Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics(8E)

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search
  • I've started the conversion for 8e. Need some, more input to fix it up! Arahknxs (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of this seems to have been copy and pasted and is no longer relevant, like it refers to bunching up units as making them vulnerable to a flamer; yet 8e means that your tarpit will take 3 hits at max from a single flamer no matter how bunched up the models are. Twinna (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I did indeed copy the entire 7E article as a lot of the same strategy still applies. You're correct though that there's still stuff to change for 8E relevancy. Arahknxs (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The Beta Rules: Since there are a number of changes that the Beta rule set affects, should we make an itemized list of them? To be edited and added to as more revisions arrive?
  • I just did a pretty big revamp of this page, let me know if I made any offensive edits. Angry Pirate (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-rolling Successful Hits[edit]

I am pretty sure that is not a thing, why would that be on the page? Also why is all this convoluted math on the page? Angry Pirate (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a thing, although it's got very few uses. Most times a re-roll specifies that it only affects ones or failed rolls, but certain times it doesn't which is what opens that exploit. The only time I've seen it suggested is an interview with Don Mastodon when he was talking about The Purge. He suggests using it to keep enemy units alive and locked in combat with you a bit longer, in case destroying them would leave you at a disadvantage. He also suggests using All Life Is Worthless in the hopes that if you need to, you can kill some of your dudes who were stuck in combat with something like a Super-heavy (Knights for example). This is advice that apparently helped him win some tournaments, though I couldn't find records of how those tournaments went or when he needed to put these tactics into effect. As for the math and tables, those are really not needed in my opinion. -- Triacom (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
You have got me all wrong, the page had a table discussing the effects of abilities that forced the opponent to re-roll all successful hits. I don't think any such ability exists. I can get why one would want to re-roll a successful hit, like if you've got your target caught in a tri-lock and you don't want them getting out. Although, re-rolling a wound roll in that case would make more sense most likely. In any case I removed the table and I am going to start cleaning up the rest of the page as well. Stop me if I start doing stupid stuff. Angry Pirate (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy Back-up[edit]

By and large, this will be a WS or BS value. Regardless of the name of the stat, here called "AS" for "Accuracy Skill", the basic odds of hitting is:


  • An ability to re-roll ones will multiple this value by 7/6.
  • An ability to re-roll all failures is more complicated, as accuracy is buffed more the worse that it is; the overall formula is:
    • 1-(1-(7-AS)/6)^2
  • If you are forced to re-roll successes, the formula becomes:
    • ((7-AS)/6)^2
  • You never re-roll a die twice, so if you re-roll successes and failures, the net impact is as if you had no re-roll ability - instead, you will end up rolling the die, ignoring the result, rolling it again, and then moving on to additive modifiers.
  • Adding or subtracting a number to hit will behave as you expect - +1 to hit equals -1 to AS, and vice versa - with the caveat that improving your AS past 2+ does not accomplish anything, as you always miss on a 1. Your AS can be degraded to 7+ or worse, at which point you will automatically miss.
  • Mixing re-rolls with additive modifiers is a bit tricky, since you only apply modifiers after rerolls. On the one hand, this means that getting to reroll failures is less effective if you'e taking a penalty: for example, if you normally need a 3+ to hit but are taking a -1 penalty (say from using a power fist), the ability to reroll failures won't help you if you roll a 3 (since it only gets downgraded to a 2 after the question whether you get a reroll has already been decided). On the other hand, this also means you normally shouldn't reroll if a bonus would turn a failure into a success.
  • Thus the general formula is involved; it is presented here for the interested, but the table below is probably more useful in practice.
    • reroll_failures is the number at or below which you may re-roll if it is a failure; this is typically 0 (no buff), 1 (re-roll 1s), or 5 (or more, for re-roll all failures).
    • reroll_success is the number at or above which you must re-roll if it is a success; since most debuffs that do this do it for all successes, you would use "2" (or any value less than 2) for those, or "7" otherwise.
    • modifier is the net result of adding up all positive and negative additive modifiers to the roll.
    • numerator = (7-AS)/6
    • numerator = max(min(numerator,6),0)
    • reroll_success = min(7-max(min(reroll_success,7),2),numerator)
    • reroll_failure = max(7-max(min(reroll_failure,6),0),7-numerator)
    • numerator = max(min(numerator+modifier,5),0)
    • accuracy = (numerator*(reroll_success+max(7-max(reroll_failure,numerator+1,reroll_success+1),0))+max(numerator-reroll_success,0)*6)/36

Here is the general accuracy table; one of your big take-aways should be how powerful modifiers are, as some models have access to negative modifiers to incoming attacks, which is a drastically better durability buff, in practice, than almost any other durability buff available.

General Accuracy
Accuracy -2 To Hit -1 To Hit +0 To Hit +1 To Hit +2 To Hit
Keep Failures and Keep Successes
6+ 00.00% 00.00% 16.67% 33.33% 50.00%
5+ 00.00% 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 66.67%
4+ 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 66.67% 83.33%
3+ 33.33% 50.00% 66.67% 83.33% 83.33%
2+ 50.00% 66.67% 83.33% 83.33% 83.33%
Keep Failures and Reroll Successes
6+ 00.00% 00.00% 02.78% 22.22% 41.67%
5+ 00.00% 05.56% 11.11% 33.33% 55.56%
4+ 08.33% 16.67% 25.00% 50.00% 75.00%
3+ 22.22% 33.33% 44.44% 72.22% 72.22%
2+ 41.67% 55.56% 69.44% 69.44% 69.44%
Reroll Ones and Keep Successes
6+ 00.00% 00.00% 19.44% 38.89% 58.33%
5+ 00.00% 19.44% 38.89% 58.33% 77.78%
4+ 19.44% 38.89% 58.33% 77.78% 97.22%
3+ 38.89% 58.33% 77.78% 97.22% 97.22%
2+ 58.33% 77.78% 97.22% 97.22% 97.22%
Reroll Ones and Reroll Successes
6+ 00.00% 00.00% 05.56% 27.78% 50.00%
5+ 00.00% 08.33% 16.67% 41.67% 66.67%
4+ 11.11% 22.22% 33.33% 61.11% 88.89%
3+ 27.78% 41.67% 55.56% 86.11% 86.11%
2+ 50.00% 66.67% 83.33% 83.33% 83.33%
Reroll Failures and Keep Successes
6+ 00.00% 00.00% 30.56% 55.56% 75.00%
5+ 00.00% 27.78% 55.56% 75.00% 88.89%
4+ 25.00% 50.00% 75.00% 88.89% 97.22%
3+ 44.44% 66.67% 88.89% 97.22% 97.22%
2+ 58.33% 77.78% 97.22% 97.22% 97.22%
Reroll Failures and Reroll Successes
6+ 00.00% 00.00% 05.56% 27.78% 50.00%
5+ 00.00% 11.11% 22.22% 50.00% 77.78%
4+ 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 72.22% 88.89%
3+ 33.33% 50.00% 66.67% 86.11% 86.11%
2+ 50.00% 66.67% 83.33% 83.33% 83.33%

Armouries on the various army pages.[edit]

I've been wondering this for a while now, but what do the armoury sections add that cannot be covered by unit entries? Everything in them is either stating info that is obvious and redundant to anyone holding the relevant book (which are the people using the tactica in the first place), or it's insight that is restated in the unit entry itself, where it's actually relevant. I'm not really seeing why we keep them around at all to be honest, since they take up so much space and it's annoying to scroll past that kind of bloat. How should we improve them, if possible (so that they're not just restating profiles) or should we just remove them? Personally I'm leaning more towards getting rid of them entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Half agreed. Agreed because indeed most "tactica", especially in the armoury section is mere rewritings (though it does help to have the relics section next to the weapons they replace). But I don't want them to be utterly erased because there can exist weapon tactics that better fit there than across multiple unit entries, especially sgt upgrades or guns that are shared by different unit types. Definitely have to improve the section, of course. I say remove from the section all those weapons that are exclusive to a single unit. Example: Reiver Carbines would only be mentioned in the Reiver entry - and only relevant to how to use them when compared to gun & knife Reivers... but Thunder Hammers would remain, because many units have to compare them to other melee options. And even then, an argument still remains on common guns compared to other common guns, like Heavy Bolters vs Autocannons vs Missile Launchers and such. So, weapons exclusive to a single unit get relocated, and the ones common to a couple or trio of units get to remain. If the section is too bloated still, they can be turned into those [Expand] things. Those sections you clic and they drop down revealing all the text, literally forgot what they're called lol. Zerghalo2 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The only case I can think of where the same weapon types need to be scrutinized across multiple units like that is when it comes to the Eldar, even then there's now a workaround that doesn't involve scrolling up, then down, then up and down again (as such the wargear section of that page is gone). Most Sergeant upgrades don't need to be given a full weapon breakdown and the ones that do are already unique to the unit anyway. Lastly, as I mentioned, if weapon options really do need to be considered that much for each unit that can take them, then they're already covered in those unit entries, making the wargear section redundant. -- Triacom (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
As long as we avoid situations like "See X unit section to see how Y weapon does in combat". That's a no-no. Zerghalo2 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, just like Dark Eldar have got a list of which unit has what keyword, and Deathwatch have what counts as Specialist Ammo, I think weapon lists could be posted, for convenience. Just so that one doesn't need to write which weapons " Tools of Torment" are, down on a notebook to memorize it. Zerghalo2 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The "see x section for y" is exactly why I'm against the Armouries in the first place as they lend themselves to that. It's also why I did a full restructuring of the CSM tactics page where anything like that was removed and you no longer have to flip between several different sections to see the various characters/relics/stratagems a Legion has. If a unit really needs to consider a weapon choice like you list, it can always be included alongside the unit itself like it is with the Eldar page. -- Triacom (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)