40k metrics

[Droma]

I read this interesting article over on BoLS about 40k metrics.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/07/40k...ut-numbers.html

 

The basic idea is to get a rough estimate of the power of a list in 4 different areas.

 

DMS dead meq from shooting

DMCC dead meq from CC

DRPG dead rhinos per game(pen hits vs av11 or av10 for melee)

DLRPG dead land raiders per game(same as above but av14)

 

These numbers are relevant for a couple reasons but namely that they actually measure(crudely) how killy your list is. With the current meta you need to be able to kill light mech and infantry effectively or you don't have much chance of winning.

 

Here are the relevant metrics for 4 lists from the NOVA open that went 4-0. These are all 2k lists btw.

 

Tony Kopach (Space Wolves)

 

DMS: 19.28

DMCC: 28.29

DRPG: 59.18

DLRPG: 17.04

 

Andrew “Stelek” Sutton (Space Wolves)

 

DMS: 25.05

DMCC: 24.82

DRPG: 64.80

DLRPG: 19.27

 

Justin “Dashofpepper” Hildebrandt (Orks)

 

DMS: 18.90

DMCC: 45.75

DRPG: 80.00

DLRPG: 31.04

 

Mark Ferrik (Blood Angels)

 

DMS: 22.21

DMCC: 15.15

DRPG: 82.35

DLRPG: 33.74

 

For details on the army lists, math breakdowns, and conclusions drawn check out the article and related links within the article.

 

Now on to how DW compare to these given metrics.

 

My 2k deathwing list is as follows.

 

Belial

DW squad: 1xPW/SB, 4xTH/SH, CML, Apoth, Banner

2x DW Squad: 5x TH/SH, CML

2X DW Squad: 1xPW/SB, 3xPF/SB, 1xCF/SB, CML

2x Land Speeder Typhoon w/ MM

2x LRC

 

Now assuming I did my math correctly we get the following.

DMS= 30.46 DMCC= 33.75 DRPG= 121.28 DLRPG= 19.26

 

Just going by these numbers we see that the list compares very favorably against the others. We are better at killing meq in shooting than all of them, better in CC than all but orks, better at killing light mech, and average at killing land raiders.

 

Well the numbers look good. All that's left is to win a major tournament with the list.

 

For those wanting to run their own math here are the equations and the assumptions made based on info from the article.

 

DMS = # shots x hit% x w% x save%

DMCC = # attacks x hit% x w% x save%

DRPG = # shots/attacks x 5 x hit% x pen%

DLRPG = # shots/attacks x 5 x hit% x pen%

 

Assumptions made and notes

-assume all weapons fire from optimum range(aka meltas at melta range, etc)

-assume charging for all cc attacks

-assume melee vs vehicles is at 4+ to hit and against rear armor(av10/14)

-assume ranged vs vehicles is against front armor(av11/14)

 

Small blasts = 3 hits, Large blasts = 5 hits, Templates = 5 hits

 

d6 %

2+ = .83, 3+ = .66, 4+ = .5, 5+ = .33, 6+ = .17

 

2d6 pen(assuming str8)

av10 = .97

av11 = .92

av14 = .58

 

Some of the assumptions I know people won't agree with but this is what the article uses and I'm just staying consistent.

[Jehoel]

I read this interesting article over on BoLS about 40k metrics.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/07/40k...ut-numbers.html

 

For those wanting to run their own math here are the equations and the assumptions made based on info from the article.

 

DMS = # shots x hit% x w% x save%

DMCC = # attacks x hit% x w% x save%

DRPG = # shots/attacks x 5 x hit% x pen%

DLRPG = # shots/attacks x 5 x hit% x pen%

 

Assumptions made and notes

-assume all weapons fire from optimum range(aka meltas at melta range, etc)

-assume charging for all cc attacks

-assume melee vs vehicles is at 4+ to hit and against rear armor(av10/14)

-assume ranged vs vehicles is against front armor(av11/14)

 

Small blasts = 3 hits, Large blasts = 5 hits, Templates = 5 hits

 

d6 %

2+ = .83, 3+ = .66, 4+ = .5, 5+ = .33, 6+ = .17

 

2d6 pen(assuming str8)

av10 = .97

av11 = .92

av14 = .58

 

Some of the assumptions I know people won't agree with but this is what the article uses and I'm just staying consistent.

 

Ok, I read the base article on Bell of Lost Souls and even downloaded the Excel spreadsheet the author posted there.

 

No where in either the article or his spreadsheet does the author list any of the equations that you mention (unless I missed them and I was really looking for them) and his assumptions seem flawed to me. Not sure how useful this would be at all. Too bad, interesting concept.

[RayJ]

As Kirby mentions in the article, this was started by Nikephoros over at Bringer of Victory. The system is being worked on by a few people to get some more concrete numbers. For example, I have been using the following metrics in my recent army lists:

 

- Dead marines via shooting

- Dead marines via close combat

- Dead rhinos via shooting

- Dead rhinos via close combat

- Dead land raiders via shooting

- Dead land raiders via close combat

 

Sometimes I calculate for dead orks or guardsmen via these numbers as well to see how we deal with hordes.

 

The key to separating out all elements by both shooting and close combat lets you see how much mobility can affect your scores. I also do all measurements for a single turn instead of the whole game to make sure everything is working in the same scale.

 

The short version of the story is that Deathwing excel at killing all types of units in close combat (provided you have some chainfists for dealing with Land Raiders), and are good at dealing with rhinos at range. Their ability to deal with marines in shooting merely OK, but this comes from low number of shots. Ideally you want to take out the rhinos with shooting and assault the squad in the same turn, maximizing the kill potential. The numbers will actually back this up.

 

Here's where my current 2000-point Death Hammer list sits in on the metrics as applied in the original article (for comparison to the stuff above):

 

DMS 16.02

DMCC 37.859

DRPG 104.428

DLRPG 28.673

[Jehoel]

Now there are the numbers I was looking for. I must have missed his referencing the Bringer of Victory post in the Bell of Lost Souls post. I'll read this over and update this once I have finished.

[Isiah]

So 40K has come down to metrics?? Where's the fun in that??

 

And what about random factors such as terrain, mission and any special mission/tournament rules?

[Interrogator Stobz]

So 40K has come down to metrics?? Where's the fun in that??

 

And what about random factors such as terrain, mission and any special mission/tournament rules?

 

What is this "terrain" you speak of? Sounds like some sort of fear inducing device :) "mission" sounds like you can't shoot and special rules are just daft ;)

 

Do you play for fun? I'm confused and befuddled about that concept.

 

MATHHAMMER(Metrics) FTW.

BTW did someone just invent a new use for that word? It sounds a bit silly in that context.

 

s

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

As much as many of us would love to have concrete numbers, it's just not really possible with these small cubes we use called dice, which are used to randomly generate numbers. Sure, you can get a rough estimate, but when you only have six sides on a dice, anything can happen. Plus, as Isiah says, you have to be able to include movement, deployment, terrain, the intelligence of your opponent, the carrying capacity of a swallow, and so on.

[Bryan Blaire]

African or European? And what is your favorite color?

 

I just can't see Mathammer at this level really being all that accurate or needed.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I just re-read my last post, I hope everyone got my sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't.

 

Whilst I personally do a simple version of that "metric" system when I am designing a tourney army (doesn't hurt to hedge your bets), I am damn sure that the dice gods and all the other cool variables in the game will defeat any hope of getting a predetermined result.

 

Sweet

 

My favouring colour is tomatoe :)

 

s

[Brother Landrain]

While its interesting to see those numbers...

Your analysis would seem to reflect that according to these metrics, the DW should be at the top tables every time.

 

Sadly, I can say that is not the case.

 

The metrics fail in your comparison though for several reasons...

 

1) The extremely low model count of 29 (every single model is extremely important, and a couple of loses dramatically changes the situation)

 

2) The over reliance upon Init 1 weapons. (if you never get to swing, you wont be killing 33+MEQ a round)

 

3) extremely low vehicle count of 4 (lots of eggs in little baskets, especially with so many high anti-mech lists)

 

(While a high anti-mech list usually has its downfall against a foot list, it doesn't matter when fighting a DW list as all that AP does is force invuln saves. Usually firing a couple lascannon at a normal squad is a waste, against DW, it is not)

 

While in theory the DW are competitive, in practice they fail for many of these reasons.

[Interrogator Stobz]

In a nutshell, DW are very killy but lose battles of attrition. This we already know.

 

What this 'Metric" idea is good for is, IMO, at a unit level, i.e. knowing what the 'average' outcome will be against a type of opponent, most of us do that with experience but to be statistically correct you need to play a hell of a lot of games with similar situations to achieve that knowlegde.

Doing it at the beginning of a phase with a full strength unit will help you to make a better decision, that approach also helps to mitigate the attrition element too, as unit vs unit is normally of more use that point vs point or army vs army.

 

s

[Master Avoghai]

So 40K has come down to metrics?? Where's the fun in that??

 

And what about random factors such as terrain, mission and any special mission/tournament rules?

Like I'm used to say : "statistics are like bikinis : they give an idea but hide essential"

 

This is a tool, a very interesting tool based on how the meta game of warhammer works. It helps to build a potentially powerful army but will not play for you...

 

In a tourny point of view, most of the lists look the same and in the same tourny, tables will also be built the same way (mostly). That's why such tool is interesting to apprehend the game in this type of play. In campaigns or in fluff games, this will be less useful.

 

Actually this tool won't tell you if your army will crush every opponent but is able to tell you if you will BE crushed by any opponent. Just like your final grade at college : if you have it, it doesn't mean you'll get your university grades with ease, but if you don't have it, you won't go to uni at all...

[Farmer_Geddon]

So 40K has come down to metrics?? Where's the fun in that??

 

And what about random factors such as terrain, mission and any special mission/tournament rules?

Like I'm used to say : "statistics are like bikinis : they give an idea but hide essential"

 

 

What a fantastic, and accurate saying!

 

Pretty much +1 to Avoghai.

 

The author of Bringer of Victory does state that this is best used in comparing armies taken from the same codex. Can't compare apples and oranges...

But all things being equal, this can give you an idea of what you can, in perfect circumstances, achieve with the army.

 

It's an interesting tool (for me anyway) to look at several different army builds and compare like for like.

 

Isiah, you are right in saying it can't account for mission, opponent, terrain, time of the month etc. It can, if you want (entirely optional!), allow you to see if you're taking the tools for job.

[krewl]

Yup, it's not that it plays or wins the game for you, but you can use it as a guide to point out weak spots in your list by compairing measurements to other known good lists. So say you lose a bit to much and wonder why you can look at your lists and see that you always have a very low ammount X. It doesn't build you a new list knowing that, but you will know that say you need to have better cc performance vs MEQ for example, so you will know broadly where to adapt your list.

 

Also you can then use the same system of metrics to see when you change your list if you did not introduce another weak spot in your army (Say you dropped 2 units of long fangs for more grey hunters, now you kill to few Rhino's per game, oops, back to the drawing board.).

 

You can guestimate this before playing a game and lets face it. Some people just don't have the time to playtest several games a week. So it lets you toy with a list and in a way judge it without taking it to a table for the 10ish games you'd need to appraise them normally.

 

In short, an added tool for those who like tournaments. Not game changing, but a standardized way to judge different armies does help with that making gut feeling more solid.

 

It is known to have issues, mainly in those things not represented (And unmodellable) like terrain, survibility and range. It just talks about potential killing power.

Everyone knows 32 Meltaguns kill tanks very well. We also know that 32 melta's will not be of any use sitting in the back field vs an IG Shooting Gallery. So you need to be smart in how you interpretate the data. If your Dead Landraiders a game number is insanely high, you don't need to add more of it when you lose to 3 landraider spam. You need to look at your gameplay, thats not the bit that this tool helps with.

 

It's a tool, hammers hammer very well but are quite useless when you need to paint a wall.

 

 

P.S. Master Avoghai, if I could I'd +1 you so many times for that comment! Wonderfull!

[krewl]

Sorry for the doublepost, but does anyone know where the linky is to the excell sheet that you can use yourself?

I know it's around somewhere, but I could not find on the BoLS article or on Bringer of Victory's site.

 

I'd love to compair my lists to eachother and I was curious how they would match up vs older armies of mine.