Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As Grakmar pointed out each shot has a ~0.6% (0.0061728...) chance of destroying a LRA. so the chance of an assault cannon destroying a LRA is 1-(1-0.0061728...)^4=0.024463...which is ~2.5% with some incorrect rounding

DakkaDakka wrote:

I would assume the reason your simulator gets higher results (besides the fact that you are doing a finite number of simulations) is the you appear to run the simulator on a one shot at the time calculation and then simply add the results when you should be doing a 4 shot/event simulation for the AC with an IF statment along the lines of IF destroyed >1 then destroyed =1 since you shouldnt be calculating "overkills" as anything but 1 kill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Each shot from an assault cannon:

2/3 chance to hit, 1/6 chance to rend, 1/3 chance to penetrate, 1/6 chance for Vehicle - Destroyed

That's a 0.6% chance to destroy it per shot. Multiply by 4 and you get 2.46% chance with 4 shots.

His math is correct.

Ah, I twin-linked the assault cannon (the only ones I regularly see are the ones on the Baal or Redeemer)

4 shots x2/3 = 2.6 hits
reroll allows 0.93 hits [I rounded to 3.5]

3.5 hits x 1/6 = .58 rending x 1/3 = .193 penetrating hits /4 shots total = 0.0483 = ~5% chance of a penetrating hit
3.5 hits x 1/6 = .58 rending x 2/3 = .386 pen/glances /4 shots total = 0.096 = ~9.5% chance of a pen/glance

Is my math off?

What you are calculating there is the chance of one shot penetrating. You are first multiplying with 4 and then dividing by four which seems kinda pointless you also get somewhat different valuse since you are rounding during calculations. Grakmars and my calculations were not done for simply pens but for destroyed results.

Ferromantic Invulnerability does not make this thing tougher than a Monolith. Immune to Lance means it keep its armour value, immune to melta means no +1 vehicle damage chart or 2D6 penetration. These are not the ony ways to crack a Land Raider. Chainfists, rending, and Tank Hunters all still work against it. I have taken out Land Raiders with an assault cannon, but I can't do it on a Monolith.

This thing is a beast, but I think that in it's intended environment (Apocalypse-scaled games), it is reasonably priced and outfitted. -1 on the vehicle damage (except Destroyer) means that Destroyer weapons (only found in Apocalypse) can straight out knock these out.

Yes its worse vs AssaultCannons, Tankhunters, chainfists. But against anything else (lascannons, railguns, str 10PKs, DCCWs,Mephy ect) its twice as hard to kill as a monolith

tedurur wrote:Yes its worse vs AssaultCannons, Tankhunters, chainfists. But against anything else (lascannons, railguns, str 10PKs, DCCWs,Mephy ect) its twice as hard to kill as a monolith

Also remember, i can be glanced to death, as opposed to the monolith. And I fail to see how a lascannon (or the rest listed) vs AV 14 is different between the two.

tedurur wrote:I would assume the reason your simulator gets higher results (besides the fact that you are doing a finite number of simulations) is the you appear to run the simulator on a one shot at the time calculation and then simply add the results when you should be doing a 4 shot/event simulation for the AC with an IF statment along the lines of IF destroyed >1 then destroyed =1 since you shouldnt be calculating "overkills" as anything but 1 kill.

The simulator handles this. When a vehicle is destroyed, the gun stops firing. To see this, take an autocamnon and it vs a speeder. You will see 25000 sim ran, but less than 50000 shots fired.

The law of large numbers gives pretty accurate results. Each sim runs 25000 simulations, which I found to be the magic amount between processing speed and sample volume.

If you like, ill be happy to PM you the code. It's all written in PHP

First of, I like your sim and its a good way to get quick numbers. Id be glad to have have a look at some well written code
But (assuming you do as I think) the process you described will still screw with your percentages (albeit not as much) if .

Bear with me here since Im pretty damn tired .
Since you terminate the simulation when you have scored a desired result you scew the percentage in your favour. Take a simple example AutoCannon: Destroyed followed by another destroyed and then 2 misses will according to your code result in 2 events managing to destroy and one event failing to do so which would then give you a 2/3 success rate when infact it really is 1 event that destroys and one event that fails to destroy or 1/2 success rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nm, I think you have it covered

Transport capacity of 6 with no assault ramps means it's a super duper ultra hard to kill razorback with 2TLMM a TFC and POMS.

Just treat it like a monolith and ignore it.

schadenfreude wrote:Transport capacity of 6 with no assault ramps means it's a super duper ultra hard to kill razorback with 2TLMM a TFC and POMS.

Just treat it like a monolith and ignore it.

Except that like Monoliths, people are likely to double and triple up on them....making them something you can't ignore.

Well the fact that ranged melta attacks do nothing makes it pretty cool.

As my friend said,"Just try and get a chainfist that close,I dare ya"

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:Well the fact that ranged melta attacks do nothing makes it pretty cool.

As my friend said,"Just try and get a chainfist that close,I dare ya"

Well, considering everyone thinks the Thunderfire Cannon and the rest of the armament are weak, I wouldn't see it being too hard to run a Land Raider up there, blazing away with Lascannons, then drop some chainfisted terminators loose on it!

Dashofpepper wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Transport capacity of 6 with no assault ramps means it's a super duper ultra hard to kill razorback with 2TLMM a TFC and POMS.

Just treat it like a monolith and ignore it.

Except that like Monoliths, people are likely to double and triple up on them....making them something you can't ignore.

I think it's easier to ignore 3 monoliths than 1 monolith because when there are 3 of them even if I can blow 1 of them up the other 2 can still suck necrons through their portal. That and the phase out number in an army with 3 monoliths grows small.

3 Thunderfire cannons and 3 MM per turn of firepower for 900 points, yea I can ignore that. I'm sure there is at least 800 points of softer squishier targets with more firepower than that somewhere on the board just waiting to be squashed.

Che-Vito wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Each shot from an assault cannon:

2/3 chance to hit, 1/6 chance to rend, 1/3 chance to penetrate, 1/6 chance for Vehicle - Destroyed

That's a 0.6% chance to destroy it per shot. Multiply by 4 and you get 2.46% chance with 4 shots.

His math is correct.

Ah, I twin-linked the assault cannon (the only ones I regularly see are the ones on the Baal or Redeemer)

4 shots x2/3 = 2.6 hits
reroll allows 0.93 hits [I rounded to 3.5]

3.5 hits x 1/6 = .58 rending x 1/3 = .193 penetrating hits /4 shots total = 0.0483 = ~5% chance of a penetrating hit
3.5 hits x 1/6 = .58 rending x 2/3 = .386 pen/glances /4 shots total = 0.096 = ~9.5% chance of a pen/glance

Is my math off?

Your math is correct. We were calculating two different things. My calculation was your chances of getting a vehicle destroyed result with a single Assault Cannon.

Your calculation is to determine the chances of a penetrating or glancing hit with a single shot from a TL-Assault Cannon. (Although, I'm not clear why you multiply by 4 in the beginning to determine the total chances and then divide by 4 at the end to determine the per shot chance).



labmouse42: Why don't you just calculate the actual odds rather than running a simulation? It's somewhat simple, just calculate the hard odds for each event. Then, to factor in the fact that a vehicle being destroyed by the first round makes subsequent rounds meaningless, use the following formula:

P(x) = N!/(x!*(N-x)!) * p^x * (1-p)^(N-x)

P is your probability of x number of successes.
N is the number of trials.
p is the probability of a success with a single trial.
x is the number of successes we want.

You can calculate the odds of 1 success, 2 successes, 3 successes, and 4 successes and add them together, but it's easier to calculate the odds of zero successes and then take 1 and subtract that)

So, for the (non-TL) Assault Cannon vs LR Achilles, N is 4, x is 0, p is 0.006173

P(0) = 4!/4! * 1 * 0.993827^4 = 1 * 1 * 0.975536 = 0.975536

Now, take 1-P(0) to determine probability of 1 or more vehicle destroyed results and you end up with 0.024464

That is slightly less than my earlier (and shortcut) calculation (as to be expected). But, it doesn't chance a whole lot. We end with 2.45% chance of destroying it, vs an earlier (and incorrect) 2.46% chance.

Edit, I see you corrected your numbers

schadenfreude wrote:Transport capacity of 6 with no assault ramps means it's a super duper ultra hard to kill razorback with 2TLMM a TFC and POMS.

Just treat it like a monolith and ignore it.

Oh, ignore it? So I can phase out the rest of the Marine army?

tedurur wrote:Yes its worse vs AssaultCannons

A weapon I have not seen in any numbers since 5th edition started, and probably won't for many years to come.

Tankhunters

I forgot my Tankhunter upgrades for my Dark Eldar. Wait....

chainfists.

This one seems good at first, but playing against any decent player, they will just move the LR 6.1" a turn so ChainFists basically become null and void.

monolith

The reason why a monoloth is so har to kill is because the army it is attached to has a "I LOSE" button. Have the Achilles give Phase Out to marines and see if anyone takes it. Oh, Marines can be auto killed by Sweeping Advance as well.

Grakmar wrote:
labmouse42: Why don't you just calculate the actual odds rather than running a simulation? It's somewhat simple, just calculate the hard odds for each event. Then, to factor in the fact that a vehicle being destroyed by the first round makes subsequent rounds meaningless, use the following formula:

Good question. My idea was to build a simulation engine that would compare the 40k ruleset and run attacks based using that engine. Once the engine was built, it would handle items such as energy fields, living armor, twin linked, vulnerable dread, etc by just modifying the input into the engine. As I was not sure of my forumla, I used the law of large numbers to give me what I was looking for.

Ill take a look at your formula and play with it. Thanks for sharing

labmouse42 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
labmouse42: Why don't you just calculate the actual odds rather than running a simulation? It's somewhat simple, just calculate the hard odds for each event. Then, to factor in the fact that a vehicle being destroyed by the first round makes subsequent rounds meaningless, use the following formula:

Good question. My idea was to build a simulation engine that would compare the 40k ruleset and run attacks based using that engine. Once the engine was built, it would handle items such as energy fields, living armor, twin linked, vulnerable dread, etc by just modifying the input into the engine. As I was not sure of my forumla, I used the law of large numbers to give me what I was looking for.

Ill take a look at your formula and play with it. Thanks for sharing

Yeah, running a large enough Monte Carlo should give you reliable enough numbers. I just think that the hard calculation is simple enough that it would take much less processing time.

But, your way does resolve things like the number of weapon destroyed, immobilized, stunned/shaken.

One change you should consider: Keep the simulation running even if you result in a wrecked-destroyed result, as a latter wrecked-exploded result does matter.

A Land Raider Achilles is a also Heavy Support choice in a Codex Space Marines,
Codex Black Templars, Codex Space Wolves or Codex: Dark Angels army. says that straight on the page, Achellies is able to play on normal games without opponents consent

Mannahnin wrote:Broken and lame and not legal for regular play, thank the gods.

yep!

A lot of people are knee-jerking about this unit.

It is not that bad, and is not an auto-win unit by any means.

I would play it and enjoy the game. I think it is a killer model and would be a lot of fun.

The Hades Breaching Drill and Dreadnought Drop Pod are much worse than this thing, IMO.

olympia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Broken and lame and not legal for regular play, thank the gods.

yep!

But the FW pdf states that it can be fielded in a SM army. It's "legal". No mention of opponent's consent. Usually, if such consent is needed, it's explicit.

I've searched the FW website, and can't find a statement about opponent's consent, but would be happy to defer if someone can show me otherwise.

I know FW isn't the same as GW, but they are related. GW wouldn't have allowed this if they were unhappy with it. It's not a fan site where they have to work out whether to get involved.

I think it's broken, but I can't stop my opponent fielding it. I wouldn't field it myself at the moment.

Looking at the picture of it, it should have armor 9 in cc. The hole the thunderfire is sticking out of just looks like a party invite for some krak grenades going straight into the gun mechanisms.

I know in my group nothing FW is considered auto-accepted as apart of the game unless its an alternative model for a codex unit. So in our group, FW is a non-official unit choice that can be rejected by an opponent.

OK, I can understand that.

The reason I'm trying to clarify is that this was the source of an argument between a buddy and me. He's very much a RAW player. Neither of us would refuse to play a codex-legal army - if you get panned, it's up to you to work it out.

When he mentioned the Achilles, I (thinking it was consent only) stated that I thought it was over-powered and might not agree to play it.

He got fairly annoyed, and we agreed to allow it as the rules are fairly unambiguous, and don't state that consent is needed. Whilst this is a fair fix for now, I'm intrigued that the general consensus is that FW is not codex-legal; especially when I can't find this consensus backed up on the FW website. I had assumed the same, of course, and was surprised to find that I was (apparently) wrong.

I accept that tournaments can make their own rules as well; this is a different issue.

Any other thoughts? Or is this simply a general consensus in the wider GW community?

doctorludo wrote:OK, I can understand that.

The reason I'm trying to clarify is that this was the source of an argument between a buddy and me. He's very much a RAW player. Neither of us would refuse to play a codex-legal army - if you get panned, it's up to you to work it out.

When he mentioned the Achilles, I (thinking it was consent only) stated that I thought it was over-powered and might not agree to play it.

He got fairly annoyed, and we agreed to allow it as the rules are fairly unambiguous, and don't state that consent is needed. Whilst this is a fair fix for now, I'm intrigued that the general consensus is that FW is not codex-legal; especially when I can't find this consensus backed up on the FW website. I had assumed the same, of course, and was surprised to find that I was (apparently) wrong.

I accept that tournaments can make their own rules as well; this is a different issue.

Any other thoughts? Or is this simply a general consensus in the wider GW community?

BRB, Page 2, top of the page highlighted box 'The Most Important Rule!'. That's RAW from GW.

Luco wrote:I know in my group nothing FW is considered auto-accepted as apart of the game unless its an alternative model for a codex unit. So in our group, FW is a non-official unit choice that can be rejected by an opponent.

So how is that different from a codex? I can at any time reject any opponent on the basis that I don't like his army list, the codex he is using, or a single unit in his army.

I will usually allow any FW unit in any game (barring superheavies or flyers unless I have been prepped for it w/ AA weapons, etc.), chances are I will probably refuse to play against the LRA, simply because it seems OP'd and I doubt I would be able to eliminate it outside of a game of Apoc.

He got fairly annoyed, and we agreed to allow it as the rules are fairly unambiguous, and don't state that consent is needed. Whilst this is a fair fix for now, I'm intrigued that the general consensus is that FW is not codex-legal; especially when I can't find this consensus backed up on the FW website. I had assumed the same, of course, and was surprised to find that I was (apparently) wrong.

As per the FW books, they are official rules and don't require opponents permission to utilize. But once again, while you don't need opponents permission to use it, they have the right to refuse play based on anything and everything.

My opinion:

If it were a standard choice in the Space Marine codex, then REALLY AWSOME, put 5 Marines in it, and sit on an objective.....

In Apoc, which technically is what its designed for? I don't think quite so much....

SumYunGui:

You're right, of course, but there needs to at least be some agreement in which ruleset we're using.

DakkaDakka wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Luco wrote:I know in my group nothing FW is considered auto-accepted as apart of the game unless its an alternative model for a codex unit. So in our group, FW is a non-official unit choice that can be rejected by an opponent.

So how is that different from a codex? I can at any time reject any opponent on the basis that I don't like his army list, the codex he is using, or a single unit in his army.

Not for us. If you don't like his list, its tough nuggets as long as the units are in the codex. The only exception are Erratas and FAQ's provided you have the paper in hand. FW its up to the opponent.