I have been a little bit surprised, as most, with the way point values for the Datasheet of the indexes were set. Especially in respect of cost managment of the options. Or rather in respect of the total lack of cost managment of the options.

I already stated in other places of B&C that in my opinion, the whole design (from profiles to poitn values) would be te result of a series of probabilities to suceed vs. an average profile defined a rating reference. of course this is theory as the main features of this approach needs a certain granular approach to weight properly various mechanisms:

- how do you cope for the mobility

- how do you cope for CC vs. one model archetype (infantery, tank...)

- how do you cope for shooting vs. one modelarchetype

- how to define respective weight of each aspect for a global point value.

A math tycoon I know said that it could be in each case a 3 dimensional probelm taht could be solved by a simple excel with a MonteCarlo solver. He went down in his basement to do it, but never reappeared to the surface... (Ok, I have been told he met someone since, so probably that he isn´t mumified. Yet.)

Not being too smart on maths hammer (for lazyness mainly) I anyhow decided to give a try. a limited and humble try. While skipping completely the relevance of movement I calculated the probabilities for a Warlock to inflict damages to a SM intercessor and a Rhino in both shooting and CC for the different configurations of weapons and psychic attacks: Destroyer, Singing Spear and Witchblade.

Probability to inflict Damage = Probabilty to hit succesfuly x probabilty to wound succesfuly x probabilty that the oponent fail its saving throw

My initial thoughs were:

- Singing spear is for hunting down vehicles

- Witchblade is for killing infantry

- Destroyer is for Fluff

I do not want to tease too much of a conclusion, but let´s see how wrong I was... And how appearances may be deceiving.

• Ranged against SM intercessor: the Torrent of Destructor is key in its eficiency probabilty to cause damage with 1 attack is 33% while the Spear is slightly bellow 19% - I round it. Destructor being D6 attacks the mass is sung - Clear advantage to Destructor. OK I know this is a pointless comparison as you do not swap Destructor with the Spear. You keep Destructor and use both... But Destructor is still better)

• Ranged against Rhino: the Torrent of Destructor still is key in its eficiency probabilty to cause damage but the difference is less marked - 17% vs. 11% - S9 of Spear looks almost pointless  - Small advantage to Destructor, which once again you do not lose...

• CC against SM intercessor: Whatever you go Blade of Spear, both options, well, suck. the Anti-Infantery+2 of WitchBlade is not that decisive. Rests of specs are similars between weapons. Probabilty to cause a damage is ending at 9 and 7%. Do not go HtH against SM with a Warlock...

• CC against Rhino: Same lamentable conclusions - Singing Spear is not done to hit vehicles. Neither is the WitchBlade

(of course this does not consider how fate dices may be used in order to turn the tide at the right moment and lead all of this to the trash bin...)

So, what is the purpose of going Singing Spear? - I initially said none, but I would rephrase as "rather limited" instead.

Or a little bit less limited if you disconsider the movement category too. A Singing Spear in Ranged attack category is indeed Assault. This is, I feel, the only reason that remain to take it; and for this you need to get a strategy of moving the unit within which the Warlock is set -> Thus only in Storm Guardians tooled up with Fusion Guns (for doing something useful against a similar type of target). Overwise, I would stick to the default WitchBlade.

Seen the differences I found in probabilities to cause damages to a SM Intercessor or a Rhino (used a Guineas Pigs on purpose of rating the options of a Warlock), we can see that most of the statistics gives close results in most cases. Therefore I guess it is fine for such a model, under my very limited and arguably biased rating conditions, to assert that both options do more or less the same and should cost the same (corollary) :

i) there is a statistical difference that is somehow marginal between 2 configurations and the little plus of shooting this the Spear is bringing limited boost

ii) and the benefit of optional (Spear) over the base tooling is mostly circunstancial to Advancing unit or iddled opportunity to drop a ray on a nearby high T target ( and x fingers for succeeding in the dice throw)

But, is this finding extrapolable to other units/are they more all less falling into the same type of trend? I wonder how a SM Devastator would rend in such a comparative approach through their numerous options (and how you rate more anti tank vs. more anti smurfs... May be a topic for another calculations at lunch pause?)