8th Edition Weapons Spreadsheet – Error Change

Hi all, unfortunately Neil has noticed a mistake in the weapons spreadsheet which has made D6 damage weapons seem a little bit better than they actually are.

The updated spreadsheet is here with the explanation below. If anyone has used the previous spreadsheet, please make sure to fix this error or use the new spreadsheet. Same as for people you have shared this with. Apologies!

Anything with D6 damage was being calculated with the Quake Cannon’s “Minimum 3 Damage” rule. 
The problem is D6 appears on the lookupo table twice, the second one should read “D6(min3)” – I’m not sure when I introduced the error exactly, but it affects the IG article onwards. Means Lascannons and such are 12.5% better than they should be.

Also mention that if people have already started entering other race’s weapons etc, they can fix the lookup table themselves, by changing cell J26 from “D6” to “D6(min3)” on the Lookup Table sheet.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

30 Responses to “8th Edition Weapons Spreadsheet – Error Change”

  1. Prometheus says:

    How could you lie to me like this.

  2. Mr Molotov says:

    Looks like Spikey Bits published your SM chart without giving you guys proper credit. https://spikeybits.com/2017/06/new-8th-space-mari

    • Ish says:

      I like how they say the chart just "popped up" on the internet. Complete creatio ex nihilo. It's been "spotted" on a different website, eh? It was just passing through. Plagiarist little shits at Spikey Bits cannot even be original in their plagiarism, they need to copy someone else's copying of someone else's work.

    • Neil_Phillips says:

      Oh, thanks for the spot.

      They do link back to the source where they found it, which does link back to us, but it's not in English.

      Strange how they end with "Let us know in the comments below" but don't seem to have a comments section.

      • Ish says:

        So maybe not full-blown nefarious plagiarism, but it’s still sloppy work leading to accidental plagiarism.

  3. Brian says:

    Ouch! And the poor lascannon was already looking like a weak also-ran but for its range. :/

    • Ish says:

      But the range advantage is a big one over its closest competitors. Plus, not all units can choose between all the various weapons: there’s no such thing as an Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon Squad with multi-meltas.

      • Brian says:

        But with mobility being so high in this game, I'm not sure how useful range is. It's kinda like with the Master of Ordnance; how many shots am I going to be able to get off at ranges greater than 36" in a game with round-one charges?

        Time will tell, but I think I'm going to regret going heavy on lascannons.

        • Kadeton says:

          It really depends on what you want to be shooting. If you're always thinking about shooting the closest unit, then long range is rarely going to be useful. But you've got screening and assault units to worry about the close stuff, right?

          If you're thinking about coordinating fire from different sections of your force onto a single big target, or to bomb the opponent's backfield objectives with artillery, then long ranges are going to be very useful. In fact, if you're *not* doing that with your long-ranged weapons, you're probably not getting the most out of them in terms of their overall impact on the game.

          • Toast says:

            I admit to having a morbid interest in things like drop pod devastators. You pay a positioning tax for the pod and you hit on 4s first turn, but in trade you could put a couple of four-lascannon squads in an optimum position on turn one. Against some armies, probably totally pointless, but I can see being able to put them say in a spot in the enemy's back corner with good sight lines against trukk Orks being useful. Whether it's useful *enough* is questionable, but with the lack of scatter in 8th the idea of using deep strike for position rather than simply for assault proximity is appealing.

            For similar sorts of reasons, deep-striking units out of line of sight behind the enemy could substantially complicate bubble-wrapping efforts – because you can guarantee turn one arrival, you can look for opportunities for turn-two charges from your whole army but from multiple angles.

            • Brian says:

              This is where mob armies will shine. With enough bubble-wrap on the field and a 9" buffer zone for deep-strikers, you can shut out large sections of the table. I'm certainly looking into retooling my storm troopers for deep-striking, but I expect to mostly be facing marines who won't have the bodies necessary to protect their back field.

        • Ish says:

          I think the community needs to move to bigger tables or smaller games. 6′ x 4′ is just too crowded.

    • Neil_Phillips says:

      The Space Marine chart (where I looked at the Lascannon in depth) was correct, for what it's worth. It's only wrong on the big IG table (I'll fix it up when I get time).

      • Ish says:

        More blatant favoritism for the Marines! I blame Matt Ward.

      • Brian says:

        Just happy to have someone do the mathammer and save me the fuss and bother of taking off my shoes to count past 10. 😉

        I'm mildly cranky because I heavily favored the ol' lascannon and now I'm thinking maybe not so much? We'll see.

        Thanks again for taking the time to make and share this. 🙂

        • Neil_Phillips says:

          No problem!

          I think the Lascannon might still be good, especially once people start learning to use units like SM Scouts & Nurglings to thwart many of the first-turn-assault methods.

          • Brian says:

            And as tanks learn to fear getting charged and locked-down by scouts & nurglings, yeah. I suspect there's a sweet-spot for tanks to run around, out of charge-range but close enough to see and shoot.

            But that range is likely to be much less than that of a lascannon. Would I be better running around with a bunch of meltas in a transport? Again, as a tank, you can lose your mobility to a charge of nurglings, and that argues in favor of the lascannon.

            Or do I just say to-heck with destroying tanks and just always mob them with cheap speed-bumps that prevent the tanks from shooting by getting in the charge? Going to be an interesting time as we figure all this out.

  4. Matt-Shadowlord says:

    Thanks again for the work you've done on damage output Neil! Much appreciated.

  5. Benjamin Chia says:

    Thanks for the formulas!!! Used it for my Tyranid Mathhammer write up on The Crossroads (and attributed accordingly). Let me know if u guys want the data.

    • Kirby says:

      Hey Ben, I was quite literally writing up a Tyranids one this week; email away! (kirbys40kblog@gmail.com) and let me know your website so I can link back pls :).

      • Benjamin Chia says:

        Thanks Kirby! The first part is here: https://www.th3crossroads.com/single-post/2017/07

        Am finishing up the segment on vs vehicles as we speak. Had to manually do up the calculations for things like shock cannons and tentaclids and monstrous rending (cos of the max 3 damage caused) and my formula-fu for excel isn't the best so didn't know exactly where to fit it in with all the IF functions.

  6. Ish says:

    Sorry for the necromancy, but is there any way to have this spreadsheet calculate a weapon that has both the ability to automatically hit and re-roll 1's to wound?