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

From 1d4chan

Comm spec Static Screech[edit]

Hey does the Static Screech ability in the Comms Spec stack? I might do that with some Deathwatch Reivers.

A: You can't take more than one Comm's specialist so no.

Skitarii Gunners can't take Omnispex/Data-Tether[edit]

I'm pretty sure the section about a Skitarii Vanguard/Ranger taking a Plasma Caliver and an Omnispex is incorrect. The datasheet says only a 'Skitarii Ranger' or 'Skitarii Vanguard' may take an Omnispex and only a 'Ranger Gunner' or 'Vanguard Gunner' can take the Plasma Caviler.

Dark Lance vs Splinter cannon, but with Flesh Wounds[edit]

The subject of choosing a Dark Lance over a Splinter cannon isn't an obvious Yes/No matter, instead it has to take into account that targets are different and Flesh Wounds exist as a mechanic. The clearest example is a Primaris. Assuming the Dark Lance hits on a 3+ and a Splinter Cannon on a 2+ in Rapid fire (Comms|No range penalty|Moved to avoid cover), that gives us 0.5555 DL wounds vs 0.8333 SC ones.
But the DL is 0.5555 times 1d6 damage (~3.5 avg), so it's a statistical total of 1.9444 dmg each time it shoots, vs 0.8333 of the SC. Furthermore, reaching 0 wounds is not yet a kill in KT - a 4+ has to be rolled on the injury roll for a true kill. Since the possibility of rolling a 4+ using two dice is 0.75, that gives us an average of (0.5555)*(3.5)*(0.75) = 1.458 true deaths each time this gun shoots at a Primaris out of cover even after it moved, as opposed to (0.8333)*(0.5) = 0.4166 from the Splinter Cannon. Zerghalo2 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • So to figure this out I did the math. You were right. This is a monte carlo simulation with 1000 experiments for dark lance and splinter cannon against MEQ. It assumes a sniper so it can reroll ones. The only variable I'm changing is the effective to hit. What we see is that by rerolling 1s (e.g. a sniper) the dark lance gives better odds to kill an MEQ even at 5+ to hit.

> summary(replicate(1000,kttotwounds(5,6,6,0,3,0,6,1, reroll1s=1)))

fleshwound   survived  outaction 
      141        680        179 

> summary(replicate(1000,kttotwounds(5,8,4,4,3,0,1,'d6', reroll1s=1)))

 survived  outaction fleshwound 
      658        287         55 

> summary(replicate(1000,kttotwounds(4,6,6,0,3,0,6,1, reroll1s=1)))

 survived  outaction fleshwound 
      563        247        190 

> summary(replicate(1000,kttotwounds(4,8,4,4,3,0,1,'d6', reroll1s=1)))

 survived  outaction fleshwound 
      537        384         79 

> summary(replicate(1000,kttotwounds(3,6,6,0,3,0,6,1, reroll1s=1)))

outaction   survived fleshwound 
      373        400        227 

> summary(replicate(1000,kttotwounds(3,8,4,4,3,0,1,'d6', reroll1s=1)))

outaction   survived fleshwound 
      512        374        114 

> summary(replicate(1000,kttotwounds(2,6,6,0,3,0,6,1, reroll1s=1)))

outaction   survived fleshwound 
      396        349        255 

> summary(replicate(1000,kttotwounds(2,8,4,4,3,0,1,'d6', reroll1s=1)))

 survived  outaction fleshwound 
      200        683        117 

Bob123 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Necron Prime Reanimation Protocols[edit]

I'm using the following acronyms here: FW = Flesh wound, PRP = Prime Reanimation Protocols, -1FW = 0 Flesh wounds, with obscuring terrain between models

It seemed to me that the ERP stratagem seemed pretty awful since you want 6's, but have to look at the lowest of two dice; this is countersynergistic. Unless a 6 on either die will trigger reanimation protocols despite the stratagem saying "apply the lowest result", then it doesn't seem great. I took the time to do some math to see exactly what your survival rates are with and without it.

I don't know how to do table editing on wiki software, so I will just write my findings. So, given that you suffered an unsaved wound I calculated 3 things across a different number of flesh wounds 1) How likely are you to live without PRP 2) How likely are you to live with PRP 3) How much 'likelier' are you to live with PRP than without? (% change in likelihood to take another FW instead of dying)

No PRP -1FW: ~83% (5/6) chance to not be out of action

0FW: ~66% (4/6) chance to not be out of action

1FW: 50% (3/6) chance to not be out of action

2FW: ~33% (2/6) chance to not be out of action

3+FW: ~17% (1/6) chance to not be out of action

with PRP -1FW: ~92% (33/36) chance to not be out of action

0FW: ~78% (28/36) chance to not be out of action

1FW: ~58% (21/36) chance to not be out of action

2FW: ~33% (12/36) chance to not be out of action

3+FW: ~3% (1/36) chance to not be out of action

% change in survivability

-1FW: +10%

0FW: +~17%

1FW: +~17%

2FW: 0%

3+FW: -~17%

So it seems to me that for 2CP you can increase your chance of not dying by a small amount, and this is at the cost of reducing your chance at removing all FW and triggering reanimation from 1/6 to 1/36. It doesn't seem worth it, especially at 2CP.

If, however, any 6 on either dice used triggers reanimation, then it just became crazy good.

As far as I am aware, since the Stratagem requires you to use the lowest of the two dice, reanimation will not trigger unless you roll two six's. And while stacking multiple flesh wounds can make the model live longer, those -1's ramp up to make the model fairly useless fairly fast. Not to mention enough Flesh Wounds now make model's easier to remove from the game. -- 10:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Faction tags on Document Sections, or How it's Unnecessary To Scroll Back Down After. Every. Single. Edit.[edit]

Naming the sections different for each faction (e.g. SM Units vs IG Units) helps us editors land on the relevant section after an edit, instead of being redirected to the Space Marine faction equivalent of whatever other faction we were working on. Everyone has the right to a document that is easy to use, not just readers. Newerfag, you should return the faction tags to each section like it was before please don't delete the tags - they make the page easier to use and it literally harms no one. Zerghalo2 (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. It looks kind of ugly, but I suppose it's an acceptable trade-off. --Newerfag (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Flip Belts[edit]

The new errata just came out and it redefines the flip belt. But what's the actual difference here? It looks like the practical effect is the same, in that you can move right through walls because the vertical distance to move over them isn't measured.

  • It means it doesn't apply to charging anymore. --Newerfag (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it doesn't apply to charging anymore, but I think it is meant to apply to new warzones like in the Rogue Trader expansions since the walls in that warzone are floor to ceiling and the clowns can't just phase through them, since you can't climb them at all. --User:BaronofCaring 10:56, 2 October 2018 (CST)

Scions Strategies against Necrons[edit]

I was wondering if anyone knew what the person was referring to when they said you could buff 4 gunners with the comms +1 to hit by your leader spending 2CP, thus getting 4 BS 2+ Hot-shot Volley guns. I feel like this is extreme cheese and I'm curious if it's even a thing, being the munchkin I am. It is in the Faction Strategies collapsible in the Necron section. --BaronofCaring (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Petition to split into three different pages?[edit]

With yet more units and factions coming as new expansions are announced, might it be a good idea to divide this page into three (Imperium, Chaos and Xenos)? This single page is getting pretty bloated, it might make things easier for readers and editors to separate them by affiliation.

I too think this would be a great idea. Anyone actually object to doing this?

<the internet makes it so> .....much better!