This brings up an interesting side-point about statistics, which is that the chance of failure is what matters, not the chance of success.

In this case, 4+ reinforced has a 75% chance of success, and 3+ reinforced has an 89% chance. That doesn't seem like that much of a jump, but as I said, it's the chance of failure that matters.

Consider something with a 98% chance of success vs something with a 99% chance of success. There seems to be almost no difference, but importantly, the 98% chance is twice as likely to fail. With percentages you're grading on a curve.

Change those 75% and 89% into a chance of failure (25% and 11%) and the stark difference shows; 3+ reinforced armour is 2.27 times harder to kill.

With the addition of a the invulnerable save it because

75% vs 79% vs 89% or as zombiecom rightly states,
25% vs 21% vs 11% - so 4+ RA with an invulnerable save isn't as strong as 3+RA by a long shot.. but it will make the LR harder to kill

(and interestingly against MW attacks it actually becomes
50% vs 58% vs 67% - 3+RA is again better than 4+RA/6++ (1.3 times harder to kill) which isn't as big a jump as against AT weaponry - so the question probably is more do you want it to die against AT weapons or not?


Since this is only going into a WIP list... why not just pick one and playtest it if too easy/hard to kill then change it

I tend to calculate things as relating to number of hits needed to kill on average, in part so i can look at formations lethality against armour types.

So 4+RA requires on average 4 hits to get a kill.
4+RA inv requires 4.8 hits to get a kill.
3+RA requires 9 hits to get a kill.
(3+RA Inv which I think is the toughest you can get in Epic requires 10.

After seeing Chris' numbers I'm definitely thinking 4+ Reinforced Invulnerable is the way to go, 3+ Reinforced would be OTT.

my bad. i should have clarified, i was referring to Vehicles. Infantry have a harder time of surviving, due to the increased quantity of firepower of an AP variety (and the fact that most every mixed weapon, be it autocannon or barrage is a singificant percentage more lethal versus infantry than versus AV) so i was not really concerned with single infantry stands in a larger formation.
a unit of AV that need to be shot 27 times by say, lascannons, before it kills 1 however, that is a problem.

and formations of 4 are not particularly vulnerable to breaking, especially not marine ones. you need to shoot at it from 8 seperate formations before it breaks (because looking above, you're not going to be able to reduce its numbers particularly well)

or you could assault it. i'm sure that a FF monster that is virtually invulnerable to attacks is particularly concerned with that possibility too.

so, your choices become "shoot at it with TK weapons" "assault it with formations of mass MW CC attacks" or "just bend over and take it" (and most armies do not have access to all 3 of those options)

who cares if it takes 2 turns to get anywhere? by the time it gets to the turn that matters (turn3 where objectives start to count) it's where it wants to be, and it wont be moved from that point without a disproportionate response. its a formation that for all intents and purposes, cannot be killed.


once again, you're trying to base a units stats on 40k (something that we frequently say we do not do, when it suits us) for a unit that forgeworld made up and decided that its weapon-set was not sufficiently ridiculous, so added some crazy rule. why should we follow their lead? just make it a regular land-raider with halved transport capacity (who cares, since they're in seperate formations and cannot transport anything anyway) and give them the weapon-layout that they have. no freaky save rules, just a land raider variant.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

People keep providing stats with shooting being the main way of killing these things. They are made just for this purpose, to resist shooting attacks.

So like anything that has a strength, you look for its weakness. Get it into CC.

If it has been prepped, and you have superior numbers (not very hard when there is 4 in a formation), you are +2 to +3 up in an assault from the start. Depending on whether you get them in BtB or FF, you are probably going to be anywhere from +1 to +4 up before the final combat role. After they break, they are no more tougher than any other unit and are picked off just the same.

It could have a 1+ save for all I care. If you are shooting at these things to take them down, then that is your lack of strategy that is at fault, not the stats on the formation. Add into this that if you keep your distance from them, they are pretty much ineffective.

All this talk on %'s is correct, to a certain point. Like anything, people only wish to point out half the truths to something like this. At 400 points, how many of these formations of 4 do people honestly think they are going to see? At 800 points for 2 formations for a start, how effective are they compared to all other ~800 point units/formations?

MW and TK weapons are not always the answer to taking out RA tanks. If that was the case, the Leman Russ formation in the IG would be virtually unkillable - it is not however, not due to it's RA, but purely due to it's CC ineffectiveness. In fact, it is a liability.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

As a graph...



Like frogbear says, it only tells half the story...

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

people are understandably going to be leary about engaging in an assault a unit with a 3+ macroweapon firefight to begin with. making it twice as hard to kill in an assault will make it very likely that it will be able to kill back a point or two worth of enemy units while not taking any casualties itself, making assaulting it a very risky proposition.

if you have terminators, with their MW CC attacks, and an inspiring character you're in a pretty good position to kill them. if you do not, you're in a much worse one. the above graph shows that it takes on average, 9 hits to kill a single one of these. shooting or assault, the armour value is the same. now, in an assault, you can get at most 8 units into CC with the 4 achilleses. so unless you have extra attacks, you're not even at the average hits required to kill a single one of them! and you're saying these things are vulnerable to assaults? moreso than shooting, sure, but assault is also where they want to be. their weakness is also their strength?

not everyone has Inspiring characters, or Macroweapon CC attacks, when you fail to kill anything in combat, its got a pretty good shot of evening the odds, at which point the inherent resilience of space marines, and the fact that if it doesnt break, its right where it wants to be (ie: right next to the enemy) means its hardly a surefire way to deal with them

and they're virtually immune to anything else.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

you are missing the point. Forget about MW and TK attacks. They are not the be all and end all.

Let us take your example:


Most likely they will get 1 hit in that you will save so the odds are the same and it is a wash

The combat resolution comes and you are automatically +1 up (size) minimum. If you were smart and prepped them, you would have an additional +1 or even +2 on top of your standard +1.

So we really need to stop with the half truths and specific scenarios and look at it as realists. They are almost impossible to shoot down as a formation, and more than just an above average chance to take these out in CC. Obviously you would not look to allow these to FF - yet that is the same for all such RA tanks that look to shoot rather than assault.

In some respects these could even be the BTS, so terminators and most air assault formations will be able to take these out. Beyond that, other armies can usually out-manoeuvre these guys or tackle them with TK and MW. It is not rocket science. Hell, feel free to set up a game against me and take the list with them in it. I have no problem coming up against them.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Geez! We've gone from testing it a 4+RA for 325 to pushing for 3+RA at 400? 3+RA is starting to get a little silly IMO. Argue perspective all you want, it still seems a bit "blue vein odourous" even after considering assault. Start simple and more to the point, fair and balanced, here. Otherwise I'm calling CODEX (well, Forgeworld) CREEP!!

It is a list in development (IF that is).

Nothing wrong in getting it looking one way from the start so as not to make changes later. It also only appears in a list dedicated to a mud marine principle. Until people play this type of a list you will have troubles understanding how this formation is not 'all powerful'.

There is no codex creep because there is no established list. There is a difference which some people seem to miss - hence why no such change would ever be considered for the Vanilla Marine list.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I will not play against any list with 3+ reinforced save vehicles.

Until you see a list you like and is supported by GW as an official list.... lucky for you Epic is a dead game to them hey?

Imagine all those tournaments you would miss as masses of opponents take masses of 400 point 4 unit formations and trump all tournaments to come. *shakes head*

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Officiality has nothing to do with it; I don't even own a single "official" epic army. My avatar is of a made-up unit for a fan list. I also don't go to tournaments. You've really missed the mark in your ad hominem description of me there.

Balance, fairness and representation have everything to do with it.

3+ reinforced is significantly more than double the toughness of 4+ reinforced, which is already pretty damn tough. That's not acceptable to me, and proposing it is either misunderstanding the stats or just fanboyism.

I really cannot let this one go actually.

I find it hypocritical that there is support for cumbersome rules to represent a wholesale use of Living Metal and all the 'power' that comes with that, and on Skimmers to boot!, yet RA3+ is such a taboo.

I think that before one states such an opinion, one should consider the armies they play in their own backyard and consider what is reasonable.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats