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

From 1d4chan

Contemptor Achillus with FGLTC[edit]

For the anon who keeps deleting the Contemptor-Achillus/FGLTC bit, have you ever actually played a game or read a rulebook? No t1 deep strike...make this a costly/unreliable tactic. Most units can't do that, and that is exactly what FGLTC was designed for - to help get melee-focussed units from a melee-focussed faction into combat quickly without getting shot up, especially those that suffer from deteriorating stats (Like the C-A) By your reasoning, we should not use arguably the most useful stratagem in our codex because it costs too many CP's to deepstrike two extremely powerful melee units from a very melee-based army. Plus, what other faction can deepstrike dreadnoughts and bikers? Besides, if you're really worried about using too many Cps, just bring Valoris and use his Moment Shackle to regen the used points. 1 per detachment...make this a costly/unreliable tactic Hmm, funny thing that you generally bring more than 1 detachment in a game, especially with Custodes. Really, what you've done here is contradict yourself - saying that you can't/shouldn't use an expensive stratagem, and then commenting that the easiest way to get more CPs is also defunct. bubblewrap...makes this a costly/unreliable tactic I have already talked to you about this. Maybe you're too stubborn or thick-headed to register it, or then again, maybe indeed you have never played a game in your life. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and repeat myself one last time. If a player bubblewraps his warlord, then yes, they cannot be touched until the screen is dealt with. What you have overlooked is that if said screen is tied up in combat, then said warlord CANNOT MOVE until the bubble wrap is removed, such as if it piles in towards the dreadnought. If it falls back, then the warlord cannot move because the bubble wrap still surrounds him. Maybe you should pop into your local GW and ask for a Demo game to teach you the stuff you clearly don't know? — EinherjiExMachina (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised.last Faq remove t1 deepstrikes, so your army still get shot for 1 turn and that's one less turn of combat for your two achillus In second i think you tragically underestimate the cost, of course you could bring only two minimum size patrol detachment, that's still 1016 pts, with only 3cp and no trick outside of those two achillus. And you seems to overestimate the cheapness and resistance of hordes, at maximum that's a grand total of 8 attacks, and since the ennemy is going to drown in cps next to you he can probably afford 2cp to let them pass their morale test, so your contemptors are going to be stuck for 2turns killing trash, while your army get destroyed in the shooting phase. But i guess that's worth it because you kill a single warlord in the end...

Have you actually read the stratagem in question? Whether or not the FAQ has banned turn 1 deepstrikes, the stratagem specifically says that it happens during deployment - so no, actually, the custodes don't get shot at for the first turn, because the contemptors are already shooting and chopping through bodyguards. Also, fun fact: these tactics articles exist because there was a demand for advice on what units to take for matched play (read: tournament) games. Tournaments that generally tend to have points limits of 1800 - just under 800 more points than what you’ve just quoted. Oh, and by the way - With the new Big FAQ change to Battalions though, you'll start with a cool 8 CP now with 2 HQs and 3 MSU Guard squads coming out to well under 800 points.- So the article you are fighting over (and which clearly you have not read) has just completely contradicted your own arguments - turns out we can have ‘a cool 8CP”, which will cost ‘well under 800 points’, and I’m pretty sure maths says that 1016 + ‘well under 800’ does not equal 1800, and even 8 CPs (max 11 if you roll well for Valoris’ MS,which is 2 more than an IG player could get with a brigade detachment ) is positively swimming in CPs compared to what the Custodes usually get. And no, I don’t ‘underestimate the resistance of hordes’ - most hordes will be T3 or lower (unless the opposing player is being idiotic and screening with MEQs which, as I’m sure you don’t know, is far too expensive to be a viable tactic), meaning that all attacks (shooting and cc) wound on 2s and 3s, with a total of 22 (not 8) shooting and cqc attacks max (and another max 8 mortal wounds on the charge) between said two contemptors, and which is more than enough to destroy most screens. Also, the funny thing is that warlords tend to have costed quite a pretty penny to have been taken, so the enemy is generally quite keen to protect them from getting killed, and losing their warlord trait and valuable (de)buff auras. Oh, and you also tend to get a couple of VPs when you kill them (though you maybe wouldn’t have known that, given how you seem to have never actually played a game). Perhaps before you write your next response, you should take a look at the website/article that you are trying to add to? — EinherjiExMachina (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Look if you're too dumb to read i'm not going to waste more time rectifying you, i'll just have a smile thinking about your next tournament and your face when that wonderful strategy is brought down by the rules

Can't resist pointing a few things in your "faultless" rant :

>which is 2 more than an IG player could get with a brigade detachment

You can't give numbers for your own detachments and don't have an idea of how cheap IG can get brigades and cp

>warlords tend to have costed quite a pretty penny to have been taken

Have fun killing either a dirt-cheap warlord on turn 3 or get wrecked by a primarch on turn 2 A few select hqs are worth their point, and they're either buff machines or cheap way to get access to traits. So there might be one or two situation in a whole tournament where the warlord is helpless.

>these tactics articles exist because there was a demand for advice on what units to take for matched play (read: tournament)

If you seriously believe anyone would look to 1d4chan for tournament help you're truly beyond help

And I’m sure that in the (very) unlikely event that that does happen, I’ll think of the anon who couldn’t be bothered to read the stats and details of the unit and stratagem he tried to hopelessly argue about, and I’ll laugh hysterically. In the much more likely event that it does work, I’ll think of the anon who couldn’t be bothered to read the stats and details of the unit and stratagem he tried to hopelessly argue about, and I’ll laugh even more hysterically.

Also, about your, really quite amusing, attempts to pull my ‘ ‘faultless’ rant’ apart:

  • I can’t give numbers? First off, this is just a little rich coming from the guy who doesn’t even read the source material before coming to these tactics pages (contrary to THE GUY YOU ARE TRYING TO ARGUE WITH telling you otherwise in the hope of intelligent conversation). Second, just because I don’t drip feed your nooby ass every single number, does not mean that I do not know numbers. Clearly, I have overestimated you, and I will try to provide every last piece of detail that I normally wouldn’t have to. Thirdly, READ THE BRIGADE REQUIREMENTS! Yes, IG squads are dirt cheap. What is not dirt cheap is when you have to bring a minimum of 3-4 elites, heavy support, fast attack, HQ, as well as said IG squads. Also, if you try to bring a dirt cheap brigade, regardless if they’re ‘drowning in CPs’, you WILL get thumped into the ground, especially when the custodes player brings DEJBs with hurricane bolters (like he most likely will if he has any sense).
  • <sigh> And this is where your obvious lack of any gaming experience comes into extremely sharp focus. If their warlord is extremely cheap (say, a PSM lieutenant, or a commissar, then obviously, you don’t drop the Contemptors there, instead put one next to the baneblade, astraeus, or other LoW that caused him to skimp on his warlord, and the other on one of his back marker objectives, and shoot all his dirt cheap, low toughness units that approach (and wrecking the odd tank in cqc). Yes, a few select HQs are worth their points, and these are the ones a contemptor(s) will be dropped 9” away from. What else... oh yes, Primarchs. Look at their stats. You seem to think Primarchs are immortal beings infallible by all except another Primarch. Once again, I will point you to the achillus’ damage stats. The pair of them will pump out a max of 74W and 8 MW per turn if they charged, and (assuming everything hits and wounds) a minimum of 18 wounds, both of which are enough to kill all Primarchs currently in 40k.
  • Dear god. Please, type ‘warhammer 40000 tactics’ into your search bar and see what comes up. Maybe most people don’t come to 1d4chan specifically for the tactics pages, but please, try and find another website, or single person bar GW’s rules writers themselves who can tell you specifically which units are ideal for what situations, for every single force in 40k, how to use them, what role they fill in different list types (which sometimes they’ll gift to you and other hopeless noobs) and the same again for every cc and ranged weapon, stratagems, the best alliances (on most pages), and the overall pros and cons of each army, and all the while allowing people to add what they found to work. Maybe I’ve made it sound a bit too noblebright, but THAT is why 1d4chan exists - essentially it’s a /tg/ specialist Wikipedia. — EinherjiExMachina (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If I may, there's a gaping flaw in your argument: namely, that it's a one-trick pony and things like Auspex Scan exist. You're also making it sound far simpler to make a cheap Custodes army than it really is, and while they're great at wrecking HQs those dreads won't stop ObSec troops from taking objectives and making you lose anyway. On top of that, those 3 CP can and often are better off being used for either Plant the Vexilla for even better deep striking or Stopping Dive for dickbikes. Putting all your eggs in one basket as you suggest isnan easy way to lose big. Especially when a simple Gaunt swarm can utterly surround your Dread and put it through a death of a thousand cuts. --Newerfag (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Remove the part where you talk about how the enemy can't have a go at your units, the achillus can't deepstrike t1

Dickbike Obsession[edit]

Can we clear out some of the side comments that revolve around bikes? They're getting peppered throughout the article and are getting excessive. Under inspire fear: "You have hurricane bolters why are your opponents hordes alive." Unflinching: "There is no escaping Hurriciane Bolters" ect. There are also alot of points where the phrase "strictly worse than bikes" is used in some form or another. They're good but emperor-be-fucked you can't rewrite the article to just be "bad-not bike, bad-not bike, bad-not bike.... BIKE! THIS IS BIKE! MUST TAKE BIIIIIIIIIIIIKE.

You’re right, of course, but what you need to recognise is that the dickbikes are one of the few anti-horde units the Custodes have, so in most cases they are a must take. However, I do agree that the biker ball-fondling is getting slightly ridiculous now. Obviously, some of the “not as good as bike” bits, like for the Eagle’s Eye vs Auric Aquila are both appropriate and entirely true, as I can prove through many Saturday games and Jokey Tournaments played using them. They are arguably the most cheesy non-FW unit in the army, so of course they’re going to be mentioned a lot. Regardless, feel free to remove the more outlandish and pointless mentions as you see fit. The Goofy Geek (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Building an army section?[edit]

Most other tactics pages have a section on building an army, suggested purchases etc. I'd add one but I'm a Farsight player that knows little about Custodes

Big FAQ 2[edit]

YEEEEEEEEEESSS!!!!! ADEPTUS CUSTODES CAN NOW DEEPSTRIKE IN TURN 1 AGAIN!!!! FGLTCing Dreadnoughts (sorry, Einherji), TermieSpam and Vexilla Homers are viable strategies again! Custodians are an OP army once more! The Goofy Geek (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

What? They always could unless you're talking about the beta rule that never made it in the official rules. If that's what you were talking about, then the new beta rule also prevents them from deepstriking in turn 1. -- Triacom (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh shit, sorry, I only read as far as the critiscisms of the old beta rule and drew my own conclusions without actually reading the new beta rule itself. Please accept my apologies. I am rescinding all edits made during that last night fever frenzy of excitement now. The Goofy Geek (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to, the beta is not the official rules and exists purely for players to give their feedback on it (this is stated by GW itself). Until the rules become official they are not a part of any game unless both you and your opponent(s) agree, and seeing as how the beta rule from the last FAQ didn't become official, this one might not as well. As it is, you can still Deep-strike whatever you want turn 1 without issue. -- Triacom (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, cheers Triacom. Mind if I quote you on that at my gaming club? The Goofy Geek (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You can quote GW on that, it's what they've outright stated both in the community announcement and in their FAQ's. -- Triacom (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Armouries on the various army pages.[edit]

This is mostly a repost of a question I had on the main tactics page, but I'll be posting it on all the most frequently updated tacticas because it applies to all of them and I'd like to hear any arguments against it.

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 get why we list relics since those are usually unique to the army and can be applies to a ton of different characters for different builds, same with Warlord Traits, and both of those are usually not covered in the various unit entries, instead that advice is usually covered in the relic and traits sections which makes sense. But for the regular armouries 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) 18:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Stat changes?[edit]

Was there an update I wasn't aware of where the Venetari Lance was given an extra 12" range? Also did the Solerite Power Gauntlets get a name change, and isn't Spark of Divinity still only a one use per phase Stratagem? I can't find a new FAQ or anything that changed these. -- Triacom (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathhammer Advice is Wrong[edit]

However, the same axe wounding a Terminator (2W) will have an actual average damage value of 1.67 because a Terminator can never practically lose more than 2 Wounds, turning the Damage calculation into (1+2+2)/3= 1.67.

This is wrong because how many wounds the weapon does is a separate result from the amount of wounds a unit takes. A terminator doesn't take fewer wounds on average than a Land Raider just because it has fewer wounds, and since you're now outright ignoring one of the dice rolls you're screwing up the equation by pretending that overkill doesn't exist. What happens is that excess wounds are lost, as stated in the paragraph beneath this one. Why this is important, is because the equation (1+2+3)/3=2 means you'll do 2 wounds on average per unsaved wound, meaning that on average you'll kill a terminator. Having (1+2+2)/3=1.67 instead means that on average you will not kill a terminator, which isn't true. -- Triacom (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
For the record I get that the point is to look at how the results of D1d3 weapons are against units of multi-wound models, however even there the way it is written makes it look like a single attack on average isn't likely to kill a terminator, and since the average damage of a single attack is 2, that isn't true. That's why I've removed it and I believe the paragraph beneath it sums up the issue clean enough anyway. -- Triacom (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Triacom. I understand your reasoning here but I need you to explain me how overkill is a thing on models without a FNP save. It doesn’t matter if a 2W model takes 2, 3 or 999999 damages : in the end you will only lose a single model and the remaining members of the units will be left unharmed, making bellow-average rolls impossible to compensate. The (1+2+3)/3 formula would work if Damages were calculated before rolling for saves, which isn't the case in 8th edition.

Let’s roll for damage after 3 unsaved wounds from a guardian spear, with the possible outcomes being equally distributed between dice : the first gives a 3, the second gives a 2, and the last one gives a 1 (the results are rolled in this specific order so the 1 isn’t lost). What do we have in the end? 2 dead Terminators and one with single Wound left, so basically 0.83 casualty/attack → 1,67 damages/attack instead of the 3 we should get from the (1+2+3)/3 = 2 calculation. Even with the risk of some dice being lost, the theory simply doesn’t match its application here.

Let’s take a more extreme theoretical example in order to make it even more obvious. Imagine inflicting an unsaved wound with a weapon having a flat Damage value of 1 and some special ability like « each time you inflict an unsaved wound with this weapon, roll a D6. On a roll of 6, the Damage value is now 7 ». The normal calculation of damages for this attack would be (7+1+1+1+1+1)/6 = 12/6 = 2. By this logic, six attacks with this weapon would theoretically kill 6 Terminators, right ? We know it isn’t the case though, because 83% of the equally distributed attacks with this weapon will only inflict 1 Damage, and the remaining 16% will only get rid of a single model, not 3. If you’re rolling 6 unsaved wounds against a Terminator units, you’re going to kill 3.5 of them on average, not 6. Now replace the standard calculation by (2+1+1+1+1+1)/6 = 7/6. Six unsaved wounds would then inflict a total of 7 damages, which, on 2W models, result in 3.5 casualties. It matches.

In the end, limiting the maximum Damage value to the model’s Wounds isn’t that different of the many parameters you're taking into account when doing basic Mathammer. According to pure maths, a single D6 attack would kill 3 Terminators, yet we know it’s impossible because regular attacks can never wound more than one model. Now if it is a matter of wording, I’m sorry if the distinction between « Damages dealt by an attack » and « Wounds effectively lost by a unit » wasn’t clear enough since both are different things, as you pointed out. I will fix that in order to avoid any misunderstanding. What do you think? -- Crococoloco (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to explain why overkill matters, even if it doesn't result in more models being lost: it's because it drops the average damage you'll roll. As I stated above, a D1d3 weapon's average roll is two, however if we were to go by the above math and accept that a weapon should not have a value above the maximum wounds of its target, then that artificially drops it's damage. To use an example, if a character has 4 wounds, your average would be that they take two separate hits from a D1d3 weapon, they'd lose 2 on the first hit, then 1.67 on the second and your average would say they would normally survive. To give another example, under the principle that we do not calculate overkill, melta guns would magically roll lower on their damage rolls against wounded vehicles than full health vehicles. Hell, according to that kind of math a D1d6 weapon cannot kill a Terminator on average since its damage would be reduced to 1.83 (in fact this is true no matter the dice, according to the math even a D1d100 will average less than 2). It's a misleading argument and that's why I removed it, your average wounds dealt do not change even if all the wounds you deal cannot be assigned. I left the paragraph beneath it because as I said, it already sums up the issue without making people think their average damage gets worse the fewer wounds something has. If you want to expand on how damage is assigned to a unit then go right ahead. -- Triacom (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem with your formula is, mathematically speaking, that it makes no difference between a weapon dealing 1d3 damages and another dealing 2; they should then lead to the same outcome when applied to any theoretical tabletop situation. Yet in reality both give very different results - I'm not even bringing the "wasted" attacks into the equation. A D2 attack will one-shot a Terminator 100% of the time, no doubt, no exception. However a D1d3 attack will not, it will technically kill a Terminator 2/3 of the time (so, 4/6) and inflict a "half death" (which means nothing for a single attack but must be represented as a 1/6 since 2 attacks do have a chance of killing another model). You end up with a theoretical 5/6 chance of killing a Terminator --> 83% --> 1.67 wounds per attack.

Of course a lascannon will deal 7/2 damages on average, but that actually says nothing about the probability for a single lascannon shot to successfuly inflict the loss of at least 2W on a Terminator. Weapons with a flat Damage value don't care, as long as said Damage value is equal or above the Wound value of their target, the probability of killing them is a plain 100%. Random Damage weapons don't have this luxury though, and the risk of screwing up everything with an unlucky roll of 1 is the factor that changes everything here. That’s also why the difference between a d3, a d6 or a d100 is still really important for a Damage roll; the more dice you roll, the closer you get of a 100% chance of destroying the target. In the end it makes the gap between the expected average Damage value and the number of remaining Wounds almost neglectable. Again, imagine having a weapon that deals either 1 or 35 Damages to a Land Raider (18 Wounds). Statistically it should lose 18 Wounds at every attack, so a Mathammer calculated this way will give 1 destroyed Land Raider per attack on average. Which is absolutely false, because you only have about 50% chance of getting this outcome and having a maximum Damage value of 35, 100 or 8564 wouldn't change anything: you will ALWAYS need a bit under 2 attacks in order to wreck the LR. Which translates as a Damage value equal to (1+18)/2 = 9.5.

I don't want to bother you with that topic for ages, and I don't want to sound like a smartass since you have been here for years and are arguably more experienced than I am. But I just can't find a way to make the current formula work for units of several multi-wounded models. I did the math, made probability tree diagrams and calcualted the average based on all outcomes; in the end the theoretical result is always 2 as expected, but you only get 0.83 Terminator killed. Which is definitely impossible as far as Mathammer works. The only way to get 0.83 Terminator dead is using the formula I proposed. It has limitations and is a pain in the ass to use when dealing with damaged models, but it is closer to what you can expect on the battlefield. Again, I can change the wording of the paragragh to make a clearer distinction between "average Damage" and "lost Wounds" or “lost models” if you think it's too much of a problem here. -- Crococoloco (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of mathhammer isn't to give a 100% accurate simulation, it's to give the player the average damage. What this means is that on average, a D1d3 weapon and a D2 weapon will have the same damage output, and I think you're having trouble with what you look for in mathhammer. You're looking for the average, that means if you kill something 50% of the time, on average you will kill it. This is by no means a guarantee, just a projection/expectation based on the stats. Trying to narrow it down to what would happen 100% of the time would only skew the projection, and would always return less damage dealt than the enemy model has wounds, meaning that your math would say all of your weapons get weaker as the enemy grows weaker and you could never kill anything unless you only used weapons where your damage is guaranteed to be better than 1. In case you're still not convinced, as I said going by that formula posted above, even if you rolled a D100, you'd be told that the average roll would be less than 2 and deal less damage on average than a D2 weapon, despite 99 sides being 2 or greater. It's important to keep the wasted damage in mind, but not if you're trying to account for it in such a way that you misrepresent the average damage. As for trying to figure out the mathematic amount, the page itself doesn't actually need to make up a specific formula for the wasted attacks, just a warning about how there will likely be some, however I'll talk to some people I know and try to work out a more accurate equation. -- Triacom (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
After thinking on it more I also want to address this bit in particular: "Statistically it should lose 18 Wounds at every attack, so a Mathammer calculated this way will give 1 destroyed Land Raider per attack on average. Which is absolutely false-" that's not false at all, it's 100% true because that's the average result, and not the guaranteed result. -- Triacom (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"The purpose of mathhammer isn't to give a 100% accurate simulation, it's to give the player the average damage". To be honest, I've never seen anybody using Mathammer for the sake of calculating "average damage" alone. Most people have an agenda, a very specific situation in mind (comparing 2 different loadouts, how a weapon fares against a unit you want to deal with, etc) and they're doing such calculations because it provides the average outcome. The problem is, D2 and D1d3 don't end up with the same outcomes at all. Everything you’ve said is absolutely right theoretically, but it simply doesn't work in a very practical situation like "how many Terminators my Custodes are going to kill on average?".

"even if you rolled a D100, you'd be told that the average roll would be less than 2 and deal less damage on average than a D2 weapon, despite 99 sides being 2 or greater". Exactly. Because against a model with 2 Wounds there is no difference between a regular 1d100 (1,2,3,4,...-→100) or an exotic 1d100 like (1,2,2,2,...→2) or (1,3,5,47,...-->589); both will kill a regular 2W model 99% of the time. Mathematically, a flat D2 value is exactly like rolling a die of which every face is a 2. In this situation you have a 100% chance of killing the miniature, which is objectively better than 99%. It isn't a big deal though, because the probability for your regular 1d100 to inflict 2 damages is going to be something like 99,99999 %, so you can consider the target dead anyway.

It’s basic probability stuff. If there is the slightest chance for an event not to happen (in this case : “killing a miniature with 2 Wounds and no save against Damage”), this event can’t be treated as another one for which the probability of success is a plain 100 %. In the end, rolling 1d3 Damage against a 2W model is like stating “If this unit suffers an unsaved wound, roll 1d3. On a 1, this model loses a wound. On a 2 or 3, it is destroyed”. Which is completely different from “If this unit suffers an unsaved wound, the model is destroyed”. Once an unsaved wound is dealt, you can still fail to kill your target if you roll a 1, and rolling a 3 won’t compensate for that. Meanwhile a D2 attack simply kills the model, period. For that reason, even with optimal distribution of dice in order to avoid useless 1s, a D1d3 will ALWAYS inflict less damage than a flat D2, and it must be represented by a lower Damage value when doing calculations.

“that's not false at all, it's 100% true because that's the average result, and not the guaranteed result.” Don’t worry, we can both agree that “guaranteed result” isn’t a thing in probabilities and Mathammer in particular. Yet, it is still false to assume that 1 attack = 1 Land Raider dead, because this attack will fail half the time and lead to nothing valuable. I carefully chose this example because it’s a 50/50 situation similar to what happens when you’re rolling to hit for a model with BS4+: you either hit or miss. And as far as I know, everybody agree on the fact that you need 2 BS4+ attacks in order to get 1 successful hit on average. It’s exactly the same for the Land Raider of my example.

Also, do note that my paragraph explicitly states: “It isn't much of a problem against single tanky models like vehicles, monsters and characters since most of them have enough Wounds to smoothen the overall result of your rolls “. I’m adressing the case of infantry first and foremost, when a single good Damage roll may be enough to one-shot a model, and a single 1 rolled can ruin everything. Vehicles and monsters are different and must be handled more carefully, since my formula only becomes relevant when they are running short of Wounds. I invite you to consider that since I have provided examples of simple yet common situations where my formula is both accurate and easy to use, and may hopefully help people facing Primaris Astartes, Nobz, Immortals, etc. -- Crococoloco (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're getting this, but I never said the purpose was to only get the average damage in a vacuum. The purpose is to get the average damage, whether that's to determine the outcome of a duel, or be used comparatively is entirely up to who is doing the math, the why doesn't matter. I also think you're confused on what an average is, a D1d100 weapon will not inflict 1.99 wounds to a terminator on average, writing that it will is akin to saying that when you roll a D100, you'll have a higher than 50% chance of rolling a 1. If you're writing that it's going to inflict 1.99 wounds because there's a 1% chance it won't kill a Terminator, then all of a sudden you're swapping math formulas and how you calculate damage, and now you are no longer posting the average damage rolled, you're posting the likelihood that your roll would be fatal. The problem is that you're taking this likelihood and assuming it's the damage dealt (which will always return less than the remaining wounds of your opponent for random damage weapons), instead of treating the damage roll as the most likely result. To go back to it again, posting that a D1d100 will cause 1.99 damage to a terminator does not mean it has a 99% chance to kill a Terminator, it means you will roll a 1 the majority of the time, and so you will have a higher chance of not killing a terminator than otherwise.
Yet, it is still false to assume that 1 attack = 1 Land Raider dead, because this attack will fail half the time and lead to nothing valuable. Explain to me how that prevents it from being the average result, and explain to me where I or anyone else made the assumption that the average result is the guaranteed result. At no point has anyone stated that mathhammer shows the 100% guaranteed result, because the whole premise of mathhammer is based around finding what the average outcome is. It doesn't matter if it doesn't translate to the tabletop in a 1:1 manner, all that matters is that the average is given accurately.
As I stated before, I understand the purpose of what you're doing, however the end result isn't accurate. -- Triacom (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

New rules[edit]

With the new rules, we have re-writes for almost all the tactics bullshit. Lets get these edits in, friends. We are His ten thousand.

Move page?[edit]

If both the Sisters of Silence and the Custodes are only on one page, and they can now practically function as a single army thanks to PA, and we've integrated the two on the page, should we move the page to a Talons page? Or is there not much point in moving it given 9th is so close now? The Goofy Geek (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Might as well wait by this point. -- Triacom (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough The Goofy Geek (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as how the rules for 9th and its FAQ's are out, it's time to retire this page. -- Triacom (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mekrot[edit]

Please stop editing 9E advice into an 8E article. The link to the 9E article is at the top of the page, so put the 9E advice into that one instead. -- Triacom (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)