Anti-Tank Shooting Analysis

Seshiru wrote:

Because the dice aren't rolled separately you shouldn't be trying to work out of 36 possible combinations 2D6 has only 11 possibilities

Actually, this isn't accurate, because while there are only 11 possible final values, there are multiple possible ways to reach that value, and certain values have more ways of being reached than others. For example, the value "12" can only be reached by rolling 2 6's, but you can get a value of "7" using 6 different combinations of the 2 dice, so a 7 is 6 times as likely to be rolled than a 12. Using only 11 values assumes an equal chance of reaching each value, which isn't the case.

Example(assuming a green die and an orange die):
12 = 6+6
7 = 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, 6+1


Below is a link to a useful tool in calculating dice probabilities. You input number of rolls and probability for success, and it will tell you the probabilities of each number of successes. So, for example, if you wanted to see how many space marines in a squad of 5 would pass their armour saves, you'd put in 5 rolls at 4/6 probability of success(3+ is 4/6). Then it would let you know what the probability of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 passing their saves would be. You can then add these probabilities to get various results, depending on what you're trying to determine.

Dice Probability Calculator

Oops, you are correct i will fix the post.

Thank you

Seshiru wrote:

Kantalla wrote:

With Heat Lances there is a 2/3 × 26/36 = 13/27 chance hull point and 2/3 × 21/26 × 1/3 = 7/39 chance explode
Destroy chance is 55% explode + 27% chance to wreck = 82%

So the chance of neither of those things happening is (100%-55%)*(100%-27%) = 32.4%
making the chance of either one of those things happening is 67.6%

I had intended to include that in my wreck chance, but made an error in my math. Your method is close, but doesn't account for the fact that there is a chance of 3 or 4 explode results that are part of the wrecked chance.

Most accurate method would be:
Probability explode = 7/39
Probability hull point but not explode = 13/27 - 7/39 = 106/351
And therefore the probability of 3 or 4 hull point results (but no explodes) is 8.5%
So overall destroy chance is 54.6% + 8.5% = 63.1%

Following on from Betraytheworld's feedback, here is a set of tables showing the chance to destroy an otherwise undamaged target for the Eldar units and the best of the Dark Eldar units.

Two notes of caution in using these tables:
1) Only credit for fully destroying the unit in one round of shooting is included in the sorting. So units that reliably take off a few hull points are not valued as highly (e.g. Haywire Scourges)
2) No points efficiency is included, so a cheap unit will be undervalued when you could take two or three of them for the same price as another option.

You Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

I appreciate all the work and time it must have taken to put all this together. This is all very useful, and really puts things into perspective. The purple highlighting of the DE units presents a good contrast, and really demonstrates how few competitive options we have compared to our craftworld kin. We should forward these charts to the rules team at GW, haha.

Of course, I'm not confident said rules team would understand them.

No dramas at all.

I liked the challenge of finding a practical way of defining the calculations in a spreadsheet. It also meant that I had to get rid of some of the silly assumptions I was using with D-Weapons, so it helped improve the calculations overall.

This probably needs to be an interactive calculator to really be useful, so you can input the armour, hull points remaining, open topped status, immobilised status, etc and then be presented the options, but hopefully a useful start for people to get an idea of the quality of options available.

Thanks very much for this @Kantalla. Very useful information and rather sad to see that our best AT unit barely makes it into the top 10 when compared with the Craftworld firepower. Also the sheer variety of Craftworld units that can perform AT roles compared to our paltry choices.

The tables clearly show that Heat Lance Scourges are our best AT choice but I think that's somewhat skewed due to the need to get within 9" to be effective. I suspect Haywire is probably the best option in 'reality' (for want of a better term).

Kantalla wrote:

This probably needs to be an interactive calculator to really be useful, so you can input the armour, hull points remaining, open topped status, immobilised status, etc and then be presented the options

That's a really great idea! Unfortunately I don't really know how to use spreadsheet software beyond the basics. If anyone wanted to make the spreadsheet to do this, however, I'd definitely be interested in using it!

I will have a think about how to make the spreadsheet properly interactive, and then I can send out some copies for people to test out and see if they can break it

Count Adhemar - Mostly I would agree with your analysis of the relative options for Dark Eldar and Craftworld Eldar, and for Heat Lance Scourges being the "best" option. Apart from being the most destructive, the Heat Lance Scourges are also a cheap option so are really points efficient if they are able to be applied to the target.

The caveat from my analysis is most weapons are far more likely to wreck a vehicle with running out of hull points than exploding it. As a result, most of the time it will take multiple units shooting a target to destroy it, and the tables above emphasise units with increased odds to explode, or take off multiple hull points in a shot. Units like Haywire Scourges are relatively low down on the table despite how efficient they are.

Ultimately though, I want to be focusing on solutions, rather than complaining about our lack of options. Corsairs might well have some good options - I don't own the Corsairs book yet, so I am a bit limited in checking out what they can do, but there are definitely some interesting options from Eldar to improve our anti-tank.

One intriguing option, based on a tournament list I faced earlier in the year would be:

Pale Courts Warhost:
(Aspect Lord-shrine)
3 units of Fire Dragons (one with Wave Serpent)
(Halls of Martial Splendour)
Autarch
Auxiliary Falcon

Grotesquerie:
Haemonculus with WWP
2 units of Grotesques in Raiders

Dark Eldar CAD:
Lhamaean Venom
Kabalite Warriors in Venoms
and all the extra points in whatever Dark Eldar stuff you want - principally to deal with anti-infantry needs and objective grabbing.

That list would have the Wave Serpent and Falcon carrying Fire Dragons, and the third unit coming in with the Haemonculus. The Warhost would guarantee the Fire Dragons get 6" run moves, which is very handy with Battle Focus. An alternative would be a three Falcon squadron, which can no scatter deep strike in and with the mobility of the Fire Dragons can cover a lot of the table.

I really hope GW can see some of these calculations, and when our next codex gets released we get some decent AT units. This is ridiculous how underpowered we are compared to others...

On another note, our AT units are slightly faster than our CWE cousins

fisheyes wrote:

On another note, our AT units are slightly faster than our CWE cousins

Not really, since CWE get to run and shoot with battle focus, and auto-run 6" with the warhost. That makes every normal shooty infantry capable of moving 12" and shooting, and their jump units(swooping hawks) can move 24" and still shoot, 18" and still charge.

This was both incredibly enlightening and incredibly saddening to read.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

fisheyes wrote:

On another note, our AT units are slightly faster than our CWE cousins

Not really, since CWE get to run and shoot with battle focus, and auto-run 6" with the warhost. That makes every normal shooty infantry capable of moving 12" and shooting, and their jump units(swooping hawks) can move 24" and still shoot, 18" and still charge.

A venom can't move more than 12" if it wants to shoot remotely accurately, but a random Eldar with a pair of crap wings can move 18", then auto run 6", then shoot, then charge as well.

It's absurd that 40k's become like this. I can't recommend the game to new players anymore. I can't justify it; balance doesn't exist between factions or even within factions.

Mind you, in some warped way, I am glad to read some concrete statistical evidence that Dark Eldar are even worse off than I suspected. I genuinely thank you for this thread; I can happily focus on other game systems that actually retain a level of balance and genuine feeling of a fair game for both players.

On a completely unrelated topic, if anyone here ever has considered of late, perhaps looking at getting into other tabletop games, I can't help but recommend Malifaux.

You're welcome, I think. I'm not really intending this to be a sad tale of how bad we are, although it does display that pretty clearly.

It's a pretty minor point, but Battle Focus doesn't let Eldar run and charge. The movement disparity is still fairly striking.

Having been an old school player, I was used to moving 12", disembarking, fleet of foot, and for some units a 12" charge with the right Combat Drugs. Coming back to 7th Ed and finding everyone can run, and my vehicles can only move 6" if they want to shoot properly, or launch assaults was fairly painful. I used to like the glass cannon with speed style of play, and now we aren't that hard hitting, and don't have a notable speed edge.

But... with allies, we can overcome all those deficiencies, while we wait for the power swings to go our way. The game can be in a sad spot if you play a pure army of certain flavours, but it's a choice to restrict yourself to say pure Dark Eldar. The game still seems pretty interesting to me.

Kantalla wrote:

But... with allies, we can overcome all those deficiencies, while we wait for the power swings to go our way. The game can be in a sad spot if you play a pure army of certain flavours, but it's a choice to restrict yourself to say pure Dark Eldar. The game still seems pretty interesting to me.

My issue with that is that I want to play Dark Eldar and once I start introducing allies I very quickly reach the point of replacing all the Dark Eldar with allies as the DE units are generally inferior in every way. There are few, if any, tactical reasons to play Dark Eldar at all, and even fewer if the new FAQs become official (if they aren't already).

Your work is inspiring, @Kantalla. Really clean, straightforward and well done charts.

Formations are what ruins the balance of 40K. I hope 8th Edition brings some sort of restrictions to the implementation of formations.

Causalis wrote:

Formations are what ruins the balance of 40K. I hope 8th Edition brings some sort of restrictions to the implementation of formations.

I suspect it will go the opposite direction and formations will be the building blocks of every army, rather than CAD's etc.

Quote :

I suspect it will go the opposite direction and formations will be the building blocks of every army, rather than CAD's etc.

Which would be alright if those formations are roughly on the same powerlevel.

Causalis wrote:

Quote :

I suspect it will go the opposite direction and formations will be the building blocks of every army, rather than CAD's etc.

Which would be alright if those formations are roughly on the same powerlevel.

You're preaching to the choir my friend. I've said many times that 40k needs rebalancing. Some books need a serious kick in the nuts and others need a major boost. Sadly, GW seems to specialise in boosting the former and kicking the latter.

Thanks Bizarre Showbiz, hopefully some useful info even for the grizzled veterans.

Count - I hear you about wanting to stay pure Dark Eldar. It seems like a slippery slope to not playing Dark Eldar at all, but we do some things well still, especially tough melee units and cheap objective secured (with still good damage output).

I think I disagree on the formations though. They are the best balance tool available if used well, as you can add a couple of new formations for the weaker lists without needing a whole new Codex to fix problems. Imagine for example, if they make the FAQ official, and give a formation where you need 4+ Kabalites in Raiders, but they can avoid snapshots for jinking and moving over 12". Balance improved, without needing a whole Codex rewrite.

Kantalla wrote:

Imagine for example, if they make the FAQ official, and give a formation where you need 4+ Kabalites in Raiders, but they can avoid snapshots for jinking and moving over 12". Balance improved, without needing a whole Codex rewrite.

Formations could help out a great deal, I agree. I think it's unlikely Dark Eldar will get anything new for a little while yet. I do hope I'm wrong, of course.

One of the main reasons I don't think we'll have many updates soon is that because we're battle brothers with Eldar, its far to easy to justify leaving us entirely unchanged, and support the argument that the easy fix is to simply add Eldar allies to fill our [many, many] deficiencies.

I presume for the formation you suggest specifically, that you mean a formation of 4 or more Kabalite Warrior units mounted in Raiders? Honestly, it could be quite nice, if it doesn't stipulate unit size: minimum sized units with very few upgrades, clocking in at 95-100 pts, would be good.

It still has some issues of course - Ignores Cover weaponry is so common in 40k now, so being able to Jink without BS penalty doesn't matter when your unit literally won't exist past the first incoming shot anyway. Its another reason Venoms are so popular. If we regained the old 5++ Flickerfield for Raiders, for a reasonable price, I'm all ears though.

I think any viable formation based on Kabalites / Raiders needs to either include objective secured and add some small but worthwhile buff, such as a free Flickerfield for each transport, or do away with objective secured entirely but make them genuinely very painful for your opponent.

What I wouldn't give for a formation of 2-3 Kabalite Warrior units that trades away Obsec for all their splinter weapons to become Fleshbane.

I can't disagree with anything you wrote there.

I did mean the formation I described as an example of a way GW could rebalance factions incrementally. It wasn't a fully developed concept, and it would probably need to retain obsec as you point out to be worthwhile.

Your suggestion would deal with the gap we have on dealing with Gargantuan Monsters if it were to ever happen.

Fleshbane would be an awesome buff. Half the armies out there have bonuses for shooting getting 6's on their normal guns (necrons, ad mech, eldar, etc), so why shouldent we be the same? Give us a second wound when rolling with 6"s or something!