must be examined.

 

Bigger versions:

https://imgur.com/D620lvT

https://imgur.com/ZZvsMFC

https://imgur.com/7W3wx1z

 

The green percent difference (between no doctrine and active doctrine) columns are particularly outsized for TEQs with bolters because 2/6 is indeed twice as much as 1/6. Yet, the TEQs are still surviving more than the MEQs and GEQs and their invulnerable save negates the change to AP for weapons with AP-3 or better. The increase in chance to wound with Combat Doctrine against GEQs brings the bolter and heavy bolter almost back to their previous efficacy and the autocannon is back to where it was. Of particular note is the effectiveness of bolt rifles - higher rate of incidence and similar rate of fire to a heavy bolter (thank you, Bolter Discipline!). MEQs similarly approach pre-Eighth edition chance to be wounded for anti-heavy infantry and anti-tank weapons while continuing to be impacted more than GEQs by infantry bolt weapons and anti-infantry weapons.

 

Bigger versions:

https://imgur.com/wghycQv

https://imgur.com/KmipCE2

 

In conclusion, I'd say it's not a case of C:SM jumping the shark, but returning other armies to a level of durability seen prior to eighth edition. C:SMarines are more durable relative to other armies using the same (or similar) weapons while still being less durable, overall, than previous editions (most likely the cause of competitive minded players looking at the new options to increase C:SM durability to mitigate that continuing issue). The armies most negatively impacted are non-C:SM Astartes armies. Adeptus Astartes and Heretic Astartes alike have all the cons, but none of the pros. In the case of Thousand Sons, their special rule regarding AP-1 has been seriously compromised when facing a C:SM army (a likely occurrence given the popularity of Space Marines in casual play and a steady, if lower, presence in the competitive scene).

[dreadmad]

Interesting stuff here, I like the conclusion of Doctrines returning the status quo of GeQ being easier to kill than MeQ (etc etc) - however the issue crops up with the disparity between MeQ *WITH* Doctrines, and those *WITHOUT*.

 

Handwaving the non-C:SM Astartes aside for the moment (taking the liberty of assuming DA, BA, SW etc will get some equivalent to Doctrines when they get redone) this means armies like Necrons who pre-C:SM were MeQ are now at even more of a disadvantage against their power armour opponents.

 

It also doesn't make GeQ more vulnerable to non-C:SM armies - so GeQ being less easy to kill then pre-8th is only solved by armies with this damage buff - and unless every army gets this damage buff it unbalances the field, and if they do all get this buff we'll be looking at games ending much faster than previously as people get tabled T4 or perhaps earlier.

 

A couple of side notes:

 

You refer to Plasma as AP-2 a couple of times, it's AP-3.

 

The Thousand Sons rule is +1 to saves against damage 1 weapons, not AP-1 weapons.

 

Other than that, thanks for doing the leg work! It's always interesting to see in depth maths around the hobby & I feel we don't get enough of it.

[jaxom]

Oh yes, very much so. The key thing that I tried to stress at the end is that I don't think Combat Doctrines are just "C:SMarines kill GEQ well again," but that also they're more durable compared to other armies using those same weapons.

 

The comparisons I felt the uneasiest leaving out were the 4+ save armies; there aren't a lot of Necrons were I play so I don't know if the change to warriors actually impacted if their army feels like a 3+ or 4+ army with how lists are actually built. Any MEQ non-C:SMarine army is definitely on the short of the stick. I don't think they should all get the exact same rules, but I do think there's a swathe of armies which need a bit of work because they (or their feel/play style) did not translate well to the eighth edition paradigm.

 

With the plasma, that's a formatting thing, I left out the description because I figured most people are comfortable with it as a baseline so, "plasma and krak (S8 AP-2)" for example had the description for krak as I don't see krak missiles being talked about as much.

 

And I guess that shows how often I play Thousand Sons