Warhammer 40,000 is the most complex of the three systems analytically — and the most rewarding to model properly. The sheer scale of the roster, the range of special rules, and the interaction between weapon abilities, armour saves, invulnerable saves, Feel No Pain rolls, and damage degradation create a web of variables that makes casual unit evaluation genuinely unreliable. Most 40K players have experienced it: a unit that looks terrifying on paper that underdelivers, or a unit that looks mediocre that turns out to be one of the best in the game. The gap between perception and data is wider in 40K than anywhere else.

The Statshammer 40K framework applies the same D₁₀₀ and E₁₀₀ core metrics, but the calculation chains are longer. Where an AoS E₁₀₀ typically involves a save roll and an optional ward, a 40K E₁₀₀ must account for armour save, invulnerable save, and Feel No Pain — each as a separate multiplicative layer. The interaction between multi-damage weapons and wound pools also matters more in 40K than in either Fantasy system, because wound degradation on multi-wound models is a significant tactical variable. Statshammer models all of it.

The USP for the 40K content is the faction archetype analysis at scale. 40K has more factions than AoS and The Old World combined, and the meta shifts faster — codex releases, balance dataslates, and points updates can reshape an army's efficiency matrix significantly between tournaments. Statshammer tracks these changes systematically, not just flagging which units went up or down in points, but showing how those changes move the faction centroid, alter the slope, and shift the army's archetype. A faction that was a Balanced army before a dataslate can become a Glass Cannon army after one — and the efficiency matrix shows you exactly when and why that happens.

The 40K series is being developed in parallel with AoS and The Old World. The analytical foundation is the same. The application is the most ambitious of the three.