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.

Good day, all.

Long time lurker, first time poster. Please troll gently.

I've been looking at various ways of evaluating the effectiveness of individual models and units, and one of the concepts I've come up with is to look at the ratio of shots per model to points cost per model.

A Terminator with the standard Storm Bolter and Power Fist, for example, costs forty points, and gets a maximum of two shots, making for a ratio of twenty points per shot.

First question: Has anybody tried something like this before?

Second question: Do you Dakkanauts think this is a reliable way to evaluate the effectiveness of a model or unit?

I do realize that there is a synergy between the various units of an army, as well as tactics, and other aspects. I'll get to those later, I'm just moving slowly.

Thanks.

Effectiveness at doing what? It's probably a very pointless number for measuring the effectiveness of a unit for holding an objective. Or its effectiveness in moving across the board.

I'd formulate the question you want to answer first, than start looking for measures and indicators that can serve you as means to answering your question.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Effectiveness at doing what? It's probably a very pointless number for measuring the effectiveness of a unit for holding an objective. Or its effectiveness in moving across the board.

I'd formulate the question you want to answer first, than start looking for measures and indicators that can serve you as means to answering your question.

Hmm. I didn't want to post up a wall of text, but some personal observations might be helpful.

There is an active 40k group quite close to me, and over the course of some games, I have made some observations about what seems to works better.

These are personal observations, so I may be very wrong.

Holding an objective seems to be less of an issue than shooting the other guy off the objective.

Likewise, mobility seems to be less important than durable units, and firepower.

I also see CC as less important, since there are more variables in CC, and as a newb, I want to make things at least a little simpler for myself.

Throughout the course of watching games, I have seen that the number of shots a model or unit puts out seems to be a better indicator of it's effectiveness, than any other number.

Again, I stress that this is all based on what I have seen. It may be that this has to do with the "meta" of the gaming group, and my observations are not really valid in a larger community, like Dakka Dakka.

Right now, I'm still trying to figure out whether I want to invest the time in putting together an army. Part of doing that is asking some questions which may end up not making sense...

But I'll keep trying.

I hope this helps. If it doesn't... Well, I'll keep posting until it does...

 Shorttime wrote:

Right now, I'm still trying to figure out whether I want to invest the time in putting together an army.

Are you really saying you haven't even played a game yet?? Or did I just read that wrong...?

You can't simply look at shots per point, you have to also consider durability, melee potential, scoring, etc...

5 tactical terminators with a Cyclone missile launcher put out less shots per point than tactical marines, but they are twice as durable against the same enemy attacks(assuming no AP3 is involved, in which case they are many orders of magnitude more durable), can Deep Strike, and are more effective in melee.


Point cost is irrelevant once the game has begun. I'll gladly sacrifice a 500+ point unit of terminators if it means my 170 point tactical squad can hold an objective and win me the game.

I think the best you can do is determine the points per unsaved wound against a given target type (GEQ, MEQ, MEQ /w FNP, etc.). Even then, as has been pointed out, there are a myriad of factors that come into play such as durability, range, mobility. Even at that point, again as has been pointed out, most of that goes out of the window once the game begins as all that matters at that point is the objectives of the game, and no matter whatever you originally bought a particular unit for, the only question at that point is "how can it help me win THIS game."

Baronyu wrote:

 Shorttime wrote:

Right now, I'm still trying to figure out whether I want to invest the time in putting together an army.

Are you really saying you haven't even played a game yet?? Or did I just read that wrong...?

I played DE in 4th(?). First time the DE came out, and I took a fearful whooping. I wouldn't call a few games, played a decade ago, with models I sold, as much experience.

There was also something daunting about the environment: you were more welcome if you were one of the store owner's high school friends. I was not, so I was less welcome.

After his business (predictably) went under, it took ten years for another gaming store to open. They have a much more inclusive environment, which has made me start thinking about playing again. One of the owners is an amazing strategist, and he consistently tables opponents. I wanted to understand how he does it, which led to a lot of questions, some of which I am answering. This will probably lead to a set of questions which I can only answer by actually playing. I suppose I'll assemble an army when I get there. But I am trying to allow the journey to be the goal, instead of focusing on the goal, like I usually do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
I think the best you can do is determine the points per unsaved wound against a given target type (GEQ, MEQ, MEQ /w FNP, etc.).

I apologize if I am taking this out of context. I'm not clear on what you mean by "points per unsaved wound". Can you explain it to me in a different way?

Thanks.

Maelstrom808 meant something like this.

Well, if that is the case, why do you want to start from scratch on your own? Why not ask all the Dakka(or other forums) veterans for help? When I first started DE, I just lurked DE forums and read DE tactica on dakka or dark city, reading up on mathammers such as the one I just linked, unit analysis, and such.

Look up vassal40k, it's a virtual online tabletop, you can use it to test out any army build you feel like(you'll need the rulebook and codex), ask people online for a game or something. Or... you could play offline against your other WH40k friend as well.

To say nothing of the various different shooting profiles you'll need to deal with different targets. A Leman Russ Punisher gets 20 shots, but they're S4 AP- meaning they'll fail to wound high-Toughness targets fairly often and everything will always get armor. The Leman Russ Demolisher only gets 1 shot, but it's a pie plate (so it can hit lots of targets at once), it's S10 meaning it'll wound on 2s versus just about anything in the game and has a high chance to penetrate vehicle armor, and it's AP1 so it bypasses all armor saves and greatly increases vehicle damage if it penetrates.

If you're comparing two units for exactly the same role, it's a useful metric. There is absolutely no way it can be the only guiding principle when building an army, though.

I've done something like what you're asking about. What I did was calculate the number of shots necessary to kill 100 points of various units for a variety of weapon types. For example, how many Bolter shots, how many Lasgun shots, etc. I then also calculated how many points of GEQ, MEQ and TEQ each unit would kill in a single round of optimal shooting and also on the charge in CC.

While I won't claim this is how you should decide what units to take or anything, I did find the numbers helpful in understanding how different units perform in different roles. It also helped highlight exactly why certain units are very cost-effective, like Grey Hunters.

Baronyu's link is exactly what I was talking about. Given a particular unit (10 vet guardsman for example), with a particular build (3 plasma guns, 6 lasguns, 1 laspistol), with a particular firing mode (rapid-firing), against a particular target (MEQ or marine equivalent - a model that is T4 with 1 wound and a 3+ armor save) - how many unsaved wounds would they deal on average? (4.296)

Then take the total points cost of that unit (115) and divide that by the average number of unsaved wounds caused (4.296).

That final number - 26.77 - is your final number. You can then compare that with other units that you have done the same thing with to determine the best efficiency of offensive firepower against a specific type of target in specific circumstances.

Just in those calculations alone though, you have a ton of variables to deal with - different ranges, different target types, is there cover or not, does the target have any defensive special rules (FnP, RP)? To make the situation worse, you have a plethora of variables that are critical to determining a unit's overall worth that are difficult (or impossible) to mathematically account for: How survivable is the unit? How mobile is the unit? Does the unit require synergistic support from another unit? What is the value of that unit?

I like to, jsut like mr econmoics like to calculate my sqauds vs other sqauds point for point one turn each.

For instance


12 fire worriars (108 points) shoot at imperial gaurdsmen 23" away

6 hits, 5 wounds, (25 points of dmg)

25 gaurdsmen shoot , 12.5 hits, 6.25 wounds, 3 ish deaths 27 points of dmg.

Fire worriars trade about equally with gaurdsmen at non rapid fire distance.


12 Fire worrioirs shoot space marines at rapid fire

12 hits, 8 wounds, 2 2/3 deaths, 42 points of dmg

7 space marine shoot back,

9.3 hits, 6.2 wounds, 3ish deaths, 27 points of dmg

SPace marine better get in cc

To the OP.

I think you are off to a good start as a returning beginner in asking the questions you have posed. There is a quantitative aspect to the game but also hundreds of qualitative factors as well.

The 40k crowd is a lot better overall about math hammer than the whfb crowd. I think this is because the 40k crowd is just way the heck more into competition and tournaments.

In the end however, there is no substitute for just jumping in the game feet first and learning from your mistakes and successes. There is also a movement phase to the game that cannot be math hammered as well as the timing of when to take an objective or go for some other scenario victory condition.

Looking at the Math is definitely helpful for a lot of things. And it's especially helpful to have an idea of about how effective a unit might be when it shoots into another (i.e. Marines firing into guard; will you do enough damage? Should you evaluate another option? do you think you'll make the charge? What's the chance of you failing that charge?)

That being said, it's really hard to use probabilities to evaluate overall effectiveness in many cases. That's mostly due to the effects of tactics and strategy on the game.

I recommend looking on various tactics threads/at armies and see what you notice. A large, spreadsheet of data would be interesting, but overall itt's no cure-all.

Typical example: a TL assault cannon can be more effective than a TL lascannon at popping various tank types, statistically. However, it has a much closer range, putting you into the open. Which is better to take?

You have to play to decide what's best for you. But if you're worried about buying units that seem really ineffective or will constantly weigh you down, then just check around. Heck, even just 1d4chan can give you some ideas about units etc. They may not be super accurate all the time, but they'll get ideas floating.

Also: try proxying units to test out strategies/ideas. Can save you some money and time.

You can take strategy and tactics into the variables. Or rather you can gather the raw data and then apply it to different situations.

You can tell that a TL-assault cannon is far superior to a TL-lascannon at both armor penetration and anti-infantry, but it has half the range. Then you can look at the platform you are trying to decide which of the 2 to mount on. If the thing in question has no problems getting within range with the assault cannon you should always choose it.

Thank you, everyone!

I have a lot of reading, and a lot of work, to do.

I know Mathhammer has it's limitations, but it is a way to start understanding 40k. Later on I will have to figure out who works well with who, and no doubt, I will have more questions.

Then I will have to have a look at tactics. And more questions...

But that's all for now. Thanks, again.