I just have a quick question. Why is the Quad gun for ADL or Bastion so much more popular than its Lascannon cousin? Lascannon certainly doesn't sound TOO shabby to me... especially when operated by someone with high BS.

Mathammer says its faster to strip hull points off with str 7 than it is to hit, penetrate and get a good roll with 1 shot at str 9.

untill that mathhammer meets my RAIDERHAMMER! BOOM. but yeah. this is especially true for eldar Wave serps.

The Lascannon might see more popularity now that more IWND vehicles are showing up. I know I'd rather try to one shot a Heldrake instead of strip its hull points. The quad gun can shoot at that thing all day and probably not do much.

The quad gun is also more useful once any fliers are gone. 4 shots at light armor or even small units is much more useful than a single lascannon shot.

I was thinking of getting the lascannon over quad for my Chaos Lascannon Havocs. I figured that BS 4 on the champ for 5 Lascannons would kill something per turn.

The lascannon doesn`t come with the aegis kit. I think it only comes with the bastion, so it`s a hassle.

Now there are better fortifications available, so I`ve moved away from the Aegis, but I would take the lascannon over the quad every time. It is much more valuable to knock something out of the sky once in a while before it can do something than to knock off a hullpoint or two somewhat reliably.

Against AV12 flyers, especially the drake, the quad is very meh.

The Icarus Lascannon also has much longer range, making it's interceptor more valuable in theory.

The quad gun is more effective against monstrous creatures and horde flyers like gargoyles.
In the hands of an average bs gunner, it is also more effective at stripping hull points from the weaker armored flyers.

Personally, I found that by putting a model with a higher BS on it, such as a commissar lord, I am far more effective at destroying flyers but the quad gun is still more effective at killing monstrous creatures and horde flyers.
I also like the range of the Icarus over the much shorter range of the quad gun (a savvy opponent can measure the distance to ensure their incoming flyers are out of range of a quad gun even if you center it in your line in most cases).
So generally, I stthe quad gun in tournaments as it 'covers more bases".

They serve different functions. Quad gun is great for taking out Av10-11 fliers, grounding flying MC's, and dakka. Since it is twin linked with high volume, it can be manned by units with poor BS. Anything higher than Bs5 is a bit of a waste on it.

Lascannon is slightly cheaper, but comes with a single shot so you want Bs4 or better shooting it. Good for Av12 fliers that otherwise laugh a 1-2 missing hull points(helldrakes, iron hands stormravens)

I thought you took quad gun for fmc's and laz for fliers with av?

For the most part, yes. it is good to remember that with intercepter, they also shoot at ground units as well at full BS. this means that they can also pop rhinos and truck and in the case of the las cannon, even land raiders and monoliths. Again, this is also where the range can come in handy. For example, the enemy manticore peeking it's head around a corner or sitting behind an ADL along the back edge of the board out of range of your normal las cannons can be popped with a decent shot and failed cover save.
As someone else confirmed, a lower BS guy on the quad gun isn't too bad but you want a higher BS gunner on the las cannon.

 Gitsmasher wrote:
I thought you took quad gun for fmc's and laz for fliers with av?

Quad is better then Las against Av12 and lower

i would say against 12 or better, the las is better because with the quad you can usually expect 3 of the 4 to hit and even if all 4 hit, you need a 5 to even glance so even if you hit with all 4, only one of those 4 is likely to even glance much less pen and with no damage modifiers, flyers can almost totally ignore it if it has armor 12.
I would put the dividing line at 11 and call that generous.

What make the quad a better overall weapon (except for it's much shorter range) is it's being a jack of all trades and not having the need to put a high BS model to fire it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
i would say against 12 or better, the las is better because with the quad you can usually expect 3 of the 4 to hit and even if all 4 hit, you need a 5 to even glance so even if you hit with all 4, only one of those 4 is likely to even glance much less pen and with no damage modifiers, flyers can almost totally ignore it if it has armor 12.
I would put the dividing line at 11 and call that generous.

What make the quad a better overall weapon (except for it's much shorter range) is it's being a jack of all trades and not having the need to put a high BS model to fire it.

Or you could just do the math on it

with BS4 against Av12
Quad 4*(8/9)*(1/3)=1.185 Damage (0.593 Pens, 0.593 Glances)
Las 1*(2/3)*(2/3)=0.444 Damage (0.333 Pens, 0.111 Glances)

See? Quad gun is better then Las against av12. Even with ap2, the quad makes up for it with having 4 shots allowing for a higher damage potential. In fact technically the quad is more likely to do damage against Av13 as well but its very marginal and is only glances so is not really the case in practice

Not if you are looking to take it out on the turn it comes in before it can fire.
Do the math

- 3 hits with the quad gun on average. les if your unlucky, 4 if your lucky. of those 3 a single one will glance if you are lucky. OR a single one will pen if you are VERY lucky. If you are VERY lucky and get a single pen, you do not get anymodifiers to the damage table which means that nless you are SUPER lucky, it will still be alive and well with only a single hull point gone at most.
No consider range, it is really not hard to end the moement phase out of range of the quad gun so lets do the math there. 0 shots means 0 hits and 0 hull points gone.

- las cannon, bs5 only misses on a roll of a one. so you can count on it hitting. only needs a 3 to glance and a 4 to pen at MOST if your shooting at a heavy duty flyer with av 12. so if your very unlucky, your no worse of than with the quad gun. if your average, you will pen and get a +1 to damage so you are more likely to pen and do more damage when you do pen.
lets look at the range now, since the range is the entire table, range is not an issue.

As stated earlier and proven, the las is better for vehicles (unless your shooting at av 10, maybe 11 to be generous), while the jack of all trades quad gun stands out more in a tournament setting as it will be more usefull against more opponant types.

The only flier the quad gun struggles against is the hell turkey. Even the "mighty" Stormraven gets ground up pretty quickly against S7 ROF 4. Obviously, you'll need more than source of S7 to down it one turn, but it's very feasible to HP out a raven. The hellturkey, not so much.

Now THAT is true. I was comparing the quad and las only against each other and in terms of purely the damage THEY do against enemy flyers on the turn they come in. Working in conjunction with the rest of the army, the jack of all trades quad usually works better in a take all comers (or tourney) list.

I used to game totally against helldrakes, but now the quad gun gives me utility in spamming MCs, etc. Too many bases to cover with too few meqs :(

Where iz all dose bs5 comin' from, boyz?! Grots with a quadd gun ftw

koooaei wrote:
Where iz all dose bs5 comin' from, boyz?! Grots with a quadd gun ftw

The ADL makes for a solid center base to fight out . I pop Harkers squad behind it with a las cannon (maybe a few flamers) and camo. A 2= cover save without having to go to ground is really handy. Attach a comissar lord to that sponge unit to man the gun and you have a unit that is really hard t kill (under most circumstances but there are ways around it) and you have a bs5 gunner that is fairly safe from harm and gives his leadership bonus to the main body of your army.

EVIL INC wrote:Do the math

He did.

CrownAxe wrote:with BS4 against Av12
Quad 4*(8/9)*(1/3)=1.185 Damage (0.593 Pens, 0.593 Glances)
Las 1*(2/3)*(2/3)=0.444 Damage (0.333 Pens, 0.111 Glances)

As stated earlier and proven, the las is better for vehicles (unless your shooting at av 10, maybe 11 to be generous), while the jack of all trades quad gun stands out more in a tournament setting as it will be more usefull against more opponant types.

Actual math disagrees. You will average more Pens and Glances against AV12 with a BS4 quad gun than you will with a BS4 Lascannon.
If you continue to disagree, please prove the math wrong and don't just say "Nuh uh, it's THIS way."

Try playing a few games with both of them. You will see that the Las cannon pops armor much faster than the autocannon. Exactly what does the autocannon need to roll to pop a land raider/ Whats the math on that? xactly whatdoes the autocannon need to roll to pop a flyer that is out of range?
The simple fact is, the Las cannon fares better at popping a vehicle than the autocannon.
of course, simple facts and math shows that in tournamant play (or in a take all comers list), the autocannon is more effective overall as it is a jack of all trades that covers other bases that the las cannon doesnt.

 EVIL INC wrote:
TExactly what does the autocannon need to roll to pop a land raider/ Whats the math on that?

When the discussion was AV 12, what relevance does a Land Raider have?

xactly whatdoes the autocannon need to roll to pop a flyer that is out of range?

With a centrally placed quad gun it's very difficult to stay out of range and still be effective. I won't say impossible but I've literally never seen it done.

The simple fact is, the Las cannon fares better at popping a vehicle than the autocannon.

It's really not, unless you're talking about AV13 and 14. In which case - who cares? That's what you have anti-tank weapons for. The ADL gun shouldn't be what you're relying on for Anti-tank.

Bs 3 autocannon, will hit 3 times on average, less if unlucky, 4 if lucky.
it needs a 5 to so much as glance. if you are super lucky, you will roll a six. As you need a natural six, we will discount that. So on average, you will take out one HP if your lucky, 2 if you are REALLY lucky. Ths means the flyers still gets to do it's thing the turn it comes in
A bs 5 las cannon, Hits. Needs a 3 to glance and a 4 to pen. So on average, it will pen, if your unlucky, you will glance, if your really unlucky, you will miss and be as well off as the autocannon. however, on average, it will pen and destroy a weapon, immobilize (locked velocity) or destroy it. Blown up being more likely than any one of the other damages.
Simple math supports this.

However, Theautocannon is better at taking out foot sloggrs, light flying units such as gargoyles and monstrous creatures, grounding flying monstrous creatures. So Math supports them as being the better overall choice in a take all comers or tournament list.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Bs 3 autocannon, will hit 3 times on average, less if unlucky, 4 if lucky.
it needs a 5 to so much as glance. if you are super lucky, you will roll a six. As you need a natural six, we will discount that. So on average, you will take out one HP if your lucky, 2 if you are REALLY lucky. Ths means the flyers still gets to do it's thing the turn it comes in
A bs 5 las cannon, Hits. Needs a 3 to glance and a 4 to pen. So on average, it will pen, if your unlucky, you will glance, if your really unlucky, you will miss and be as well off as the autocannon. however, on average, it will pen and destroy a weapon, immobilize (locked velocity) or destroy it. Blown up being more likely than any one of the other damages.
Simple math supports this.

However, Theautocannon is better at taking out foot sloggrs, light flying units such as gargoyles and monstrous creatures, grounding flying monstrous creatures. So Math supports them as being the better overall choice in a take all comers or tournament list.

Okay so there is so much wrong with this post. First why are you comparing BS3 to BS5? Second the math has been done before

CrownAxe wrote:
with BS4 against Av12
Quad 4*(8/9)*(1/3)=1.185 Damage (0.593 Pens, 0.593 Glances)
Las 1*(2/3)*(2/3)=0.444 Damage (0.333 Pens, 0.111 Glances)

That is the math for both weapons at BS4. The quad gun by virture of more shots gets more glances and pens than the one shot lascannon. You must remember that 40k is a game played for the averages. Yes on a case by case basis the lascannon is superior because the chance to get an explodes! result is better. However the better option is to take the weapon that has better average performace. Use the law of averages to your advantage. So in conclusion it is better to take the quad gun as you get more hits, glances, and pens on average than the lascannon.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Bs 3 autocannon, will hit 3 times on average, less if unlucky, 4 if lucky.
it needs a 5 to so much as glance. if you are super lucky, you will roll a six. As you need a natural six, we will discount that. So on average, you will take out one HP if your lucky, 2 if you are REALLY lucky. Ths means the flyers still gets to do it's thing the turn it comes in
A bs 5 las cannon, Hits. Needs a 3 to glance and a 4 to pen. So on average, it will pen, if your unlucky, you will glance, if your really unlucky, you will miss and be as well off as the autocannon. however, on average, it will pen and destroy a weapon, immobilize (locked velocity) or destroy it. Blown up being more likely than any one of the other damages.
Simple math supports this.

You're comparing BS3 to BS5. Hardly an apples to apples comparison. So you have nothing to disprove the math posted above?

We can do ths dance till the cows come home. I'm perfectly willing to do so. i've never been afraid of internet bullies.
bs3 and bs4 are pretty much the same thing in terms of twin linked. the difference is so minute that the end results are the same. Change my bs3 to bs4 in the above post and you get the same result. 3 hits on average, 4 if your lucky. can you cite the reference where a shot fired from a bs4 has a higher armor penetratio or damage result than a bs3? You have aso not disproved the math (you cant)
I CAN provide a citation of where an ap2 weapon has a higher damage result than an ap4 weapon.

 EVIL INC wrote:
bs3 and bs4 are pretty much the same thing in terms of twin linked. the difference is so minute that the end results are the same. Change my bs3 to bs4 in the above post and you get the same result. 3 hits on average, 4 if your lucky.

BS3 twin linked is a 75% chance to hit.
BS4 twin linked is a 88% chance to hit.
That's more than a "minute" chance.

can you cite the reference where a shot fired from a bs4 has a higher armor penetratio or damage result than a bs3?

Yes.
BS3 Str6 weapon against AV10. 1*.5*.5=25% chance to at least glance.
Bs4 Str6 weapon against AV10. 1*.6*.5=30% chance to at least glance.

You have aso not disproved the math (you cant)

You're making irrelevant comparisons and presenting them as proof. When you compare like to like (same BS value) your comparisons will be relevant.
You also haven't actually shown any math (unless I missed a post).

I CAN provide a citation of where an ap2 weapon has a higher damage result than an ap4 weapon.

Another irrelevant example. No one has said it doesn't. It just has a lower chance of actually applying that damage result.

Yes,, you are STILL hitting an average of 3 shots with the quad gun with a BS4.

You lied. Show me the exact page number where it says that a hit from a bs4 is more likely to pen armor than a hit from a bs3. Both shots are hits, what about the bs4 makes that hit more likely to pen the armor. does it add to the strength of the weapon or just give it a + something on armor pen rolls. You have not provided citation for your claim.
likewise, for damage results. What exactly about a bs4 gives a higher damage result on penned armor than a bs3 on pened armor. is there some sort of extra chart that I dont have in my rulebook that gives this? i can give the page number that gives the citation for higher AP weapons getting a + on damage results. Page 74 of the rulebook.

Sorry, the math just supports the las as being better at taking out an av12 flying vehicles before it can fire on the turn it enters play. Especially when it's movement is ended out of range of the quad gun (very easy to do and maintain full effectiveness)
likewise, math supports the autocannon as being the more well rounded jack ofall trades weapon for take all comers lists.

Honestly, I think most people significantly overestimate the importance of low AP weaponry in tank hunting. Most vehicles are 3 hull points. If you're rolling on the damage table, you've already taken off one of them. And if you're shooting at a target that's already taken damage, it may well have lost additional hull points already.

Penetrating hits are worth more than glances, and AP affects that conversion ratio, but this effect is pretty subtle at the end of the day.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Yes,, you are STILL hitting an average of 3 shots with the quad gun with a BS4.

You lied. Show me the exact page number where it says that a hit from a bs4 is more likely to pen armor than a hit from a bs3. Both shots are hits, what about the bs4 makes that hit more likely to pen the armor. does it add to the strength of the weapon or just give it a + something on armor pen rolls. You have not provided citation for your claim.
likewise, for damage results. What exactly about a bs4 gives a higher damage result on penned armor than a bs3 on pened armor. is there some sort of extra chart that I dont have in my rulebook that gives this? i can give the page number that gives the citation for higher AP weapons getting a + on damage results. Page 74 of the rulebook.

I probably shouldn't be responding to a troll, but here's the point you're missing: "you are STILL hitting an average of 3 shots with the quad gun with a BS4..." ...but the lascannon doesn't even get one.

Each autocannon gets a 1/6 chance to penetrate. 3 hits means 3 rolls. 3 chances at 1/6 chance each will average 0.5 penetrating results. Your lascannon will average less than one hit per shot. I don't even care how much less. You could have BS10 and it'd still be less. If that lascannon hits, half its rolls will penetrate, also making for 0.5 penetrates per hit. But since you don't hit 100% of the time, you can't match the autocannon.

Firing more shots can give better results than using higher strength. 10 lasguns will do more to a marine than 1 bolter. This is no different.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Yes,, you are STILL hitting an average of 3 shots with the quad gun with a BS4.

A BS5 shot is an 83% chance to hit. So a twin linked BS4 shot is more accurate than a BS5 shot. If you're assuming your BS5 lascannon hits every time, there's no reason to assume all 4 Autocannon shots don't hit.
Plus, the math takes the chance for a hit into account.

You lied.

No, I didn't.

Show me the exact page number where it says that a hit from a bs4 is more likely to pen armor than a hit from a bs3. Both shots are hits, what about the bs4 makes that hit more likely to pen the armor. does it add to the strength of the weapon or just give it a + something on armor pen rolls. You have not provided citation for your claim.

I proved my claim. It's in the post you read. A BS4 shot is more likely to get a damage result than a BS3 shot.

Sorry, the math just supports the las as being better at taking out an av12 flying vehicles before it can fire on the turn it enters play. Especially when it's movement is ended out of range of the quad gun (very easy to do and maintain full effectiveness)

Against a foolish opponent it may be very easy to do. Against someone who understand how area denial works it's not. But that's a very subjective thing and useless to bring up in a tactics thread (because things like terrain layout have such a huge impact on it)

AP is only super valuable against Helldrakes, AV 14, and maybe AV 13. That's because high ROF weapons suck vs these targets and its very valuable to get that explodes! I guess you might lump in Wave Serpents to this, since I'm told most Eldar players shoot the shields every turn.

you are correct in the long run.
We arent talking about the long run or "by the end of the game". In this, we are talking about the pre-emptive strike granted by the interceptor rule. This is designed to take out a flyer on the tun it enters before it can fire any of it's weapons or drop any troops it is transporting.

In games where my vendetta filled with a veteran squad kitted to the gills (dont even get me started on the game when I lost my kitted out command squad with, bodyguards, advisors and 4 plasma guns and plasma pistol on the commander this way) are destroyed without firing a single shot, i am struck a much harder blow than in a game where i lose my vendetta after it has deployed my vets (to do thier own damage) and taken out some tanks.
The quad gun may be better at the long run using the math but in the all or nothing pre-emptive strike that the ADL interceptor gun is designed for, the las has the edge in take out flying vehices of av 12.

And what happens when your 1 shot misses? I have 4 chances to get the damage done sure not as good of damage and no addition to the table but I still have 4 chances to your 1. Personally I will take the chance of 4 shots verses 1 anyday it is more reliable and on average will get the job done better.

That's probably true, but FMC are too powerful to be ignored. And that's what the lascannon options does: ignore FMCs. The only flyer that's really worth trying to one-shot is the Helldrake. You might argue Stormraven, but these points bloated things are not nearly as efficient as helldrakes. I hate myself every time I cough up for a Stormraven in a list.

Quad 4*(8/9)*(1/3)=1.185 Damage (0.593 Pens, 0.593 Glances)
Las 1*(2/3)*(2/3)=0.444 Damage (0.333 Pens, 0.111 Glances)

You're almost twice as likely to get a pen. Let's look at the chances for a 4+ on the damage chart.
.593 Pen *.5 = .2965 or ~30% chance to have a good effect on the Interceptor shot.
.333 Pen * .666 = .222 or ~22% chance to have a good effect on the Interceptor shot.

Again, the Quad Gun is a better choice against AV12 even on Interceptor. If you are solely looking at explosion results:
.593 * .16 = .094 or ~10% chance on Interceptor.
.333 * .333 = .110 or ~11% chance on Interceptor.

The lascannon has about a 1.5% better chance to explode a vehicle on the Interceptor shot. That's a "minute" difference. That's proven using math. See how you do that?

chances are the one shot wontmiss. I only miss on the roll of a 1. although, it does happen on occasion (when I use the las but I usually take the quad as it is better because of being a jack of all trades). Mathmatically speaking, your 4 hits will only provide a single glance while math shows the las would only get a glance if it was unlucky, average or better rolls will get a pen.
Of course, you might want to talk to rigel, he is still claiming that a hi from a bs4 is more likely than a hit from a bs3 to pen and that bs affects the damage rolls after a vehicle is penned instead of ap.

The math still shows that on the pre-emptive strike shot, the AC is less likely to destroy the av12 than the LCc by almost half.
As I said though, the math also shows the AC to be the better take all comers list option because of being a jack of all trades.

Oh, I guess it isn't true then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
chances are the one shot wontmiss. I only miss on the roll of a 1. although, it does happen on occasion (when I use the las but I usually take the quad as it is better because of being a jack of all trades). Mathmatically speaking, your 4 hits will only provide a single glance while math shows the las would only get a glance if it was unlucky, average or better rolls will get a pen.
Of course, you might want to talk to rigel, he is still claiming that a hi from a bs4 is more likely than a hit from a bs3 to pen and that bs affects the damage rolls after a vehicle is penned instead of ap.

The math above takes all that into account. Do you dispute the calculations? If so, post the corrections. Quit talking qualitatively.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Of course, you might want to talk to rigel, he is still claiming that a hi from a bs4 is more likely than a hit from a bs3 to pen and that bs affects the damage rolls after a vehicle is penned instead of ap.

See, now that's a lie. Perhaps if you'd read what I post instead of attempt to vilify me you'd understand.

try to stay on topic and leave personal attacks and insults out of the conversation. the mods warned you about that before.

The math still shows the LC as the better option for taking out AV 12 flyers before they can shoot or unload than the AC.

Even if that were not true (but it IS true and no one has yet done the impossible to disprove it), range alone allows an opponent to totally ignore the quad gun by simply measuring the range and staying out of it. Doing this, you can safely unload your troops (providing something else does not pop it) and fire in the shooting phase. I do it all the time and have seen many others do the exact same thing.

The important part of interceptor is that all important pre-emptive strike. After that, it is "just" a weapon that can soot at flyers at full bs during your turn. that is why I am only addresing that first pre-emptive strike shot.

i am still looking for you to provide the page number in the rulebook that supports your math of BS making a shot that has already successfully hit the target to be more likely to pen the armor. a hit is a hit, regardless of whether it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model that fired the shot. the BS does not add bonuses to the armor pen as you suggest.
Likewise, i am waitying for you to provide the same to support your claims that BS causes a sho that has hit and penned to do more damage. A pen is a pen ragardless of it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model who fired the shot.. Look on page 74 and you will see my citation that a higher AP (ap2) DOES make a penetrating shot more likely to destroy an vehicle outright than a pen by an ap 4 weapon.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The math still shows the LC as the better option for taking out AV 12 flyers before they can shoot or unload than the AC.

I just proved otherwise. With actual math. Mind showing your work?

Even if that were not true (but it IS true and no one has yet done the impossible to disprove it), range alone allows an opponent to totally ignore the quad gun by simply measuring the range and staying out of it. Doing this, you can safely unload your troops (providing something else does not pop it) and fire in the shooting phase. I do it all the time and have seen many others do the exact same thing.

Place quad gun 12" from your board edge in approximately the middle of the board. It is very difficult for a flyer to end its movement out of the 48" range and drop their payload anywhere relevant.

The important part of interceptor is that all important pre-emptive strike. After that, it is "just" a weapon that can soot at flyers at full bs during your turn. that is why I am only addresing that first pre-emptive strike shot.

I'm also only addressing that first shot. And that first shot in pretty much all cases gives the edge to the quad-gun, not the lascannon. Using math.

The math still shows the LC as the better option for taking out AV 12 flyers before they can shoot or unload than the AC.

Even if that were not true (but it IS true and no one has yet done the impossible to disprove it), range alone allows an opponent to totally ignore the quad gun by simply measuring the range and staying out of it. Doing this, you can safely unload your troops (providing something else does not pop it) and fire in the shooting phase. I do it all the time and have seen many others do the exact same thing.

The important part of interceptor is that all important pre-emptive strike. After that, it is "just" a weapon that can soot at flyers at full bs during your turn. that is why I am only addresing that first pre-emptive strike shot.

i am still looking for you to provide the page number in the rulebook that supports your math of BS making a shot that has already successfully hit the target to be more likely to pen the armor. a hit is a hit, regardless of whether it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model that fired the shot. the BS does not add bonuses to the armor pen as you suggest.
Likewise, i am waitying for you to provide the same to support your claims that BS causes a sho that has hit and penned to do more damage. A pen is a pen ragardless of it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model who fired the shot.. Look on page 74 and you will see my citation that a higher AP (ap2) DOES make a penetrating shot more likely to destroy an vehicle outright than a pen by an ap 4 weapon.

 EVIL INC wrote:
try to stay on topic and leave personal attacks and insults out of the conversation. the mods warned you about that before.

The math still shows the LC as the better option for taking out AV 12 flyers before they can shoot or unload than the AC.

Even if that were not true (but it IS true and no one has yet done the impossible to disprove it), range alone allows an opponent to totally ignore the quad gun by simply measuring the range and staying out of it. Doing this, you can safely unload your troops (providing something else does not pop it) and fire in the shooting phase. I do it all the time and have seen many others do the exact same thing.

The important part of interceptor is that all important pre-emptive strike. After that, it is "just" a weapon that can soot at flyers at full bs during your turn. that is why I am only addresing that first pre-emptive strike shot.

i am still looking for you to provide the page number in the rulebook that supports your math of BS making a shot that has already successfully hit the target to be more likely to pen the armor. a hit is a hit, regardless of whether it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model that fired the shot. the BS does not add bonuses to the armor pen as you suggest.
Likewise, i am waitying for you to provide the same to support your claims that BS causes a sho that has hit and penned to do more damage. A pen is a pen ragardless of it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model who fired the shot.. Look on page 74 and you will see my citation that a higher AP (ap2) DOES make a penetrating shot more likely to destroy an vehicle outright than a pen by an ap 4 weapon.

So you do dispute the calcuations?

 EVIL INC wrote:
The math still shows the LC as the better option for taking out AV 12 flyers before they can shoot or unload than the AC.

It shows a ~1.5% difference between the two. That's marginal enough to ignore for all purposes.

Even if that were not true (but it IS true and no one has yet done the impossible to disprove it), range alone allows an opponent to totally ignore the quad gun by simply measuring the range and staying out of it. Doing this, you can safely unload your troops (providing something else does not pop it) and fire in the shooting phase. I do it all the time and have seen many others do the exact same thing.

The important part of interceptor is that all important pre-emptive strike. After that, it is "just" a weapon that can soot at flyers at full bs during your turn. that is why I am only addresing that first pre-emptive strike shot.

Repeating your post doesn't make it more true without evidence.

i am still looking for you to provide the page number in the rulebook that supports your math of BS making a shot that has already successfully hit the target to be more likely to pen the armor. a hit is a hit, regardless of whether it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model that fired the shot. the BS does not add bonuses to the armor pen as you suggest.

I've never said the bolded is true.

Likewise, i am waitying for you to provide the same to support your claims that BS causes a sho that has hit and penned to do more damage. A pen is a pen ragardless of it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model who fired the shot.. Look on page 74 and you will see my citation that a higher AP (ap2) DOES make a penetrating shot more likely to destroy an vehicle outright than a pen by an ap 4 weapon.

I never said the bolded is true. Perhaps you misread?

rigeld2 wrote:

I just proved otherwise. With actual math. Mind showing your work?
Yes, page 74 of the rulebook. You can spout out random numbers based on faulty information all day but that does not change facts or the rules as written


Place quad gun 12" from your board edge in approximately the middle of the board. It is very difficult for a flyer to end its movement out of the 48" range and drop their payload anywhere relevant.
This is just a lie. You forget that we are talking about the pre-emptive strike shot. NOT following turns. Whetherit is in range of the quad or not Most players dont want to drop thier troops on the turn they arrive because it will not be where they want them and if the can drop them, it would be a deep strike with the chance to mishap (except for GK dropping intercepters). you seem to forget that the quad gun will only be able to fire normally in following turns. it does NOT get to shoot at flyers at the end ofthe enemy movement phase every turn, only the turn it actually comes in. )See page 38 of the rulebook)in following turns, the flyer is free to move and shoot and drop it's troops. The pre-emptive strike shot that we are discussing is already past at this point and you arent allowed to save it for future turns when the enemy comes within range.

The important part of interceptor is that all important pre-emptive strike. After that, it is "just" a weapon that can soot at flyers at full bs during your turn. that is why I am only addresing that first pre-emptive strike shot.

I'm also only addressing that first shot. And that first shot in pretty much all cases gives the edge to the quad-gun, not the lascannon. Using math.
You are addressing it over the course of the game. I am addressing tat first shot coming in. Your math has failed you. miserably

Evil no one disagrees that AP 2 will get a higher damage result for a single shot by virture of the added damage. However the statistics provided show using math that even on interceptor you have a better chance of doing damage and destroying a AV 12 flyer with the quad gun and not the lascannon. The interceptor potential of the quad gun is greater than the lascannon because it has more shots. Yes an AP 2 gun get better damage but the quad gun gets more damage and more is better in a game ruled by the law of averages

rigeld2 wrote:

Quad 4*(8/9)*(1/3)=1.185 Damage (0.593 Pens, 0.593 Glances)
Las 1*(2/3)*(2/3)=0.444 Damage (0.333 Pens, 0.111 Glances)

You're almost twice as likely to get a pen. Let's look at the chances for a 4+ on the damage chart.
.593 Pen *.5 = .2965 or ~30% chance to have a good effect on the Interceptor shot.
.333 Pen * .666 = .222 or ~22% chance to have a good effect on the Interceptor shot.

Again, the Quad Gun is a better choice against AV12 even on Interceptor. If you are solely looking at explosion results:
.593 * .16 = .094 or ~10% chance on Interceptor.
.333 * .333 = .110 or ~11% chance on Interceptor.

The lascannon has about a 1.5% better chance to explode a vehicle on the Interceptor shot. That's a "minute" difference. That's proven using math. See how you do that?

As much as I agree with you rigeld, I'm going to take the opportunity to do what EVIL INC should be doing and correct your math. Sorry.

A single shot from a BS4 quad gun has a (8/9)*(1/6)*(1/6) = 2.469% chance to cause an explode result. To get the odds of an explode result from all 4 shots, we need to take the compliment (i.e. 97.53%) and take it to the 4th power. Each shot is an independent event, so multiplying the odds of failure together 4 times will give us the odds that they all fail, which is 90.48%. This makes for a 9.516% chance to blow up that Vendetta (or Heldrake).

The lascannon only gets one shot, so it's simpler. (2/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = 11.11% chance.

Summary:
Quad-gun: 1-(1-(8/9)*(1/6)*(1/6))^4 = 9.516% ~ (2/21)
Icarus Lascannon: (2/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = 11.11% = (1/9)
Ratio: (1/9) / (1-(1-2/81)^4) = 1.1675.

So the Icarus Lascannon is 16.75% more likely to blow up the Vendetta outright. If you played 63 games, a Quad-gun would blow up the Vendetta outright ~6 times, and the Icarus Lascannon would accomplish this ~7 times.

This is a very tiny difference, because killing the target outright is very rare. That's why nobody cares about interceptor fire from a single unit. It almost never matters.

EVIL,

I think the main issue here is that we're not on the same plane of thought.

What you need to make clear is your intention that the Quad Gun is out of range upon interception, right?

IF the Quad gun is in range of the enemy deployment zone ( I don't even know if the half way line would enable this)
then the maths do indeed show statistically that it's better, but that the Icarus has a 1% chance to explode your target more.

Finally i would indeed agree with you that the Icarus would perform better due to its range, but i have never fielded one myself so cannot give a judgement unfortunately.

 FirePainter wrote:
Evil no one disagrees that AP 2 will get a higher damage result for a single shot by virture of the added damage. However the statistics provided show using math that even on interceptor you have a better chance of doing damage and destroying a AV 12 flyer with the quad gun and not the lascannon. The interceptor potential of the quad gun is greater than the lascannon because it has more shots. Yes an AP 2 gun get better damage but the quad gun gets more damage and more is better in a game ruled by the law of averages

Actually, you guys ARE saying that the ap weapon does more damage in a single hit.
Statistics show that for an AV 12 flyer the LC is more likely to destroy the target on that first pre-emptive shot. this is especially so when the flyer ends the turn more than 48" from the gun (which is not only easy to do and maintain full effectiveness but usually the case. I do the same against intercepter riptides. A while back, Did it effectively against a 2 riptide/ADL tau army a while back. Still lost lol, but the vendettas more than made their points back)

Blacktalos, i have fielded both of them. pretty much since day one. In each and every game, they have performed exactly as i have mentioned. The quad is lucky to strip a single HP while the LC actually takes the flyers down. Overall and in the long run (also against land units), i still find the quad more usefull. if I was PURELY going after flying vehicles, I would take the LC. Others are free to take what they feel works better for them. I will take what I KNOW works better for me.
So based on the math andfirsthand experience, I would recommend the quad gun for take all comers lists and for the 'long haul" within a game. The LC may be better at that pre-emptive strike shot against AV12, but the qua overwhelms it with usefulness in other areas.

Okay so the AV 12 flyer comes in more than 48" away from my quad gun. So for a heldrake that means its not toasting anything with its flamer. The stormraven can fire its missiles (lascannons if its got them never seen it personally). Your vendettas can shot there lascannons but thats 3 shots that I am not to worried about in all honesty. And what ever is dropped out of the raven or vendetta is out of range of my army as well so they can happily claim an objective and not shoot at anything

Yes the lascannon has a 1% greater chance to explode a AV 12 flyer in 1 shot. That 1% is not enough for me to give up the 4 shot potential of the quadgun.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The math still shows the LC as the better option for taking out AV 12 flyers before they can shoot or unload than the AC.

Even if that were not true (but it IS true and no one has yet done the impossible to disprove it), range alone allows an opponent to totally ignore the quad gun by simply measuring the range and staying out of it. Doing this, you can safely unload your troops (providing something else does not pop it) and fire in the shooting phase. I do it all the time and have seen many others do the exact same thing.

The important part of interceptor is that all important pre-emptive strike. After that, it is "just" a weapon that can soot at flyers at full bs during your turn. that is why I am only addresing that first pre-emptive strike shot.

i am still looking for you to provide the page number in the rulebook that supports your math of BS making a shot that has already successfully hit the target to be more likely to pen the armor. a hit is a hit, regardless of whether it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model that fired the shot. the BS does not add bonuses to the armor pen as you suggest.
Likewise, i am waitying for you to provide the same to support your claims that BS causes a sho that has hit and penned to do more damage. A pen is a pen ragardless of it was a BS 2 or a BS 6 model who fired the shot.. Look on page 74 and you will see my citation that a higher AP (ap2) DOES make a penetrating shot more likely to destroy an vehicle outright than a pen by an ap 4 weapon.

So math.

Lascannon, BS3: 50% to hit, 50% to Pen, 33.333% to Explode = 8.333% total to destroy AV12 vehicle with one shot

Quadgun, BS3: 75% to Hit, 16.666% to Pen, 16.666% to explode = 2.0833% to Explode in 1 Hit x4= 8.333% overall chance to explode in 1 shooting.

So you have the exact same Chance to Explode AV12 in 1 turn of shooting from both weapons at BS3(the more common BS in the game).

BS4 edges the Lascannon forward by 1.124%(11.111% for the Lascannon vs 9.8765% for the Quad guns overall).

Now we add in the chances to HP the bird to death in 1 Turn:

Lascannon, BS3: 50% to hit, 50% to Pen, 33.333% to Explode = 8.333% total to destroy AV12 vehicle with one shot

Quadgun, BS3: 75% to hit, 33.333% to do some sort of damage, 33.333% chance to damage for 8.333% chance to cause a HP, with 8.333% of those being an explodes result. You need 3 Damage results to destroy the bird so we wind up with an 13.888% total Chance to destroy(6.944% of damaging hits explode + 11.111% chance for 3+ damaging results) I got distracted by my kids, so the overall chance to do 3 HPs might be lower than it should be, I might have done the Math for 4 damaging hits; If someone could check my math that'd be great.

At any rate the Quad gun is more Likely to take out an AV12 Flyer the turn it arrives

 EVIL INC wrote:
Statistics show that for an AV 12 flyer the LC is more likely to destroy the target on that first pre-emptive shot.

Yes, and it's more likely for me to win the lottery if I buy two tickets instead of one.

That doesn't mean there's a meaningful difference.

Corollax wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Quad 4*(8/9)*(1/3)=1.185 Damage (0.593 Pens, 0.593 Glances)
Las 1*(2/3)*(2/3)=0.444 Damage (0.333 Pens, 0.111 Glances)

You're almost twice as likely to get a pen. Let's look at the chances for a 4+ on the damage chart.
.593 Pen *.5 = .2965 or ~30% chance to have a good effect on the Interceptor shot.
.333 Pen * .666 = .222 or ~22% chance to have a good effect on the Interceptor shot.

Again, the Quad Gun is a better choice against AV12 even on Interceptor. If you are solely looking at explosion results:
.593 * .16 = .094 or ~10% chance on Interceptor.
.333 * .333 = .110 or ~11% chance on Interceptor.

The lascannon has about a 1.5% better chance to explode a vehicle on the Interceptor shot. That's a "minute" difference. That's proven using math. See how you do that?

As much as I agree with you rigeld, I'm going to take the opportunity to do what EVIL INC should be doing and correct your math. Sorry.

A single shot from a BS4 quad gun has a (8/9)*(1/6)*(1/6) = 2.469% chance to cause an explode result. To get the odds of an explode result from all 4 shots, we need to take the compliment (i.e. 97.53%) and take it to the 4th power. Each shot is an independent event, so multiplying the odds of failure together 4 times will give us the odds that they all fail, which is 90.48%. This makes for a 9.516% chance to blow up that Vendetta (or Heldrake).

The lascannon only gets one shot, so it's simpler. (2/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = 11.11% chance.

Summary:
Quad-gun: 1-(1-(8/9)*(1/6)*(1/6))^4 = 9.516% ~ (2/21)
Icarus Lascannon: (2/3)*(1/2)*(1/3) = 11.11% = (1/9)
Ratio: (1/9) / (1-(1-2/81)^4) = 1.1675.

So the Icarus Lascannon is 16.75% more likely to blow up the Vendetta outright. If you played 63 games, a Quad-gun would blow up the Vendetta outright ~6 times, and the Icarus Lascannon would accomplish this ~7 times.

This is a very tiny difference, because killing the target outright is very rare. That's why nobody cares about interceptor fire from a single unit. It almost never matters.

Your math actually agrees with me - I rounded 9.4 something up to 10 and also showed a 11% chance for the lascannon.
I also said there was about a 1.5% difference...
So instead of correcting my math you actually just agreed with it. :-)

 FirePainter wrote:
Okay so the AV 12 flyer comes in more than 48" away from my quad gun. So for a heldrake that means its not toasting anything with its flamer. The stormraven can fire its missiles (lascannons if its got them never seen it personally). Your vendettas can shot there lascannons but thats 3 shots that I am not to worried about in all honesty. And what ever is dropped out of the raven or vendetta is out of range of my army as well so they can happily claim an objective and not shoot at anything

Yes the lascannon has a 1% greater chance to explode a AV 12 flyer in 1 shot. That 1% is not enough for me to give up the 4 shot potential of the quadgun.

your missing the point. the purpose of the intercepter is the pre-emptive strike. this is designed to shoot the incoming flyer BEFORE it gets to shoot or drop it's load. if your not worried about losing a land raider or a manticore or something like that to 3 las cannon shots, than I will be perfectly happy to oblige you in killing them. The payload of troops is also not designed to be dropped on the turn they come in so being perfectly free to move and drop them in my following turn exactly where they need to be is also perfectly fine with me. You seem to forget that that pre-emptive strike CANNNOT be saved to shoot at the end of my movement phase in following turns after I am already on the table.
4 shots out of which an average of only 3 will hit and of those 3, only a single glance if you are really lucky, I am much more willing to have come at me than a single shot hitting on a 2+ ad penning on a 4+ with a much higher chance of destroying me.

Again you are ignoring the math that has been presented by others. The quadgun has been shown to be better overall including the pre-emptive strike interceptor shot. And if placed mid-field there will be very few areas of the board available to your flyers that still present a threat and are out of range of the quadgun. Also you continue to compare un-equal things. I could say that my BS 5 fireblade will hit 35/36 times (almost all 4 shots) so thats 4 hits and 1.33 pens/glances as opposed to your 0.5 pens/glances. Oh look the quad gun comes out on top even on interceptor it will do more damage not better damage but more damage. I will state again that this game is played to the law of averages and the quadgun is superior in that regard.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 FirePainter wrote:
Okay so the AV 12 flyer comes in more than 48" away from my quad gun. So for a heldrake that means its not toasting anything with its flamer. The stormraven can fire its missiles (lascannons if its got them never seen it personally). Your vendettas can shot there lascannons but thats 3 shots that I am not to worried about in all honesty. And what ever is dropped out of the raven or vendetta is out of range of my army as well so they can happily claim an objective and not shoot at anything

Yes the lascannon has a 1% greater chance to explode a AV 12 flyer in 1 shot. That 1% is not enough for me to give up the 4 shot potential of the quadgun.

your missing the point. the purpose of the intercepter is the pre-emptive strike. this is designed to shoot the incoming flyer BEFORE it gets to shoot or drop it's load. if your not worried about losing a land raider or a manticore or something like that to 3 las cannon shots, than I will be perfectly happy to oblige you in killing them. The payload of troops is also not designed to be dropped on the turn they come in so being perfectly free to move and drop them in my following turn exactly where they need to be is also perfectly fine with me. You seem to forget that that pre-emptive strike CANNNOT be saved to shoot at the end of my movement phase in following turns after I am already on the table.
4 shots out of which an average of only 3 will hit and of those 3, only a single glance if you are really lucky, I am much more willing to have come at me than a single shot hitting on a 2+ ad penning on a 4+ with a much higher chance of destroying me.

Stormravens can drop their troops before you get to shoot interceptor.

 EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I just proved otherwise. With actual math. Mind showing your work?

Yes, page 74 of the rulebook. You can spout out random numbers based on faulty information all day but that does not change facts or the rules as written

My quote - for context - was responding to you saying

The math still shows the LC as the better option for taking out AV 12 flyers before they can shoot or unload than the AC.

Which a wholly incorrect statement as proven. It has literally nothing to do with page 74 of the rulebook.

This is just a lie. You forget that we are talking about the pre-emptive strike shot. NOT following turns. Whetherit is in range of the quad or not Most players dont want to drop thier troops on the turn they arrive because it will not be where they want them and if the can drop them, it would be a deep strike with the chance to mishap (except for GK dropping intercepters). you seem to forget that the quad gun will only be able to fire normally in following turns. it does NOT get to shoot at flyers at the end ofthe enemy movement phase every turn, only the turn it actually comes in. )See page 38 of the rulebook)in following turns, the flyer is free to move and shoot and drop it's troops. The pre-emptive strike shot that we are discussing is already past at this point and you arent allowed to save it for future turns when the enemy comes within range.

... And? You used a lot of words to address a point I never raised.
You said it was "very easy" (exact words) to stay out of range on the turn you move in. I disagreed, but also said that even if it was, they're doing nothing relevant that turn. Putting a flyer out of the game for 1/4 of the turns it could possibly be doing something is almost as good as killing it.

EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:The important part of interceptor is that all important pre-emptive strike. After that, it is "just" a weapon that can soot at flyers at full bs during your turn. that is why I am only addresing that first pre-emptive strike shot.

I'm also only addressing that first shot. And that first shot in pretty much all cases gives the edge to the quad-gun, not the lascannon. Using math.

You are addressing it over the course of the game. I am addressing tat first shot coming in. Your math has failed you. miserably

Oh, Vendettas can do it, too? Why don't space marines just use the Vendetta? LOL

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, Vendettas can do it, too? Why don't space marines just use the Vendetta? LOL

The rules for the two transports are essentially identical as far as that goes (again, iirc).
I believe the IG Flyer forces a dangerous terrain test if you scatter while SM ones don't, but I don't remember 100%.
And it's tangential to the current discussion.

Well, the dropping of troops during the movement phase by deep striking them is something that most players dont do. the idea is to come on, do your shooting and position yourself to drop them on turn 2 (or if the enemy skyfire stuff is taken out, fly about doing damage with shooting and drop them on the last turn to claim an objective. Getting past that all important interceptor shot when you come in allows you do do this.

as we have seen, we can discount the fake math that others are using to say that a shot that has been fired and hit it's target is more likely to pen if the BS of the model firing the shot is higher and the fake math that others are using to say that a shot that has hit and penned is more likely to do more damage if the BS of the model firing the shot is higher.
Page 74 shows that only the higher AP weapons get this.
The actual math supports me on this along with the rulebook. As long as internet bullies want to put up lies and fake math based on the lies, I will keep reposting the truth. If need be till the thread is hundreds of pages long or longer, i refuse to lie just to make someone else feel more important.

You're kind of coming off as a bit crazy accusing people of being internet bullies when all the did was post math.

I use the DS from Stormraven in conjunction with locator beacons quite frequently. Works well for things like cent devs.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Well, the dropping of troops during the movement phase by deep striking them is something that most players dont do. the idea is to come on, do your shooting and position yourself to drop them on turn 2 (or if the enemy skyfire stuff is taken out, fly about doing damage with shooting and drop them on the last turn to claim an objective. Getting past that all important interceptor shot when you come in allows you do do this.

So you actually hover to drop off your guys without deep striking them?
... interesting.

as we have seen, we can discount the fake math that others are using to say that a shot that has been fired and hit it's target is more likely to pen if the BS of the model firing the shot is higher and the fake math that others are using to say that a shot that has hit and penned is more likely to do more damage if the BS of the model firing the shot is higher.

Could you misrepresent my arguments more?
There is no fake math in this thread. I resent the accusation. Attack the equations please - prove that they're "fake".

The actual math supports me on this along with the rulebook. As long as internet bullies want to put up lies and fake math based on the lies, I will keep reposting the truth. If need be till the thread is hundreds of pages long or longer, i refuse to lie just to make someone else feel more important.

You've refused to show any actual math so far. Would you mind doing so?

However, the entire point is moot because as the quad is the better "overall" weapon in terms of being a jack of all trades and serving other purposes and against the lower armored flyers, that is the weapon most often taken in take all comers lists anyway. It is what I usually take anymore.

Please check out the site rules.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/354859.page

 EVIL INC wrote:
Edited by Manchu

Personal attack. Reported.

However, the entire point is moot because as the quad is the better "overall" weapon in terms of being a jack of all trades and serving other purposes and against the lower armored flyers, that is the weapon most often taken in take all comers lists anyway. It is what I usually take anymore.

So still no on topic response to my question of "Is there any flaw in the math I've shown? Do you have any math to support your argument?"

"Personal attack. Reported. " the mods will get agood laugh at that as it is not an attack of any kind. t is not even referencing anyone. Had I used a name, then it would have been. Read the rules a little more carefully before you make wild accusations like that and waste the mods time with fake reports.

yes, Usually I try to take out the enemy skyfire gun on turn one, or turn 2 at the latest. I usually dont disembak troops until I need to. even then, I do the math to see what exactly the unit is going to wipe out and whether or not it is worth the risk of going into hover mode. ideally, I keep them embarked until the end of the game and use them as objective takers/deniers or simply being in the enemy deployment zone. Double tasking if I can.

attack the math and the rulebook, not the poster. This is something i have always done. you might try it sometime. You claim that your math says that a shot that has been fired and hits it's target is more likely to pen the armor based on BS. You also claim that your math chows that a shot that has been fired, hit and penned the target will do more damage based on BS instead of AP. I call this fake math. it has no basis in the rules or even truth. Unless of course, you can cite where the rulebook shows that BS actually does those things as you claim..
I have shown my math that is based in the hruth and the rulebook.
i would also like for you to provide citation to support your claim that you can save the pre-emptive strike shot to use in your opponent's later turns if the flyer is out of range of the quad gun on the turn it comes into play.

Believe what you like and spam the thread forever if you like, I will continue to stand by the truth which has been backed up by the actual math and been shown to be factual through actual in-game results, and I will continue to come along and repost the truth as long as I have to.

the end result remains the same, the LC is better at the single role f destroying av12 flyers in the pre-emptive strike shot but is the weaker overall weapons because it is not as versitile as the quad gun.

It's not a belief if the math shows something to be true.

My belief is then vindicated as fact because math showsit to be true.

 EVIL INC wrote:
attack the math and the rulebook, not the poster. This is something i have always done. you might try it sometime. You claim that your math says that a shot that has been fired and hits it's target is more likely to pen the armor based on BS.

That's incorrect - I do not claim that. I've corrected you once before.

You also claim that your math chows that a shot that has been fired, hit and penned the target will do more damage based on BS instead of AP. I call this fake math. it has no basis in the rules or even truth. Unless of course, you can cite where the rulebook shows that BS actually does those things as you claim..

That's incorrect - I do not claim that. I've corrected you once before.

I have shown my math that is based in the hruth and the rulebook.

Which post? I must have missed it.

i would also like for you to provide citation to support your claim that you can save the pre-emptive strike shot to use in your opponent's later turns if the flyer is out of range of the quad gun on the turn it comes into play.

My claim? Where have I ever claimed that?

Believe what you like and spam the thread forever if you like, I will continue to stand by the truth which has been backed up by the actual math and been shown to be factual through actual in-game results, and I will continue to come along and repost the truth as long as I have to.

I don't require your belief. I do expect you to actually show your math or show the errors in my equations that I've posted. One other person attempted and we actually came out with the same numbers (or near enough to not make a difference).

the end result remains the same, the LC is better at the single role f destroying av12 flyers in the pre-emptive strike shot but is the weaker overall weapons because it is not as versitile as the quad gun.

Absolutely false - the LC is not better at destroying AV12 flyers in Interceptor. There is about a 1.5% difference which is marginal enough to be discounted.

rigeld2 wrote:
Absolutely false - the LC is not better at destroying AV12 flyers in Interceptor. There is about a 1.5% difference which is marginal enough to be discounted.

Particularly when you consider that the quad-gun is much more likely to achieve other useful results on the damage table. You might not have managed to kill the Heldrake -- but if you destroyed its baleflamer, that's probably worth more than the slim chance you would have blown it up with the Lascannon.

Corollax wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Absolutely false - the LC is not better at destroying AV12 flyers in Interceptor. There is about a 1.5% difference which is marginal enough to be discounted.

Particularly when you consider that the quad-gun is much more likely to achieve other useful results on the damage table. You might not have managed to kill the Heldrake -- but if you destroyed its baleflamer, that's probably worth more than the slim chance you would have blown it up with the Lascannon.

Sure - the 1.5% difference is only when considering explosion results. If you count anything 4+ on the table the Quad Gun has a significant advantage over the LC.

generally, the quad gun is the better weapon to take. Especially if you are making a take all comers list. The only think that makes the LC stand out is the "essentially" unlimited range in normal games and the ability to take av12 flyers out faster on the pre-emptive strike (as has been shown through the math).

This is why after doing the math and finding it to be correct through actual usage of both in games, I usually stick with the quad gun because of it being the jack of all trades and serving more and multiple uses.

 EVIL INC wrote:
generally, the quad gun is the better weapon to take. Especially if you are making a take all comers list. The only think that makes the LC stand out is the "essentially" unlimited range in normal games and the ability to take av12 flyers out faster on the pre-emptive strike (as has been shown through the math).

To clarify - are you claiming the ~1.5% difference to support the bolded statement?

 EVIL INC wrote:
My belief is then vindicated as fact because math showsit to be true.

Didn't the math just show it to be false?

No it did not. it vindicated me.
The math does not allow you to "save' intercepter shots to be used in later turns when the target is in range. The math does not show that a higher BS makes a shot that hits more likely to pen. The math does not show that BS causes a shot that pens as more likely to destroy a target.
The rules and the math DOES show that AP DOES make a shot that pens more likely to destroy a target. the rules and the math DOES show that you are not able to "save" intercepter shots to be used in later turns. the rules and math DOES show that you have z-e-r-o chance of hitting, penning or destroying a target that is out of range. It also DOES show that a single penning shot from a LC is more likely to get the results you desire than a single glance (pen if the player is super lucky) from an autocannon.

it also DOES show that the quad gun is the better weapon to take in a take all comers list (and in most other lists as well) because of it's greater versitility and overall usefuless.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The math does not allow you to "save' intercepter shots to be used in later turns when the target is in range. The math does not show that a higher BS makes a shot that hits more likely to pen. The math does not show that BS causes a shot that pens as more likely to destroy a target.

Strawman arguments - no one has said those things are true.

It also DOES show that a single penning shot from a LC is more likely to get the results you desire than a single glance (pen if the player is super lucky) from an autocannon.

So you are actually using the ~1.5% difference to make your argument? Seriously? It's a yes or no question.

again, the rules do not allow you to "save" intecepter shots for use in later turns.
they also not not give a hit from a higher BS models any more likely to pen. They do not cause penning hits to do any more damage based on on BS.
The rules DO allow for a AP2 weapon to do more damage when it pens.
the rules also do not allow a quad gun to shoot at, pen or damage targets that are out of range.

So I will repeat the important part that the thread 's OP is asking....

The quad is the better "overall" weapon in terms of being a jack of all trades and serving other purposes and against the lower armored flyers, that is the weapon most often taken in take all comers lists anyway. It is what I usually take anymore.

 EVIL INC wrote:
again, the rules do not allow you to "save" intecepter shots for use in later turns.
they also not not give a hit from a higher BS models any more likely to pen. They do not cause penning hits to do any more damage based on on BS.
The rules DO allow for a AP2 weapon to do more damage when it pens.
the rules also do not allow a quad gun to shoot at, pen or damage targets that are out of range.

Straw man arguments - every single one. No one is saying otherwise.

Please answer my question.

The math showed that the quad gun and icarus are in a statistical dead heat for a one volley kill. I have no idea what this "saving interceptor" stuff is about. 48" range might as well be infinity on most tables. Looking at it again, the Icarus isn't even twin linked, so to hell with that weapon.

Provide citation please. BS simply does not cause a hit to be more likely to pen nor does it make a pen more likely to do damage. Page 74 DOES show where a higher AP makes a pen more likely to destroy a target. page 38 shows that the interceptor shot can only be fired on the turn the flyer enters play.
The range on the profile of the quad gun on page 114 shows that a flyer entering play and ending it's turn more than 48" from the gun cannot be fired at by that gun using interceptor fire.

so once more, to answer the OP...
The quad is the better "overall" weapon in terms of being a jack of all trades and serving other purposes and against the lower armored flyers, that is the weapon most often taken in take all comers lists anyway. It is what I usually take anymore.

Martel732, that was in response to postings of the quad gun being able to destroy flyers entering play at the end of the opponent's movement phase when it ended it's entry turn movement phase out of range of the quad gun.

And another thread is derailed into Evil Inc with his head in the sand yelling about arguments that were never brought up.

OT: the better gun for all concerns except a 1.5% difference is the quadgun.

It is better at damaging an AV12 flyer on interceptor and on subsequent turns. Yes it has a 1.5% less chance to explode but it will do more damage on average then the lascannon for all intents and purposes

The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Yes, but don't worry! You still have Tau allies, right?

Logged in JUST in the hopes of clearing this mess up.

Evil - The remarks of higher BS weapons causing more penetrating hits than lower BS weapons is due to higher BS weapons hitting more. The scenario in question is - a BS3 weapon and BS4 weapon of the same Str and AP fire at a target. Due to landing more shots, the BS4 weapon results in more glances/pens than the BS3 weapon.

Further, the remarks on the range of the quad gun. On a 6ft (72in) by 4ft (48in) table, placing the quad gun the maximum 12'' up assuming a short-edge deployment and in the middle of the deployment zone (24'' from either table end) gives it a 60'' coverage of the board. To enter outside of this zone is possible, but would neuter the effectiveness of the flier in question. It effectively will have done nothing for two turns minimum (one turn in reserves, one turn entering but remaining 48'' away from the Quad gun).

Nobody is saying BS affects the damage result of a shot after it hit.

Nobody is claiming you can reserve Interceptor shots.

Nobody is claiming you can fire Interceptor in any turn other than when the flier entered play.

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

They do not add that caviot. Supposedly, the quad can easily take it out on the pre-emptive strike shot as easily as an av 11 flyer.

The point is that when you have twin linked BS plays a lesser role. So as most players put a BS 5 model firing the gun, the effectiveness of the LC goes up when compared to puting a BS 3 or 4 model on the gun. "doing the math" with a bs 3 or 4 gives you different results than whe you 'do the math" with a bs 5 or better models firing it. In this way, a person can artifically alter the results to favor one over the other that does not match actual usage of the BS 5 that is usually used.

re-read the thead, you wil see that those claimshave been made in some cases and implied in all of them.

of course, you COULD always allow me to have the right to use the quad gun in my army when i build a list because I feel that it is the better of the two weapons overall, just as i allow you (i dont have the right to tell you what to use or not use) and let me make my own choices in building my armies.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Provide citation please. BS simply does not cause a hit to be more likely to pen nor does it make a pen more likely to do damage. Page 74 DOES show where a higher AP makes a pen more likely to destroy a target.

Reported for trolling. This thread is absurd, and should be locked. If EVIL INC had some sort of problem with basic math, that would be one thing, but that doesn't explain the repetitive posts ignoring everything that resembles an honest discussion.

If BS doesn't matter, why don't you put a BS3 mook on your lascannon instead of wasting a BS5 character? If it does matter, why don't you respond to the repeated civil questions and points that have been raised regarding your "math"?

rigeld2 wrote:You've refused to show any actual math so far. Would you mind doing so?

rigeld2 wrote:So still no on topic response to my question of "Is there any flaw in the math I've shown? Do you have any math to support your argument?"

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
generally, the quad gun is the better weapon to take. Especially if you are making a take all comers list. The only think that makes the LC stand out is the "essentially" unlimited range in normal games and the ability to take av12 flyers out faster on the pre-emptive strike (as has been shown through the math).

To clarify - are you claiming the ~1.5% difference to support the bolded statement?

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
The math does not allow you to "save' intercepter shots to be used in later turns when the target is in range. The math does not show that a higher BS makes a shot that hits more likely to pen. The math does not show that BS causes a shot that pens as more likely to destroy a target.

Strawman arguments - no one has said those things are true.

It also DOES show that a single penning shot from a LC is more likely to get the results you desire than a single glance (pen if the player is super lucky) from an autocannon.

So you are actually using the ~1.5% difference to make your argument? Seriously? It's a yes or no question.

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
again, the rules do not allow you to "save" intecepter shots for use in later turns.
they also not not give a hit from a higher BS models any more likely to pen. They do not cause penning hits to do any more damage based on on BS.
The rules DO allow for a AP2 weapon to do more damage when it pens.
the rules also do not allow a quad gun to shoot at, pen or damage targets that are out of range.

Straw man arguments - every single one. No one is saying otherwise.

Please answer my question.

 EVIL INC wrote:

They do not add that caviot. Supposedly, the quad can easily take it out on the pre-emptive strike shot as easily as an av 11 flyer.

The point is that when you have twin linked BS plays a lesser role. So as most players put a BS 5 model firing the gun, the effectiveness of the LC goes up when compared to puting a BS 3 or 4 model on the gun. "doing the math" with a bs 3 or 4 gives you different results than whe you 'do the math" with a bs 5 or better models firing it. In this way, a person can artifically alter the results to favor one over the other that does not match actual usage of the BS 5 that is usually used.

Which is precisely the point. Utilizing the same BS, the Quad is better than the Lascannon. This had been repeatedly proven. The only benefit to the Las over the Quad, assuming both hit, is a 1.5% better chance at an explosion result.

re-read the thead, you wil see that those claimshave been made in some cases and implied in all of them.

I've read the thread. In it's entirety. None of this has been stated by anyone but yourself.

of course, you COULD always allow me to have the right to use the quad gun in my army when i build a list because I feel that it is the better of the two weapons overall, just as i allow you (i dont have the right to tell you what to use or not use) and let me make my own choices in building my armies.

asking for citation of a rule is hardly trolling. if it were, you would need to report almost every single member of the site, including the mods and admins.

check the math, a bs3 model (i refuse to use your racist term) on a quad gun hits an average of 3 times. 4 if he is lucky. a BS guy of 5 hits an average of 4 times. So you are only adding a +25%. On the LC, the BS of 5 hits on anything but a one so you are adding a 33.3333 chance of hitting.
After that, the chances of penning and damaging remain the same regardless of BS according to the rulebook. That 8+% increase makes the difference and tips the scales.

If you are going to call one "side" for being repetitive, you need to point the finger at the other "side" as well for doing the exact same thing.
i have been courteous and polite through the whole thing despite being called names and personally attacked. I will continue to remain 100% within the site rules, remain courteous nd polite, but I will also stand by the truth.
I will maintain that although the LC may be better at popping AV 12 on the pre-emptive strike, it is the lesser weapon in terms of looking at the big picture. The jack of all trades quad gun is just more usefull overall.

Guys, after reading this train-wreck of a thread, I would like to point out that maybe (and this is not a personal attack, just a hypothesis based on evidence in this thread) EVIL INC does not actually know math very well and doesn't understand what everyone is saying?

Fair enough. Hanlon's Razor agrees with you. But then we either need to catch him up on a decade of basic math instruction, or agree to ignore him so as to avoid having our threads derailed.

Evil INC has, in a past thread, mentioned being on the Autism Spectrum which helps explain his difficulties in expressing himself relative to the discussion. This doesn't excuse his refusal to answer questions, provide evidence, or his tendency to create strawmen, but it does explain it.

calgar, math isnt my strong suit. But have you ever heard the political expression of"statistics dont lie but people who use them do"/.This comes into play because the statistics/math can easily be artifically engineered to say almost anything you want them to. You can hand pick 10 people, coach them on what to say as an answer and then "do a poll". This 'poll can show that 90% of U.S. citizens feel this way. likewise, a politician can hold a convention and it be a total flop with only 10 people showing up.The politician can then twist it by making up some sort of slanted poll to say that there was a great turnot and that 50% of his supporters were (insert "minority".
In this particuler ca we saw that by ignoring actual usage and inserting a BS that is much lower than what is actually used in practice, the statistics were artificially changed to tip the scales towards one side (that 8+% was enough to do that).

My math shows that at BS 5 and having a much longer range, the LC is better at taking out AV 12 on the pre-emptive shot. The 8+% being added to by the range in that in normal games it is impossible end the movement phase outof range (you can be out of sight or get cover saves or whatnot, but not be out of range.
My actual usage has shown me that thi is true as well by actually playing the games and rolling the dice and watching the opponents remove their flyers or laugh as I fail to glance or pen. I trust what I see with my own eyes more than random numbers posted by someone online that can be artificially engineered.

the whole point is moot anyway because the OP was wanting to know what the better option is and that is something we ALL agree on. the quad gun is the better option because it serves more purposes and is more versatile.

You (not you in particular by anyone) can agree with me or not. I dont care. I respect your right to what you believe in and respond to you politely and courteously treating you with respect and dignity. Generally being on the level and giving you a square deal. In return, I am called all kinds of names,vilified, ganged up on and abused in every way imaginable online and it is not only allowed but encouraged because I am the outsider as a newcomer to the site and have not built up the years of personal friendships with the members on and off the site.. I should have the right to have and voice my opinion so long as I remain within the rules (and I have ALWAYS done so), just as anyone else does. So if you dont agree with me on a topic, then just dont agree, there is not need for the personal attacks.

Ok, so out of curiosity, and a desire to avoid doing my actual job, I threw together a MATLAB script that would run through the dice rolls for this scenario. The numbers are probably a bit off because it's using a pseudo-random number generator for each dice roll, not a truly random D6. Even with 100,000 trials I still get some variability in the results, but I think these numbers are ok +/-0.2% or so. The lascannon numbers are easy to compare to check my accuracy, but the quad gun is complicated due to accounting for the chances of kills through hull points, including additional hull points caused by multiple Immobilized results.

Anyway, the results are somewhat surprising.

I'm running it as a quad gun vs. an Icarus lascannon using our gold-standard, an AV12 3HP flyer, as the target. Regardless of ballistic skill, the quad gun is the clear winner in terms of percent chance of destroying the target, either through Explodes results, or Hull Points. All percentages are plus or minus about 0.2%:

At BS3, the quad gun has a 4.1% chance of a wreck through stripping 3+ hull points and an 8% chance of an Explode result. The lascannon has an 8.4% chance of an Explode result. So overall at BS3 the quad gun is ahead here, 12.1% vs 8.4% to destroy the target.

At BS4, the quad gun goes up to 6.4% to wreck, 9.5% to Explode, vs. 11% to Explode for the lascannon. So overall at BS4 it's 15.9% vs. 11%, advantage quad gun again.

At BS5, the quad gun goes up again, 8.1% to wreck, 10.4% to explode, vs. 13.9% to explode for the lascannon. So overall at BS5 it's 18.5% for the quad gun vs. 13.9% for the lascannon.

Even at higher ballistic skill, the quad gun's rate of fire makes a difference. A marginal increases in the chance to hit increase both the likelihood of an Explode result, AND the likelihood that you might strip off enough hull points to wreck the vehicle regardless of damage results, vs. just increasing the chance to explode in the case of the lascannon. The chance of getting multiple Immobilized results is small but not negligible for this comparison, bumping the quad gun's percent chance of wrecking the target by 0.4% or so. For instance, at BS5 you're going from a 7.7% chance of a wreck to an 8.1% chance just due to Immobilized results, which is a relative change of about 5%.

So against this target, at least, the quad gun is conclusively better than the Icarus at scoring a kill with your Interceptor shots whether your ballistic skill is 3, 4, or 5.

How do you equate other factors into that? For example the ease with which players just mesure out and ensure that the incoming flyer is just out of range of the quad gun and still be at100% eficiency in terms of firing it's shots and lining itself up for the next turn's run?
I say ease because it is easy to do. The only time I have an issue is when the opponent also has multiple intercepter riptides and even then, I am usually able to remain out if intercepter range and maintain max efficiency.

On the other math, I will remain convinced by results I have seen with my own eyes so we will just have to agree to disagree (which is the stance i have maintained throughout this thread (and any other issue where another and i just cant see eye to eye). That way, we can maintai the civility I have fostered without any ill will.

 EVIL INC wrote:
calgar, math isnt my strong suit. But have you ever heard the political expression of"statistics dont lie but people who use them do"/.This comes into play because the statistics/math can easily be artifically engineered to say almost anything you want them to. You can hand pick 10 people, coach them on what to say as an answer and then "do a poll". This 'poll can show that 90% of U.S. citizens feel this way. likewise, a politician can hold a convention and it be a total flop with only 10 people showing up.The politician can then twist it by making up some sort of slanted poll to say that there was a great turnot and that 50% of his supporters were (insert "minority".
In this particuler ca we saw that by ignoring actual usage and inserting a BS that is much lower than what is actually used in practice, the statistics were artificially changed to tip the scales towards one side (that 8+% was enough to do that).

So essentially, what you are saying is that because you don't understand the math being used, you are going to assume that it is "slanted," or "artificially engineered?" If anything, the comparisons you drew are slanted, because you have compared a BS3 quad gun to a BS5 lascannon.

It's one thing to have a poor understanding of math. There are many people who aren't good at math, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's another thing to pick a fight based on math, pretend you know what you're talking about, and refuse to accept when people who do know what they're doing actually run the numbers. That's called trolling.

If you're worried about somebody "artificially engineering random numbers" at you online, and you don't know what those numbers mean, then simply take my word for it. As someone who is proficient in PhD-level statistics work, I will certify that the numbers people have posted in this thread are accurate, and I honestly don't give two turds which gun actually comes out on top. According to the math, the lascannon gets a "first shot interceptor kill" in 7 out of 63 games, and the quad gun gets that kill in 6 out of 63 games. No funny business with percentages, that's actual units. The difference between the two is absolutely negligible.

the whole point is moot anyway because the OP was wanting to know what the better option is and that is something we ALL agree on. the quad gun is the better option because it serves more purposes and is more versatile.

Awesome.

You (not you in particular by anyone) can agree with me or not. I dont care. I respect your right to what you believe in and respond to you politely and courteously treating you with respect and dignity. Generally being on the level and giving you a square deal. In return, I am called all kinds of names,vilified, ganged up on and abused in every way imaginable online and it is not only allowed but encouraged because I am the outsider as a newcomer to the site and have not built up the years of personal friendships with the members on and off the site.. I should have the right to have and voice my opinion so long as I remain within the rules (and I have ALWAYS done so), just as anyone else does. So if you dont agree with me on a topic, then just dont agree, there is not need for the personal attacks.

1) Repeatedly ignoring every reasonable statement you disagree with is not respecting someone.
2) Telling somebody that their factual, mathematical statements are their "opinion" is not respecting them. Doubly so if it's only because you don't understand the math.
3) Loudly proclaiming that you are treating someone with respect and dignity does not automatically mean you are treating them with respect and dignity, and it does not negate the above two points.
4) If you were actually treating people with respect and dignity in this thread, you wouldn't need to loudly proclaim how respectful you're being.
5) Loudly proclaiming that you are being persecuted while following the forum rules does not automatically mean that you aren't being a troll.
6) If you were actually being reasonable, you wouldn't need to loudly proclaim how reasonable you are every time you post.

Try to remain on topic and keep the personal attacks and insults out of the threads. If you really feel the neeed to continue with them, take them to PM so they are not cluttering the thread.

as I said you do not have to agree with me but according to the site rules, you have to permit me the right to post my facts without personally attacking me or resorting to name calling. You can post your own "facts" but as you pointed out we do the dance where we both repeat ourselves forever (you are just as guilty as i if you participate in it. We can do that as thhe rules allow for it so long as it remains civil. but it does get old.

i will continue to believe my own math and actual results I have see with my own eyes over extended periods of time. You are simply not going to convince me that what i have seen with my own eyes is not true. Sorry bout that. As i have said throughout, We can agree to disagree a keep it civil. I have been polite and courteous throughout and will continue to do so.

 Roboute wrote:
If you're worried about somebody "artificially engineering random numbers" at you online, and you don't know what those numbers mean, then simply take my word for it. As someone who is proficient in PhD-level statistics work, I will certify that the numbers people have posted in this thread are accurate, and I honestly don't give two turds which gun actually comes out on top. According to the math, the lascannon gets a "first shot interceptor kill" in 7 out of 63 games, and the quad gun gets that kill in 6 out of 63 games. No funny business with percentages, that's actual units. The difference between the two is absolutely negligible.

Sorry for being selfish, but I've gotta ask -- I derived that 6/63 vs. 7/63 result via algebra. I chose the denominator so that the difference in results would be a whole number and that rounding errors would be minimized (the lascannon didn't even need to be rounded). Are you now confirming it via your statistics? If so, that's incredibly satisfying to see. I love when the numbers come out cleanly and consistently like that.

Thanks.

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Except, you know, it's not.

Why is it? Because it has an invul save? That just means it doesn't have to snap shot next turn.
Because it has IWND? I'm totally scared of a 33% chance to regain a single hull point per turn.

Why is it so useless against a Heldrake but fine against a Storm Raven?

Pretty sure he's arguing that IWND makes it less useful. You know what's even better than IWND? Infinite hull points. Killing a vehicle with infinite hull points basically means hunting for explode results. Which is like the math we did earlier for killing via interceptor -- you know, where the lascannon only barely outperformed the Quad Gun, at the expense of all those lost hull points and other miscellaneous damage table results.

But IWND isn't worth infinite hull points. It's not even worth an additional hull point per turn. People seriously overestimate its impact.

 EVIL INC wrote:
calgar, math isnt my strong suit. But have you ever heard the political expression of"statistics dont lie but people who use them do"/.This comes into play because the statistics/math can easily be artifically engineered to say almost anything you want them to. You can hand pick 10 people, coach them on what to say as an answer and then "do a poll". This 'poll can show that 90% of U.S. citizens feel this way. likewise, a politician can hold a convention and it be a total flop with only 10 people showing up.The politician can then twist it by making up some sort of slanted poll to say that there was a great turnot and that 50% of his supporters were (insert "minority".
In this particuler ca we saw that by ignoring actual usage and inserting a BS that is much lower than what is actually used in practice, the statistics were artificially changed to tip the scales towards one side (that 8+% was enough to do that).

Much lower?
You realize that with BS5 the quad gun retains it's supremacy, right? And did you ever make that clear objection prior to this post?
And the math used here isn't open to interpretation (like the statistics you're claiming) - they're absolutely verifiable fact.

My math shows that at BS 5 and having a much longer range, the LC is better at taking out AV 12 on the pre-emptive shot.

I was polite enough to show my work. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.

I trust what I see with my own eyes more than random numbers posted by someone online that can be artificially engineered.

I posted numbers and equations. You can independently verify those numbers. I'm making nothing up and artificially engineering nothing.
Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

In return, I am called all kinds of names,vilified, ganged up on and abused in every way imaginable online

Citation required. You've made this statement before and never proven it. Please do so.

and it is not only allowed but encouraged because I am the outsider as a newcomer to the site and have not built up the years of personal friendships with the members on and off the site..

I'm sure you've complained of this mistreatment to the mods? Many of whom is bet are not the friends of the people vilifying you (if they exist).

I should have the right to have and voice my opinion so long as I remain within the rules (and I have ALWAYS done so), just as anyone else does. So if you dont agree with me on a topic, then just dont agree, there is not need for the personal attacks.

It's a good thing there haven't been any then, isn't there?

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
The Math

Awesome. 100,000 trials is enough to assume the numbers are functionally equivalent to the "pure" theoretical calculations. I think we can safely assume these results reflect reality.

The factor that hasn't been talked about yet is points cost. The lascannon costs 35 points (I think?) and the quad gun costs 50 points. What does that extra 15 points buy? In addition to slightly (~4% greater) effectiveness vs. AV12 on the first shot, the quad gun brings greater effectiveness vs. all other targets except heldrakes, including large increases in effectiveness vs. MCs and most non-flyer targets. Rather than go through Labmouse's method of calculating exactly how points efficient each gun is vs. different targets, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the quad gun is overall more points efficient, including its wider range of targets.

The discrepancy gets even greater if you factor in the cost of a BS5 character to man the lascannon. The quad gun, being twin-linked, doesn't really need more than BS4 to do its job. Given that a BS4 quad gun is still more effective than a BS5 lascannon (15.9% vs. 13.9%, based on Calgar's math), the cost of the character makes the BS5 lascannon vastly less points-efficient. Skipping the character would at least keep the efficiency ratio within the same ballpark. Why not use a simple BS4 Marine/Veteran/Guardian to do the job, and spend those extra points elsewhere?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corollax wrote:

 Roboute wrote:
If you're worried about somebody "artificially engineering random numbers" at you online, and you don't know what those numbers mean, then simply take my word for it. As someone who is proficient in PhD-level statistics work, I will certify that the numbers people have posted in this thread are accurate, and I honestly don't give two turds which gun actually comes out on top. According to the math, the lascannon gets a "first shot interceptor kill" in 7 out of 63 games, and the quad gun gets that kill in 6 out of 63 games. No funny business with percentages, that's actual units. The difference between the two is absolutely negligible.

Sorry for being selfish, but I've gotta ask -- I derived that 6/63 vs. 7/63 result via algebra. I chose the denominator so that the difference in results would be a whole number and that rounding errors would be minimized (the lascannon didn't even need to be rounded). Are you now confirming it via your statistics? If so, that's incredibly satisfying to see. I love when the numbers come out cleanly and consistently like that.

Thanks.

I didn't confirm it via statistics, but I did run through your calculations and made sure everything added up right. Citing my training was simply a way to make it clear that I know enough about basic algebra and probability to adequately fact-check your calculations.

However, Calgar actually did run the stats. If you look at the BS4 results in his posts, you'll see that same 1.5% advantage for the lascannon based purely on Explode results (9.5% vs 11%). So yes, your math was statistically supported!

rigeld2 wrote:

Much lower?
You realize that with BS5 the quad gun retains it's supremacy, right? And did you ever make that clear objection prior to this post?
And the math used here isn't open to interpretation (like the statistics you're claiming) - they're absolutely verifiable fact.
Whatever you say man. Pumping different numbers into equations gives different results. believe what you like. As i said, I will stick with cold hard facts that i have seen with my own eyes over an extended period of time. Like I have said all along, nothing personal, I have no problem agreeing to disagree but i'm not going to try to cram my point of view down your throat trying to force you to believe it. i expect the same respect.


I was polite enough to show my work. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.
i have done so on several occasions. Like i said, you dont have to believe my numbers any more than i believe yours. i will stick with what I have actually seen with my own eyes. You are free to believe what you want.

I posted numbers and equations. You can independently verify those numbers. I'm making nothing up and artificially engineering nothing.
Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?
I posted my own numbers that are not engineered. yes, a confirmation bias is when you go to confirm a hypothesis and stop when you get the result you want. As i did not have any desire for either to be better than the other, I was totally open minded as to which would be better. I also did not stop at a mere game or two. My results are the result of putting them into practice since the day 6th edition came out.

Citation required. You've made this statement before and never proven it. Please do so.
Read the thread. many posts, some of yours included. No offence taken, I know many get worked up in the heat of the monent and i forgive you.

I'm sure you've complained of this mistreatment to the mods? Many of whom is bet are not the friends of the people vilifying you (if they exist).
i may end up submitting reports. I dont do that rashly or out of hand.


It's a good thing there haven't been any then, isn't there?
Actually, there have been many. it will not cause me to go to that level though. i will remain civil, polite and courteous rather than break the rules in that way.

EVIL INC wrote:Try to remain on topic and keep the personal attacks and insults out of the threads. If you really feel the neeed to continue with them, take them to PM so they are not cluttering the thread.

as I said you do not have to agree with me but according to the site rules, you have to permit me the right to post my facts without personally attacking me or resorting to name calling. You can post your own "facts" but as you pointed out we do the dance where we both repeat ourselves forever (you are just as guilty as i if you participate in it. We can do that as thhe rules allow for it so long as it remains civil. but it does get old.

i will continue to believe my own math and actual results I have see with my own eyes over extended periods of time. You are simply not going to convince me that what i have seen with my own eyes is not true. Sorry bout that. As i have said throughout, We can agree to disagree a keep it civil. I have been polite and courteous throughout and will continue to do so.

Roboute wrote:5) Loudly proclaiming that you are being persecuted while following the forum rules does not automatically mean that you aren't being a troll.
6) If you were actually being reasonable, you wouldn't need to loudly proclaim how reasonable you are every time you post.

You accidentally just copied and pasted 2 quotes that are not relevent to the thread without adding anything into them. let us hope a mod doesnt see it as that is legally considered spam and against the site rules.
Just trying to help a friend out as you still havetime to add something to it that is on topic before a mod sees it and reprimands you..

It is funny to see this sort of vitriol and utter hatred towards another human being over a GAME. There will always be disagreements on what a player thinks is "better" than another. Heck, we even have it in the fluff of the game as many orks will even fight over what color akes a vehicle 'go fasta". lol

To sum the thread up for the OP, the quad gunis the better weapon to take overall in a take all comers list because it is the more well rounded choice that has the most uses.

 Roboute wrote:
Awesome. 100,000 trials is enough to assume the numbers are functionally equivalent to the "pure" theoretical calculations. I think we can safely assume these results reflect reality.

The factor that hasn't been talked about yet is points cost. The lascannon costs 35 points (I think?) and the quad gun costs 50 points. What does that extra 15 points buy? In addition to slightly (~4% greater) effectiveness vs. AV12 on the first shot, the quad gun brings greater effectiveness vs. all other targets except heldrakes, including large increases in effectiveness vs. MCs and most non-flyer targets. Rather than go through Labmouse's method of calculating exactly how points efficient each gun is vs. different targets, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the quad gun is overall more points efficient, including its wider range of targets.

The discrepancy gets even greater if you factor in the cost of a BS5 character to man the lascannon. The quad gun, being twin-linked, doesn't really need more than BS4 to do its job. Given that a BS4 quad gun is still more effective than a BS5 lascannon (15.9% vs. 13.9%, based on Calgar's math), the cost of the character makes the BS5 lascannon vastly less points-efficient. Skipping the character would at least keep the efficiency ratio within the same ballpark. Why not use a simple BS4 Marine/Veteran/Guardian to do the job, and spend those extra points elsewhere?

<snip>

Sorry for being selfish, but I've gotta ask -- I derived that 6/63 vs. 7/63 result via algebra. I chose the denominator so that the difference in results would be a whole number and that rounding errors would be minimized (the lascannon didn't even need to be rounded). Are you now confirming it via your statistics? If so, that's incredibly satisfying to see. I love when the numbers come out cleanly and consistently like that.

Thanks.

I didn't confirm it via statistics, but I did run through your calculations and made sure everything added up right. Citing my training was simply a way to make it clear that I know enough about basic algebra and probability to adequately fact-check your calculations.

However, Calgar actually did run the stats. If you look at the BS4 results in his posts, you'll see that same 1.5% advantage for the lascannon based purely on Explode results (9.5% vs 11%). So yes, your math was statistically supported!

You all might be very happy to know there is a little button at the bottom right hand corner that let's you ignore posts from fellow users you cannot help but argue with. I would very much suggest using this feature.

Sounds like a good idea. By all means ignore me. that way I can make reasonable posts that the majority of the site will see without having to worry about being stalked by a select few.

 EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Much lower?
You realize that with BS5 the quad gun retains it's supremacy, right? And did you ever make that clear objection prior to this post?
And the math used here isn't open to interpretation (like the statistics you're claiming) - they're absolutely verifiable fact.

Whatever you say man. Pumping different numbers into equations gives different results. believe what you like. As i said, I will stick with cold hard facts that i have seen with my own eyes over an extended period of time. Like I have said all along, nothing personal, I have no problem agreeing to disagree but i'm not going to try to cram my point of view down your throat trying to force you to believe it. i expect the same respect.

Yes, pumping different numbers into equations produces different results.
The numbers I provided were
Number of shots * chance to hit * chance to pen * chance for desired result.

If you disagree with that equation please say so.

I was polite enough to show my work. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.

i have done so on several occasions. Like i said, you dont have to believe my numbers any more than i believe yours. i will stick with what I have actually seen with my own eyes. You are free to believe what you want.

I went back and re-read every one of your posts. Every one. Would you believe there isn't a single equation that you wrote in any of them?

I posted numbers and equations. You can independently verify those numbers. I'm making nothing up and artificially engineering nothing.
Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

I posted my own numbers that are not engineered. yes, a confirmation bias is when you go to confirm a hypothesis and stop when you get the result you want. As i did not have any desire for either to be better than the other, I was totally open minded as to which would be better. I also did not stop at a mere game or two. My results are the result of putting them into practice since the day 6th edition came out.

You've used both in how many games? And can you link to the post - or just the page number in this thread - where you posted your numbers?
I must have missed it the first and second time through.

Citation required. You've made this statement before and never proven it. Please do so.

Read the thread. many posts, some of yours included. No offence taken, I know many get worked up in the heat of the monent and i forgive you.

No, that's not good enough. You've directly insulted me by saying I'm being rude and insulting and harassing you. You need to prove your statement, in public (where you accused me).

I'm sure you've complained of this mistreatment to the mods? Many of whom is bet are not the friends of the people vilifying you (if they exist).

i may end up submitting reports. I dont do that rashly or out of hand.

I hope you do. I'm begging you to actually.

EVIL INC wrote:You accidentally just copied and pasted 2 quotes that are not relevent to the thread without adding anything into them. let us hope a mod doesnt see it as that is legally considered spam and against the site rules.
Just trying to help a friend out as you still havetime to add something to it that is on topic before a mod sees it and reprimands you..

It is funny to see this sort of vitriol and utter hatred towards another human being over a GAME. There will always be disagreements on what a player thinks is "better" than another. Heck, we even have it in the fluff of the game as many orks will even fight over what color akes a vehicle 'go fasta". lol

To sum the thread up for the OP, the quad gunis the better weapon to take overall in a take all comers list because it is the more well rounded choice that has the most uses.

To sum up the thread for the OP, the quad gun is the better weapon to take in every situation, against every possible type of flier, and against a variety of other unit types. The only situation in which an Icarus is more effective is a situation where a flier enters the board and stays out of range of the quad gun in its first move. Against a well-placed quad gun, most fliers will be sacrificing a turn of effective shooting to do so. The likelihood of this scenario has already been debated, and I'm of the opinion that it's relatively rare. However, YMMV, and you'll need to weigh this scenario against the many advantages of the quad gun.

Corollax wrote:Oops. Meant to quote Calgar. But I quite appreciate your replies, too! So...no hard feelings? I hope?

Of course not!

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Much lower?
You realize that with BS5 the quad gun retains it's supremacy, right? And did you ever make that clear objection prior to this post?
And the math used here isn't open to interpretation (like the statistics you're claiming) - they're absolutely verifiable fact.

Whatever you say man. Pumping different numbers into equations gives different results. believe what you like. As i said, I will stick with cold hard facts that i have seen with my own eyes over an extended period of time. Like I have said all along, nothing personal, I have no problem agreeing to disagree but i'm not going to try to cram my point of view down your throat trying to force you to believe it. i expect the same respect.

Yes, pumping different numbers into equations produces different results.
The numbers I provided were
Number of shots * chance to hit * chance to pen * chance for desired result.
a higher Bs has a higher percentage of hitting a target.

If you disagree with that equation please say so.

I was polite enough to show my work. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.

i have done so on several occasions. Like i said, you dont have to believe my numbers any more than i believe yours. i will stick with what I have actually seen with my own eyes. You are free to believe what you want.

I went back and re-read every one of your posts. Every one. Would you believe there isn't a single equation that you wrote in any of them?
Re-re-read them, I provided the math in several of them.

I posted numbers and equations. You can independently verify those numbers. I'm making nothing up and artificially engineering nothing.
Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

I posted my own numbers that are not engineered. yes, a confirmation bias is when you go to confirm a hypothesis and stop when you get the result you want. As i did not have any desire for either to be better than the other, I was totally open minded as to which would be better. I also did not stop at a mere game or two. My results are the result of putting them into practice since the day 6th edition came out.

You've used both in how many games? And can you link to the post - or just the page number in this thread - where you posted your numbers?
I must have missed it the first and second time through.
re-read the thread. I psted the numbers in several posts. i did not set it up as a math equation you see in a textbook, I gave the broad overall numbers that were representative.Exactly how many games have i played each? i honestly dont know. Since 6th edition came out, I have used the ADL ith one of the two guns in almost every single game. i alternated between them for the first year or so. Perhaps, I am just super ngodly lucky enough to actually hit and do damage with the LC and super ungodly unlucky with the quad to the point where my firsthand experiences defy all logic. i am willing to admit that my personal anecdotal experiences are not the 'norm". if they arent, I will stick with them becase they work for me if not for anyone else.

Citation required. You've made this statement before and never proven it. Please do so.

Read the thread. many posts, some of yours included. No offence taken, I know many get worked up in the heat of the monent and i forgive you.

No, that's not good enough. You've directly insulted me by saying I'm being rude and insulting and harassing you. You need to prove your statement, in public (where you accused me).
pointing out a behavior is not insulting you. i learned that you never address the person, you address the behavior. I know many people I love dearly who do things I dont like. I never attack or insult THEM, I point out the problem and try to work with them in a respectful manner to solve the problem without anything "personal" or feelings getting involved. if you took me pointing that out as an insult, I apologize because itwas not meant as one.

I'm sure you've complained of this mistreatment to the mods? Many of whom is bet are not the friends of the people vilifying you (if they exist).

i may end up submitting reports. I dont do that rashly or out of hand.

I hope you do. I'm begging you to actually.
If I do, I am sure you will likely be one of the first to know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To su up the thread for the OP, the quad gun is the better choice of the two weapons in a take all comers list because it is a jack of all trades. it simply covers more options against a greater variety of opponants ith a greater variety of uses.

So I received a PM. I'll try to snip out the personal parts and address the arguments specific to the thread:

EVIL INC wrote:mayhaps your math is right (I notice that everyone conveiently ignores my questions regarding the ease of which an opponant can end the move phase out of range of the quad gun while maintaining maximum effectiveness for itself). i wouldnt know as I am stupid since I dont have a phd. But I do know what i have seen with my own eyes over an extended period of time. Maybe I just am super lucky when I play the LC since 6th ed came out and super unlucky when I play the quad. since 6th ed came out.

This stuff isn't hard. It's probability and averages: roughly sixth grade math. If you're trying to solve for a particularly variable, like how much firepower is necessary to kill something half the time, then you're at the level of algebra. Junior high stuff. We're really not asking much.

Math is the language of pattern recognition. Tactics is about recognizing patterns in war and responding appropriately. When you don't understand math, your ability to understand these patterns and convey them effectively is inhibited. Every time you try to talk about probabilities, you end up rounding. Like here: "- las cannon, bs5 only misses on a roll of a one. so you can count on it hitting." and here: "it needs a 5 to so much as glance. if you are super lucky, you will roll a six. As you need a natural six, we will discount that." We can't take you seriously when you're ignoring half the quad gun's damage simply because "you need a natural six".

With respect to the premeasuring issue: "maximum effectiveness" depends entirely on the unit being discussed. For a Vendetta with 48" lascannons, yes, you probably can find a target that's worth shooting at from outside interceptor range. It might not be the one you wanted to shoot at, and you'll probably be compromising your ability to deliver troops or set up a firing arc for next turn. But I believe you when you say you can do it.

But let's look at other flyers: The helldrake relies on a torrent template and vector striking. If this thing is going to do its job, it has to suck up the interceptor fire. A Stormraven is working with an assault cannon and a multi-melta. The Vulture's punisher gatling cannons only reach out to 24". The Crimson Hunter (AV10) has only 36" range with its Bright Lances. The Avenger Strike Fighter (AV10 sides, 2HP) has only 36" range on its Bolt Cannon. These are all popular flyers that make significant sacrifices to avoid a Quad Gun's interceptor radius. And don't get me started on Flying Monstrous Creatures.

The Vendetta might be able to do what you're describing, but it's the exception, not the rule.

I take the lascannon when i take the aegis, but that has nothing to do with flyers. I have a vindicare

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Except, you know, it's not.

Why is it? Because it has an invul save? That just means it doesn't have to snap shot next turn.
Because it has IWND? I'm totally scared of a 33% chance to regain a single hull point per turn.

Why is it so useless against a Heldrake but fine against a Storm Raven?

Because it has a 5++ and then a 5++ regen. It makes a huge difference in the time to kill it by HPing it out. Drakes need to die asap, and hull stripping with S7 is too slow.

I like to take the Icarus Lascannon and let Telion man the gun on top of a bastion. Then he can snipe out any model he wants within 96".

As I said, math never was my strong point and even in college i was glad that I was able to not have to take anything higher than 101.
Mes, i do 'rough" math with rounding. Now i follow that up with anecdotal or firsthand experience.
as you said my firsthad experience likely is afected by my flyers having such a long rage. Although i think you discount the range on the othe flyers a little bit as since they dont come in on turn one, sometimes not till 3 or 4 lol, the effective range of many weapons is not as much of an issue because many armies will be close enough at that point where they can still fire effectively. Take for example a blood angel assault squa that has been advancing getting toasted by a turkey. I realize that not all armies are that aggressive so that would have to be taken on a case by case basis of course.
On my own end as being the guy pulling the trigger on the gun, maybe the dice just like or dislike me based on which i am using. lol perhaps I am lucky or unlucky based on which i use. I will keep going with what works for me. most likely the quad gun as it is the better overall weapon.

Martel732 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Except, you know, it's not.

Why is it? Because it has an invul save? That just means it doesn't have to snap shot next turn.
Because it has IWND? I'm totally scared of a 33% chance to regain a single hull point per turn.

Why is it so useless against a Heldrake but fine against a Storm Raven?

Because it has a 5++ and then a 5++ regen. It makes a huge difference in the time to kill it by HPing it out. Drakes need to die asap, and hull stripping with S7 is too slow.

The 5++ is going to affect the lascannon just as much as the Quad Gun. It negates damage table results too, you know. The only difference relevant to the Quad Gun is that it makes it slightly more likely to survive long enough for another IWND roll. And I already addressed how even infinite hull points doesn't give an edge to the lascannon, so the puny 5+ regen you get from IWND is pretty inconsequential.

EVIL INC, it's totally possible that your own experiences have been different from the "expected" results, in fact I'd say there's a pretty good chance of it. Even if you played dozens of games where your Icarus had a chance to Intercept a Valkyrie, the sample size is still so small that you could get very different results from what the odds predict. Like I said above, I had to tell a computer to roll the digital dice 100,000 times before I was confident that the overall results reflected the real odds (and even then I'm not ready to submit a scholarly paper to MathHammer Quarterly on this, I welcome anyone to check my results).

What matters here is that, while the math shows the quad gun to be slightly superior against all Flyers (Edit: possible exception of the Helldrake) and anything with an AV of 12 or less, the Icarus could still be worth taking, depending on what you expect your opponent to bring, your army composition, what kind of terrain you expect to play on, etc.

An Icarus might be worth it on top of a bastion with a space marine operating it. You are marginally less effective than the quad gun against most targets, but the elevated position and the extra range means that NOTHING on the board can hide from you, and your army's BS is reasonably good without having to invest in a character.

It might also be worth it if you expect to be facing a lot of AV13-14 on the ground and relatively few FMCs, flyers or light vehicles, in which case the Icarus can fill a niche the quad gun can't.

If you know your pool of opponents well and you have a special role in mind for the Icarus, by all means take it. In all other cases though, pay the extra points for the quad gun - it's better against almost all targets you will come up against.

 greyknight12 wrote:
I take the lascannon when i take the aegis, but that has nothing to do with flyers. I have a vindicare

Just curious, do you also keep a 'normal" unit behind the wall with a model in base contact with the gun just in case you need to. for example, fire a turbo shot at a land raider instead of the LC with the assassin so you can still fire it with the other guy instead on those turns?
i ask because hatever gun I have there, I always try to make sure i have 2 seperate modelsin contact with it for such occasions.

CalgarsPimp, I was NOT saying that the Lc was the better weapon at all. I was only saying that with my "stupid person" math and anecdotal experience, the LC served a single specific role better. Overall, istill feel that the quad gun is the better take all comers weapon. As you said though, i will sometimes take the LC on occasions where as you said, certain army types are off the table as possible opponents.

There's actually an AV13 flyer in Forgeworld, called the Caestus Assault Ram. Pretty cool, too, even though it's pushing Land Raider point costs. The Icarus Lascannon actually would be better against this target.

Just throwing it out there as an oddity.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
I take the lascannon when i take the aegis, but that has nothing to do with flyers. I have a vindicare

Just curious, do you also keep a 'normal" unit behind the wall with a model in base contact with the gun just in case you need to. for example, fire a turbo shot at a land raider instead of the LC with the assassin so you can still fire it with the other guy instead on those turns?
i ask because hatever gun I have there, I always try to make sure i have 2 seperate models in contact with it for such occasions.

This is a smart idea.

 EVIL INC wrote:
CalgarsPimp, I was NOT saying that the Lc was the better weapon at all. I was only saying that with my "stupid person" math and anecdotal experience, the LC served a single specific role better. Overall, istill feel that the quad gun is the better take all comers weapon. As you said though, i will sometimes take the LC on occasions where as you said, certain army types are off the table as possible opponents.

Hey I was never trying to call you stupid, just the opposite. Based on my gut feeling I thought the Icarus would be better at BS5. I was pretty surprised when I saw the numbers, and I had to triple check things to be sure I didn't make any mistakes. And the difference between a 15% chance of a kill and a 10% chance of a kill (or whatever exactly the numbers were) isn't that big. It would be pretty easy to see very different results over a small sample size. As far as statistics goes, each of our individual Warhammer careers is too small a sample size to pick out a difference like that. So keep using an Icarus if and when you think it's useful, but go forth armed with the new knowledge that quad guns are a little better against literally everything except Helldrakes and AV 13-14. I think it's a pretty interesting piece of info at least.

This is an excellent post by Corollax.

Corollax wrote:
This stuff isn't hard. It's probability and averages: roughly sixth grade math. If you're trying to solve for a particularly variable, like how much firepower is necessary to kill something half the time, then you're at the level of algebra. Junior high stuff. We're really not asking much.

"Not asking much" is relative. For someone who actually is in junior high, or who has a learning disorder, or any number of other reasons you don't know about, this might be hard stuff. There's no reason to judge someone for not being skilled at something, and there's nothing wrong with it. However, everybody has a responsibility to be realistic about their knowledge. If you aren't good at math, no big deal ... just don't try to tell people who know math that their math is wrong.

For example, I know a lot about algebra and statistics, but I know jack squat about economics. You don't see me picking fights with economists about economics.

Math is the language of pattern recognition. Tactics is about recognizing patterns in war and responding appropriately. When you don't understand math, your ability to understand these patterns and convey them effectively is inhibited. Every time you try to talk about probabilities, you end up rounding. Like here: "- las cannon, bs5 only misses on a roll of a one. so you can count on it hitting." and here: "it needs a 5 to so much as glance. if you are super lucky, you will roll a six. As you need a natural six, we will discount that." We can't take you seriously when you're ignoring half the quad gun's damage simply because "you need a natural six".

This might be the crux of the disagreement here. To elaborate, specifically for EVIL INC (edit, Calgar already pointed much of this out):

- 40K is a game that uses dice. Because outcomes are determined by dice, math (specifically probability and statistics) can be used to predict outcomes.
- Probability doesn't let you predict the exact results of any particular dice roll, but it does tell you what the average result will be.
- On the flip side, you can't use any single result to prove anything mathematically about a dice roll.
- However, the more times you roll, the closer your average result will get to the mathematical average.
- Thus, being able to calculate this mathematical average will tell you, objectively, how two different situations compare. Knowing this doesn't help you predict any individual event, and it doesn't take into account non-mathematical variables, but it's a great way of figuring out which option will perform better, all other things being equal.

An obvious example is when you say that a lascannon is better at destroying tanks than a missile launcher. This is straightforward because the lascannon and missile launcher fire the same number of shots, but the lascannon is stronger with better AP, so its chances of doing damage are higher. The situation gets more complicated when the lascannon is compared to the quad gun, because the quad gun has lower S and AP, but has more shots and is more accurate. However, doing the math can still tell you, on average, which is better, and the results are sometimes surprising. Humans have a tendency to generalize, but math doesn't lie.

So when people say that a quad gun has a higher chance of killing an AV12, 3HP flier on the turn it comes in, it's as close to fact as you can get in a dice game. This doesn't mean that your quad gun will outperform your lascannon in every single game, but it does mean that in any particular game, the quad gun will still have a higher chance of destroying its target, because the higher RoF and accuracy beat out the S and AP of the lascannon.

The fact that the quad gun is better does not mean that your experiences are somehow invalid or wrong. It's very possible that in games you've played, the lascannon has performed better. In fact, if you kept meticulous track of your results with these guns, we could use statistics to determine whether your experiences are significantly different from the average. However, if you played 10,000 games of 40K with each and documented the results, you would find that the quad gun gets the result you want more often as your experiences average out. Making decisions for yourself based on your experiences is normal human behavior, and perfectly acceptable in a game of 40K. But if you're making a general recommendation for players in general on a forum, using math and averages is going to be more accurate and precise.

With respect to the premeasuring issue: "maximum effectiveness" depends entirely on the unit being discussed. For a Vendetta with 48" lascannons, yes, you probably can find a target that's worth shooting at from outside interceptor range. It might not be the one you wanted to shoot at, and you'll probably be compromising your ability to deliver troops or set up a firing arc for next turn. But I believe you when you say you can do it.

But let's look at other flyers: The helldrake relies on a torrent template and vector striking. If this thing is going to do its job, it has to suck up the interceptor fire. A Stormraven is working with an assault cannon and a multi-melta. The Vulture's punisher gatling cannons only reach out to 24". The Crimson Hunter (AV10) has only 36" range with its Bright Lances. The Avenger Strike Fighter (AV10 sides, 2HP) has only 36" range on its Bolt Cannon. These are all popular flyers that make significant sacrifices to avoid a Quad Gun's interceptor radius. And don't get me started on Flying Monstrous Creatures.

The Vendetta might be able to do what you're describing, but it's the exception, not the rule.

I would question even the Vendetta's ability to shoot at maximum effectiveness. Flyers have a minimum movement of 18" when they come on, and can't turn after they move. On a 6x4 board, with the quad gun placed 12" forward in the middle of a long table edge, the only way a Vendetta would be able to avoid the quad gun is by coming in on an angle, aiming toward the edge of the board. Its guns are hull-mounted, with a 45 degree fire arc, which means it could only hit targets at the edges of the board. If you deploy your armor behind the aegis line in the center, the Vendetta can't hit them without placing itself in range.

All in all, though this situation isn't as pliable to mathematics, I would say the odds of being able to avoid a quad gun are negligible, provided an opponent positions it for maximum advantage.

Martel732 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Except, you know, it's not.

Why is it? Because it has an invul save? That just means it doesn't have to snap shot next turn.
Because it has IWND? I'm totally scared of a 33% chance to regain a single hull point per turn.

Why is it so useless against a Heldrake but fine against a Storm Raven?

Because it has a 5++ and then a 5++ regen. It makes a huge difference in the time to kill it by HPing it out. Drakes need to die asap, and hull stripping with S7 is too slow.

A Quad-Gun is just as likely to explode it and significantly more likely to hull point it out.
The 5++ is the same as a Jink save.
The regen is pointless to worry about.

I keep a squad of purifiers (4 psycannons) and coteaz in contact with the gun.

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Except, you know, it's not.

Why is it? Because it has an invul save? That just means it doesn't have to snap shot next turn.
Because it has IWND? I'm totally scared of a 33% chance to regain a single hull point per turn.

Why is it so useless against a Heldrake but fine against a Storm Raven?

Because it has a 5++ and then a 5++ regen. It makes a huge difference in the time to kill it by HPing it out. Drakes need to die asap, and hull stripping with S7 is too slow.

A Quad-Gun is just as likely to explode it and significantly more likely to hull point it out.
The 5++ is the same as a Jink save.
The regen is pointless to worry about.

It's true the regen is pointless in terms of the odds of killing in a single round of shooting, but the 5++ does affect the hull point percentagesdifferently for the two weapons (and the explode percentages, to a small degree). The Icarus is very straightforward to calculate as it's only a single shot. The quad gun's chance of an explode result has to contend with the (slim) chance that you penned more than once and got multiple explode results. I'm not at work so I can't run any simulations for this, but we can approximate it for both explodes and wrecked results. Ignoring the slight difference in the Explodes math, we get the following vs a Helldrake:

Explode results (this is quick and dirty):
BS3, quad gun 5.3%, lascannon 5.6%
BS4, quad gun 6.3%, lascannon 7.4%
BS5, quad gun 6.9%, lascannon 9.3%

Now the Wrecked results through hull points for the quad gun are even messier. Like 90% of the time the quad gun was getting a wrecked result, it was stripping 3 Hull Points, but maybe 10% of the time it was doing 4 (or more through multiple Immobilized results). The 1 in 200 times you get multiple Immobilized results, however many hull points total you are dealing, affects the 5++, as that's a means of dealing 2 hull points off one failed Inv. save. However I think all this is pretty unlikely, so we can ignore it. Therefore we're concerned with the chances of failing three 5++ saves in a row to lose 3 hull points and die, which is (2/3)^3 or about 30%. So we're only going to see a wrecked result 30% as often from the quad gun. Remember this is a slightly low estimate, as the chance of multiple Immobilized results or dealing 4 or more hull points will only increase the quad gun's effectiveness:

Wrecked results (quicker and dirtier):
BS3, quad gun 1.2%
BS4, quad gun 1.9%
BS5, quad gun 2.4%

So overall chance of killing a Helldrake in one round of shooting:
BS3, quad gun 6.5%, lascannon 5.6%
BS4, quad gun 8.2%, lascannon 7.4%
BS5, quad gun 9.3%, lascannon 9.3%

The Icarus catches up to the quad gun at BS5, but is marginally worse everywhere else. Considering these are a bit crude and are slightly underestimating the quad gun's chances, I would say that even at BS5 the quad gun edges out the lascannon, but we're really splitting hairs.

Surprising verdict:
Quad gun is superior even against a Helldrake (and this can be extended to any other flyer that chooses to Jink).

Glad to see my math was mostly correct.

these are some really good math coming up. I'm enjoying this.

Actually, in this case, i id nt pick the fight. i made the statement that I personally saw that in my games over the time since 6th edition came out that my LC outperformed the quad in killing AV 12. I saw these numbers with my own eyes. I was the one physically there rolling the dice and looking at the results. This is where you guys started telling me that I was stupid, think I even saw a racial slur in there, didnt know how to play because I didnt have a phd and so on and so forth telling me that did not see what i saw with my own eyes because the math said it was not possible.
yes, ido have a handicap, it forces me to often focus on a detail that catches my attention and not leave it alone until it is "right". it also affects my communications and some here in the thread have had a field day trolling specifically to affect that with the express purpose of stirring up trouble. the whole "hey lets kick the re..well you know the rest of the slur", is a lot of fun for some people (here it goes all the way up to the top of the food chain because they allow and encourage it). I'm used to that treatment.
My issue in this thread was the name calling and discriminatory treatment and being told that I was a liar when I said that I did not see with my own eyes what i saw. As i have trouble leaving details alone till it is right, I am totally honest. I dont lie. I KNOW what I saw when I rolled the dice. I know what I saw when the opponant pulled thier flyers off the table or left them on. It was not impossible because the math didnt support it because it happened. it happened consistantly. to call me a liar is a personal insult.
A question was asked and i gave what I consider an honest answer. If it is "right' or "wrong", I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge based on what I have seen firsthand. throughout giving the option to leave me along and agree to disagree or say 'i used different math than you" or whatnot tobe civil and get along.

 EVIL INC wrote:
. This is where you guys started telling me that I was stupid, think I even saw a racial slur in there, didnt know how to play because I didnt have a phd and so on and so forth telling me that did not see what i saw with my own eyes because the math said it was not possible.

Nope. Not a single thing in this sentence happened. You've entirely invented it.

yes, ido have a handicap, it forces me to often focus on a detail that catches my attention and not leave it alone until it is "right". it also affects my communications and some here in the thread have had a field day trolling specifically to affect that with the express purpose of stirring up trouble. the whole "hey lets kick the re..well you know the rest of the slur", is a lot of fun for some people (here it goes all the way up to the top of the food chain because they allow and encourage it). I'm used to that treatment.

Nope. My correcting you has literally nothing to do with any handicap you may have. It has everything to do with your statements being incorrect.

My issue in this thread was the name calling and discriminatory treatment and being told that I was a liar when I said that I did not see with my own eyes what i saw. As i have trouble leaving details alone till it is right, I am totally honest. I dont lie. I KNOW what I saw when I rolled the dice. I know what I saw when the opponant pulled thier flyers off the table or left them on. It was not impossible because the math didnt support it because it happened. it happened consistantly. to call me a liar is a personal insult.

Again, you've invented it.

A question was asked and i gave what I consider an honest answer. If it is "right' or "wrong", I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge based on what I have seen firsthand. throughout giving the option to leave me along and agree to disagree or say 'i used different math than you" or whatnot tobe civil and get along.

If someone asks what color the sky is and you say "Green" I should agree to disagree? That's an interesting position.

I'm only posting in response (I probably shouldn't) because you continue to sling mud for no reason. Please stop and stay on topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Except, you know, it's not.

Why is it? Because it has an invul save? That just means it doesn't have to snap shot next turn.
Because it has IWND? I'm totally scared of a 33% chance to regain a single hull point per turn.

Why is it so useless against a Heldrake but fine against a Storm Raven?

Because it has a 5++ and then a 5++ regen. It makes a huge difference in the time to kill it by HPing it out. Drakes need to die asap, and hull stripping with S7 is too slow.

A Quad-Gun is just as likely to explode it and significantly more likely to hull point it out.
The 5++ is the same as a Jink save.
The regen is pointless to worry about.

It's true the regen is pointless in terms of the odds of killing in a single round of shooting, but the 5++ does affect the hull point percentagesdifferently for the two weapons (and the explode percentages, to a small degree). The Icarus is very straightforward to calculate as it's only a single shot. The quad gun's chance of an explode result has to contend with the (slim) chance that you penned more than once and got multiple explode results. I'm not at work so I can't run any simulations for this, but we can approximate it for both explodes and wrecked results. Ignoring the slight difference in the Explodes math, we get the following vs a Helldrake:

Explode results (this is quick and dirty):
BS3, quad gun 5.3%, lascannon 5.6%
BS4, quad gun 6.3%, lascannon 7.4%
BS5, quad gun 6.9%, lascannon 9.3%

Now the Wrecked results through hull points for the quad gun are even messier. Like 90% of the time the quad gun was getting a wrecked result, it was stripping 3 Hull Points, but maybe 10% of the time it was doing 4 (or more through multiple Immobilized results). The 1 in 200 times you get multiple Immobilized results, however many hull points total you are dealing, affects the 5++, as that's a means of dealing 2 hull points off one failed Inv. save. However I think all this is pretty unlikely, so we can ignore it. Therefore we're concerned with the chances of failing three 5++ saves in a row to lose 3 hull points and die, which is (2/3)^3 or about 30%. So we're only going to see a wrecked result 30% as often from the quad gun. Remember this is a slightly low estimate, as the chance of multiple Immobilized results or dealing 4 or more hull points will only increase the quad gun's effectiveness:

Wrecked results (quicker and dirtier):
BS3, quad gun 1.2%
BS4, quad gun 1.9%
BS5, quad gun 2.4%

So overall chance of killing a Helldrake in one round of shooting:
BS3, quad gun 6.5%, lascannon 5.6%
BS4, quad gun 8.2%, lascannon 7.4%
BS5, quad gun 9.3%, lascannon 9.3%

The Icarus catches up to the quad gun at BS5, but is marginally worse everywhere else. Considering these are a bit crude and are slightly underestimating the quad gun's chances, I would say that even at BS5 the quad gun edges out the lascannon, but we're really splitting hairs.

Surprising verdict:
Quad gun is superior even against a Helldrake (and this can be extended to any other flyer that chooses to Jink).

Yup. While we didn't spell the math out like that earlier, we did talk about it. Your numbers are similar - thanks for confirming!

 EVIL INC wrote:
Actually, in this case, i id nt pick the fight. i made the statement that I personally saw that in my games over the time since 6th edition came out that my LC outperformed the quad in killing AV 12. I saw these numbers with my own eyes. I was the one physically there rolling the dice and looking at the results. This is where you guys started telling me that I was stupid, think I even saw a racial slur in there, didnt know how to play because I didnt have a phd and so on and so forth telling me that did not see what i saw with my own eyes because the math said it was not possible.
yes, ido have a handicap, it forces me to often focus on a detail that catches my attention and not leave it alone until it is "right". it also affects my communications and some here in the thread have had a field day trolling specifically to affect that with the express purpose of stirring up trouble. the whole "hey lets kick the re..well you know the rest of the slur", is a lot of fun for some people (here it goes all the way up to the top of the food chain because they allow and encourage it). I'm used to that treatment.
My issue in this thread was the name calling and discriminatory treatment and being told that I was a liar when I said that I did not see with my own eyes what i saw. As i have trouble leaving details alone till it is right, I am totally honest. I dont lie. I KNOW what I saw when I rolled the dice. I know what I saw when the opponant pulled thier flyers off the table or left them on. It was not impossible because the math didnt support it because it happened. it happened consistantly. to call me a liar is a personal insult.
A question was asked and i gave what I consider an honest answer. If it is "right' or "wrong", I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge based on what I have seen firsthand. throughout giving the option to leave me along and agree to disagree or say 'i used different math than you" or whatnot tobe civil and get along.

Ah, I think this sheds some light on the miscommunication. Throughout this thread, you have been calling your experiences math. People have not been telling you your experiences are "wrong," "not possible," or that you are a liar. People have been telling you that your experiences are not math, which is true - your experiences are called data, and this is a very important detail. It's very obvious that you have personally experienced more success with the lascannon than the quad gun. However, math and data are two different types of evidence, and these types of evidence do different things.

Physically rolling dice and looking at the results over time, like you've done, is not math, it's data. Again, There Is Nothing Wrong With Data. Many scientists use observation to learn about the world. However, data are always imprecise due to random chance, and trying to predict outcomes (like which gun is better) based on data will always have some error. Fortunately, unlike many real life situations, 40K is a game that uses dice which have fixed probabilities. This means we don't have to rely on random observation if we want to know which gun is objectively better. On the flip side, knowing which gun performs better overall doesn't tell us anything about a particular instance or set of instances, which is why your lascannon can perform better despite being mathematically inferior.

Take these two statements:

1) The quad gun, according to the math, outperforms the lascannon in every way.
2) EVIL INC's lascannon has performed better against AV12 than his quad gun in the year he's been using it.

Both of these statements are correct. Statement 1 does not make Statement 2 wrong. Why? Because one is math and one is data. One is not better than the other, they just answer different questions. Statement 1 is math, so it can't be used to predict 100% of actual, random situations. Saying "EVIL INC's experiences are impossible because the math says the quad gun is better" would be a false statement. On the flip side, Statement 2 is data, so it can't be used to say which gun is actually better without some sort of error. Saying "The lascannon is better because EVIL INC's experiences have proven it" would also be a false statement. Because 40K is a dice game, math will always be more accurate when predicting overall probabilities, which is why people use math so much on the forums. This doesn't mean that individual experiences are somehow wrong.

TL;DR: EVIL INC, nobody is trying to yank your chain, or tell you that you are somehow a liar. They're simply asking you to stop calling your experiences math, because they aren't. Your experiences are data, not "different math." Nobody can use math to tell you that your experiences are wrong, but on the same token you can't use your experiences to disprove somebody else's math. This isn't my opinion, this is a fact. If you are truly well-intentioned, read this post thoroughly and let me know what you think.

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Except, you know, it's not.

Why is it? Because it has an invul save? That just means it doesn't have to snap shot next turn.
Because it has IWND? I'm totally scared of a 33% chance to regain a single hull point per turn.

Why is it so useless against a Heldrake but fine against a Storm Raven?

Because it has a 5++ and then a 5++ regen. It makes a huge difference in the time to kill it by HPing it out. Drakes need to die asap, and hull stripping with S7 is too slow.

A Quad-Gun is just as likely to explode it and significantly more likely to hull point it out.
The 5++ is the same as a Jink save.
The regen is pointless to worry about.

I'm not comparing it to the Icarus. I'm saying both are basically useless against the Helldrake. You need something like a multi-melta before the thing starts sweating.

Martel732: Just to clarify, you are talking about a skyfire multi-melta, right? Snap-firing is a pretty lousy way to start any anti-tank strategy.

I suppose the 10-point Inquisition Servitors might be an acceptable choice for snap-shotting. With an Inquisitor to negate mindlock and use prescience, they're close to BS2 with their snap-shots. At 10 points each and 55 points for prescience, that's not a terrible deal.

Wouldn't try it with anything else, though.

Yeah, a skyfire multi-melta. Although a I have killed a few drakes with prescienced MM attack bikes. Drakes require immediacy because if you let them linger trying to HP them out, they will barbeque your troops and you lose.

In general. I tried to use a lot of mech, but autocannon havocs are good at demeching loyalist marines. And teleporting combi-melta terminators. CSM just have a lot of dirty tricks that are good vs other meqs, but the power lists laugh at their folly.

Sorry... just to throw a little petrol on the bonfire :-p. Can we stop calling them equations when they are formulae :-p? Thank you!

 Roboute wrote:
, ...read this post thoroughly and let me know what you think.[/b]

i can live with this and it makes sense.
Much better than just jumping straight to the insults and name calling and so forth that others have done.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Roboute wrote:
, ...read this post thoroughly and let me know what you think.[/b]

i can live with this and it makes sense.
Much better than just jumping straight to the insults and name calling and so forth that others have done.

What others? You've accused me (and failed to provide proof, so I'll disregard that accusation) and yet keep asserting it happened.
You've also refused to respond to a PM asking about this, so I have no choice but to ask in the thread.

No need for further posts about specific people. I know some users tend to advocate truth like they know best and this can easily cause friction.

I can easily follow EVIL's posts and as i have said before i can expect Icarus to do better than the Quad even after all the very nice Formulae

Please stay on topic. We are discussing the Quad gun VS the icarus LC. There is an ignore button that you may utilize.

I woudnt say the quad is superior in EVERY way. If all else fails, the range is shorter (much shorter). t is something am ale to circumvent easily with vendettas and sl maintain max efficiency Yes, vendettas may be the exception to that rule, but it is worth noting.

This is you being off-topic.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Much better than just jumping straight to the insults and name calling and so forth that others have done.

This is you demanding others be on topic.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Please stay on topic. We are discussing the Quad gun VS the icarus LC. There is an ignore button that you may utilize.

And that is savage hypocrisy.

On-topic:
A Quad-gun is essentially a pair of autocannons firing together with rerolls. At BS4, that reroll is worth a 33% increase in firepower. The forum generally agrees that lascannons are better than autocannons (despite a few odd exceptions like land speeders). But it'd be a pretty astounding result if a single lascannon were better than 2.66 autocannons.

That's basically what the Quad Gun vs. Icarus Lascannon debate boils down to, on an intuitive level. A lascannon is better -- but surely not that much better. That's why I'm not surprised to see the Quad Gun outperform the Icarus, even at BS5 (twin-linknig = 17% increase. Quad gun = 2.33 autocannons) and against AV12 (the point where lascannons and autocannons do equal hull point damage). The comparison is almost absurd from the start.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Please stay on topic. We are discussing the Quad gun VS the icarus LC. There is an ignore button that you may utilize.

I woudnt say the quad is superior in EVERY way. If all else fails, the range is shorter (much shorter). t is something am ale to circumvent easily with vendettas and sl maintain max efficiency Yes, vendettas may be the exception to that rule, but it is worth noting. [On topic? Check[!

Still on topic, yes, i am surprised to see that coming out of the equations, the quad coming out on top. This is especially so after seeing my LC outperform the quad in taking out vehicles (it even did better against lower armored ones for me).
Could someone provide the "empty" equations? Would they be relevant for comparing other weapons as well? I mean even hand to hand weapons and how does # of shots/swings work into them. Remember im just a "stupid", non PHD here so it would have to be mapped out for me. if it is too much for in the thread with the tutorial on here to use it/them, I would save that PM and try fiddling with it when I get spare time.

Number of shots (or attacks) * chance to hit * chance to wound/pen = Number of wounds/pens.

Number of wounds/pens * chance to save = Unsaved wounds/pens

 EVIL INC wrote:
calgar, math isnt my strong suit. But have you ever heard the political expression of"statistics dont lie but people who use them do"/.

When you're dealing with simple formula like these, that are completely transparent, there is no deception involved. Statistics are functions of data. The formula used here are more like models because we aren't basing any of the calculations on datasets.

You could easily simulate these things, but given sufficient "trials" you would expect that the distributions would approximate normal distributions.

Long story short, any argument to the contrary is essentially dildos. There is no deception involved in these arguments. They are entirely transparent, and every relevant factor is being included with the exception of range which, when we're talking about a 48" range weapon that *can* pretty much cover the whole table through proper placement, is relatively moot.



ETA: You should be aware that humans exhibit numerous cognitive biases. There are two possibilities here: one is that you have too small a sample size to observe the true average results of both quad guns and ICs, and the other is that you're exhibiting something like confirmation bias and failing to see that the IC is in fact outperformed by the quad gun.

General Hobbs wrote:


Mathammer says its faster to strip hull points off with str 7 than it is to hit, penetrate and get a good roll with 1 shot at str 9.

This. My experience is that Night Scythes are in danger when in range of a quad gun.

I feel that when someone spends more hours calculating the exact probability of every possible dice roll that may arise during a game than actually playing the game itself, they are more than a little on the WAAC side of life and not really someone I would want to play.
I would much rather play someone who goes from experience and what is fun. After all, if you know the the game results before you play, what is the use of playing the game?

Because you still have to push the plastic.

Voorn wrote:
I feel that when someone spends more hours calculating the exact probability of every possible dice roll that may arise during a game than actually playing the game itself, they are more than a little on the WAAC side of life and not really someone I would want to play.

Between family, work, and other hobbies I get about 6 hours a month to play, aside from a monthly tournament. On the other hand my job allows me some time to look into math like this. Plus, it's pretty trivial to calculate the probabilities. But that's fine - I'd rather not play you either.

I would much rather play someone who goes from experience and what is fun. After all, if you know the the game results before you play, what is the use of playing the game?

You can figure out the probable results of die rolls. You can't factor in things like "terrain" or "the other player" or "lucky rolls" or "unlucky rolls". Which just maybe - possibly - feature in many games.