Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?

Quote :

while the marines will only hold it for one.

WK lacks kill potential in melee and Marines do not run. In both cases it is quite unrealistic to catch a WK in melee when you are moving 6"

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Quote :

while the marines will only hold it for one.

WK lacks kill potential in melee and Marines do not run. In both cases it is quite unrealistic to catch a WK in melee when you are moving 6"

As GC the WK has plenty of melee potential base. The SM wouldn't be charging the WK the WK would be charging the marines, and it's melee stats would treat the SM and the warriors about the same. It's true the warriors may run while the marines won't though. This may also play into the warriors advantage because it will likely leave the WK open to being shot as opposed to it being able to hide in combat with the remaining marine.

Your point about the range actually makes the SM even weaker against the WK though, because it would be tricky even getting the grav cannon close enough to shoot it.

Trystis wrote:

the warriors will hold it up for two turns, while the marines will only hold it for one.

How are either holding it up when it can just jump right over them and attack something else?

Trystis wrote:

I don't really think any one is saying that warriors are "Amazing!", which is what the naysayers are implying.

Because that was what exactly was said. People earlier were saying that Warriors are the second best troop choice in the game (second only to Eldar troops), something which I strongly dispute.

I was also disputing Warriors being classed as 'good' against a plethora of targets that they don't inflict meaningful damage to even in rapid-fire range (like the aforementioned WK).

In my area a lot of marine players run 5 man squads with grav cannons especially with razorbacks in gladius. The grav cannon is criminally cheap and comes with a grav amp for re- rolls. I also see them a lot in pod lists.

Not taking grav into account because they are not popular in dakka lists is like saying grotesques should not be considered as an assault unit because most dark eldar list on dakka don't have them.

The Shredder wrote:

Trystis wrote:

the warriors will hold it up for two turns, while the marines will only hold it for one.

How are either holding it up when it can just jump right over them and attack something else?  

Trystis wrote:

I don't really think any one is saying that warriors are "Amazing!", which is what the naysayers are implying.

Because that was what exactly was said. People earlier were saying that Warriors are the second best troop choice in the game (second only to Eldar troops), something which I strongly dispute.

I was also disputing Warriors being classed as 'good' against a plethora of targets that they don't inflict meaningful damage to even in rapid-fire range (like the aforementioned WK).

The units were provided by you in math hammer land so it's weak to disregard the example you provided when it turns against you. Its great if you don't think my thoughts on you're example were correct, I like a good discussion, but you should refute them in confines of that example instead of changing it, or by admitting that it's not a good one to prove your point and suggesting a new one.

Grav weapons are great, but require a transport to be effective. They are expensive (about the cost of a rhino) so you end up paying for a transport too. They work well in the gladius/lions blade because you can get those transports for free. Outside of that detachment making them useful drastically increases the squad cost. For the cost of a razorback we can add in a venom with points to spare. The biggest problem with our warriors is the lack of detachment/formation bonuses, which is a problem for our entire codex.

Warriors are able to perform acceptably for their points against a wide range of foes, especially when considering I'm required to take them (or wytches, but that's not the debate). It's true they are not devastating against any that I can think of, but I can't think of any troops (outside of Eldar jetbikes) that are. The guns available to troops are generally either meh, or lack range. If this wasn't the case then people would spam that troop (like you see with Eldar Jetbikes).

I agree with you on the fact that warriors are not amazing. The only amazing troop choice I can think of are Eldar jet bikes.

The Shredder wrote:

Painjunky wrote:

5 kabalites can hide next to objs while their venom goes hunting

That's true, but so can a 10pt Lhamaean.

Yep Lhamaean do the same thing for cheaper but as we're forced to take 2 units of them it's pretty much all they're good for.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I generally feel that I succeed with Dark Eldar in spite of Kabalites rather than because of them.

Me too.

Trystis wrote:

The units were provided by you in math hammer land so it's weak to disregard the example you provided when it turns against you.

Eh?

How does that relate to anything I just said?

And, which examples were turned against me? I've yet to see any.

Trystis wrote:

Grav weapons are great, but require a transport to be effective.

I'm not seeing your point. It's not like Warriors can go without transports and do fine.

Trystis wrote:

They are expensive (about the cost of a rhino) so you end up paying for a transport too. They work well in the gladius/lions blade because you can get those transports for free. Outside of that detachment making them useful drastically increases the squad cost. For the cost of a razorback we can add in a venom with points to spare. The biggest problem with our warriors is the lack of detachment/formation bonuses, which is a problem for our entire codex.

The thing is, Grav isn't that expensive. It might look expensive, but one you realise what it can do, you see that it really isn't. I mean, 3 Grav cannons (105pts) can bring down a WK. Even when moving, they're still better than plasmaguns and without the downside.

Here is the referenced example by you:

The Shredder wrote:

2 units of 5 Warriors with a blaster (110pts) will average 0.84 wounds on the WK.
1 unit of SMs with a Grav Cannon (105pts) will average 1.19 wounds if it moved, or 1.98 wounds if it moved.

I think they both need transports to be effective, but when you add in a razorback and a grav canon to the tac marines it starts to become quite an investment, one where it would probably would be better to spend those points elsewhere. The gladius escapes this with free transports, which greatly helps SM troops.

Grav cannons are great and work very well against WK, I'm not denying that. However to get 3 of them to using troops you will need to spend 315 points on troops, plus transports. This is a workable strategy because it's probably in a gladius so you can get free transports to get them there, but that's a benefit from the detachment not from the troops themselves. Without free transports it's 400+ points.

Quote :

but when you add in a razorback and a grav canon to the tac marines it starts to become quite an investment,

The Razorback is not much more expensive than a venom.

Also you can always pick scouts and actually use doktrines/chaptr tactics but that would kinda defeat the argument so they keep beeing ignored since page 1.

Trystis wrote:

Here is the referenced example by you:

The Shredder wrote:

2 units of 5 Warriors with a blaster (110pts) will average 0.84 wounds on the WK.
1 unit of SMs with a Grav Cannon (105pts) will average 1.19 wounds if it moved, or 1.98 wounds if it moved.

I think they both need transports to be effective, but when you add in a razorback and a grav canon to the tac marines it starts to become quite an investment, one where it would probably would be better to spend those points elsewhere. The gladius escapes this with free transports, which greatly helps SM troops.

But if you think both need transports then you can't really say that the Marines start to become a real investment without also applying that to the Warriors. Given that the Marines transport is potentially free and, in any event, you only need one of them compared to 2@65 points each for the Warriors. Suddenly you're looking at 240 points of 'Warriors' vs 105 points of Marines. Even with those 2 Venoms, the 'Warriors' cause less damage than the Marines if the Marines don't move! They only cause slightly more if the Marines do move and you could easily take 2 of the Marine units for less than you're paying for the Warriors.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Trystis wrote:

Here is the referenced example by you:

The Shredder wrote:

2 units of 5 Warriors with a blaster (110pts) will average 0.84 wounds on the WK.
1 unit of SMs with a Grav Cannon (105pts) will average 1.19 wounds if it moved, or 1.98 wounds if it moved.

I think they both need transports to be effective, but when you add in a razorback and a grav canon to the tac marines it starts to become quite an investment, one where it would probably would be better to spend those points elsewhere. The gladius escapes this with free transports, which greatly helps SM troops.

But if you think both need transports then you can't really say thmat the Marines start to become a real investment without also applying that to the Warriors. Given that the Marines transport is potentially free and, in any event, you only need one of them compared to 2@65 points each for the Warriors. Suddenly you're looking at 240 points of 'Warriors' vs 105 points of Marines. Even with those 2 Venoms, the 'Warriors' cause less damage than the Marines if the Marines don't move! They only cause slightly more if the Marines do move and you could easily take 2 of the Marine units for less than you're paying for the Warriors.

The 5 man tac squad would be 160 points and would only have one heavy bolter until they got out of the razorback. You could deploy outside of the transport, but it's unlikely anything will be in range. It's a fair amount Points to spend on a unit that would potentially be doing nothing for a turn or two. If you take two to meet the minimum troop requirement your at 320. I can field the two minimum warrior units with Venoms that will be doing damage from turn one for 240 leaving me with more points to spend on more specialized units.

Tacticals work because of the gladius, with out the gladius they are a pit to waiste your points on. Warriors are cheap and ok for the cost. As I have mentioned Scouts are definitely better than warriors or tacticals in a SM CAD list.

I haven't even been saying that warriors are necessarily THE best troop choice, but I do think they're one of the best. I entered the debate disagreeing with the claim that warrior damage is pathetic when our damage is higher than that of most other troop choices. I didn't mention wraithknights to say our damage was considerable against them, I pointed out that we do more damage to them than most other troop options.

Ok, I can see you really think grav is the answer to this dilemma for you so here are some numbers on them.

5 man tacticals with grav cannon (105 points) against flyrant:
3 shot mode: 32/27 wound (1.19)
5 shot mode: 48/27 wound (1.78)

13 kabalite warriors (104 points) against flyrant:
26/9 wounds (2.89)

5 man tacticals with grav cannon against wraiths:
3 shot mode: 32/27 wounds (1.19)
5 shot mode: (1.58)

13 kabalite warriors against wraiths:
26/9 wounds (2.89)

I wasn't refusing to use grav because the numbers are across the board better but because it's not a common unit to face and because we would have to agree on a lot of factors like what kind of cover save the unit will have (if any). Here I just did the math against units where it doesn't really matter if they're in cover as they have an invul save anyway or because they can jink. You would get similar results where the kabalites still surpass the tacticals against the unit as long as it has a good cover save, can jink, or has a decent invul save. The reason more people don't take the grav cannon on tacticals is because it's too costly and inefficient on that platform. It's cheaper and more effective to take two grav guns on bikes where you get more shots at longer range. And yes, I would definitely argue that 13 kabalite warriors are tougher and harder to remove than 5 space marines (especially if we're at the point of the game where they have FNP and fearless).

I'm not ignoring scouts either, I do think they're a pretty solid troop choice. There are some situations they'll do better in and some they'll do worse. Giving them sniper rifles is a fine choice and they will outdamage kabalites outside of 24", but they'll fall behind on anything less than that because they cost 12 points each so you'll have more warriors for the same price as them. Get within 12" and the warriors will take off even more because they can rapid fire while the scouts only have the 1 shot each. Do I think they're good? You bet. Do I think they're justification to say warriors are bad and that their damage is bad? Not at all.

You say I'm ignoring special weapons, but you do remember me showing the math against a riptide where special weapons were included and warrior damage was supposedly nonexistent against them, right? If not, here we go again.

5 tacticals against a riptide with plasma and combiplas (95 points)
35/27 wounds (1.30)

10 kabalite warriors against a riptide with 1 blaster (95 points)
37/27 wounds (1.37)

And again, I'd consider 10 kabalites to have better survivability than a single 5 man unit of marines.

I didn't say that Grav was better than poison in every possible scenario.

Yes, there are a few things in your list where Warriors are better than Grav (which you've cherry-picked here). But the vast majority of units you brought up would fare a lot worse against Grav than against poison. As I believe was shown earlier.

Furthermore, if we're going to look into one-sided matchups, shall we do Grav vs every vehicle, compared to 10 Warriors with a blaster vs every vehicle?

lessthanjeff wrote:

You say I'm ignoring special weapons, but you do remember me showing the math against a riptide where special weapons were included and warrior damage was supposedly nonexistent against them, right?  If not, here we go again.

5 tacticals against a riptide with plasma and combiplas (95 points)
35/27 wounds (1.30)

10 kabalite warriors against a riptide with 1 blaster (95 points)
37/27 wounds (1.37)

Fair enough.

Although, if the Marines use their Tactical Doctorine, then they average 1.73 wounds.

lessthanjeff wrote:

And again, I'd consider 10 kabalites to have better survivability than a single 5 man unit of marines.

I can't agree with that. Not in my meta, at any rate.

Trystis wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Trystis wrote:

Here is the referenced example by you:

The Shredder wrote:

2 units of 5 Warriors with a blaster (110pts) will average 0.84 wounds on the WK.
1 unit of SMs with a Grav Cannon (105pts) will average 1.19 wounds if it moved, or 1.98 wounds if it moved.

I think they both need transports to be effective, but when you add in a razorback and a grav canon to the tac marines it starts to become quite an investment, one where it would probably would be better to spend those points elsewhere. The gladius escapes this with free transports, which greatly helps SM troops.

But if you think both need transports then you can't really say thmat the Marines start to become a real investment without also applying that to the Warriors. Given that the Marines transport is potentially free and, in any event, you only need one of them compared to 2@65 points each for the Warriors. Suddenly you're looking at 240 points of 'Warriors' vs 105 points of Marines. Even with those 2 Venoms, the 'Warriors' cause less damage than the Marines if the Marines don't move! They only cause slightly more if the Marines do move and you could easily take 2 of the Marine units for less than you're paying for the Warriors.

The 5 man tac squad would be 160 points and would only have one heavy bolter until they got out of the razorback. You could deploy outside of the transport, but it's unlikely anything will be in range. It's a fair amount Points to spend on a unit that would potentially be doing nothing for a turn or two. If you take two to meet the minimum troop requirement your at 320. I can field the two minimum warrior units with Venoms that will be doing damage from turn one for 240 leaving me with more points to spend on more specialized units.

Tacticals work because of the gladius, with out the gladius they are a pit to waiste your points on. Warriors are cheap and ok for the cost. As I have mentioned Scouts are definitely better than warriors or tacticals in a SM CAD list.

Which is why most Marine lists used Scouts for the compulsory Troop choices prior to the new codex and the introduction of the Gladius. But the point I was making was that you were comparing similar points values of Tacs and Warriors and if you start adding transports to that comparison, the Tacs just get better, especially with potentially free transports!

How does this quote thing work?...

You do not enjoy Kabalites, you enjoy Venoms. Kabalites are the tax that allow you to bring more venoms. And because you want to pay low taxes, you keep your Kabalites cheap (naked).
If it were the other way round you would keep the venom cheap (no Cannon) and try to sneak in more kabalites.[/quote]


I actually do enjoy the small kabalie units in my army. The venom us obviously great, but my Kabalites serve a purpose as well. I don't see them as a tax. Just because I enjoy them doesn't mean that I have to take larger units of the little buggers.
I won't argue that Kabalites are amazing because they aren't. Just saying that I enjoy then, and for an 8point model they are just fine the way they are. Of course a vrace if pistols wouldn't hurt any!

The Shredder wrote:

I didn't say that Grav was better than poison in every possible scenario.

Yes, there are a few things in your list where Warriors are better than Grav (which you've cherry-picked here). But the vast majority of units you brought up would fare a lot worse against Grav than against poison. As I believe was shown earlier.

Furthermore, if we're going to look into one-sided matchups, shall we do Grav vs every vehicle, compared to 10 Warriors with a blaster vs every vehicle?

lessthanjeff wrote:

You say I'm ignoring special weapons, but you do remember me showing the math against a riptide where special weapons were included and warrior damage was supposedly nonexistent against them, right?  If not, here we go again.

5 tacticals against a riptide with plasma and combiplas (95 points)
35/27 wounds (1.30)

10 kabalite warriors against a riptide with 1 blaster (95 points)
37/27 wounds (1.37)

Fair enough.

Although, if the Marines use their Tactical Doctorine, then they average 1.73 wounds.

lessthanjeff wrote:

And again, I'd consider 10 kabalites to have better survivability than a single 5 man unit of marines.

I can't agree with that. Not in my meta, at any rate.

Part of why I don't like considering grav on the Space Marines is because their special weapon selections aren't like alternate firing modes on a missile launcher where you can choose the best one from turn to turn. You choose the one that fills a certain role you need in your entire army or pick one that does a good kind of all-around job. That's why the more common loadout is to see tacticals with meltas or plasmas and it's why I generally tend towards computations against them. It doesn't seem fair to me to say "look at damage vs gargantuan when i have grav" while at the same time saying "look at damage vs vehicles with melta" and "look at damage vs horde with flamers". I think the more fair approach is to pick the most common weapon loadout and see how that fairs against the common loadout of its peers. The melta/plasma tacticals and blaster warriors are good general purpose units that are both frequently fielded and fill similar roles in their armies.

You're also ignoring what I keep saying about grav computations relying on other factors. We can run grav numbers against more units if you like too like against a riptide but here's the problem. Now we have to agree on what kind of cover does he have. If he doesn't have at least a 4+ cover save would he push for overcharging to get a 3+ invul knowing that there is a grav cannon in range? In some cases the warriors still outdamage the grav cannon, in other cases they won't. It makes it a much more complex problem. I'm not cherry picking 2 out of 20 units that the warriors still beat grav on, quite a few of the units I listed a couple pages back will still come out in favor of the warriors. Others would rely on factors like do they have cover to determine the better output.

As far as survivability of 10 kabalites vs 5 tacticals (am including FNP)
Number of bolter shots without cover to kill:
Kabalites: 34
tacticals: 45

Number of bolter shots with 5+ cover
kabalites: 51
tacticals: 45

Number of bolter shots with 4+ cover
kabalites: 68
tacticals: 45

Number of plasma shots without cover to kill:
kabalites: 18
tacticals: 9

Including cover won't affect the ratios for weapons that pierce the armor of both as it will always come out to kabalites needing twice as many shots. Also, don't forget that with the higher numbers they will likely be split into two different units so you would need multiple sources to kill the warriors making them harder to remove.

I don't understand if you're suggesting grav weapons against vehicles, but I don't generally consider them very effective at that role. It's nice that they get immobilized results, but I believe a grav cannon with amp only averages 1 hull point per turn. Giving the warriors a blaster and haywire grenade averages more hullpoints.

That's true about popping the doctrines. I've never had access to them with my marines yet as I play white scars and have still been running a CAD personally. That 1.73 is also a one time from the combi plas and the doctrines though, after using those they'll sink to 0.74 for the rest of the game.

Quote :

As far as survivability of 10 kabalites vs 5 tacticals (am including FNP)

So you include FnP on Kabalites (turn 3 - so basically half of the game is already over) but you do not include chaptertactics, doctrines and the fact that your 10 kabalites are very likely to run if they sustain casualties from shooting.

Quote :

I don't understand if you're suggesting grav weapons against vehicles, but I don't generally consider them very effective at that role.

The better the AV, the better grav gets (lascannon needs a 6 to penetrate against 14 and grav can reroll) as the number of shots in combination with the armor pen rerolls and the auto immobilize means that you will need less weapons (grav only needs 2 rolls of 6 to kill a 3 HP vehicle).
It is basically cheap and the need for a 6 obscures the fact that rerolls and a high number of shots makes them pretty good at (non superheavy) vehicle hunting.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Part of why I don't like considering grav on the Space Marines is because their special weapon selections aren't like alternate firing modes on a missile launcher where you can choose the best one from turn to turn.  You choose the one that fills a certain role you need in your entire army or pick one that does a good kind of all-around job.  That's why the more common loadout is to see tacticals with meltas or plasmas and it's why I generally tend towards computations against them.

Okay, fair enough.

But why do you then compare them against targets they're not kitted out for?

If you have a SM squad with 2 meltaguns (combi-melta), then it's clearly kitted out to kill vehicles. Hence, having it instead shoot a riptide seems rather disingenuous, unless you're also going to have those Warriors fire at a Chimera or something.

But, in any case, isn't that the whole reason Grav is considered so good? That there are very few targets it's actually bad against? And, fewer still that SMs with a different special weapon would do better against.

lessthanjeff wrote:

 It doesn't seem fair to me to say "look at damage vs gargantuan when i have grav" while at the same time saying "look at damage vs vehicles with melta" and "look at damage vs horde with flamers".  I think the more fair approach is to pick the most common weapon loadout and see how that fairs against the common loadout of its peers.  The melta/plasma tacticals and blaster warriors are good general purpose units that are both frequently fielded and fill similar roles in their armies.

I'd say that Grav should be compared as well, but whatever.

The point is, you can't only choose targets that are favourable to the warriors. You also have to compare the ability to kill vehicles and such. Especially if the marines are using dedicated anti-vehicle weapons.

lessthanjeff wrote:

You're also ignoring what I keep saying about grav computations relying on other factors.  We can run grav numbers against more units if you like too like against a riptide but here's the problem.  Now we have to agree on what kind of cover does he have.  If he doesn't have at least a 4+ cover save would he push for overcharging to get a 3+ invul knowing that there is a grav cannon in range?

How many scenarios are we accounting for?

I mean, you accuse me of cherry-picking, but below you assume kabalites will always have full FNP. And, if we're including other stuff, shall we also include Chapter Tactics, Doctrines, free transports, psychic buffs etc.?

lessthanjeff wrote:

As far as survivability of 10 kabalites vs 5 tacticals (am including FNP)
Number of bolter shots without cover to kill:
Kabalites: 34
tacticals: 45

Number of bolter shots with 5+ cover
kabalites: 51
tacticals: 45

Number of bolter shots with 4+ cover
kabalites: 68
tacticals: 45

Number of plasma shots without cover to kill:
kabalites: 18
tacticals: 9

First off, as above, you're including FNP on the warriors - which seems really dubious. Especially when you're not including any benefit from Chapter Tactics.

Also, that's all well and good for bolters, but what about stuff like flamers, heavy flamers, blasts etc.? Where having more models actually works against the kabalites?

Or, hell, just an exploding transport. Hardly uncommon for us.

lessthanjeff wrote:

 Also, don't forget that with the higher numbers they will likely be split into two different units so you would need multiple sources to kill the warriors making them harder to remove.

But then you also have to factor in transport costs - since each of those warrior squads will want a transport. And, as above, are we including the fact that Marines can get free transports?

lessthanjeff wrote:

I don't understand if you're suggesting grav weapons against vehicles, but I don't generally consider them very effective at that role.  It's nice that they get immobilized results, but I believe a grav cannon with amp only averages 1 hull point per turn.  

Are you counting the fact that further immobilised results on an already-immobilised vehicle inflict an additional hull point?

lessthanjeff wrote:

10 kabalite warriors against a riptide with 1 blaster (95 points)
37/27 wounds (1.37)

And again, I'd consider 10 kabalites to have better survivability than a single 5 man unit of marines.

Ya i wouldn't.

I have to say I think we're really getting bogged down in the abstract mathhammering here.  Take the extremely specific 95 point unit vs a riptide example:

(I'm sure you're sick of me insisting we compare kabalites to scouts and not tac marines but) 95 points of scouts with camo cloaks, sniper rifles, and a missile launcer are extremely similar in terms of damage but are going to outperform kabalites in this situation (although i'd drop the launcher myself).  Can I prove it by 0.007 wounds in math hammer?  Eh no.

First we have to give the kabalites a free transport, because without it they can't really do anything.  I won't count the splinter cannon(s) into the math tho.  If I wanted to be fairer it'd be a squad of 10 scouts with further options.

Scouts are going to infiltrate/scout into their 36" range before the game even starts, and most likely in a good firing position from turn 1.  If the kabalites are going to deep strike, they're missing at least one turn.  There's a good chance even when they do come in it won't be within rapid fire range of their target (assuming they aren't just shot out of the sky by interceptors).  If they aren't deep striking they'll spend at least a turn getting to their target (once again if they aren't shot out of the sky or roasted in their venom by a suit with a flamer).

Sure the kabalites can outdamage them IFF they're within optimal range and... alive.  That may happen on turn 2 if you're lucky, or more likely turn 3.  The sniper scouts (which are considered the worst marine troop) are already going to have made 1-2 rounds of shooting.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Quote :

As far as survivability of 10 kabalites vs 5 tacticals (am including FNP)

So you include FnP on Kabalites (turn 3 - so basically half of the game is already over) but you do not include chaptertactics, doctrines and the fact that your 10 kabalites are very likely to run if they sustain casualties from shooting.

Quote :

I don't understand if you're suggesting grav weapons against vehicles, but I don't generally consider them very effective at that role.

The better the AV, the better grav gets (lascannon needs a 6 to penetrate against 14 and grav can reroll) as the number of shots in combination with the armor pen rerolls and the auto immobilize means that you will need less weapons (grav only needs 2 rolls of 6 to kill a 3 HP vehicle).
It is basically cheap and the need for a 6 obscures the fact that rerolls and a high number of shots makes them pretty good at (non superheavy) vehicle hunting.

I don't tend to have disembarked warriors out and about on the table in bolter range starting in the first or second turn. If you have a habit of pushing your warriors up the table and disembarking them in bolter range out of cover in the first and second turn then that might be why they aren't performing well for you.

The only chapter tactic I see that affects survivability here is iron hands and none of the doctrines have any impact here. What is your complaint with this? Warriors and marines have the same leadership so ours aren't any more likely to fall back than theirs. Having two separate squads is still advantageous here because the odds of having two squads retreat is lower than the odds of having your only squad retreat.

Against the tougher vehicles, blasters and haywire grenades look better as well though. The 70 point blaster and haywire grenade loadout average killing a landraider in 3 turns the same as the 105 point grav cannon unit (assuming it is getting 5 shots per turn, it'll take longer if they're moving and shooting 3 per turn).

[quote="The Shredder"]

lessthanjeff wrote:

Okay, fair enough.

But why do you then compare them against targets they're not kitted out for?

If you have a SM squad with 2 meltaguns (combi-melta), then it's clearly kitted out to kill vehicles. Hence, having it instead shoot a riptide seems rather disingenuous, unless you're also going to have those Warriors fire at a Chimera or something.

But, in any case, isn't that the whole reason Grav is considered so good? That there are very few targets it's actually bad against? And, fewer still that SMs with a different special weapon would do better against.

I'd say that Grav should be compared as well, but whatever.

The point is, you can't only choose targets that are favourable to the warriors. You also have to compare the ability to kill vehicles and such. Especially if the marines are using dedicated anti-vehicle weapons.

How many scenarios are we accounting for?

I mean, you accuse me of cherry-picking, but below you assume kabalites will always have full FNP. And, if we're including other stuff, shall we also include Chapter Tactics, Doctrines, free transports, psychic buffs etc.?

First off, as above, you're including FNP on the warriors - which seems really dubious. Especially when you're not including any benefit from Chapter Tactics.

Also, that's all well and good for bolters, but what about stuff like flamers, heavy flamers, blasts etc.? Where having more models actually works against the kabalites?

Or, hell, just an exploding transport. Hardly uncommon for us.

But then you also have to factor in transport costs - since each of those warrior squads will want a transport. And, as above, are we including the fact that Marines can get free transports?

Are you counting the fact that further immobilised results on an already-immobilised vehicle inflict an additional hull point?

How was I disingenuous? I specifically ran plasma guns against the riptide and not meltas as you're claiming I did. That's also why I didn't run numbers against a vehicle there, I didn't give them the anti tank gun. You're right that melta guns fall way behind in the riptide comparison to the warriors but I do still like melta guns as general purpose guns because they are good against vehicles and against tough creatures, much like a blaster.

If you guys want to agree on a single set of doctrines and chapter tactics and weapon loadout for this tactical squad as well as the cover save that is reasonable to consider for the opponent to have then I'll gladly run numbers for it.

I honestly have no idea how I'd even compute math on templates and blasts, but if these are 2 separate 5 man squads then the number of hits would be the same on the marines as it would be on the warriors.

I did include the grav dealing additional hull points, but they only average 1 6 per turn. So the first turn they do one hull point, second turn 2 more which will knock out many vehicles as long as they aren't ghost arks or land raiders, then the 3rd turn they would finish off the 4 hull point variety. This does assume 5 shots per turn though which may be overly generous.

Stilgar, I'm very confused about the loadout of a scout unit you're recommending for comparison against the riptide. Can you tell me the number of scouts you're intending? I don't think I'd advise a missile launcher for that comparison either since it wouldn't pierce the riptide's armor. I have a squad of 5 scouts with sniper rifles averaging less than half a wound per turn to a riptide.

Quote :

I don't tend to have disembarked warriors out and about on the table in bolter range starting in the first or second turn. If you have a habit of pushing your warriors up the table and disembarking them in bolter range out of cover in the first and second turn then that might be why they aren't performing well for you.

So that is 2 turns of not shooting. Are you counting that in?

Quote :

The only chapter tactic I see that affects survivability here is iron hands and none of the doctrines have any impact here. What is your complaint with this? Warriors and marines have the same leadership so ours aren't any more likely to fall back than theirs. Having two separate squads is still advantageous here because the odds of having two squads retreat is lower than the odds of having your only squad retreat.

Doktrines have an impact if you do the calculaton for bolter damage. Because if we assume that all shooting happens on turn 3 and we convinently switch between "embarked in vehicle" and not adding the cost of said vehicle, we can also assume marines using their advantages and transports, right?

Also Marines do auto rally and act normally on their next turn. No such bonus for Kabalites... or do we assume now turn 6 too?

lessthanjeff wrote:

How was I disingenuous? I specifically ran plasma guns against the riptide and not meltas as you're claiming I did. That's also why I didn't run numbers against a vehicle there, I didn't give them the anti tank gun.

...

lessthanjeff wrote:

5 tacticals with 1 melta gun (80 points) against a Riptide
18-24" : 2/27 wounds (0.07)
12-18" : 2/27 wounds (0.07)
0-12" : 12/27 wounds (0.44)

8 Kabalite Warriors with 1 blaster (79 points) against a riptide
18-24" : 7/18 wounds (0.39)
12-18" : 41/54 wounds (0.76)
0-12" 31/27 wounds (1.15)

You mean aside from the time you ran melta-marines against the riptide?

I don't really see the reason there is a comparison against marines. Marines are great. But marines are marines. Dark Eldar are Dark Eldar. Might as well compare all of these to Eldar Bikes then.

Well I'd say tactical marines have long been the standard all troops in 40k are compared to.  There were earlier comments claiming that kabalites were on par with, or superior to various troops including marines, which prompted a lot of rebuttal.

I agree with you though, marines are heavy/elite infantry with amazing flexibility.  Kabalites are light/elite infantry with very limited options.  They are two Very different units with very different roles.

To be honest I'm happy that there actually are troops better than boring tactical marines (for the points) in the current edition (craftworlders of course, as well as necron and tau under certain conditions).

If the current trends are any indication, this list will grow.