DedicationThis article is dedicated to Blom on 40kOnline, who resurrected the
6th edition version of this article with an update to the Wave Serpent's damage output. This update is not intended to be a critical response to Blom, but an expression of gratitude to someone who considered my work worth replicating.
IntroductionThe distinctive silhouettes of the Eldar tanks are one of the few unchanged elements in the model range since their inception, and they've formed the basis of a broad array of weapons platforms and transports across 40k's editions. This article compares the Eldar tanks mathematically, attempting to quantify their merits and flaws. I will be following my standard presentation format for the article, which lays down the conditions of the calculations (because context is critical), the target types, the units themselves, their offensive and defensive efficiency in terms of points spent/lost per wound/HP inflicted/suffered. I will follow the results of the calculations with another post including commentary on the relative performance of each unit, and attempt to address additional considerations that might affect the decision to include a given unit in an army. You will see some repetition in each section (mainly explaining methodology) because I want each of these articles to stand on their own, but I encourage you to read those preamble paragraphs anyway, since I include commentary unique to the current analysis.
CopyrightMy articles assume that readers can access the relevant rules documents, so stats and points costs will be minimized to facilitate posting and updates across multiple forums, some of which have strict rules regarding the publication of intellectual property.
Purpose, Probability, and Personality40k is both a game and a hobby. I play the Eldar faction for its fluff and model range, but I can't use them in a game without understanding the rules. Every rule in 40k can be reduced to a number, and 'psychology' is often a euphemism for exploiting another player's ignorance of probability. The method I am using finds
averages, benchmarks providing a realistic impression of units performance over many games. When I say that one model inflicts X wounds/HP on another per point spent, that's different from the output of a binomial distribution, which would tell you how likely it is for that model to inflict 1, 2, 3, etc. wounds/HP on its target. However, the averages of my method and those of the binomial distribution are the same. Some folks assert that these calculations don't produce anything that can't be observed from experience playing many games. That assertion is correct in principle, but complicated by the game's history. Changes to 40k over time has made conclusions drawn from defunct rules interactions obsolete, and older players often retain biases that lead to mistakes (and subsequent rationalizations) that would have been avoidable with careful re-evaluation following an edition change. It's also nice to be able to give newer players adaptable tools to evaluate units instead of insisting that they drive their tactical and purchasing decisions solely based on limited data from the slowly expanding sample of the games they play. When I started collecting Games Workshop's models and playing their games two decades ago, I would have liked to have seen more community organization to help players of all sorts enjoy hobby, and articles like this one are my contribution to such a community. Please point out any mistakes you see in my work, so that I can improve the resource I am attempting to build.
Assumptions and Parameters1. I have bias toward writing all-comers lists, and within those lists I tend to choose unit configurations that have broad utility at a decent price (e.g., Warp Spiders) unless a particular unit shows phenomenal potential in a given role (e.g., Swooping Hawks).
2. Upgrading to the underslung shuriken cannon adds damage for a low cost, and Bladestorm improves target spread. There is a case to be made that, for example, a Falcon with a bright lance shouldn't spend the points on the shuriken cannon because it's built for hunting AV13 and AV14, but I would argue that there's an even stronger case to be made for keeping that Falcon versatile and efficient against more targets.
3. All weapons in range and firing because the shortest move + weapon range is 30”, and the transport vehicles aren't likely to forego shooting with all weapons for more than 1-2 turns.
4. Holo-fields increase the survivability of the tanks by 50% at ~10-15% additional cost, so they're almost always a good purchase unless you anticipate being able to get 5+ cover or better on all turns in which your opponent wants to shoot your tanks.
5. Blast hits will be assessed at 2 hits per small marker and 5 hits per large marker, as shown by 150 trials at BS4 against a three-row, 3-4-3 infantry blob with 1” between the models. Due to Deep Strike, the Terminators will be treated as being close enough together for the same number of hits, despite having a different base size. Also, limit of 1 blast hit per HEQ, the Monstrous Creature test profile (with the appropriate base size).
6. Fire Prisms will fire their Focused blast against TEQs and HEQs, their Dispersed blast against all other infantry, and their Lance against all vehicles. The Focused Fire Prism and Warp Hunter blasts hit 22/27 per blast against single large targets (chance of rolling a hit or deviating 4” or less on BS4); I'm treating the Warp Hunter blasts as hitting vehicles 22/27 of the time as well. Yes, the Warp Hunter Barrage messes with that a bit, but it's usually beneficial. The Dispersed shot of the Night Spinner hits large targets 5/6 of the time.
7. Due to the 7th edition vehicle damage table, Explodes! results are unlikely compared to wrecks. However, accurate representations of the average damage output of a given unit must incorporate the low chance of explosion, which I have represented as loss of 3 HP from AV10-13 and 4 HP from AV14.
8. For the defensive tests, assume that the Eldar tanks are not jinking, and the incoming shots will be from Autocannons (BS3), Missile Launchers (BS4), and Lascannons (BS4). The defensive efficiency figures include the Explodes! chance as well.
Targets GEQ Imperial Guardsmen, etc.
FEQ Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, Swooping Hawks, Howling Banshees, etc.
MEQ Half the armies in 40k, judging by the Allies Matrix.
TEQ Terminators. I don't bother with SS/TH because you should be shooting anti-infantry guns at them (i.e., the 3++ is mostly irrelevant).
HEQ Hive Tyrant. Max 1 hit per blast, and no Ymgarl factor for optional 2+ save.
AVs 10-14 and FLs 10-12 (Flyers).
Weapon OptionsIn recognition of Assumption #1, here is a table of raw damage output at BS4, in wounds/HP inflicted, of the various heavy weapon available to most Eldar hardpoints against targets in the open and in 5+ cover (in parentheses). The differences in cost between these weapons is usually small compared to that of the model mounting them, especially when it comes to the Eldar tanks, so at a glance the damage output is often sufficient to choose a weapon. All weapons aside from the Eldar Missile Launcher are using Snap Fire! against Flyers by default, and that sometimes rounding will make very small numbers appear more similar than they are). Use plasma missiles vs. GEQs, FEQs, and TEQs; starshot missiles vs. MEQs, HEQs, and AV10-14; and starhawk missiles vs. FL10-12. "-" means that the weapon cannot damage the target.
Green numbers indicate the highest damage vs. a given target, with and without 5+ cover.
| Shuriken Cannon | Scatter Laser | Starcannon | Bright Lance | Eldar Missile Launcher |
GEQ | 1.67(1.11) | 1.48(1.48) | 1.11(0.74) | 0.56(0.37) | 1.33(0.89) |
FEQ | 1.00(0.89) | 1.11(1.11) | 1.11(0.74) | 0.56(0.37) | 1.33(0.89) |
MEQ | 0.78(0.67) | 0.74(0.74) | 1.11(0.74) | 0.56(0.37) | 0.56(0.37) |
TEQ | 0.44(0.44) | 0.37(0.37) | 0.74(0.74) | 0.37(0.37) | 0.17(0.17) |
HEQ | 0.56(0.44) | 0.44(0.44) | 0.67(0.44) | 0.56(0.37) | 0.56(0.37) |
AV10 | 1.00(0.67) | 1.33(0.89) | 0.81(0.54) | 0.70(0.47) | 0.56(0.37) |
AV11 | 0.67(0.44) | 0.89(0.59) | 0.52(0.35) | 0.56(0.37) | 0.44(0.30) |
AV12 | 0.33(0.22) | 0.44(0.30) | 0.22(0.15) | 0.41(0.27) | 0.33(0.22) |
AV13 | - | - | - | 0.41(0.27) | 0.22(0.15) |
AV14 | - | - | - | 0.44(0.30) | 0.11(0.07) |
FL10 | 0.25(0.17) | 0.17(0.11) | 0.20(0.14) | 0.18(0.12) | 0.44(0.30) |
FL11 | 0.17(0.11) | 0.22(0.15) | 0.13(0.09) | 0.14(0.09) | 0.33(0.22) |
FL12 | 0.08(0.06) | 0.11(0.07) | 0.06(0.04) | 0.10(0.07) | 0.22(0.15) |
This table shows that, while certain weapons have niche use against a narrow array of targets (especially in the open), the scatter laser is the best weapon for shooting at just about anything with a 5+ cover save, and its relative effectiveness would only increase as the cover save improves. As such, it is the generalist weapon I will be equipping to the Wave Serpents and Falcons in the upcoming comparison of Eldar tanks. Leave the heavy armour busting and flyswatting duties to units tailored to those tasks. I will make an exception for a Falcon with a bright lance, however, since that comparison is a popular request.
Unit ConfigurationsFalcon w/Shuriken Cannon, Scatter Laser, Holo-fields (C:EC, 2015)
Falcon w/Shuriken Cannon, Bright Lance, Holo-fields (C:EC, 2015)
Fire Prism w/Shuriken Cannon, Holo-fields (C:EC, 2015)
Night Spinner w/Shuriken Cannon, Holo-fields (C:EC, 2015)
Warp Hunter w/Shuriken Cannon, Holo-fields (IA:Apoc, 2013)
Wave Serpent w/Shuriken Cannon, Twin-linked Scatter Lasers, Holo-fields (C:EC, 2015)
I have omitted the Fire Storm. In the 6th edition version of this article, that tank was so terrible that I only included it to give the Wave Serpent's (former) anti-air prowess some context. The change to Skyfire now makes the Fire Storm's contribution negligible, and Laser Lock no longer exists, so I dropped the Fire Storm entirely and have forgone the discussion of the anti-air capabilities of the remaining tanks. The fantastic Crimson Hunters, area denial of the Swooping Hawks, solid Aegis Defense Line with a Quad Gun, and the occasional free EML from the Guardian Battlehost will all serve you better than these tanks vs. airborne targets. In the strictest sense of rules as written, Codex: Eldar is defunct (replaced by Codex: Eldar - Craftworlds), so the Warp Hunter can only be taken in a Corsair detachment, but if anyone wants to field a Warp Hunter against me as a Heavy Support choice in Codex: Eldar- Craftworlds, I won't hold them to that restriction. The Iyanden supplement is in a similar situation.
Raw NumbersThe following table shows each tank's offensive efficiency expressed as points per wound/hull point inflicted, and its defensive efficiency expressed as the number of points of the chosen model killed per shot from an Autocannon, Missile Launcher, or Lascannon. For example, if a model is 10pts and it takes an average of 2 Boltgun shots to kill it, its defensive efficiency would be 5 (lower numbers are better). "-" means that the tank as configured cannot damage the target. For offensive efficiency,
green numbers indicate the highest damage vs. a given target. Since the Wave Serpent's shield is one use only, I have also marked the second most efficient tank in the cases where the Serpent Shield is the most efficient option. For defensive efficiency,
green numbers indicate highest resilience per point spent vs. a given weapon type; it all goes to the cheapest tank because they all have the same defensive profile.
| Falcon SL | Falcon BL | Fire Prism | Night Spinner | Warp Hunter | Wave Serpent | Wave Serpent + Shield |
GEQ | 38.57 | 46.50 | 25.71 | 26.47 | 25.50 | 38.44 | 22.46 |
FEQ | 46.55 | 58.13 | 29.03 | 35.71 | 28.33 | 56.42 | 31.63 |
MEQ | 57.04 | 63.41 | 36.49 | 45.92 | 29.42 | 79.30 | 45.73 |
TEQ | 93.10 | 96.21 | 93.10 | 118.42 | 127.50 | 140.87 | 85.26 |
HEQ | 67.50 | 66.43 | 122.73 | 146.74 | 74.03 | 111.18 | 84.00 |
AV10 | 40.10 | 49.82 | 73.64 | 80.36 | 64.65 | 50.40 | 27.39 |
AV11 | 56.25 | 66.43 | 98.78 | 115.38 | 90.00 | 75.60 | 41.09 |
AV12 | 94.19 | 99.64 | 150.00 | 204.55 | 148.06 | 151.20 | 82.17 |
AV13 | 289.29 | 167.40 | 225.00 | 900.00 | 417.27 | - | - |
AV14 | 675.00 | 232.50 | 192.86 | - | 417.27 | - | - |
Autocannon | 5.56 | 5.74 | 5.56 | 4.63 | 6.30 | 5.19 | 5.19 |
Missile Launcher | 11.11 | 11.48 | 11.11 | 9.26 | 12.59 | 10.37 | 10.37 |
Lascannon | 18.52 | 19.14 | 18.52 | 15.43 | 20.99 | 17.23 | 17.23 |
Comparison to Falcon SLThe following table uses the same figures displayed in the previous table, except this time they are expressed in comparison to the Falcon SL's performance, which is why the Falcon SL is absent from this table. Specifically, each value equals [(Tank X-Falcon SL)/Falcon SL] x 100% to obtain a percentage relative to the Falcon SL's performance against that same target or weapon.
Green numbers indicate that the Tank X is superior to the Falcon SL's performance, and
red numbers indicate that Tank X is inferior to the Falcon SL's performance.
Blue asterisks indicate that either Tank X or Falcon SL can do something that the other cannot, in which case you must refer to the previous table.
| Falcon BL | Fire Prism | Night Spinner | Warp Hunter | Wave Serpent | Wave Serpent + Shield |
GEQ | 20.56 | 33.34 | 31.37 | 33.89 | 0.34 | 41.77 |
FEQ | 24.88 | 37.64 | 23.29 | 39.14 | 21.20 | 32.05 |
MEQ | 11.18 | 36.03 | 19.50 | 48.42 | 39.03 | 19.83 |
TEQ | 3.34 | 0.00 | 27.20 | 36.95 | 51.31 | 8.42 |
HEQ | 1.59 | 81.82 | 117.39 | 9.67 | 64.71 | 24.44 |
AV10 | 24.24 | 83.64 | 40.26 | 61.22 | 25.69 | 31.70 |
AV11 | 18.10 | 75.61 | 105.12 | 60.00 | 34.40 | 26.95 |
AV12 | 5.79 | 59.25 | 117.17 | 57.19 | 60.53 | 12.76 |
AV13 | 42.13 | 22.22 | 211.11 | 44.24 | ***** | ***** |
AV14 | 65.56 | 71.43 | ***** | 38.10 | ***** | ***** |
Autocannon | 3.33 | 0.00 | 16.73 | 13.31 | 6.67 | 6.67 |
Missile Launcher | 3.33 | 0.00 | 16.73 | 13.31 | 6.67 | 6.67 |
Lascannon | 3.33 | 0.00 | 16.73 | 13.31 | 6.67 | 6.67 |