News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: The Mattler's Mathhammer: Eldar Tanks (7th Edition)  (Read 1783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Mattler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Eldar
The Mattler's Mathhammer: Eldar Tanks (7th Edition)
« on: May 28, 2015, 12:47:05 AM »
Dedication
This 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.

Introduction
The 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.

Copyright
My 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 Personality
40k 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 Parameters
1. 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 Options
In 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 CannonScatter LaserStarcannonBright LanceEldar Missile Launcher
GEQ1.67(1.11)1.48(1.48)1.11(0.74)0.56(0.37)1.33(0.89)
FEQ1.00(0.89)1.11(1.11)1.11(0.74)0.56(0.37)1.33(0.89)
MEQ0.78(0.67)0.74(0.74)1.11(0.74)0.56(0.37)0.56(0.37)
TEQ0.44(0.44)0.37(0.37)0.74(0.74)0.37(0.37)0.17(0.17)
HEQ0.56(0.44)0.44(0.44)0.67(0.44)0.56(0.37)0.56(0.37)
AV101.00(0.67)1.33(0.89)0.81(0.54)0.70(0.47)0.56(0.37)
AV110.67(0.44)0.89(0.59)0.52(0.35)0.56(0.37)0.44(0.30)
AV120.33(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)
FL100.25(0.17)0.17(0.11)0.20(0.14)0.18(0.12)0.44(0.30)
FL110.17(0.11)0.22(0.15)0.13(0.09)0.14(0.09)0.33(0.22)
FL120.08(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 Configurations
Falcon 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 Numbers
The 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 SLFalcon BLFire PrismNight SpinnerWarp HunterWave SerpentWave Serpent + Shield
GEQ38.5746.5025.7126.4725.5038.4422.46
FEQ46.5558.1329.0335.7128.3356.4231.63
MEQ57.0463.4136.4945.9229.4279.3045.73
TEQ93.1096.2193.10118.42127.50140.8785.26
HEQ67.5066.43122.73146.7474.03111.1884.00
AV1040.1049.8273.6480.3664.6550.4027.39
AV1156.2566.4398.78115.3890.0075.6041.09
AV1294.1999.64150.00204.55148.06151.2082.17
AV13289.29167.40225.00900.00417.27--
AV14675.00232.50192.86-417.27--
Autocannon5.565.745.564.636.305.195.19
Missile Launcher11.1111.4811.119.2612.5910.3710.37
Lascannon18.5219.1418.5215.4320.9917.2317.23

Comparison to Falcon SL
The 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 BLFire PrismNight SpinnerWarp HunterWave SerpentWave Serpent + Shield
GEQ20.5633.3431.3733.890.3441.77
FEQ24.8837.6423.2939.1421.2032.05
MEQ11.1836.0319.5048.4239.0319.83
TEQ3.340.0027.2036.9551.318.42
HEQ1.5981.82117.399.6764.7124.44
AV1024.2483.6440.2661.2225.6931.70
AV1118.1075.61105.1260.0034.4026.95
AV125.7959.25117.1757.1960.5312.76
AV1342.1322.22211.1144.24**********
AV1465.5671.43*****38.10**********
Autocannon3.330.0016.7313.316.676.67
Missile Launcher3.330.0016.7313.316.676.67
Lascannon3.330.0016.7313.316.676.67
« Last Edit: June 8, 2015, 04:57:14 PM by The Mattler »
Shuriken weaponry is the pinnacle of antiSpocklizardry in 40k.

Offline The Mattler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Eldar
Re: The Mattler's Mathhammer: Eldar Tanks (7th Edition)
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2015, 12:23:15 PM »
Evaluation
There's a enormous amount of useful information to be gleaned from the tables above, but context is crucial.  Although these number tell you the relative capabilities of the units under discussion, they aren't useful outside of evaluating the units in roles the units will play in an army.  The following sections will address a variety of special considerations relating to each unit; these considerations may or may not pertain directly to the results in the tables above, which they supplement as part of the unit evaluation process.

Raw Damage
Selecting unit that do more damage per point spent is like including more points in your army because the same number of friendly points can eliminate a larger number of enemy points.  When building an “all comers” list, versatility is usually preferable over specialization because enemy force composition is unpredictable.  Contrary to the previous Codex, there isn't one tank that consistently outperforms the others in virtually all categories.  The Falcon SL has the most consistent performance vs. TEQs and light vehicles.  The Falcon BL has a strange sweet spots vs. HEQs (barely) and AV13, and has intermediate damage against most other targets.  (I'd recommend it if you play Necrons frequently, and can't leave home without that Falcon hull.)  The Fire Prism, Night Spinner, and Warp Hunter are well suited to killing GEQs, FEQs, and MEQs.  The Wave Serpent has intermediate performance vs. most targets except for the turn in which it fires its shield, which makes it comparable or better than the other tanks against most targets for a turn.  Overall, the Warp Hunter surpasses the Fire Prism and Night Spinner due to Barrage fire, allowing it to bypass non-area cover and offset its higher cost (and thus lower defensive efficiency) by remaining hidden whilst firing.  Although the Fire Prism and Night Spinner have similar performance, the Prism Cannon suffers from cover compared to the Doomweaver.  Furthermore, a single Fire Prism's relatively good performance against TEQs, AV13, and AV14 is a trap; two Fire Prisms can link their Dispersed beams to shoot Terminators, but there are more efficient options in the Codex to tackle TEQs and heavy vehicles.  The Wave Serpent, thankfully, has gone back to being a transport first and a main battle tank second, although it still manages to contribute reliable firepower against most targets.  That honour finally returns to the Falcon.

Resilience
Similar to offensive efficiency, selecting units that require more opposing firepower to destroy is like including more points in your army because the same amount of enemy points destroys a smaller fraction of your army each turn.  Since the Eldar tanks are all built from the same chassis, it's easy to scale resilience with points cost.  The only notable differences from the Falcon SL are the cheaper Night Spinner and the more expensive Warp Hunter.

Barrage
Another special case is the use of Barrage weaponry to exploit LOS-blocking terrain, circumvent non-area cover, and snipe special models from enemy units.  The two Eldar tanks that use Barrage weapons are the Night Spinner and the Warp Hunter, and of those two the Warp Hunter is the clear winner, especially with the Distort rule allowing it to damage any ground target.  Barrage is almost irrelevant unless it's on a low-AP weapon, which the D-Flail is; Monofilament hits from the DoomWeaver just aren't good enough.  Aside from acting as a screening  unit and sneaking a wound onto the odd Terminator, there is literally nothing a single Night Spinner can do that the Warp Hunter can't do better.  A niche use of the Nightspinner involves fielding a squadron, using the bonus from Monofilament Shroud to damage massed light vehicles more efficiently than the Warp Hunter.

Transport
Although the Wave Serpent is back to being the mainstay transport for full squads, the Cloudstrike ability of a squadron of Falcons provides an exciting alternative for a large chunk of the Eldar army to deliver a surgical strike against high value targets.  Fire Dragons are probably the best unit to drop deep in to enemy territory, potentially removing four targets per turn by the Cloudstrike squadron. 

Tough Targets (TEQ, AV13, AV14)
These are the only targets that cause some grief to the Eldar tanks.  Out of all the tanks discussed, even the performance of the Falcon BL and Fire Prism isn't something you want to rely upon for cracking heavy armour.  The Eldar have no shortage of units to deal with tough targets, including D-Cannons, Hornets w/2 Pulse Lasers, War Walkers w/2 Bright Lances, Swooping Hawks, and Wraithknights to name only a few of the more efficient options with decent range and/or mobility.  Use those units instead of the tanks against such tough targets.

Psychic Powers
It's only a matter of time before someone starts speculating on the role of Guide, Prescience, Doom, etc. in boosting the performance of these tanks.  The problem is that psychic powers in the previous Codex were barely worth it even when the ratio of Mastery Levels to successful Warp Charge use was 1:1, and even that had to involve at least two of the powers specified above and the psyker represented a liability in that it was easier to kill than most of the units it was buffing.  Presently, I suspect that the only Eldar tanks worth Guiding are Falcons in a Cloudstrike squadron, since the power would benefit almost 500pts of vehicles with ample firepower.  Unfortunately, although I think the core rules of 7th edition are the best to date, psykers would have to be at least tripled in potency before they could compete with most other units in their respective Codices.  IF I get to writing a detailed treatment of the Eldar psykers, you'll see what I mean.


Conclusions
The Falcon and the Wave Serpent are now proper compliments to one another's strengths, and the Warp Hunter continues to offer reliable indirect fire.  Unfortunately, the Fire Prism and the Night Spinner simply aren't up to the same standard, but the opportunity cost for taking them is not nearly as high as it was in the previous Codex.  OVerall, I am happy to see a more level playing field among the Eldar tanks (and the Codex in general).


Appendix/FAQ
Although I will be updating this article to reflect ongoing discussion, this section is reserved for additional calculations and responses to questions that don't fit neatly into the structure outlined above.

Why holo-fields?
"4. Holo-fields increase the survivability of the tanks by 50%"

Given that the Holo-field save will only be successful 1/3 of the time, how does this translate into a 50% increase in survivability? Seems like, with regard to everything but the Wave Serpent, it's impact would be in terms of sustained firepower (declining to jink but still surviving a round of shooting).

You can find the average number of shots required to remove a model by dividing the number of wounds/HP it has by the average number of wounds/HP removed by a single attack.  For example:

BS4 Krak Missile vs. Falcon (no holo-fields)
(2/3 Hit) x (1/2 Strip HP) = 1/3 HP
(3 HP Falcon) / (1/3 HP) = 9 missiles required to wreck

BS4 Krak Missile vs. Falcon (holo-fields)
(2/3 Hit) x (1/2 Strip HP) x (2/3 holo-field failure) = 2/9 HP
(3 HP Falcon) / (2/9 HP) = 13.5 missiles required to wreck

13.5 / 9 = 1.5

Therefore, on average it takes 50% more BS4 krak missiles to wreck a Falcon with holo-fields compared to one without them.  Regarding Jinking, you're right about the sustained firepower.   The following example compares a Falcon without holo-fields jinking, and a Falcon with holo-fields not jinking, to a Falcon without holo-fields that does not jink.

Case #1: No Holo-fields, Never Jinks
Falcon w/Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon
Baseline for comparison.

Case #2: No Holo-fields, Jinks
Falcon w/Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon
+0.00% defense in turns with NO JINK
+0.00% offense following turns with NO JINK
+100% defense vs. shooting in turns with JINK
-75% offense following turns with JINK

Case #3: Holo-fields, Never Jinks
Falcon w/Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon, Holo-fields
+44.44%% defense vs. shooting and close combat in all turns
-11.11%% offense in all turns

If all targets for all units were declared at the beginning of the shooting phase, the decision to jink would be easy (declare jink on all targets likely to die if they did not jink).  However, since targets are declared one at a time, one's opponent always has the option of just firing a scary weapon at each of your tanks in sequence (hoping to make you declare jink), and then direct subsequent firepower at another target, which puts a nasty dent in your damage output on the following turn even if your jinking tanks survive.  I like holo-fields because I don't mind sacrificing a small amount of offense for a good, persistent defense bonus, especially one that also applies to close combat as well.  Holo-fields are particularly good for protecting a Cloudstrike squadron.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2015, 04:50:27 PM by The Mattler »
Shuriken weaponry is the pinnacle of antiSpocklizardry in 40k.

Offline Ciliano

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: The Mattler's Mathhammer: Eldar Tanks (7th Edition)
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2015, 02:17:15 PM »
Although you explained well why you chose the loadouts of the tanks, regarding the AV 13/14 weakness you mentioned I think the Falcon with Bright Lance is definitely a good way to counter it like it has been in 6th already. So the Falcon's advantage is in my opinion to let you build a broader variety of lists because you can (if you wish) compensate anti-tank weaknesses (i.e. no Hawks, no Knight etc.) with one or two BL Falcons.

Offline Grizzlykin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 846
  • Country: fr
  • Run little eldar, run! ... And KILL THEM ALL !
  • Armies: Eldars, Tau, Necrons
Re: The Mattler's Mathhammer: Eldar Tanks (7th Edition)
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2015, 02:56:03 PM »
I Might be asking a bit too much, but would it be possible to have the vyper in there? Would help greatly to have a vyper comparaison, and the various result for different vyper load out.  Or could you send me a MP with how to do these so that i can do it on the vyper aswell on my own:) TY

While i'm at it, seriously that's a nice work, really helfull to me, like thi i know that taking falcon isn't as bad as some may say good things i love the falcon! Much versatility!
The Grizzly's Arvandor Craftworld!

Quote from: Cavalier
ALL HAIL THE TORNADO! The legend is REBORN.

Quote from: Alienscar
The forum member so nice that even when he is MIA he still gets two votes for being the nicest member

Offline Fenris

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2169
  • Country: se
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Aeldari
Re: The Mattler's Mathhammer: Eldar Tanks (7th Edition)
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2015, 04:35:44 PM »
A wave serpent with catapults only loose 66%(65.625%)firepower when jinking instead of a falcons 75%, due to twin-linked guns.
The vehicle can then shoot at flyers for a 0% loss in firepower or move flat-out with it's passengers, which is also more useful with a serpent as it has a higher transport capacity.

Also if you assume the opponent can aim every weapon at a diffrent target, you should be able to choose to only jink when you have 1 HP remaining. That alone increases the vehicle's durability by 1/6. That's why the holofields value should be reduced from 50% increase to 33% increase.
For vypers the holofields only grants a 25% increase in durability.

You may be right that the holofield and underslung cannon may be the most points effective way for damage and durability, however I'd like to see the barebone Serpent included in the comparison as it has other tactical used as well.
Ego in propria persona, non compos mentis.

Offline The Mattler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Eldar
Re: The Mattler's Mathhammer: Eldar Tanks (7th Edition)
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2015, 10:04:48 PM »
Although you explained well why you chose the loadouts of the tanks, regarding the AV 13/14 weakness you mentioned I think the Falcon with Bright Lance is definitely a good way to counter it like it has been in 6th already. So the Falcon's advantage is in my opinion to let you build a broader variety of lists because you can (if you wish) compensate anti-tank weaknesses (i.e. no Hawks, no Knight etc.) with one or two BL Falcons.
I added a Falcon with a bright lance to the original post, plus a few references to it in the evaluation; it's not nearly a bad by comparison as it was when Laser Lock existed.  If it fits into your plans, use it, but recognize its limitations.

I Might be asking a bit too much, but would it be possible to have the vyper in there? Would help greatly to have a vyper comparaison, and the various result for different vyper load out.  Or could you send me a MP with how to do these so that i can do it on the vyper aswell on my own:) TY
I posted a comparison of Vypers and Hornets on The Warmaster last year, which you can find by searching "The Mattler's Mathhammer: Vypers and Hornets" on that forum.  I'd post the link, but the mods here are generally nervous about linking to sites that have less strict policies about posting unit stats, etc.  I'll be updating that article fairly soon, and I'll be posting it here when I do.

As for the calculations themselves, it's just multiplying fractions together for the most part.  The main difference with what I do compared to most people who post about 40k is that I divide a unit's points cost by it's damage output against a given target, which gives an average of how much of a contribution that unit is making per point spent.  The player with the most dangerous/toughest army per point spent has a significant advantage over a player who fielded less efficient units, all other things being equal.

A wave serpent with catapults only loose 66%(65.625%)firepower when jinking instead of a falcons 75%, due to twin-linked guns.
The vehicle can then shoot at flyers for a 0% loss in firepower or move flat-out with it's passengers, which is also more useful with a serpent as it has a higher transport capacity.
True, but a snap firing single shuriken cannon does more than double the damage against AV10 flyers compared to a snap firing twin-linked shuriken catapult, including being able to get penetrating hits (now they get to snap fire).  Even against GEQs, the catapults' preferred target, the damage output between snap fired catapults and a cannon differs by less than 1% (in favour of the shuriken cannon).  Considering the shuriken cannon's additional range and broader application, I think the extra 9.09% cost (max, if we're still talking about a Wave Serpent) is justified.  Your point about opportunity cost is well-taken, though; if your plan is to use a barebones Serpent as a mobile, jinking/tank shocking dude-filled hill that takes pot shots at flyers, it has less to lose than a Falcon in that role.  The catch is that the barebones Wave Serpent can only 'boast' about how little it can fall once it's near rock bottom (for Eldar, anyway ;) ).

Also if you assume the opponent can aim every weapon at a diffrent target, you should be able to choose to only jink when you have 1 HP remaining. That alone increases the vehicle's durability by 1/6. That's why the holofields value should be reduced from 50% increase to 33% increase.
For vypers the holofields only grants a 25% increase in durability.
There are some issues with making a habit of jinking when you have only 1 HP left.  You declare jink when you think the opposing weapon has a decent chance of penetrating armour.  Considering that jinking is just taking the snap fire penalty for the chance to prevent HP loss, and also that penetrating hits cause snap firing on most results already, deciding not to jink when that's your only defence against a likely penetrating hit isn't a great plan.  You have a high risk of HP loss and being forced to snap fire (or worse) instead of guaranteeing snap fire and getting a 50/50 chance of preserving HP (the main concern).  Another problem is that you have to declare jink before the shooting attacks are rolled, and your tank might very well wreck or explode under a decent volley even when it started the phase with more than 1 HP.  Holo-fields are nice because they always protect non-immobilized vehicles, removing the tension between wanting to tie up your opponent's firepower and potentially screwing yourself out of future offense.  I wouldn't put them on Vypers, though; heck, I wouldn't even put them on Hornets.

You may be right that the holofield and underslung cannon may be the most points effective way for damage and durability, however I'd like to see the barebone Serpent included in the comparison as it has other tactical used as well.
I maxed out the characters in the first post when I added the Falcon with the bright lance, so I'll use this post to give you a comparison between the Falcon SL, loaded Wave Serpent, and barebones Wave Serpent.

Falcon w/Shuriken Cannon, Scatter Laser, Holo-fields (C:EC, 2015)
Wave Serpent w/Shuriken Cannon, Twin-linked Scatter Lasers, Holo-fields (C:EC, 2015)
Wave Serpent w/Twin-linked Shuriken Cannon (C:EC, 2015)

Raw Numbers
Falcon SLWSBBWSBB + ShieldWSSLWSSL + Shield
GEQ38.5732.2818.3338.4422.46
FEQ46.5553.0427.3756.4231.63
MEQ57.0467.5037.5979.3045.73
TEQ93.10123.7535.78140.8785.26
HEQ67.50106.0760.61111.1884.00
AV1040.1067.5027.7650.4027.39
AV1156.25123.7545.0075.6041.09
AV1294.19247.5090.00151.2082.17
AV13289.29----
AV14675.00----
Autocannon5.566.116.115.195.19
Missile Launcher11.1112.2212.2210.3710.37
Lascannon18.5220.3720.3717.2317.23

Comparison to Falcon SL
WSBBWSBB + ShieldWSSLWSSL + Shield
GEQ16.3152.480.3441.77
FEQ13.9441.2021.2032.05
MEQ18.3434.1039.0319.83
TEQ32.9261.5751.318.42
HEQ57.1410.2164.7124.44
AV1068.3330.7725.6931.70
AV11120.0020.0034.4026.95
AV12162.774.4560.5312.76
AV13********************
AV14********************
Autocannon9.999.996.676.67
Missile Launcher9.999.996.676.67
Lascannon9.999.996.676.67

The low cost of the barebones Wave Serpent props up its efficiency despite its weaker weapon loadout, especially on the turn in which it fires its shield.  However, other than the shield turn, its offensive efficiency isn't that impressive.  It's a little better than the loaded Wave Serpent against squishy targets, but only within the short range of the shuriken catapults.  The lack of a shuriken limits its effective range, and also makes it a poor choice for shooting light vehicles.  Perhaps most damning is its inferior defensive efficiency due to a lack of holo-fields.  One could argue that its purpose is to jink, but doing so cripples its already weak damage output.  More importantly, unless it's carrying something like Fire Dragons or Wraithguard, the barebones Wave Serpent probably won't be worth shooting.  If its purpose is to claim objectives with a minimal Dire Avenger squad, three minimum Windrider squads (or two armed to the teeth) could do a better job of both staying alive and dishing out damage.
Shuriken weaponry is the pinnacle of antiSpocklizardry in 40k.

 


Powered by EzPortal