Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[40k] 40k Balance Revisited

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 2, 2005 1:16:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Wow, so I figured the topic hadn't been beat down enough. Anyway I got
to thinking about how to determine how close the armies are as far as
shooting. So I set up a matrix of some basic troop types as attackers
and targets. Calculated the probability of a kill based on basic
weapons normalized the probability based on cost of attacker and cost of
victim:
#shots x %hit x %wound x %unsaved x Target cost / Shooter cost

There are a lot of assumptions:
No upgrades to a squad (no heavy weapons, special weapons)
No assault
Range is constant (Basically straight up fire fight at max range)
Snipers hit 5/6 wound 50%
Gauss weapons always wounds on a 6
No rapid firing
Terminators and daemons get their special saves

So then I calculated the probability for each shooting unit vs each of
the following targets
Space marine, SM Bike, Terminator
Imperial Guard, Stormtrooper, Conscript
Boyz, Gretchin
Guardian, Dire Avng., Dark Reaper, Wraithlord
Necron, Immortal
Tau, Kroot
Immortal
Termagant, Genestealer, Tyranid Warrior
Dark Eldar Warrior
Grey Knight,Sister of Battle
Chaos Space Marine
Bloodletter,Plague Bearer,Horror,Daemonette,Flesh Hound,Daemonic Beasts

And then summed the total probabilities to see how each shooter was in
the 40k universe. It ends up being the ratio of points killed per point
spent if they shoot at all those targets listed one turn at maximum
range. Higher is better.

On to the rankings:

Guardian 16.2
Dire Avenger 14.4
Fire Dragon 13.1
Dark Reaper 10.0
Ratling 9.0
Gretchin 9.0
Immortal 8.9
Tau 8.6
Kroot 8.4
Termagent 8.3
DE Warrior 7.5
Ork Boyz 7.3
Grey Knight 6.9 (Power armor)
Conscript 6.7
Imp Guard 6.7
Chaos SM 6.2
Space Marine 5.8
SM Scout Sniper 5.5
Warp Spider 5.3
Eldar Ranger 5.2
Necron 5.0
Stormtrooper 4.5
Terminator 4.3

If you rapid fire inside 12" then the rating for a given unit would
double and average out to a 50% increase in rate of fire resulting in a
change in the rankings:

Guardian 16.2
Dire Avenger 14.4
Fire Dragon 13.1
Tau 13.0
Kroot 12.6
DE Warrior 11.3
Ork Boyz 11.0
Conscript 10.1
Imperial Guard 10.1
Dark Reaper 10.0
Chaos SM 9.3
Ratling 9.0
Gretchin 9.0
Immortal 8.9
Space Marine 8.6
Termagant 8.3
Warp Spider 8.0
Necron 7.4
GreyKnight 6.9
Stormtrooper 6.8
SM Scout 5.5
Eldar Ranger 5.2
Terminator 4.3

Obviously, this gives a distorted perspective and obviously the cost of
a model integrates more factors than ability to shoot. By this 4
terminators would be better than 1 guardian, however I would expect that
one terminator could take on 4 guardians. I haven't done it yet but it
looks like if you plotted it you would get a nice bell curve with the
space marines in the middle. There does seem to be a large spread over
all troops, but maybe not in a way that is predictive of one force being
better than another in general. I am contemplating repeating for
assualt, although it will be more complicated. I am still reviewing the
data. If anyone is interested in the raw data let me know, excel format.
Maybe I could post it somewhere.

Master Ravenclaw
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 2, 2005 1:58:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Langley" <knaus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aqt3e.13971$e06.11491@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Wow, so I figured the topic hadn't been beat down enough. Anyway I got
> to thinking about how to determine how close the armies are as far as
> shooting. So I set up a matrix of some basic troop types as attackers and
> targets. Calculated the probability of a kill based on basic weapons
> normalized the probability based on cost of attacker and cost of victim:
> And then summed the total probabilities to see how each shooter was in
> the 40k universe.

you, my friend, must be VERY bored.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 3, 2005 12:52:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Doctor Rock wrote:


> you, my friend, must be VERY bored.
>

It only took a couple hours, the hardest part is looking up all the
troop/weapon stats since they are spread over so many areas.

Master Ravenclaw
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 3, 2005 1:54:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Langley wrote:
> Wow, so I figured the topic hadn't been beat down enough. Anyway I got
> to thinking about how to determine how close the armies are as far as
> shooting. So I set up a matrix of some basic troop types as attackers
> and targets. Calculated the probability of a kill based on basic
> weapons normalized the probability based on cost of attacker and cost of
> victim:
> #shots x %hit x %wound x %unsaved x Target cost / Shooter cost
>

Interesting stuff.

I have been resisting posting to the original balance thread in the
defence of Orks. My semi-footslogging Orks always take two Kustom Force
Fields so its rare for my boyz not to get a 5+ cover save no matter
where they are on the table.

I also field Huntas (in a snakebites clan army) which are essentially
BS3, 9 point shoota boyz. If they arent in field range they are usually
shooting from behind cover (thats probably true for most armies with 5+
or worse armor by default).

I would be interested to see how Orks with a 5+ cover save stack up VS
marines and also where Huntas end up on that list.

--
Dogboy

Wargame Terrain Generator *has moved*
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~kelpi/
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 3, 2005 1:54:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Dogboy <no@no.no> wrote in message news:<d2lq4a$t8t$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> Langley wrote:
> > Wow, so I figured the topic hadn't been beat down enough. Anyway I got
> > to thinking about how to determine how close the armies are as far as
> > shooting. So I set up a matrix of some basic troop types as attackers
> > and targets. Calculated the probability of a kill based on basic
> > weapons normalized the probability based on cost of attacker and cost of
> > victim:
> > #shots x %hit x %wound x %unsaved x Target cost / Shooter cost
> >
>
> Interesting stuff.
>
> I have been resisting posting to the original balance thread in the
> defence of Orks. My semi-footslogging Orks always take two Kustom Force
> Fields so its rare for my boyz not to get a 5+ cover save no matter
> where they are on the table.
>
> I also field Huntas (in a snakebites clan army) which are essentially
> BS3, 9 point shoota boyz.

Ah, well there's the trick. It's generally agreed that the variant Ork
lists (KoS and Feral) are significantly superior to the Codex Ork list
- I wouldn't be surprised if this still holds true for KoS even under
4th Ed, so using Feral Ork units rather voids the comparison with
other Codex armies. It does demonstrate, though, that to be made
attractive when the Codex is revised Shoota Boyz should be given the
WS/BS 3/3 statline rather than the Slugga Boyz 4/2 - this could easily
be explained fluffily with the Orks' genetic predisposition for
certain types of fighting giving them experience in either shooting or
assault to the expense of the other.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 3, 2005 3:57:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

> Interesting stuff.
>
> I have been resisting posting to the original balance thread in the
> defence of Orks. My semi-footslogging Orks always take two Kustom Force
> Fields so its rare for my boyz not to get a 5+ cover save no matter
> where they are on the table.
>
> I also field Huntas (in a snakebites clan army) which are essentially
> BS3, 9 point shoota boyz. If they arent in field range they are usually
> shooting from behind cover (thats probably true for most armies with 5+
> or worse armor by default).
>
> I would be interested to see how Orks with a 5+ cover save stack up VS
> marines and also where Huntas end up on that list.
>
> --
> Dogboy
>
> Wargame Terrain Generator *has moved*
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~kelpi/
>

I was thinking about putting in cover saves for comparison because I
think that is reason for different armor's effectiveness. Marines have
power armor so that they can move around the battlefield without having
to hide in cover all the time. They are as safe in no cover as in cover
for the majority of weapons out there.

Imperial Guard have flak armor and a 5+ save so they really need to stay
in cover and shoot if they want to survive -> not as free to move around.

Orks need gretchin screens to protect them until they close range or
they need to stay in cover and shoot.

OK so my new order based on a 5+ Cover save obviously is going to help
out the low armor value guys. I also figured out that if you subtract
the 15 pts for a powerfist from Terminators their scores come out the
same as a Grey Knight. Assuming Rapid Firing is 1.5 shots:

Guardian 14.0
Dire Avenger 12.5
Kroot 12.0
Tau 11.3
Ork Boyz 10.5
Guardsman 9.9
Conscript 9.9
Fire Dragon 9.8
DE Warrior 9.7
Ratling 8.9
Gretchin 8.8
Termagant 8.1
Chaos SM 8.0
Warp Spider 7.9
Space Marine 7.5
Immortal 7.4
Dark Reaper 7.4
Necron 6.5
Grey Knight 6.0 (or Terminator w/o Powerfist)
Stormtrooper 5.8
SM Scout 5.4
Eldar Ranger 5.1
Terminator 3.7

So that hurt the expensive troops with low AP weapons. No big suprise.
If I sum all the scores for no cover I get 219 and with cover 196 so
then so the overall mortality rate in my little WH40k pseudo universe
went down 11% just by putting everyone in soft cover.

Anyway, overall it is obvious that if you are at the top of the rankings
you good at shooting and have a powerful if short ranged weapon, If you
are in the middle of the list ok at shooting with no big advantages or
disadvantages. If you are at the bottom then you probably have some
special rules that help you survive or give you other advantages in the
game (Know no fear, Fearless, We'll be back, Sniper, Scout, etc.).
Unfortunately, those are harder to quantify

Mater Ravenclaw
!