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.

Greetings fellow players,

Most of Astra militarum units were analysed using predefined and quantified metrics in my new YouTube channel. The aim of the videos is to answer if a unit is worth its points. It gives an overall value of the unit capacity and consider a wide amount of variables. A short analysis is also added in the videos to assess the impact of force multiplier on a possibly competitive unit.

You can view the specifics of Astra militarum’s unit in the videos of this play list: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNQZqMWaQI6d3BFZIu5yQNrNUk4stkXhB

All units of 40k will be processed using the same methodology. Here is an overview of the results for Astra militarum.

Results:
Conscript (125%)
Infantry squad (205%)
Tempestus scions (127%)
Chimera (174%)
Taurox (88%)
Taurox Prime (175%)
Bullgryns (75%)
Crusaders (45%)
Ogryns (89%)
Ratling (92%)
Special Weapon squad (196%)
Veterans (163%)
Armoured sentinels (122%)
Hellhounds (143%)
Scout sentinels (141%)
Basilisk (152%)
Heavy Weapon squad (117%)
Hydras (144%)
Leman Russ Battle canon (99%)
Leman Russ Demolisher (140%)
Manticore (162%)
Wyvern (104%)
Valkiries (181%)
Baneblade (114%)
Banehammer (95%)
Banesword (112%)
Doomhammer (133%)
Hellhammer (96%)
Shadowsword (134%)
Stormlord (105%)

Methodology:

The assessment is done by comparing offensive output by its defensive cost. The methodology allows analysis for all types of units with the exception of characters. Factors that were considered the most predictive and quantified in the analysis are:

- Anti-tank shooting
- Anti-personnel shooting
- Anti-tank melee
- Anti-personnel melee
- Fortitude
- Mobility

The videos were made before the latest FAQ therefore the heavy bolters are still considered to have damage 1 and the range of flamers were considered at 8’’.

More details on the methodology can be found in this video: https://youtu.be/Xm0lB6f4K9Y

Videos on Drukharis units are now being publish. Craftworld, Primaris (old codex) and Chaos space Marines quantitative breakdown are already online. Next faction that will be publish is the Imperial and Chaos Knights. The new codex of the Space marines and the Orks are being assessed at this moment.

I invite you to follow my channel!

Avec respect,

Simon

I always disliked trying to 100% objectively state "unit X is 150% good, unit Y is only 80% good". I get why people want to do it, but realistically I just don't think that's how things work in practice. Caveat, I'm not a tournament player, actual tournament players might disagree with this. I think it has some merit for new players who don't know where to start, but it also encourages bad habits. We've all met a person who says "that unit sucks, why would you run it?" based off of common internet "knowledge" and refuses to understand that there may in fact be a niche use for it,. Especially obnoxious ones who insist on telling you how to run your army. Not saying your obnoxious, I can tell you put a lot of work into this and it's meant to help people, and for the most part it seems fairly accurate aside from a few outliers that I probably disagree with more on personal bias for the most part.

Everything influences a unit's "worth". Not just it's offensive/defensive power or it's movement. Terrain rules, what's in vogue in the meta, players playstyle, what else is available to your army, chapter trait, pyskers abilities, strats, orders like IG has, etc. Your table seems pretty good, but like you yourself mentioned in your youtube video, it doesn't cover everything, as shown by the rating for Bullgryn. Bullgryn are a great example actually. No, they're not as beefy, fast, or killy as some melee options out there, but they're the best IG has if you're trying to stay inside your codex, and they're the only really durable unit to park on a point. As more codexes go to rules that encourage monocodex, looking at what units do within the codex matters more and more. You also need to consider new mission secondaries that punish IG quite a bit. Guardsmen are still an excellent unit in a vacuum, but they absolutely bleed secondaries and that does affect they're competitive value.

But yeah, I think there's some merit, I just personally don't care for objective tier or percentage lists as much. I feel like what makes a unit good depends on the circumstances of your specific situation and the most important thing is being able to recognize your specific needs, not just that one unit is good or another is bad. What matters more is the list as a whole, and that may mean a normally substandard unit is actually the optimal choice sometimes

I agree mostly with your comments MrMoustaffa. The element that I disagree is that it is possible to quantify the impact of orders, auras, chapters, stratagems and other force multipliers. In fact, it is very interesting to see the quantitative impact of those elements on a unit.

You understand the videos as a mean to create better list. The other intent of the videos is to identify which units in the opponent list is very potent. By doing a quantitative assessment of all units, I found some units that were total surprises. The Chaos spawn being one of them. I would probably have been surprised by a player who would field them. They are now the high value target in my game plan vs CSM player.

Knowing the others army is also an important element to any strategic game. Numbers are just more objective, but there is still validity in subjectivity.

Avec respect,

Simon