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.

So, I've been playing around with the idea of doing a bunch of faction/detachment deep dives into how well various armies play on the tabletop. It's not going to be an meta analysis, but more of a conceptual one. Say for instance with the Sororities Penitent Host detachment, the ratings would be based exclusively off the units designed to synergize with that detachment regardless of what supporting units would be advantageous, whereas a detachment like Hallowed Martyrs would look at the faction as a whole.  I think I've narrowed it down to 5 categories that cover most everything, but if there's a key piece I'm missing or an X factor that needs addressing, please let me know. Also, I'd love to you if you think this kind of advanced number crunching would even be interesting in general. 

Maneuverability: This would take into account the average range of units movement, as well as abilities like fly, auto advance, scout, infiltrate, Deep Strike, Advance/Fallback and shoot/charge, as well as transport synergies. 

Durability: This would focus on the average T and Sv of units as well as Invuls, FNP, Stealth, Damage reduction and resistance to MW. 

Objective Control: This would factor in OC score, LD, as well as abilities like sticky objectives and battle shock. 

Ranged Capacity: This would be accuracy, buffs as well as approximate output against various types of targets GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light vehicles (T10 or below) and heavy vehicles (T 10+).

Melee Capability: More-less the same as above, just for melee rather than ranged. 

The points lens: This one is a bit more mutable as points change on the regular, but to have some factor to apply a ratio of points to unit effectiveness as what it's doing for the army. 

I'm curious if the data I come up with will be anywhere close to where factions and detachments sit in the overall meta and/or if they will align with the general feel of how strong an army is to the general player base. 

Another aspect you could consider is the number of viable units/builds for a given army.

Would "Counterplay" be out of scope?
By "Counterplay" I mean "How easy is it for your army's game plan to be stopped and/or you to stop other army's game plans outside of killing" (eg, an army that relies on magic would have poor Counterplay against an army that could reliably dispel or block magic; likewise an army that had boosted overwatch and multiple ways to prevent charging would have great Counterplay against a melee army).

Horde or MSU should be added to the OC analysis. 5 OC 10 models is good, 50 OC 2 models is better. Is is 3 big units or 6 small ones? A big Stratagem and a character with a strong support skill or being Necrons can mean big units even if MSU usually has all the benefits, worth pointing out when not the case.

Get rid of pts and your analysis will be evergreen and you're not going to have people actually knowledgable about tournament pts-efficiency lecture you on how you are wrong. It doesn't really matter if Triarch Praetorians are overcosted to most detachments, even the Triarch/Lychguard detachment, as long as I can fill 2k pts with non-Triarch Praetorian units and form an effective list. As a casual I might care that Triarch Praetorians means the detachment isn't as slow as the Lychguard detachment might be imagined as though. But you're not going to have competitive players looking through your analysis to find a detachment that fits their playstyle.

I want to see, but start small for your own sake.

 Tawnis wrote:
So, I've been playing around with the idea of doing a bunch of faction/detachment deep dives into how well various armies play on the tabletop. It's not going to be an meta analysis, but more of a conceptual one. Say for instance with the Sororities Penitent Host detachment, the ratings would be based exclusively off the units designed to synergize with that detachment regardless of what supporting units would be advantageous, whereas a detachment like Hallowed Martyrs would look at the faction as a whole.  I think I've narrowed it down to 5 categories that cover most everything, but if there's a key piece I'm missing or an X factor that needs addressing, please let me know. Also, I'd love to you if you think this kind of advanced number crunching would even be interesting in general. 

Maneuverability: This would take into account the average range of units movement, as well as abilities like fly, auto advance, scout, infiltrate, Deep Strike, Advance/Fallback and shoot/charge, as well as transport synergies. 

Durability: This would focus on the average T and Sv of units as well as Invuls, FNP, Stealth, Damage reduction and resistance to MW. 

Objective Control: This would factor in OC score, LD, as well as abilities like sticky objectives and battle shock. 

Ranged Capacity: This would be accuracy, buffs as well as approximate output against various types of targets GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light vehicles (T10 or below) and heavy vehicles (T 10+).

Melee Capability: More-less the same as above, just for melee rather than ranged. 

The points lens: This one is a bit more mutable as points change on the regular, but to have some factor to apply a ratio of points to unit effectiveness as what it's doing for the army. 

I'm curious if the data I come up with will be anywhere close to where factions and detachments sit in the overall meta and/or if they will align with the general feel of how strong an army is to the general player base. 

I'm not sure a one-size-fits-all set of "stats" like that is really the best way to go about it. It looks cool on a graph/stat card, but I'm not sure it's really a good way to communicate the main points of a faction or detachment to someone trying to learn about them. Especially if there are significantly different ways to field that type of detachment. Double-especially if what those "stats" are representing are as varied/muddled as infiltrate vs deepstrike vs movement stats vs reactive move abilities, etc.

I feel like a more useful breakdown would be something like:

FACTION: ASURYANI
* Typically made up of squishy, expensive bodies that either shoot or stab hard (but rarely both).
* Lots of movement tricks including reactive moves, redeploys, and ways to boost their threat range.
* Lots of powerful support abilities that buff more than one unit at a time.
* Lacks access to cheap, numerous fodder units. Most units are not durable enough to comfortably stand around on objectives.

DETACHMENT: ASPECT HOST
* Mostly sticks to typical faction conventions.
* Mostly focuses on straight-forward lethality-boosting effects.
* A small amount of extra movement shenanigans with a strat that lets them embark a unit at the end of the turn.

DETACHMENT: WRAITH HOST
* Playstyle differs significantly from the faction norm.
* Emphasizes the use of durable, expensive wraith units which are typically slow but hard-hitting.
* Relies on psyker support to keep its units performing optimally.
* Lacks most of the movement shenanigans typical to the faction.

Something like that probably tells me a lot more about those two detachments than squinting at an abstracted "shooting" stat that tries to represent both the short-ranged power of wraith guard guns and the very different firepower of an aspect host's dragons, hawks, and reapers. And Asuryan forbid you should try to account for aspect hosts with some wraiths splashed in or vice versa.

 Tawnis wrote:
So, I've been playing around with the idea of doing a bunch of faction/detachment deep dives into how well various armies play on the tabletop. It's not going to be an meta analysis, but more of a conceptual one. Say for instance with the Sororities Penitent Host detachment, the ratings would be based exclusively off the units designed to synergize with that detachment regardless of what supporting units would be advantageous, whereas a detachment like Hallowed Martyrs would look at the faction as a whole.  I think I've narrowed it down to 5 categories that cover most everything, but if there's a key piece I'm missing or an X factor that needs addressing, please let me know. Also, I'd love to you if you think this kind of advanced number crunching would even be interesting in general. 

Maneuverability: This would take into account the average range of units movement, as well as abilities like fly, auto advance, scout, infiltrate, Deep Strike, Advance/Fallback and shoot/charge, as well as transport synergies. 

Durability: This would focus on the average T and Sv of units as well as Invuls, FNP, Stealth, Damage reduction and resistance to MW. 

Objective Control: This would factor in OC score, LD, as well as abilities like sticky objectives and battle shock. 

Ranged Capacity: This would be accuracy, buffs as well as approximate output against various types of targets GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light vehicles (T10 or below) and heavy vehicles (T 10+).

Melee Capability: More-less the same as above, just for melee rather than ranged. 

The points lens: This one is a bit more mutable as points change on the regular, but to have some factor to apply a ratio of points to unit effectiveness as what it's doing for the army. 

I'm curious if the data I come up with will be anywhere close to where factions and detachments sit in the overall meta and/or if they will align with the general feel of how strong an army is to the general player base. 

Sounds like a lot of work for no real benefit.
And by the time you finish this grand undertaking no one will care because 11e will be here (or nearly upon us).
You'd be better served by using that time to play more games.

ccs wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
So, I've been playing around with the idea of doing a bunch of faction/detachment deep dives into how well various armies play on the tabletop. It's not going to be an meta analysis, but more of a conceptual one. Say for instance with the Sororities Penitent Host detachment, the ratings would be based exclusively off the units designed to synergize with that detachment regardless of what supporting units would be advantageous, whereas a detachment like Hallowed Martyrs would look at the faction as a whole.  I think I've narrowed it down to 5 categories that cover most everything, but if there's a key piece I'm missing or an X factor that needs addressing, please let me know. Also, I'd love to you if you think this kind of advanced number crunching would even be interesting in general. 

Maneuverability: This would take into account the average range of units movement, as well as abilities like fly, auto advance, scout, infiltrate, Deep Strike, Advance/Fallback and shoot/charge, as well as transport synergies. 

Durability: This would focus on the average T and Sv of units as well as Invuls, FNP, Stealth, Damage reduction and resistance to MW. 

Objective Control: This would factor in OC score, LD, as well as abilities like sticky objectives and battle shock. 

Ranged Capacity: This would be accuracy, buffs as well as approximate output against various types of targets GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light vehicles (T10 or below) and heavy vehicles (T 10+).

Melee Capability: More-less the same as above, just for melee rather than ranged. 

The points lens: This one is a bit more mutable as points change on the regular, but to have some factor to apply a ratio of points to unit effectiveness as what it's doing for the army. 

I'm curious if the data I come up with will be anywhere close to where factions and detachments sit in the overall meta and/or if they will align with the general feel of how strong an army is to the general player base. 

Sounds like a lot of work for no real benefit.
And by the time you finish this grand undertaking no one will care because 11e will be here (or nearly upon us).
You'd be better served by using that time to play more games.

I hate to agree with the lazy route, but wouldn't it be easier to chuck this into one of those AI Bots, instead of burning a whole lotta man hours on this project?

 Quixote wrote:


I hate to agree with the lazy route, but wouldn't it be easier to chuck this into one of those AI Bots, instead of burning a whole lotta man hours on this project?

AI has been pretty bad at understanding 40k when people ask it to do stuff like homebrewing units in the past. I don't think I'd trust an AI's analysis of how good eldar are at shooting compared to marines or orks or whatever.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Would "Counterplay" be out of scope?
By "Counterplay" I mean "How easy is it for your army's game plan to be stopped and/or you to stop other army's game plans outside of killing" (eg, an army that relies on magic would have poor Counterplay against an army that could reliably dispel or block magic; likewise an army that had boosted overwatch and multiple ways to prevent charging would have great Counterplay against a melee army).

Hmm, that's a really good point, like how it's pretty easy to screen charges against an army like World Eaters... Not sure how I'd quantify that though. Something to think on for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
Horde or MSU should be added to the OC analysis. 5 OC 10 models is good, 50 OC 2 models is better. Is is 3 big units or 6 small ones? A big Stratagem and a character with a strong support skill or being Necrons can mean big units even if MSU usually has all the benefits, worth pointing out when not the case.

Get rid of pts and your analysis will be evergreen and you're not going to have people actually knowledgable about tournament pts-efficiency lecture you on how you are wrong. It doesn't really matter if Triarch Praetorians are overcosted to most detachments, even the Triarch/Lychguard detachment, as long as I can fill 2k pts with non-Triarch Praetorian units and form an effective list. As a casual I might care that Triarch Praetorians means the detachment isn't as slow as the Lychguard detachment might be imagined as though. But you're not going to have competitive players looking through your analysis to find a detachment that fits their playstyle.

I want to see, but start small for your own sake.

Yeah, that was the biggest debate I was having with myself on it, points flux is hard to pin down. Or maybe a simple 3 point system with some kind of generic baseline. Like a unit is overcosted, undercosted, or average? Certainly want to make it simple, but it is such a big part of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:


Something like that probably tells me a lot more about those two detachments than squinting at an abstracted "shooting" stat that tries to represent both the short-ranged power of wraith guard guns and the very different firepower of an aspect host's dragons, hawks, and reapers. And Asuryan forbid you should try to account for aspect hosts with some wraiths splashed in or vice versa.

That is true. I was thinking of just each for their specialty sub factions and have the generalist detachment be the one for the army, but you make a good point. More to think on.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Quixote wrote:


I hate to agree with the lazy route, but wouldn't it be easier to chuck this into one of those AI Bots, instead of burning a whole lotta man hours on this project?

AI has been pretty bad at understanding 40k when people ask it to do stuff like homebrewing units in the past. I don't think I'd trust an AI's analysis of how good eldar are at shooting compared to marines or orks or whatever.

Oh. I have a pretty bad understanding of AI...

Sorry.

 Tawnis wrote:
Yeah, that was the biggest debate I was having with myself on it, points flux is hard to pin down. Or maybe a simple 3 point system with some kind of generic baseline. Like a unit is overcosted, undercosted, or average? Certainly want to make it simple, but it is such a big part of the game.

I think without points its kind of... unmoored from reality.

I mean whether something is durable - or good at shooting/melee, is really a function of points. Exactly the same stats looks quite different if you are paying 50% more points for it.

In the same way I kind of feel "Maneuverability" and "Objective control" are similar points. Since its largely a function of "can you put a unit where you want, when you want?"
I guess there are alternative to this with "carpet-lists", that aren't especially fast or killy, but instead rely on it being hard to wipe them off objectives (at least with shooting). Thinking Guard Recon Patrol as an example. Mass Skitarii as another. Kroot to some degree perhaps.

This might be quite a different style to what you were thinking of - but I almost think a breakdown of detachments by "style of play archetype" could be interesting. But maybe this analysis would explain why certain detachments tend to build towards those archetypes.

Tyel wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Yeah, that was the biggest debate I was having with myself on it, points flux is hard to pin down. Or maybe a simple 3 point system with some kind of generic baseline. Like a unit is overcosted, undercosted, or average? Certainly want to make it simple, but it is such a big part of the game.

I think without points its kind of... unmoored from reality.

I mean whether something is durable - or good at shooting/melee, is really a function of points. Exactly the same stats looks quite different if you are paying 50% more points for it.

In the same way I kind of feel "Maneuverability" and "Objective control" are similar points. Since its largely a function of "can you put a unit where you want, when you want?"
I guess there are alternative to this with "carpet-lists", that aren't especially fast or killy, but instead rely on it being hard to wipe them off objectives (at least with shooting). Thinking Guard Recon Patrol as an example. Mass Skitarii as another. Kroot to some degree perhaps.

This might be quite a different style to what you were thinking of - but I almost think a breakdown of detachments by "style of play archetype" could be interesting. But maybe this analysis would explain why certain detachments tend to build towards those archetypes.

Yeah, and how in some cases some armies only apply in some situations. Kroot infantry spam for instance as you bring up is incredibly durable against shooting heavy armies, with their 5+ invul, Stealth on everything, and ability to close the distance very fast, it's basically an auto win against something like Tau proper. However, run that same spam list into a World Eaters army and you'll get shredded like tissue paper because Stealth is irrelevant you only have a 6+ invul in melee, and melee attacks typically output more per attack than ranged ones.

Tyel wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Yeah, that was the biggest debate I was having with myself on it, points flux is hard to pin down. Or maybe a simple 3 point system with some kind of generic baseline. Like a unit is overcosted, undercosted, or average? Certainly want to make it simple, but it is such a big part of the game.

I think without points its kind of... unmoored from reality.

I mean whether something is durable - or good at shooting/melee, is really a function of points. Exactly the same stats looks quite different if you are paying 50% more points for it.

In the same way I kind of feel "Maneuverability" and "Objective control" are similar points. Since its largely a function of "can you put a unit where you want, when you want?"
I guess there are alternative to this with "carpet-lists", that aren't especially fast or killy, but instead rely on it being hard to wipe them off objectives (at least with shooting). Thinking Guard Recon Patrol as an example. Mass Skitarii as another. Kroot to some degree perhaps.

This might be quite a different style to what you were thinking of - but I almost think a breakdown of detachments by "style of play archetype" could be interesting. But maybe this analysis would explain why certain detachments tend to build towards those archetypes.

If a unit has T10 and S1, you can objectively say it is tough relative to how killy it is. Mobility is just an absolute number across the game, M5 units are slow, M16 units with advance and charge are fast. Some units you take for their durability, others for how killy they are. Whether they are pts-efficient or not, their main strength will still either be the toughness that is undercosted or the killyness that is undercosted.