Friday, June 17, 2011

40k-metrics: Putting Crowe Through the Paces

So let’s take about Grey Knights and the 40kmetrics system.  There are a dozen different GK lists that all seem reasonably competitive, so it seems like a fairly balanced codex that ought to be able to stand toe to toe with other decent lists.



Time to put my Crowe/Purifier list through the ringer.  But first some predictions.  I haven’t done the breakdown yet, so these predictions are based on what I expect after playing bunches of games with them and how I “feel” the strengths and weaknesses are.

1.  I expect that I will shoot infantry equal to or slightly better than the Space Wolves list.  Massed Str 5 is going to be superior to massed Str 4, but I have fewer bodies so it should roughly equal out.

2.  I expect that my Rhino penetrating ability will be roughly equal to them.  The Psyflemen will roughly equal the long fangs, and my psycannons will do a decent job of equaling the special weapons.  They might even be superior.

3.  Due to having the same number of attacks as Grey Hunters, but carrying power weapons, it would be reasonable presume I’m going to outscore them in close combat.  I’m assuming that my 10 man squads are firing off Hammerhand, and that my 5 man squads are using Cleansing Flame since it mathhammers better vs. 10 MEQ opponents that way.  I’m also assuming that Crowe is base to base with 5 MEQ opponents since that is the most who can be b2b with him and we will use that number for mathhammer potential with Sword Storm.  He will use Cleansing Flame since he automatically wounds on 4+ anyway, assuming 10 enemies. 

4.  Being that my list has no melta and no-AP1, I’m going to wager that my AV14 potential is pretty darn low.  I do us my Hammer-handed Daemonhammers for Land Raider killing duty, so they will count for that category.  Not the best solution for Land Raiders, but I have used it and would do it again if needed.

So what do the results bear out?

Crowe 2.0
DMS
DMCC
DRPG
DLRPG
Notes
Crowe
0.28
3.86
0.00
0.00

10x Purifiers
4.52
8.99
8.72
7.79
2 Hammers, Psybolt, Rhino
10x Purifiers
4.52
8.99
8.72
7.79
2 Hammers, Psybolt, Rhino
10x Purifiers
4.52
8.99
8.72
7.79
2 Hammers, Psybolt, Rhino
5x Purifiers
2.08
4.40
1.74
0.00

5x Purifiers
2.08
4.40
1.74
0.00

Psybolterback
0.75
0.00
0.45
0.00

Psybolterback
0.75
0.00
0.45
0.00

3x Psyfleman
2.98
1.27
26.65
0.00

Totals:
22.48
40.90
57.19
23.37

The results are, thankfully, in the same ball park as competitive lists. 

1.  As I predicted, my anti-meq shooting ability is slightly greater than the NOVA winners.  What does this tell us?  That if possible, I want to reduce the game to a 24” standoff where we shoot the piss out of each other for as long as possible.  But my advantage isn’t that great over them, so this isn’t a perfect path to victory.

2.  My close combat potential is far superior to the MEQ lists.  This is a good thing only if investing that many points into CC doesn’t water down my shooting to dangerously low levels.   The fact that my CC numbers are so advantaged doesn’t mean I should rush headlong into combat, obviously.  But it does mean one thing: if they rush in headlong to fight me, they will lose.  They have to beat me with shooting.  And in that regard our anti-infantry potential is closely matched. 

3.  Dead Rhinos.  My numbers are slightly below Tony and Stelek’s totals.  But the overall number is close enough that it doesn’t matter much.  What is a problem is how the strength of my list is distributed.  The Psyflemen represent nearly half of my anti-light mech potential for the whole list, but only represent around 1/7th of the points.  That means they are carrying an awful lot of weight.  If I was being honest with myself, I would say that this is dangerously close to a single point of failure and a good opponent would know this, and be able to exploit it.  So that is a concern, but let me repeat, my goal isn’t to win the NOVA.  My real goal is to go 4-4.  If I leave with a 50% win ratio I’ll be happy.  I don’t want to put the pressure on myself to say that I have to go 8-0 or it is failure.  That wouldn’t make for a fun weekend of gaming.

4.  Anti-AV14 was a shock.  I am about as far above them in this category as I am behind them in the light mech category.  A couple caveats before I get happy: while people still show up to tournaments with Land Raiders and Leman Russes, they aren’t exactly common either.  I look at anti-heavy mech as a category that doesn’t win you games by being good at, but can certainly lose you games by being bad at.  Also, a significant portion of my anti-heavy mech potential is CC based, so it isn’t as reliable as Melta is for the Blood Angels or Wolves.

Thoughts:  Pretty much confirmed what I supposed, namely that the list has the tools to win games, but a lot of its potential is tied into a handful of units.  That’s going to be the case for any non-MSU list.  A good opponent is going to use proper target priority skills to do his best to mitigate the strengths of your more important units.  That’s just the inherent advantage every MSU list has over non-MSU lists and not this one in particular.  I suspect, in many cases my games against competitive lists will come down to their ability to get penetrating hits against my Dreads at 48”.  My goal is a 50% win rate, and I can safely say, from a list perspective, that it has the tools to do that and this breakdown showed that at very least isn’t particularly gimped.  I guess we can say that it passes the proof of concept stage.

17 comments:

  1. I'm curious as to what equations you are using to figure these numbers out. Likewise would you mind performing an analysis on my list?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Could you give us how you calculate certain numbers? Because I was able to get the 5 fire dragons score in DMS, but I wasnt able to come up with the same score as you with many units. For example I took the 8 Grey Hunters 1 meltagun from Tony's list and here is how I broke down their DMS,.7 rapid firing space marines 14 shots * (4/6) (they hit 4 out of 6 times with only a 1 and 2 missing) = 9.33 hits (note in Excel I assume you are using the round function so the equation looks like =round(14*(4/6),2) ) 9.33 hits times 1/2 (wounds MEQ half the time 3 out of 6) = 4.67 wounds minus (4.67 times(4/6)) Marines save 4 out of 6 times thus 4.67-3.11= 1.56 marines dead from bolters. Add meltagun 1 shot times (4/6)=.67 hits times (5/6) (wounds on 2+) = .56 wounds or this case .56 dead marines a turn because no armor save. add the .56 from the melta and the 1.56 from the bolters and we get 2.12 which is off from the 2.29 they are listed under.Also note I think we should allow excel to round to 3 decimals. Not sure if I am missing something? I rarely do this kind of work but I thought I would do this to compare numbers.

    By the way I do think this is an ingenius way of calculating armys relative strength. A nice benchmarking tool. One question though how would you fairly measure a unit like imperial guard demo charging special weapons team. I assume you would get 5 under a large template? but their score would be way scewed because under optimal conditions they would get way high score in shooting. If you wanted to you could total take this project further by adding points and dividing by the number of turns a game (that would balance the demo unit somewhat because they have a 1 use item).So we'd get Like dead marines per turn per point. To figure out point for point what is most effective at certain things, but I do believe at that depth of information the numbers wont tell us what we can already determine by your information.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @stillfrosty Yeah, send me your list and I'd do it for you.

    @Orleans That unit has a Rhino with a stormbolter, too. I didn't mention that I counted the stormbolter, but I did. Thats where the extra little bit came from.

    @kirby muchas gracias!

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Orleans For one shot items like demo charges and combi-weapons I counted them once. For combi-meltas I counted them as bolters against marines but an extra melta shot per game against mech.

    I made tons of little assumptions throughout that can be tweaked how you see fit when trying it yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's okay =D. Can you send me an e-mail btw please? (kirbys40kblog@gmail.com)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would love to email you but I can't find your email so here mine brandon.vallee@gmail.com

    You dont have to post it on your blog though I am curious to see what the numbers say about how bad my list is ;p

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can you put up your excel formula (or however you have it formatted) for your stat calculations? I want to see how you did it and do it for my lists too. It'd really help figure out other potential stats to use.

    What I want to come up with is something that's the equivalent of VORP.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I did most of the stat calculations with the calculator outside of excel. When units had multiple distinct shooting profiles I did them separately and added them together.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The reason I was asking was because I can't get my numbers to match yours. Like the Psyflemen. They have 4 TL STR 8 shots versus AV11 for rhinos. Need penetrates to destroy and destroy on a damage roll of 5+. That's 4 shots (x 5 turns for 20 shots) each with 8/9 hit rate because of reroll, penetrate 1/2 the time and destroy 1/6 of the time.

    That gets me 2.96 DRPG per Psyfleman. Am I doing it wrong?

    Similarly, when I run the numbers for shooting marines, (8/9 hit, 5/6 wound, 2/3 saved) I get 4.94 dead marines shot per game per Psyfleman.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the above comment, I meant the psyfleman destroy 1/3 of the time they penetrate, not 1/6. I still get 2.96 DRPG.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dead Rhinos per game = penetrating hits, not actually destroying them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, I see. I missed that. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For clarity's sake, your Psybolterbacks should be getting 5 times the listed score for Dead Rhinos per game. The number listed is for a single turn of shooting. I was running some numbers for my own GK list and noticed the discrepancy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You do realize that psycannons are one of the best AV-14 weapons in the game, right?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, I messed up on the mathhammer a lot on this one. I will fix it... someday.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Any word on making the equations or formulas public? I've seen several different blogs discussing these statistics, but no one prepared to "show their working", only "here are my numbers". How are you all calculating these? How can we compare numbers without some confidence you are using the same maths, or not making errors? By sharing the formulas with the community, who know where this could lead. You've got some really great ideas, and you can see people are keen to use them!

    ReplyDelete