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.

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.