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. A 40K E₁₀₀ has to account for Toughness, armour save, invulnerable save and Feel No Pain, each as a separate multiplicative layer, and D₁₀₀ only counts a unit’s fight when its charge comes off. Damage doesn’t carry over between models in 40K, so wasted damage against multi-wound models matters more than in either Fantasy system. Statshammer models all of it.

The USP for the 40K content is faction 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 between tournaments. Statshammer tracks these changes systematically, not just flagging which units went up or down in points, but showing how each change moves a unit on the matrix and shifts its faction’s Type, Spread and Strength.

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.