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.

With the advent of several different kids of profiles across various armies it becomes more and more likely you will face a challenge that your army is not prepared to handle if you focus

This is a preliminary swipe at defining the threats, some weapons, and how they perform in the groups ( W1 / W2 / W3 / W4+ ).

All assumptions are based on long range. Also things like MM doing 3.5 damage doesn't spill over so in the instance of W4 it is overstated by twice what it would be. Similarly in W3 applications, but it is not overstated as much. The values are a calculation of all the squad's weapons ( no add ons atm ) multiplied by the value of what they killed ( a ratio, if only partially damaged ) and then that figure is divided into the cost of the firing unit to give an approximation of it's efficiency.

Some takeaways:
- Suppressors and AC Chickens perform remarkably similarly for the points. I should also note there are no marine bonuses here, either. On the other end of that Suppressors will get move penalties and are less tough, but can block O/W. You will need to bring these things into your personal considerations.
- Raiders as Anti-tank are not overly efficient. LC Chickens are twice as good while being more point efficient. DE should really struggle with vehicles at range.
- Both the Gladiator and Redemptor are remarkably similar in efficiency
- Eradicators are king ( match hiccups aside ), but are the slowest of the bunch
- LC Chickens are not appreciably better than MM ABs

So, which weapon platforms should feature? Do you agree with the buckets? Why or why not?

Thanks for your effort. What loadouts did you use for Gladiator and Redemptor?

Would you care to update the table with "the other loadout(s)" for comparison?

I thought about this as well, but I think GW has done a relatively good job in 9th to spread out weapon and defensive profiles compared to previous editions. There is just so much more take into account and makes it difficult to write a quick cheat sheet on what weapon should go where.

For mathhammer, I have rather high opinion of this guy here



If you skip to his charts, he is calculating damage against a whooping 32 different profiles, roughly split into 8 "weight classes". Maybe you can find some inspiration there?

But yeah, cool thing you did there so far.

I am not sure what this table is suppose to achive. Who shots dark lances in to a mob of boys, unless there is absolutly nothing in range or line of sight?

Dark lances are better then other heavy weapons, because of the flat D4 minimum damage on a flying platform that moves fast, plus it is something more survivable then something like an attack bike or a lascanon armed ad mecha walker.

Also the focus on wounds caused is confusing when there is no over spill. A Dark lance doesn't cause 3.2 wounds to a geq it caused one one wound. So, at least to me, the table is hell of confusing, and I am not sure what is it suppose to show. That if heavy weapons were basic weapons and could be spamed they would work in a specific way? I guess in that case the table would be useful, but a time perido where a dark lance or MM become the basic weapon for multiple armies, would be a very unfun moment to majority of w40k players, aside maybe for those with working horde armies.

Typically Geqs only have 1W but some have FNP or equivalents so specifying the exact average like 3.2 instead of something like "guaranteed 1" helps in doing the analysis. A few can be 2W.

Karol wrote:
I am not sure what this table is suppose to achive. Who shots dark lances in to a mob of boys, unless there is absolutly nothing in range or line of sight?

Dark lances are better then other heavy weapons, because of the flat D4 minimum damage on a flying platform that moves fast, plus it is something more survivable then something like an attack bike or a lascanon armed ad mecha walker.

Also the focus on wounds caused is confusing when there is no over spill. A Dark lance doesn't cause 3.2 wounds to a geq it caused one one wound. So, at least to me, the table is hell of confusing, and I am not sure what is it suppose to show. That if heavy weapons were basic weapons and could be spamed they would work in a specific way? I guess in that case the table would be useful, but a time perido where a dark lance or MM become the basic weapon for multiple armies, would be a very unfun moment to majority of w40k players, aside maybe for those with working horde armies.

The overall goal, I think, is to suss out what people should be considering when they go to make a list. To highlight the potential opponents and show what risk they take with an army that is too skew.

The data isn't to tell us what weapon goes where. Certainly you won't shoot a DL at GEQ. The numbers are there for posterity.

The 3.2 is a representation of efficiency. The math does not overkill, but it does underkill.

In that example it does (1 * .666 * .833 * 5.5) / 95 * 100 = 3.2


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Thanks for your effort. What loadouts did you use for Gladiator and Redemptor?

Would you care to update the table with "the other loadout(s)" for comparison?

Gladiator was the THOGC and Tempest. Redemption was HOGC, OGC, and 2 SB.

As I expand the thought I'll move this all to a script and get a more perfect calculation and expand the units and gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
I thought about this as well, but I think GW has done a relatively good job in 9th to spread out weapon and defensive profiles compared to previous editions. There is just so much more take into account and makes it difficult to write a quick cheat sheet on what weapon should go where.

For mathhammer, I have rather high opinion of this guy here



If you skip to his charts, he is calculating damage against a whooping 32 different profiles, roughly split into 8 "weight classes". Maybe you can find some inspiration there?

But yeah, cool thing you did there so far.

Good stuff. I will noodle on his approach. Thanks!

This is a really good breakdown of what to look for when building and selecting weapon load-outs.

So far, the best ideology I have found to approach the 9th edition with is to try to build a well-rounded army as best you can and play to the strengths. In BA I don't have to take a lot of anti-infantry shooting, because melee will do that for me, but I do need some anti-tank help, and this helps me figure out where and what to put.

Its a really good table and i appreciate you bringing it out here.

Karol wrote:
I am not sure what this table is suppose to achive. Who shots dark lances in to a mob of boys, unless there is absolutly nothing in range or line of sight?

Dark lances are better then other heavy weapons, because of the flat D4 minimum damage on a flying platform that moves fast, plus it is something more survivable then something like an attack bike or a lascanon armed ad mecha walker.

Also the focus on wounds caused is confusing when there is no over spill. A Dark lance doesn't cause 3.2 wounds to a geq it caused one one wound. So, at least to me, the table is hell of confusing, and I am not sure what is it suppose to show. That if heavy weapons were basic weapons and could be spamed they would work in a specific way? I guess in that case the table would be useful, but a time perido where a dark lance or MM become the basic weapon for multiple armies, would be a very unfun moment to majority of w40k players, aside maybe for those with working horde armies.

Seemingly nonsensical values are included because it costs no extra time to pull an excel table all the way across. And sometimes stuff surprises you - for example eradicators pull better point efficiency numbers vs orks than some marine "anti infantry" choices thanks to the number of shots, wounding on 2s and their low point cost.

Interesting data. So are you just sticking with stuff with 9th edition rules? Would be interesting to see how some of the older stuff compares to the new profiles.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Seemingly nonsensical values are included because it costs no extra time to pull an excel table all the way across. And sometimes stuff surprises you - for example eradicators pull better point efficiency numbers vs orks than some marine "anti infantry" choices thanks to the number of shots, wounding on 2s and their low point cost.

I encountered this revelation against Sisters in a painful way when I went second against 3 squads of retributors who proceeded to dump no less than 30MM shots into my warriors who were begging my Chrono to do something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Interesting data. So are you just sticking with stuff with 9th edition rules? Would be interesting to see how some of the older stuff compares to the new profiles.

If I can streamline it, sure. You have anything in mind?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Interesting data. So are you just sticking with stuff with 9th edition rules? Would be interesting to see how some of the older stuff compares to the new profiles.

If I can streamline it, sure. You have anything in mind?

Wouldn't mind seeing how the new anti-infantry stuff stacks up to chaincannon Havocs. On the "target" side, fw dreads?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Interesting data. So are you just sticking with stuff with 9th edition rules? Would be interesting to see how some of the older stuff compares to the new profiles.

If I can streamline it, sure. You have anything in mind?

Wouldn't mind seeing how the new anti-infantry stuff stacks up to chaincannon Havocs. On the "target" side, fw dreads?

Added CC Havocs and a Felblade - I'll add a Levi at some point. Also fixed a couple other small issues that changed some values. New sheet on top. Working on a script to accommodate wilder units with exploding weapons.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Interesting data. So are you just sticking with stuff with 9th edition rules? Would be interesting to see how some of the older stuff compares to the new profiles.

If I can streamline it, sure. You have anything in mind?

Wouldn't mind seeing how the new anti-infantry stuff stacks up to chaincannon Havocs. On the "target" side, fw dreads?

Added CC Havocs and a Felblade - I'll add a Levi at some point. Also fixed a couple other small issues that changed some values. New sheet on top. Working on a script to accommodate wilder units with exploding weapons.

Nice. Looks like CC Havocs are still the Kings of Anti-infantry, at least until you get into the real heavy infantry and the Eradicators take the leed. Not surprised to see everything getting high returns on the Fellblade, paying for all of those guns makes it a bit "squishy". What Knight loadout did you use for their points cost might I ask?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Nice. Looks like CC Havocs are still the Kings of Anti-infantry, at least until you get into the real heavy infantry and the Eradicators take the leed. Not surprised to see everything getting high returns on the Fellblade, paying for all of those guns makes it a bit "squishy". What Knight loadout did you use for their points cost might I ask?

And that's without combo wombo. Makes up a bit for the range, speed, and durability at least.

Despoiler with some gubbins in the 450 range.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Nice. Looks like CC Havocs are still the Kings of Anti-infantry, at least until you get into the real heavy infantry and the Eradicators take the leed. Not surprised to see everything getting high returns on the Fellblade, paying for all of those guns makes it a bit "squishy". What Knight loadout did you use for their points cost might I ask?

And that's without combo wombo. Makes up a bit for the range, speed, and durability at least.

Despoiler with some gubbins in the 450 range.

Well the durability will be getting addressed, eventually. Good to see that the Legions still have some things going for us.

So a Despoiler with a couple of gun arms? 3/4 the price of the Fellblade and about half the damage output. No wonder the returns are so much higher for the Fellblade. Like I said, gotta pay for all of those guns.

Fire Warriors, Harlequin Players, Intercessors, Deathshroud Terminators, Raiders, Rhinos and Knights would be a balanced lineup because it factors in models with 2+ 4++, 3+, 3+ 5++, 4+, 4+ 5++ and 7+ 4++. The difference between 5+ and 4+ or 6+ and 7+ is minimal so representing 5+ and 6+ is less necessary. You've also got Toughness values 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 represented.

I think you should add Doomsday Arks to your defensive thing, they tend to perform amazingly in these kinds of lineups and being down 20 points I am pretty sure they dunk on Knights in terms of surviving melta and neo-lasers.

Something smells off about the DL Raider vs laser chicken math. Can you post the Fellblade math for those two units?

2 LC shots for 75 vs 1 DL shot for 95. 95/(75/2)=2,53. Laser chickens should be less than 2,5 times as effective since DL has more AP but your math says 2,69 times as effective.

Did you use the updated points for MM Attack Bikes?

The autocannon chicken math seems too good to be true on the -1 damage units.

Yeah balistarii with ac clearly isnt factoring -1d in correctly vs plagues.

I will review and repost. Thanks for helping to put eyes on, guys.