Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Carnelian

Members
  • Content Count

    1,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Carnelian last won the day on September 2 2019

Carnelian had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,196 Celestant-Prime

About Carnelian

  • Rank
    Lord Celestant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The reports I saw (pic attached) were pretty clear that nothing is coming soon
  2. If you look at the report coming out of the questions at the Open Day it looks like Seraphon are not coming anytime soon so probably best to temper expectations for any release for them at all
  3. My guess is that they remake everything and it features no old models - closer to Bonereapers than Gitz. It just feels like that is the future, but that's just my gut feeling
  4. I said in another thread I emailed them 5 times with no response but I've since ended up phoning them and they were helpful (although I spent 5+ mins in a queue).
  5. Short story called Pantheon I tgink was good but don't think it featured Nagash from memory
  6. I hope it's more in line with the quality of story telling in recent battletomes and the core book rather than the Realmgate Wars
  7. I'm very excited for it but that may be a bit premature as I don't really know what the contents will be
  8. I have emailed hachette 5 times to ask them to change my address for Mortal Realms and got no response back at all
  9. I'm expecting a total new army with no existing models alongside it. But who knows?
  10. Or is it possible that they've learned from selling out and increased supply to meet demand? No, no, you're right KO are finished and there's not loads of ppl jumping on the KO ship this morning
  11. I should add that these outcomes would of course change if you were not using a 4+/4+/rend 0 attack. If you're attack was 6+ to hit/3+ to wound/-4 rend, then it would almost always be best to buff the hit role.
  12. I'm not sure what inputs you are using but in principle the rend is another D6 chance outcome, just like to hit and to wound, so if you adjust the outcome of the rend D6 from 1/6 to 2/6, it will effect the damage outcome in exactly the same way as if you adjust the to hit or to wound from 1/6 to 2/6. If you think of it like that, it should be easier to see that dice modifiers work in exactly the same way for each statistic. The complexity comes from the fact that rend interacts with your opponent's armour statistics in a way that to hit and to wound do not. The result of this interaction means that there are different outcomes via different enemies and so there is not nornally going to be a single stat which it is better to buff in ALL circumstances. I'm not sure which stats you are using to get those damage outputs, but if you are using attacks that hit on 4s, wound on 4s with 0 rend, then yes I agree that if the opponent had a 5+ or 6+ or no armour save, then you'd be better off with a hit buff rather than a rend buff. If your opponent has 4+ save, then it won't make a difference which you buff - your increasing the chance of success by the same amount either way. If your opponent has a 3+ or 2+ armour save, you're better off with the rend buff. Because 1s always fail, you're also better taking a to hit buff over a rend buff against a 1+ save using those attacks. Whatever is most useful will depend on the game meta, i.e. which units will you most likely face, which units pose the most difficult problems for your particular army, which statistics can get buffed and in what way etc.
  13. I really really hope we get some battalions for s2d cultists and darkoath!
  14. I'm afraid this is not how maths works. Hit is not a better stat because it affects more dice rolls (unless you're comparing abilities that trigger on a certain dice roll such as mortal wounds on a six). For a normal attack, hit, wound and save rolls are all equally vital in determining damage. For example, the chances of damage going through when hitting on 4s (50%), then wounding on 3s (66.66%) followed by a 3+ save (33.33% for an unsuccessful save) is the same as the chance of damage going through when hitting on 5s (33.33%), then wounding on 4s (50%) and then saving on 5s (66.66% chance of unsuccessful save). In both attacks, there is an 11% chance of the attack being successful - the order of operations does not matter. Rend does not increase in value if damage goes up. Both rend and hit and wound all remain exactly the same in determining the chance/percentage of the attack going through, no matter what the damage that is being applied at the end is. In the above examples, there is an 11% chance of the attacks going through whether they are damage 1 or 2. Whether it is better to be buffing hit or buffing rend is dependant upon all that stats involved, so we'd need to see the full hit, wound and save to know whether it was better to buff hit or rend. For example, if you buff a hit stat from 4+ (50%) to 3 plus (66.66%), then you are increasing the chance of damage being successful by about one third (33%). If however you were reducing a save from 2+ (16.66% of unsuccessful save) to 3+ (33.33% unsuccessful save) then you've increased the chance of damage going through by double (100%). If you buff something by one point, then because AoS uses a D6 system, you're always adding one point out of six. In general it is better to chose to buff a weaker stat (like 6+) rather than a strong stay like a 3+(especially given that a 1 is always a fail so no need to buff 2+ stats). Of course the different factor with rend is that you don't know what save your opponent's army will be and sometimes rend will be useless if the opponent has no save. However, that is balanced out by the fact that within the meta of the game you do need a way of dealing with high armour save units, particularly when they can re-roll their saves and rend is v valuable in doing this.
×
×
  • Create New...