Redemptors are the new Razorback

[Tamiel]

 

Truly. I find that the marine codex is so bad that your opponent can tell at a glance what his target priority needs to be. Taking 2 is 1 and taking 1 is none.

I think most of our vehicles are designed this way. I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here, but I think it's a discussion worth having. A lot of people are drawn to marines because of the vehicles we have (dreadnoughts, repulsors, landraiders). But, with the exception of the dreadnought's melee prowess, our vehicles woefully underperform on almost every metric when compared to what Guard (arguably the king of tanks) get for the same price. The only two strengths our vehicles seem to have is: 1) Some of them are amazing in melee combat (mainly dreadnoughts), and 2) Some of them can transport high-value infantry like terminators or primaris marines (wheras guard vehicles can, at best, transport guard vets or tempestus). So, for these reasons, I would argue that if you're trying to make marine vehicles work without taking full advantage of their only two main strengths, you're not setting yourself up for success as much as you should be. (Forgeworld vehicles (like the Astraeus) seem to be the only exceptions to this rule, but I'm going to put forgeworld aside for now)

 

This brings me to a much broader topic that I also think needs to be considered. Whenever we've found a way to make marines a parking lot shooty army, GW has nerfed it. On the other hand, GW has buffed infantry by not only cutting down costs for bodies, but also costs for weapons wielded by our infantry. I don't want to ramble on for much longer, but I'm starting to think that, in GW's vision, marines are meant to be an "infantry that shoots then charges" army. I'm by no means a professional player and I won't pretend I know how to theorycraft at a competitive level, but when I look at the shooting options of marines, they pale in comparison to the shooting+melee options we have. Furthermore, when I look at marine vehicles, they just don't seem to be as worth it as marine infantry. Example: 9 points for a powerfist, with three attacks on a primaris sergeant. Then you have 20 points for a lascannon. Put that lascannon on a vehicle and it will die on turn two. Those power fists, however, are here to stay when hidden in squads of ten, and they're going twice per game turn (your turn and the enemy's turn).

 

I don't know if I'm making sense anymore, but I'm starting to feel like the way I look at marines is... evolving, for lack of a better word. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but even the results from the games I've been running have been pushing me in this direction. My lascannons and vehicles go poof instantly by turn one or two, but those powerfists are still going strong all the way until turn 6 (including the enemy's melee phases). I feel like I'm almost on the cusp of discovering some great unknown truth. I can't put it into words, but if I tried, I'd say something like "blue horde with power fists for anti tank", which would sound ridiculous to many. Anyway, I'm just a casual player at most. Take everything I say with a grain of salt.

 

/end ramblings of a mad man

[mel_danes]

Tamiel I've had much better performance out of my Blue Tide of Primaris than any of my Repulsor + Redemptor builds. For my opponent shifting Primaris out of cover is work, blasting any vehicle I use is easy.

I don't like running marines like a horde but it works better, IME.

[Toxichobbit]

 

You'll find that the lascannon receives no different benefit to its D6 damage roll. It can be identically as troublesome.

 

 

Idaho is actually right, to a degree. The difference is that the macro-plasma incinerator is only ever rolling 1D6 and 1D6 has no average roll, only multiple 1D6s do. Sure, mathematically the average is 3.5 and over enough games you'll average out 3.5 shots, but that's really not helpful when we're talking about the microcosm that is 40k phases. On any individual given turn, a macro-plama incinerator cannot be relied upon to roll an average, meaning it's incredibly swingy (though Command Re-Roll does help mitigate this). On the other hand, the twin-lascannon's randomness is less weighted towards a single dice roll because it's rolling 2D6, which does have an average. So you can estimate the twin-lascannon doing 7+ damage over 50% of the time (again, Command Re-Roll makes this more reliable). It's still swingy, anything involving small numbers of dice always will be. It's just less swingy than the macro-plasma incinerator.

 

Of course, this assumes both weapon's shots hit, which adds another layer of difference between the two. The macro-plasma incinerator has to make more hit rolls in order to get the same kind of damage output, than a twin-lascannon has to make. Which means more points of failure, which in turn means less reliablity. However, a miss to a lascannon is a 50% drop in performance where as a miss to the macro-plasma isn't necesarily as devastating (depending on how many shots you got that phase).

 

Furthermore, the twin-lascannon is more accurate in certain circumstances. Those circumstances being when the target is between 36.1" and 48", where the twin-lascannon can stay still but the macro-plasma has to move. This is further compounded by armies that have negative to hit modifiers, although again it's important to remember that those negative modifiers make the more impactful miss of a twin-lascannon more likely too. Which is better really depends on if you prefer the more points of failure approach vs all your eggs in one basket approach. Leading on from that, there's the mortal wounds of the macro-plasma incinerator to take into account. Given that it has to supercharge and fire more shots than the twin-lascannon to get a roughly equal damage output, it's going to happen. The chance of mortal wounds is also affected more by having to move to get into range, or those annoying negative to hit modifiers.

 

Finally, there's the question of the secondary* function of the vehicle the weapon system is carried upon. The Redemptor really wants to get into melee at some point in the game, while the Razorback is a transport so should probably at least consider transporting something. If you are taking either for just their firepower then there are, IMO, better options. Obviously, to make use of the secondary function means moving, which reduces the firepower (and in the case of the Redemptor, potentially it's durability). There will be games where you can afford to just stay still and fire away, but it's not going to be a guaranteed thing if you intend to make full use of the vehicles capabilities.

 

So, to sum up both weapons have the same theoretical damage output, but due to several small differences the twin-lascannon is just more reliable. None of those differences on their own are huge, but they do add up. It's important to note though that while the twin-lascannon is more reliable in an anti-tank roll, the macro-plasma incinerator has it beat on versatility. Neither weapon is better, they're just different. I think the best way to think of them is that the macro-plasma is more likely to be mediocre due to more randomness, where as the twin-lascannon is more reliable but when it fails, it will fail harder.

 

* I guess a Razorback's primary function is technically a transport, but if I was paying the points for a twin-lascannon Razorback I'd want to keep it's transporting to a minimum to retain it's accuracy. What I mean is I'd only use it's transport when absolutely necesary, things like going for vital objectives or linebreaker. If I wanted a transport to make general advances and maintain midfield presence, there are cheaper options than a twin-lascannon Razorback.

[Lemondish]

On the other hand, the twin-lascannon's randomness is less weighted towards a single dice roll because it's rolling 2D6, which does have an average.

Incorrect. It is still rolling 1D6 for damage per shot, it's just doing it twice in the same phase (if you've made both shots through).

 

Claiming it would roll 2D6 suggests you're using the most favourable outcome to illustrate the potential damage. So you've made the following assumptions - both shots hit, they've both wounded, and both punched through armour. You then argue that averages only take into effect because you have 2 examples in the same phase, but ignored the averages for each individual roll at each step of the way? I'm finding it hard to see the logic here. What if the macro fired twice in the game, you now have your magical 2 samples. A single die roll has an average because you're rolling them everywhere across the entirety of the game.

 

But you can't simply pick out one roll from the sequence and compare them independently without addressing those assumptions. All of this seems to boil down to how players feel about the act of rolling a random die for shots versus damage. All this analysis has shown is that you have the same exact chance of doing the same exact damage as a twin Las in one shooting phase. You can whiff the damage in a lascannon shot just as easily as you can whiff the shots on the macro. It's mathematically identical. It's identical because it's flipped with everything else being (mostly) the same. D6 shots, 2 damage, versus 2 shots D6 damage. Running it through the whole process shows you the expected damage output and what "should" happen. It isn't what will happen. Just as you can't bank on a twin Las always giving you 2D6 damage.

 

It seems that pointing out the macro plasma is identical to the lascannon in damage capability is controversial. Despite using the same process used in the original post, which was not questioned. I think it's time to move on from this as it seems to be rejected from the community for points that are legitimate and have nothing to do with its damage capability (like players have other plans in mind for the platform and it doesn't match their intended use).

 

Since I already addressed the rest of your points across this thread multiple times already, I won't do that again here - it's getting exhausting. Lower range for 9 points cheaper and an anti infantry profile the lascannon cannot provide, etc.

[Panzer]

It's still different to rely on a weapon that does 1d6 shots with 2 damage each or on a weapon that does 2 shots with 1d6 damage each. The former has a single super swingy roll and the latter has two super swingy roles that help eachother to average out.

I too think the Plasma cannon on the Redemptor is way too swingy and on top of it it makes you want to stay stationary since the Redemptor is lacking PotMS which makes it less likely that he gets to use his melee weapon. Two reasons why I largely prefer the HOC over the Plasma.

[Lemondish]

It's still different to rely on a weapon that does 1d6 shots with 2 damage each or on a weapon that does 2 shots with 1d6 damage each. The former has a single super swingy roll and the latter has two super swingy roles that help eachother to average out.

I too think the Plasma cannon on the Redemptor is way too swingy and on top of it it makes you want to stay stationary since the Redemptor is lacking PotMS which makes it less likely that he gets to use his melee weapon. Two reasons why I largely prefer the HOC over the Plasma.

Well it's good to believe in something. I'm just saying that the math doesn't back up anything you guys are saying.

 

That's fine if you feel it's more swingy, but from a statistical point of view - it isn't. It's identical.

[Panzer]

 

It's still different to rely on a weapon that does 1d6 shots with 2 damage each or on a weapon that does 2 shots with 1d6 damage each. The former has a single super swingy roll and the latter has two super swingy roles that help eachother to average out.

I too think the Plasma cannon on the Redemptor is way too swingy and on top of it it makes you want to stay stationary since the Redemptor is lacking PotMS which makes it less likely that he gets to use his melee weapon. Two reasons why I largely prefer the HOC over the Plasma.

Well it's good to believe in something. I'm just saying that the math doesn't back up anything you guys are saying.

 

That's fine if you feel it's more swingy, but from a statistical point of view - it isn't. It's identical.

 

 

Math does back it up tho since math only gives an average when you do multiple rolls with a dice and the more you roll the more likely you are to actually hit that average. That makes 2d6 superior to 1d6. Now you're saying "but I don't shoot only once with the Plasma" and you're right but that doesn't change the fact that it's super swingy per turn and that the 2d6 will by end of the game be way more likely to hit the average than the 1d6.

[Metzombie]

But most of the time you roll only 1d6 for the damage of the twin Lascannon. You will not allways hit both shoots, you will not allways wound both and your opponent will not allways fail both saves.

[Panzer]

But most of the time you roll only 1d6 for the damage of the twin Lascannon. You will not allways hit both shoots, you will not allways wound both and your opponent will not allways fail both saves.

 

That's true but the same can be said about any weapon. Doesn't change the fact that 1d6 is more swingy than 2d6.

[Lemondish]

 

 

 

It's still different to rely on a weapon that does 1d6 shots with 2 damage each or on a weapon that does 2 shots with 1d6 damage each. The former has a single super swingy roll and the latter has two super swingy roles that help eachother to average out.

I too think the Plasma cannon on the Redemptor is way too swingy and on top of it it makes you want to stay stationary since the Redemptor is lacking PotMS which makes it less likely that he gets to use his melee weapon. Two reasons why I largely prefer the HOC over the Plasma.

Well it's good to believe in something. I'm just saying that the math doesn't back up anything you guys are saying.

 

That's fine if you feel it's more swingy, but from a statistical point of view - it isn't. It's identical.

Math does back it up tho since math only gives an average when you do multiple rolls with a dice and the more you roll the more likely you are to actually hit that average. That makes 2d6 superior to 1d6. Now you're saying "but I don't shoot only once with the Plasma" and you're right but that doesn't change the fact that it's super swingy per turn and that the 2d6 will by end of the game be way more likely to hit the average than the 1d6.

Nope, you aren't rolling 2D6 unless you ignore the math you got to get there. You're ignorant of the assumptions you've made to fabricate this scenario. You need to take into account the averages at every step of the shooting sequence. You're missing the forest for the trees. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum - you need to take into account the swings at both ends. And in the middle.

 

Which is what the end result shows. The twin Las, on average will produce the following breakdown against a T8 target with a 5+ invuln assuming you are within a re-roll 1s aura for both hits and wounds. This target was chosen because it ignored the AP benefit from the macro plasma.

 

Total Shots = 2

Total Hits = 1.556

Wounds Caused = 1.21

Unsaved Wounds = 0.807

Total Damage = 2.823

 

The macro plasma...

 

Total Shots = 3.5

Total Hits = 2.722

Wounds Caused = 2.117

Unsaved Wounds = 1.412

Total Damage = 2.823

 

This assessment shows you that, on average, both weapons will cause the identical amount of damage. You have swings on both ends, from shots to damage, and you have a higher chance of failing to cause ANY damage with the twin Las because you're only ever starting with 2 shots, which both need to hit, wound, and fail the save before you reach the 2D6 promised land. Just comparing 2D6 damage to 1D6 of 2 damage shots isn't enough to come to a conclusion. Work through the shooting sequence and you'll see that they're identical - the points of potential failure are simply different.

 

What I find hard to believe is that nobody is questioning the method used to come to the conclusion in the OP, but when it produces a conclusion that is different from your gut feelings on the matter, it's suspect.

 

I said I'd drop it and I failed to do that. It's clear the math is not sufficient to prove this, and it's even more clear nobody can prove the opposite except when cherry picking incorrect scenarios. Take each weapon through the expected average outcome of the entire shooting sequence and boom. Identical.

[Toxichobbit]

I think that's because the OP explained it while taking a lot into account. You've approached it differently, concentrating on just the maths. Your maths is well explained and correct (I assume, I haven't worked it out but I can see the logic behind what you're saying so I'm going to trust your maths is better than mine), but doesn't take into account any of the other variables. I know you say that you've addressed the other points, but you really haven't. Take range for example, you said "It trades 9 points for slightly less range." where as the OP specificed 6" less range. The difference between a twin-lascannon and macro-plasma is 12". I don't think you're going to sell that to anyone as slightly less range.

 

Which in turn, is why I think your proclomation of the macro-plasma being equal to the twin-lascannon is getting pushback. You are correct, but people's gut is telling them otherwise - there's a disconnect between what you're saying and what people have experienced. That's because people's experience includes the turns when the Redemptor is out of range but the Razorback isn't, when the Redemptor has to move but the Razorback doesn't, when the Redemptor is tied up in combat or targeted by more short range anti-tank weapons because it has to be closer. The Redemptor feels more swingy because it's getting less opportunities to fire and is more likely to be suffering penalties to hit when it does so, which in turn makes that 1D6 roll for number of hits more significant. When you get that dread into ideal firing range with no modifiers, you sure as hell want a nice number of shots out of the macro-plasma.

 

So to move this discussion along I think we need to accept that the macro-plasma and twin-linked lascannon are, under ideal circumstances (both in range, neither needing to move etc) equal. However, as accurate as maths is it's not telling the whole story, which if we want to properly compare and assess the weapons/vehicles we need to do. So lets move beyond the statistics and ideal circumstances and look at more than just the numbers. Threat range, mobility, cost, survivability, versatility etc are all equally as important as sheer damage output. After all, you can't get that damage output if you're out of range, out of LOS or dead.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

It's still different to rely on a weapon that does 1d6 shots with 2 damage each or on a weapon that does 2 shots with 1d6 damage each. The former has a single super swingy roll and the latter has two super swingy roles that help eachother to average out.

I too think the Plasma cannon on the Redemptor is way too swingy and on top of it it makes you want to stay stationary since the Redemptor is lacking PotMS which makes it less likely that he gets to use his melee weapon. Two reasons why I largely prefer the HOC over the Plasma.

Well it's good to believe in something. I'm just saying that the math doesn't back up anything you guys are saying.

 

That's fine if you feel it's more swingy, but from a statistical point of view - it isn't. It's identical.

Math does back it up tho since math only gives an average when you do multiple rolls with a dice and the more you roll the more likely you are to actually hit that average. That makes 2d6 superior to 1d6. Now you're saying "but I don't shoot only once with the Plasma" and you're right but that doesn't change the fact that it's super swingy per turn and that the 2d6 will by end of the game be way more likely to hit the average than the 1d6.

Nope, you aren't rolling 2D6 unless you ignore the math you got to get there. You're ignorant of the assumptions you've made to fabricate this scenario. You need to take into account the averages at every step of the shooting sequence. You're missing the forest for the trees. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum - you need to take into account the swings at both ends. And in the middle.

 

Which is what the end result shows. The twin Las, on average will produce the following breakdown against a T8 target with a 5+ invuln assuming you are within a re-roll 1s aura for both hits and wounds. This target was chosen because it ignored the AP benefit from the macro plasma.

 

Total Shots = 2

Total Hits = 1.556

Wounds Caused = 1.21

Unsaved Wounds = 0.807

Total Damage = 2.823

 

The macro plasma...

 

Total Shots = 3.5

Total Hits = 2.722

Wounds Caused = 2.117

Unsaved Wounds = 1.412

Total Damage = 2.823

 

This assessment shows you that, on average, both weapons will cause the identical amount of damage. You have swings on both ends, from shots to damage, and you have a higher chance of failing to cause ANY damage with the twin Las because you're only ever starting with 2 shots, which both need to hit, wound, and fail the save before you reach the 2D6 promised land. Just comparing 2D6 damage to 1D6 of 2 damage shots isn't enough to come to a conclusion. Work through the shooting sequence and you'll see that they're identical - the points of potential failure are simply different.

 

What I find hard to believe is that nobody is questioning the method used to come to the conclusion in the OP, but when it produces a conclusion that is different from your gut feelings on the matter, it's suspect.

 

I said I'd drop it and I failed to do that. It's clear the math is not sufficient to prove this, and it's even more clear nobody can prove the opposite except when cherry picking incorrect scenarios. Take each weapon through the expected average outcome of the entire shooting sequence and boom. Identical.

 

 

I'm not saying that the Lascannons is better if you perfectly roll averages. I say it's more likely that you get close to the averages of the rolled d6s with two Lascannons compared to the Plasma simply because on average you roll more d6s over the course of the game.

Your equation assumes you roll 3.5 on average. That's just not a likely scenario with just 1d6 and is a bit more likely with 2d6 even if you get to roll those 2d6 only every 2-3 turns.

 

Nobody is doubting the average damage output. It's about how swingy it is.

[Tamiel]

Doesn't all of this also prove that the macro plasma gets better usage out of the command reroll? 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Potentially yes. If you go macro then it basically means you are gambling for some spikes with your dice rolls... it’s a risk. If you have two Redemptors suddenly it becomes a legitimate threat. That’s a lot of wounds to chew through plus you can buff one with MoH from Tiggy and make it -1 to hit. The Redemptor can literally trash units in melee too which is a big deal imo and not to be taken lightly .

[Toxichobbit]

Doesn't all of this also prove that the macro plasma gets better usage out of the command reroll? 

 

Yes and no. The Command Re-Roll is fantastic for re-rolling the number of shots, but because of the large amount of points of failure (lots of rolls to hit and wound) needed to get a good performance, you'll really want other re-rolls stacked on top. The twin-lascannon doesn't benefit as much from the re-rolls and can get by with just a Command Re-Roll, though if you can get re-rolls for it's to hit and wound rolls you have the Command Re-Roll saved for one of the damage rolls.

 

I'd say the twin-lascannon probably makes better use out of the Command Re-Roll, as it has less rolls but worse consequences for failing any of them (literally halving potential damage if a shot fails to hit or wound), while the macro-plasma still makes very good use of the Command Re-Roll (number of shots) and really appreciates a re-roll aura for it's mass of hit and wound rolls.

[Lemondish]

Which in turn, is why I think your proclomation of the macro-plasma being equal to the twin-lascannon is getting pushback.

 

My proclamation is that it's identical in damage output - which is true. The discussion has been laser focused on that claim ever since so there hasn't actually been any discussion on the parts of it that are different.

 

Folks seem to have issues with the claim rather than pointing out the parts that don't fit for them aren't related to it's damage, so there's really nothing I can say until we just accept the damage is comparable and we can start looking at use cases.

 

Which are much fewer, and for most builds won't apply as ubiquitously (is that even a word?) as the onslaught.

 

But for that list that wants a punchy counter charge Dreadnought threat in their firebase that can commit to both anti-infantry and anti-tank roles, then it can fit. It's worth considering when the lascannon Razorback is the anti tank variant of the assault cannon one mentioned in the OP.

[Rogue]

Lemondish - it's not quite true. Which might be why people are disagreeing.

 

I agree that the S and AP make the macro and the lascannon pretty much the same, and that means we can also choose to ignore them when looking at the math, and just focus on the hits and damage. 

 

Where I differ from you is this: 2 hits at d6 damage and d6 hits at two damage are not the same. They're similar, but not identical. Both range from 2 to 12 damage, and both average 7. But the distribution is different, and that matters. 

 

For now, let's assume that for whatever reason (captains, lieutenants, stratagems) that all shots hit, wound and beat armour. Which means that the macro rolls one die, doubles the result and does 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 damage, all with equal probability (1 in 6, or 16.7%). The lascannon, however, rolls two dice, and adds the results together, scoring anything from 2 to 12, but tending towards the middle of the range (7 also has a 16.7% chance of turning up, but 12 is only 2.8% or 1 in 36).

 

So let's say I'm firing at a target with two wounds. Doesn't matter which weapon I choose - both do a minimum 2 damage (given our artificially favourable firing conditions). But what about a target with 12 wounds? the macro has a 16.7% chance of generating 12 damage, but the lascannons only have 2.8%. The macro has a better chance of doing the damage I need. On the other hand, a 4 wound target favours the lascannons - the macro does 4+ damage 83.3% of the time, whereas the lascannon does 4+ damage 91.6% of the time.

 

 

Long story short, the lascannons have a better chance of scoring anything up to a 7, but above that the macro takes over, scoring 8+ damage 50% of the time to the lascannons 41.65%.

 

The lascannons have a tendency to gravitate towards the middle of their damage range (because two dice), whereas the macro has an even chance of scoring any outcome, making it more likely to hit the extremes, and less reliable towards the middle (and because we're almost always aiming for x or higher, the lascannons self-leveling makes them increasingly reliable the lower the target number drops).

 

Al that said, and as Lemondish and others have pointed out above, the numbers here aren't everything. Aside from the artificiality of letting everything hit and wound all the time, the lascannons have a range advantage, command rerolls affect the weapons differently because of where the random elements fit into the process, the chassis is different and will serve different purposes in the army. But I'm not up to modelling all that mathematically, and the dog needs attention, so I'll leave it there for now.

[Toxichobbit]

@ Rogue

 

The problem is the assumption that all shots hit, wound and all saves are failed. It takes away the macro-plasma's biggest advantage over the lascannon - less reliance on individual hit and wound rolls, and concentrates on it's biggest disadvantage - random number of shots. You simply can't do that, because it's artifically swinging the scenario in the twin-lascannon's favour. We need to be objective and look at the whole picture, rather than just on the macro-plasma's D6 shots vs the twin-lascannon's (2)D6 damage.

 

To demonstrate, lets work out the twin-lascannon's chance of getting that 2D6 damage. I think my maths is right here. Please correct me if I got anything wrong. I'm going to make the assumption that we're firing against a T7-8 target with a 3+ save, as that's the most common stat line for a twin-lascannon's usual prey (I think).

 

You're rolling two dice to hit with the twin-lascannon, so you have 36 different combinations you can roll. Of those 36 combinations, only 16 don't include a 1 or 2. So the twin-lascannon has a 4/9 (aka 16/36 simplest form) chance of hitting with both shots. Or, a 44.4% chance to hit twice in any given turn.

 

If this sounds wrong to anyone, check out this table that lists all the possible outcomes on 2D6.

 

 

In order to both hit and wound twice, that becomes a 19.75% chance - I didn't do the calculation for this but used a simple program called SmallRoller.

 

So just let that sink in for the a second. That assumption we've been making, that the lascannon hits and wounds it's target only happens roughly a fifth of the time. On top of that, the target has a 1/6 (just under 17%) chance to save, which reduces the lascannons chances of causing two unsaved wounds to just over 16.2% (or just under 1/6). That's why we cannot just make the assumption that the weapons hit and wound, because the twin-lascannon is only doing it's 2D6 damage, on average, once every six turns. The rest of the time it's only doing half of it's damage potential (1D6) or less.

 

Of course, this also applies to the macro-plasma, but the dropoff for failing to hit/wound isn't as severe as each hit does 2 damage, or a sixth of it's damage potential. Also, the macro-plasma skips the saving throw step for targets with a 3+ save as it's AP-4. We could do the same calculations for the macro-plasma, but that would require us doing it many more times and it would become significantly more complex to visualise and compare.

[Rogue]

You're right. The auto-hitting, wounding and beating armour is a complete abstraction, and not an accurate picture of the effectiveness of either weapon. I was looking more at whether we could call d6 shots at two damage the same as 2 shots at d6 damage, and I'd still suggest that we can't (for the reasons above), but I agree that the wider picture is more complicated and needs a more detailed model.

 

It's still an interesting question, though.  

 

Editing to add this:

 

I've been messing around with numbers. I've also gone back to straight averages, just because trying to work out distribution curves for so many variables was more effort than I want to put in. So all of this is with a pinch of salt, mathematically, but there we go.

 

The numbers here represent the odds of the macro-plasma and the lascannon generating their hits, wounds, beating saves and landing damage. I've followed Toxichobbit in assuming a T8, 3+ save target; and I've gone with 3.5 damage per hit for the lascannon - it's another abstraction, obviously, but like I said, too many variables otherwise.

 

 

Interestingly, the macro-plasma averages 3.11 damage per turn (six potential 'number of shots' scores, averaged out), whereas the twin lascannon does only 2.59. In fact, as long as the macro gets at least three shots off, which it likely will, it'll out damage the lascannon (again, using the mean average, which is flawed). That said, we can't really score fractions of damage, and rounding both scores to the nearest whole figure sees both weapons averaging 3 damage per turn.

 

(It reminds me of the assault cannon from a couple of editions back, when it was more effective at killing tanks than a lascannon was, because its high rate of fire combined with rending meant it was reliably landing enough hits to outscore the lascannon damage-wise.)

[Cruor Vault]

WOW!

 

The depth you guys have gone into on this is blowing me away!  I'm certainly looking at the Macro Incinerator in a different light!

 

That being said, has anyone tried to calculate the impact platform and weapon pairing has on the efficacy?  It's great comparing a single Macro Incinerator to a single Twin-Lascannon, but the availability of Dreadnought platforms that can bring 2 pairs of Twin-Lascannons impacts the calculation a bit.  For example, does the presence of the Contemptor Mortis completely invalidate the use of a Macro Redemptor?  For 13pts more it has 2x the number of equivalent shots, better BS, and an INV save.  

 

Not to say it makes Redemptors themselves into a bad option...  But the Contemptor's presence heavily favors taking the Onslaught when making the decision on what weapon to choose on a Redemptor.

[Lemondish]

WOW!

 

The depth you guys have gone into on this is blowing me away! I'm certainly looking at the Macro Incinerator in a different light!

 

That being said, has anyone tried to calculate the impact platform and weapon pairing has on the efficacy? It's great comparing a single Macro Incinerator to a single Twin-Lascannon, but the availability of Dreadnought platforms that can bring 2 pairs of Twin-Lascannons impacts the calculation a bit. For example, does the presence of the Contemptor Mortis completely invalidate the use of a Macro Redemptor? For 13pts more it has 2x the number of equivalent shots, better BS, and an INV save.

 

Not to say it makes Redemptors themselves into a bad option... But the Contemptor's presence heavily favors taking the Onslaught when making the decision on what weapon to choose on a Redemptor.

Well that wasn't really the point I was trying to make by bringing it up. It was meant entirely from the perspective of the Redemptor being the new Razorback. The onslaught Redemptor was the first comparison and focused on the most common - the twin AC. But the other common build is a twin LC - which is why I brought up the similarities with the macro.

 

The macro is a funny beast because of everything we just discussed, but it's also on a platform that can't choose between it and the TLC. It's a stand in - sitting in this weird no man's land with 12" less range, but cheaper cost, a profile that helps against infantry and larger squads, but a real downside in mortal wounds to the bearer. It's not 1 to 1 outside its expected damage - but its not like you need to make that decision.

 

What you do need to decide is if this is the platform you want contributing to AT or producing massive dakka exclusively. There will be more efficiency from another platform (probably), but the choice is still yours. And I think it's worth considering for some builds in some metas.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Now all the dread needs is soem seats bolted on top there !!!

[Captain Idaho]

Forge World is always going to Forge World. ;)

[Cruor Vault]

Forge World is always going to Forge World.

 

Honestly,

 

I think FW is pretty tame these days, FW stuff is where the baseline Space Marine units should be.  

 

The primary difference between FW and Codex options is base unit cost and availability of INV saves.  Forgeworld has figured out in that Marine units need to have a reasonable base cost and ready access to at least a 5++.

[The Unseen]

WOW!

 

The depth you guys have gone into on this is blowing me away!  I'm certainly looking at the Macro Incinerator in a different light!

 

That being said, has anyone tried to calculate the impact platform and weapon pairing has on the efficacy?  It's great comparing a single Macro Incinerator to a single Twin-Lascannon, but the availability of Dreadnought platforms that can bring 2 pairs of Twin-Lascannons impacts the calculation a bit.  For example, does the presence of the Contemptor Mortis completely invalidate the use of a Macro Redemptor?  For 13pts more it has 2x the number of equivalent shots, better BS, and an INV save.  

 

Not to say it makes Redemptors themselves into a bad option...  But the Contemptor's presence heavily favors taking the Onslaught when making the decision on what weapon to choose on a Redemptor.

 

Contemptor Mortis dreads DON'T have a giant fist on the other side. Which makes their role different. A mortis wants to stand still and shoot. A dread with 1 gun and 1 fist needs to try and take advantage of said cc potential to be "efficient".

So yeah, if you were taking a redemptor to have it sit in the backline as a stationary gun platform, yeah, take a mortis instead. Its just better at that. But, if your wanting a midfield threat that can fire away with a decent weapon while it moves towards the enemy to lay the smackdown, the redemptor with plasma is solid at hurting heavy infantry, can overcharge to hurt vehicles well, and absolutely smashes things to bits in cc.

 

And an ultramarine redemptor can fall back and shoot after it uses said fist, which is downright great, as it helps the all-rounder style dreads a lot. Other chapters want to specialize.