Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Tuesday, July 5, 2011

40k Metrics Comparison


Remember that crazy math post a while back by Nikephoros? Hopefully you do now. Anyway, over the past couple of weeks Nikephoros has been looking at lists which did poorly at the NOVA open (0-4). This gives us a great basis for comparison against the good lists (4-0) and there are some obvious conclusions we can draw.

First here are the links to each army:
Tyranids
Chaos
Chaos

We're still waiting on the fourth 0-4 army but we can already see a trend. Before we look at the numbers let's look at the overall army lists and what we think of them.



Tyranids

The Tyranid list actually looks alright. T-Fexes, good gaunt support with a Tervigon and a nice buffy HQ which can support the army and deal with things in combat. But uh...where are the Hive Guard? Or any sort of shooting Elite. Dropping a Tyrant Guard and a Trygon would have done worlds of wonder for this list and we can see the impact the lack of any Elites has in the metrics.

The list has decent shooting for Tyranids against infantry but eh close combat ability which combined hurts the list. How do you kill infantry reliably? However, the ability to deal with mech, even factoring in the effect five MCs has in combat, is pretty low. Compare the 37 DRPG to 70-80+ of other lists and you see the impact of no Hive Guard. The DLRPG is low as expected, no meltaguns does that but it's the low ability to deal with normal mech that really hurts this list.

Chaos List 1

We have an overpriced and do nothing HQ, three way overpriced Troops which have no ability to deal with tanks and three Land Raiders who don't have good combat units in them, no power of the machine spirit, no MM and are basic Land Raiders. Oh and a Daemon Prince. There are very few units on the table, minimal survivability outsider of AV14 and minimal ability to kill an enemy en mass. Let's look at the metrics...

Pretty poor across the board. The ability to kill Marines from shooting is high which one would expect - 30 rapid firing AP3 bolters will do that but the ability to kill Marines in combat is very low and the ability to deal with AV14 is nearly non-existent. Even the ability to deal with light mech/Rhinos is pretty poor, even worse than the Tyranid list above at 27.03 and that all comes from the Land Raiders (tiny bit from the Daemon Prince). If you can deal with the Land Raiders (multiple meltas? no problem) this list has nearly no anti-tank ability, no combat ability and is great at shooting down Marines in the open. Not a recipe for success.

Chaos List 2


Better than the previous list with a decent HQ in Kharn and heavy support which is going to actually support the army but the Troops and Elites leave something to be desired. Chaos Terminators are meh and putting them in a Land Raider (which is also meh) just makes them more expensive. Sure they'll kill some light units but they don't have the bodies, survivability or attacks to really scare a lot of units at once. Add in a Dread with no shooting and small Troop squads which are combat based and we again have the problem of dealing with mech at range. Let's see what the numbers say.

Pretty much the same. Based on the numbers this is the best list of the lot so far and we can thank the three Oblits for this. Not only do they provide over half of the ranged anti-infantry but 1/5th of the anti-mech at range. Who said Oblits aren't key to a decent CSM list? Unfortunately that's where the good news stops. The list has very little shooting power in ability to deal with infantry or tanks outside of the Oblits and most of the anti-tank comes from Kharn himself. Whilst the DRPG of 45 is up there, considering where most of it is coming from (3 Oblits + Kharn in combat) it's still pretty weak in comparison to the 4-0 lists and has severe limitations.

Conclusion


From this we can see there is a definite difference between the proposed good lists that went 4-0 at NOVA and the bad lists which went 0-4 at NOVA and this difference didn't always revolve around the ability to deal with Rhinos. It's important to not take the numbers at face value as well. The Numbers tell us the 2nd Chaos list is the best of the bunch but I'd rather face it than the Tyranid list. Whilst the Tyranid list has less ability in terms of anti-mech, the list itself is more balanced and the simple addition of three units of Hive Guard would go a long way to making it competitive in both tabletop and number terms.

What this also tells us is Nike's system does have some application. You may still need to use your brain and apply what you know about 40k to extract the most information possible but there do seem to be obvious differences between bad and good lists. Is there a difference between the really good lists and just good lists? I'd hazard a guess at no. We might see higher stats for the really good lists but I doubt the difference would be significant. We'll see though ^^.

Comments (17)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I feel like this system paints a much rosier picture of Tyranid anti-tank than in reality due to including CC. Sure, MCs will wreck a vehicle in CC. But what if it moved? Or went flat out? Heck, is there even a point to it by the time the slow MC catches them? Just speaking about the metric in general, not this specific post.

But yeah, the contrasts are very noticeable here, good stuff.
3 replies · active 722 weeks ago
Tratchenberg's avatar

Tratchenberg · 722 weeks ago

Nike has assumed CC anti-tank to be hitting on a 4+, the numbers would be a lot higher on immobile vehicles.
InfinitysEnd's avatar

InfinitysEnd · 722 weeks ago

even then, isn't this how tyranid armies are supposed to work? minimse mech movement through suppression and then slam into them with multiple rending creatures and MCs?
Thanks for the props. I should have the 4th of the 0-4 lists done by tonight. It's the most interesting -at first glance- of them all.
2 replies · active 722 weeks ago
Cool. When's that program being done so we can do it ourselves at the press of a button =D lol.
Chosenbythesun's avatar

Chosenbythesun · 722 weeks ago

No really, when?
I like this post...very enlightening for list building.
Calculating my Blood Angels Ard Boyz list:
DMS 38.83
DMCC 33.79
DRPG 100.68
DLRPG 21.45

I'm happy with it.
Thanks Kirby
2 replies · active 722 weeks ago
Calculated my 2K BA list:
DMS 31.35
DMCC 33.71
DRPG 76.80
DLRPG 11.69

Guess I need to add more melta...
Remember Nike made the 40k Metrics system, I just like plugging him :) .

Those 2000 numbers look good. Curious to see list which has so high ability in shooting and combat.
I like the idea of the statistical modelling and rough aggregate measures of combat effectiveness (though I would suggest weighting of effectiveness by range, particularly as melee & short ranged attacks are likely to be in range fewer turns per game) but the only problem is that by focusing on the very worst armies, your samples may be 'over-determined'. This refers to cases in which there are so many factors in support of a particular outcome, that it is hard to point to any one of them as being critical. In this case, it could be that the 0-4 losses lists have so many weaknesses that they would fail nearly any of many different sorts of statistical tests of competitiveness. Comparing less glaringly weak lists might be more instructive.
2 replies · active 722 weeks ago
I think the idea is to figure out the range? Or to show in the most stark terms that, yes, raw killing power equates to more victories overall. You do have a point, though. For example, even good Tau lists are pretty low across the board numbers-wise and can fare reasonably well.
It's just seems like it could be refined- Hive Guard are great because they are 24" range AND Assault, they would suck if they were Heavy 24" or Assault and 12". Flexibility in terms of range and mobility is really critical in determining how often a unit can contribute its deadly shots, look at Vespids! You could simply reflect it with multipliers accounting for the benefits or drawbacks of short and long range and heavy, rapid fire, and assault type weapons. Not as purely scientific as counting shots, though.
Morale of the story - take hive guard and don't play chaos =D
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Agreed with Hive Guard. I think a GOOD chaos list would score very well. 9 Oblits, shooty terminators and Kharne as HQ is a good place to start.
Clever Handle's avatar

Clever Handle · 703 weeks ago

My question is when dealing with oblits - what weapons are you considering them using? Your explanation of your metric would leave me to believe 5 rounds of plasma cannons for your DMS (3 hits vs 1.78 from TL plasma) and 5 rounds of TL melta against vehicles. Is this correct?
Clever Handle's avatar

Clever Handle · 703 weeks ago

Sorry to double post, but came up with this after reading the numbers on your BoV page:

Tried to do up my own lists with your idea here to compare it to others in my play group but I need to echo kolath above me... seeing some drastic differences in my calc results & yours.

For example, a daemonically possessed landraider has 3/4 (hit) x 2/3 (pen) x (1/3) wreck x 2 x 5 = 1.7 RPG NOT 5.

In addition, you're not showing the potential of killing off vehicles in close combat here but in your write ups you did discuss it (specifically the ork player using PK's)... 4 S9 PK attacks from berserkers will do just about as much as 5 S10 from the dreadnoughts when it comes down to hitting vehicles...

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...