Switch Theme:

Re-reviewing the Typhon and Baneblade  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Hai Guyz! Resident GW White Knight here.

In a previous discussion about the Typhon and Baneblade I ran some numbers and found their durability to be too close to call, however, I found a bug in the program that miscalculated some armor saves so i'm revisiting the topic here.

(Sorry about the varying chart lengths)

Lascannon vs BB and Typhon
This is the % chance to kill each with a lascannon in a given number of shots. You'll see the Baneblade has a huge skew to the left. The two cross at 26 shots. There is a 78.5% chance to kill a Baneblade in that window where the Typhon is sitting at 41.6%. That's a pretty significant jump in durability.

Spoiler:


Melta Gun vs BB and Typhon
This is the same method with a melta gun. It's even worse for the BB here of course with the lines crossing at 30 shots. That makes it 81% vs 38%.

Spoiler:

Assuming a base cost for each the Typhon will be around TWICE as expensive as the Bane Blade base cost.



Now for their weapons...

BB and Typhon vs BB
This is the Dreadhammer and BBC shooting a Bane Blade. They cross at 3 rounds of shooting. The BB sits at 66% and the Typhon is 60%. Slight advantage to the BB.

Spoiler:


BB and Typhon vs Typhon
And now both of them shooting a Typhon. Crossing at 4 rounds of shooting the BB is 64% and the Typhon is 93%. In addition at 3 rounds the Typhon is 72% and the BB 36%. A pretty good domination here.

Spoiler:


Conclusion

The Typhon very clearly should cost more than the Bane Blade. It is twice as durable against the weapons that will hit it most often. It's gun is also more effective at the hard targets a Bane Blade wants to shoot, almost equally as good otherwise, and perhaps worse against soft targets it wasn't meant to shoot. In a previous thread I roughly determine the BBC to be worth 120 to 180 points. That leaves 210 to 270 for the base cost. Split down the middle and double is 480 points. The Dreadhammer is better by 50% where it counts. The average BBC cost is 150, so add 225. This places us at about 705 points, which is damned close the current points.

That is close enough to make me confident in the current valuation.

Yes, there are stratagems, regiments, and so forth that can improve performance, but these are NOT things included in point costs.

How Can I Trust Your Data?

This is a program that rolls a D6 (or D3) for every time a dice is needed. It uses Mersenne Twister two determine the random rolls. Logic loops handle the rest including doing rerolls before modifiers. Here is a sample logout put of the BBC firing at the Typhon:

Spoiler:

--- Firing 9 shots! ---
Fire! (4) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (6) Wounded! (1) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (5) Wounded! (6) Save Passed!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (4) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (4) Hit! (4) Wounded! (2) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (4) Hit! (1) Failed to Wound!
--- Firing 11 shots! ---
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (6) Wounded! (3) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (4) Hit! (4) Wounded! (5) Save Passed!
Fire! (4) Hit! (1) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (5) Wounded! (6) Save Passed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
--- Firing 9 shots! ---
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (5) Hit! (6) Wounded! (1) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (4) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (5) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
--- Firing 9 shots! ---
Fire! (6) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (5) Hit! (5) Wounded! (3) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (5) Wounded! (4) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (4) Wounded! (4) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
--- Firing 13 shots! ---
Fire! (6) Hit! (5) Wounded! (1) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (6) Wounded! (2) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (6) Hit! (5) Wounded! (3) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (4) Wounded! (5) Save Passed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (6) Hit! (4) Wounded! (4) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (4) Wounded! (2) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
--- Firing 13 shots! ---
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (4) Hit! (5) Wounded! (4) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (4) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (1) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (6) Hit! (1) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (1) Missed!
--- Firing 16 shots! ---
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (5) Wounded! (5) Save Passed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (4) Hit! (6) Wounded! (5) Save Passed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (6) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (5) Wounded! (2) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
--- Firing 8 shots! ---
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (2) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (5) Wounded! (2) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (2) Missed!
--- Firing 12 shots! ---
Fire! (6) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (4) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (6) Hit! (4) Wounded! (1) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (6) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
--- Firing 8 shots! ---
Fire! (5) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (4) Hit! (3) Failed to Wound!
Fire! (5) Hit! (4) Wounded! (5) Save Passed!
Fire! (1) Missed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (5) Wounded! (3) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (5) Hit! (5) Wounded! (4) Save Failed! Doing 3 damage.
Fire! (3) Missed!
Fire! (5) Hit! (2) Failed to Wound!




EDIT:
Made a few minor edits from mental screw ups.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/11/30 20:10:57


 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




McCragge

I wish the Typhon had quad lascannon sponsons.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Primark G wrote:
I wish the Typhon had quad lascannon sponsons.


Surely you're not implying an additional two lascannons will change the durability or performance of the main guns?
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Daedalus81 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
kombatwombat wrote:


You again! Well, straight away I’m going to attack the basis of your comparison again - you’re still comparing the Baneblade to the Typhon, when a much more apples to apples comparison would be between the Typhon and the Hellhammer. Would you be willing to run the last two simulations again supplanting the Hellhammer for the Baneblade?


Dun dun duuuun!

I can do that. I'm giving it a bit of a rewrite so that I can "fire a platform" all at once along with some other features so it maybe be a day or so.


The previous durability valuations still stand obviously.

Here are the cannons. vs a BB chassis it's 73 vs 60 - edge to Hellhammer. vs a Typhon its 72 vs 64 - edge to Typhon. And this makes perfect sense. The HH will perform better where the Typhon's AP5 is wasted - the Typhon has to pay for that after all. Having 7 BS3 (4.7) shots is reasonably close to 10.5 BS4 (5.25) shots.







The Hellhammer cannon is worth 20 points more than the BB. Since the HH is roughly equal to the Dreadhammer it stands to reason that they should come in at the same cost. The Dreadhammer is 48", but it has to stay stationary. Hellhammer is 36", but it can move and shoot without penalty so no real difference there. Previously I stated the BBC should be between 120 and 180.

It's hard to know what the cannons are worth since all those big weapons are built into the base cost and the only other option is FW points, which have been pretty unreliable. The closest thing is a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon. A regular BC hits on 4+ and is 22 points. A twin of such a weapon would be 44 points. The RFBC hits on a 3+, but I think it needs a point drop, because there is no way it is more than twice as good as a (twin) BC. A hellhammer is substantially better than a triple BC if it were to exist.


Let's compare the Hellhammer to a 9 Battle Cannons (198 points) and a 5 Demolisher Cannons (200 points), and 10 Lascannons (200 points) - all at BS4.

The 1 to 3 turn kill rate is as follows:



And the chart. Battle Cannon busting it's way to the top. It's a gun that doesn't have a lot of alternate mounting options so to take 9 of them is pretty exorbitant - it could perhaps be considered undercosted. Lascannons on the other hand are ubiquitous. The Demolisher Cannon under performs here likely due to the ability to increase it's shots against larger units.



This places the HH around 210 points. With the Dreadhammer being similar in performance it too should be 210. In the previous thread I has costed it at 225. At 210 the base cost of the HH/BB chassis is 200 points. The Typhon was stated to be twice as durable to common weapons placing it's cost at 400 (I had previously rough it in at 480). The total cost of a Typhon should technically be 610 points or about 110 cheaper than current. But this all really depends how they value the weapons. Clearly the Battle Cannon has some sort of discount likely for being a main cannon. Does the HH have that as well?

A Land Raider is 239 points. If we assume that is the correct price and that a Typhon is 150% of that we're at 360 points. It isn't a stretch to consider the titan abilities and T9 take it to 400 points and beyond.

So GW could be off by 50 or 100 points, but they're in the ball park, because even while the HH cannon performs as well the Typhon is a tough SOB.



There is a lot going on here and I can’t address it all tonight so I’ll start with the most fundamental one. Your graphs are helpful but how are you translating that into % increases in durability / firepower? To me it seems you’re only considering the crossover point. While this is a good start, doesn’t it miss analysing a significant part of the data? I’m struggling with how to meaningfully concert your graphical data into a hard and fast “21% tougher” or something.

My first thought would be comparing the integral of each graph. I’m a bit drunk at the moment (don’t drink and derive!) so take this with a grain of salt but wouldn’t the integral give a value for each vehicle’s total durability? Say one vehicle had a 50% chance of dying to either one or two shots, whereas another had 33% chance of dying to each 2, 3 or 4 shots. Your respective integrals would be 150 and 300 %-shots. So the second vehicle would be twice as durable. Does this make sense?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/09 14:09:16


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I'll pull up the data again and see if I can get that done. The measure I took was the first area, because the bigger odds it dies earlier is a good indicator of it's durability. The area after the crossover trends opposite and makes it "worse", but only worse if the other one has survived that long, which is increasingly unlikely.

In this graph the BB is most likely to die at 19 or so shots and the Typhon at 26 or 27. There's also an upper limit on the number of these types of shots the opponent can bring to the table and fire in a 5 turn game, which is not currently a consideration. If I recall these were BS3 lascannons as well- I should probably measure from hits only.


   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




That the Typhon is most likely to die at 26 lascannons to the Baneblade’s 19 shows that there’s a lot going on here. Looking at just that you would say the Typhon is 37% more durable. Looking at simple odds (number of successful wounds) you get 6/18 lascannon hits will go through on the Typhon vs 10/18 on the Baneblade, a 67% advantage. Then you look at your metric above - percentage likelihood of death at the crossover point - and you get 78.5 vs 41.6 - an 89% advantage. I’m not going to disagree that the Typhon has a healthy durability advantage over the Hellhound/Baneblade chassis, but there is a world of difference between a 37% and an 89% advantage.

If you take the integral of either function without limits I believe you’ll get infinity, so you do need bounds. You raise a good point that at some point you have to say you’re looking at an unreasonable amount of lascannons. Rather than arguing over how many lascannon shots someone could field, how about we set a cutoff percentage? Three standard deviations yields 99.7% and is a pretty common standard. Maybe set the lower bound of the integral as zero, and the upper bound as where each plot drops to 0.3%? So on the lascannon graph you’d be looking at bounds of 0 and about 37 shots for the Baneblade and 55 shots for the Typhon.

I’m hesitant about how you’re calculating the points values of the primary weapons. You’re having to draw a lot of subjective comparisons to figure out what a Dreadhammer cannon is ‘worth’ relative to lascannons/demolishers/RFBC. I think the comparison with the Hellhammer cannon is a lot cleaner. Between the two weapons, there are only two differences - the HH has a fixed 36” range to the DH’s 24/48” mobile/stationary, which I think we agree is broadly a wash. The other difference is AP-4 ignores cover vs AP-5. There is only one specific combination where this matters: 2+ armour, not in cover, with no invulnerable save. This is pretty rare - most units with a 2+ save will either have an invulnerable save or be hugging cover. The only things I can think of are Honour Guard, Ork Mega Armoured Nobs outside of Kustom Force Fields and heavy Marine vehicles. In this specific case a BS3 DH is 7% more effective (6/6 failed saves against the DH vs 5/6 against the HH, but 4.67 hits to the DH vs 5.25 hits for the HH). In all other cases though, the HH is straight up 12.5% better because it lands 12.5% more hits. Would you accept the Hellhammer cannon being about 10% more effective than the Dreadhammer overall?

If we can agree on firepower and the durability metric we’re discussing above then we’re getting a good picture. There are other differences though - durability is devalued by both sheer firepower and the prevalence of Mortal Wounds. The Typhon is far weaker against the former, since its toughness and save don’t help it and it has 4 fewer wounds. Then consider heavy firepower - start at S10 AP-5 and go up from there. A Shadowsword - something both of these tanks can reasonably expect to face fairly often - will expect to cripple either tank on the first shot and kill either on the second. A solid shell from a Fellblade Accelerator Cannon can knock the Typhon over in two turns, but will take at least three to kill the Hellhammer, and the Typhon’s only advantage will be a 6+ save. Titan-scale weapons care not for the Typhon’s 2+ save nor its T9.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Baby kept me busy all weekend so once I clear some projects i'll see what I can do.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




No dramas dude, interesting as this is I’m in no hurry!
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: