fluger Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 So, I got to thinking about Lord Hanaur's position about Mandrakes being above average shooting and average melee. That got me thinking about what "average" in those cases meant. Hard to quantify I guess, but, to me, the simplest measure of a unit's potency is to put it up against a variety of threats in a simulation. I think the base-line standard for a unit to be determined to be "good" in melee or shooting is if it can reasonably out shoot or out melee 10 Tactical Marines 1 Dakkafex 30 Guardsmen when configured in 140-150 pts. Then take basic factors into account, like if they assault through terrain. Now, this isn't perfect by any means, and it completely doesn't work for vehicles, but it's a good way of saying, "this unit is good in melee". Now, my assumption is that both units are in a total vacuum and assaults happen with no casualties being inflicted on either unit prior, which is a BIIIIG assumption I understand, but bear with me. Also, I'm assuming every passes all their leadership tests, which is another big assumption. Now, for a unit to be included in an army as a melee threat I think it needs to basically WTFPWN those units above in melee, because, odds are, they aren't going to arrive intact and they need to have a serious edge when they do hit home. Let's look at a few units in the 150 pt range. 21 hormagaunts with adrenal glands are 147 pts. The main consideration is whether they are going through terrain or not, because either they are going first against all these foes, or else they are going last. Marines (no terrain): They should drop 5 marines before they even get to swing, and then lose a few casualties. The drop from S4 to S3 hurts, but the higher initiative means they probably finish off the marines in four rounds of combat and lose maybe 5 horms. Clearly they do well here. Marines (terrain): Even swinging second, they should still take down 4 marines in the first round after losing 4 horms. Takes more rounds, but they should still win. Dakkafex (no terrain): Horms kill it in 3 rounds of combat and lose 2 horms. Massive victory for hormagaunts. Now, this *is* predicated on all of them being in range to swing, which might be unrealistic. Dakkafex (terrain): Same smell, horms kill it in 3 rounds, but lose 3. 30 guardsmen (no terrain): Takes 5 rounds, but the horms kill them off the guard (realistically, the guard should've broken and been run down after the first assault, but still) and lose 6.5 gaunts. 30 guardsmen (terrain): Takes 8 rounds, and the horms are down to 6 left, but they still win. Now, that's obviously got a lot of caveats and adendums to it, and 40k isn't played in a vacuum, but it gives one a good tool to measure potency. The take away for the hormagaunts is that, yes, once they get into melee, they are quite capable of taking out a variety of targets. You could, and should, rate them as "good" in melee. I've run these numbers for lots of different units for both shooting and assault and it quickly becomes apparent what units are effective in these scenarios and which are not. Suffice to say that if you plug in the mandrakes in these scenarios, they either struggle or straight up lose. They just can't be labelled as even average and definitely not above average in either category. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.