It depends on your meta I would say, if it's all wraith knights and leman russes then probably not. But if you see DE, blob IG, Green tide orks, nids with any frequency.
Wyverns excel at dealing with groups, even Termies and plague marines have a chance to fall under the torrent of wounds. They are good but not auto take, thats my two cent.
Especially with the seemingly minor change in how multiple templates work in 7th, it's not that big an issue. Because all the hits are allocated from the center of the first template, there's a lot less bookkeeping to do as you fire. Just roll the scatter dice and count.the hits!
A wyvern or two isn't a terrible unit; in fact it's rather pleasant. If you know well in advance that your facing an enemy with a good supply of infantry and you can keep it covered by your other field armor and infantry the wyvern is simply awesome. If your going to play him like a herp a derp basilisk you deserve what's coming.
They are great in mech lists. If you have lots of AV12 and AV14, they have a fair chance to make it alive a few rounds.
However, if you don't have enough armor and run lots of infantry, the wyverns will be a priority target for the enemy and will be taken out in the first round. AV12 is super easy to take it in the current meta.
usernamesareannoying wrote: So now that its been out for awhile is a squadron of wyverns worth the hassle of dealing with so many templates?
The Wyverns are really good. I Purchased three, and use them as Hydras but they are EASILY convertible back and forth actually. Ive had them used against me though and with prescience, its a real nasty combo.
If you're not careful, wyvrens will make people hate you.
I've been limiting myself to one unit of two because I feel like a jerk when I play more.
Armored transports are little help, as they break and juicy targets fall out. Especially against your chimeras, rhinos wil not last long.
when people pull out their Centurion Star, I feel like Im okay with three Wyverns. When people pull out their Beast star...i want Wyverns. and when the Flying Daemon circus shows up with its token 2-3 little objective stealing units... I wamnt to bash the brains in on those token units and make him pay for his cheeky ways.
No, ther's no shame in taking three. Its a part of the codex.
I prefer the Hydras and so i dont USWE Wyverns at all, but on the receiving end i respect them. They are not at the bottom of my priority list!
Way to contest his point. That's some top shelf debating there.
He's not wrong. Wyverns cover anti-infantry, and do it fairly well. The thing is....so does pretty much everything else in the codex, and pretty much every other. There are very few units that aren't at least passable at anti-infantry, and dedicating a heavy support choice to it in a TAC list is probably unwise unless it is extremely good at it, you are missing anti-infantry from the rest of your list for some reason, and/or you expect a TON of infantry regularly.
I'd run Thunderfires in a marine list, and a Wyvern is the IG thunderfire really....but I don't know if I'd run Wyverns
For not much more than the cost of a bare-bones Infantry Squad, I think they are well worth considering. With a 48" range, ignores cover, and shred, I've so far found that there is always something worthwhile for them to shoot at, and with the Barrage rule it opens the possibility of (a) sniping wounds on high value targets, and (b) Blast marker walking to hit well protected or out-of-range targets.
I haven't math-hammered it, but the extra point of Strength and 2 (re-rollable) Blasts makes them pretty effective, relative to an Infantry Squad.
Granted, you need to chew a Heavy slot to take them, but with the HQ tank commander option available (which I take a lot), it's not as big a deal as in earlier editions.
Way to contest his point. That's some top shelf debating there.
He's not wrong. Wyverns cover anti-infantry, and do it fairly well. The thing is....so does pretty much everything else in the codex, and pretty much every other. There are very few units that aren't at least passable at anti-infantry, and dedicating a heavy support choice to it in a TAC list is probably unwise unless it is extremely good at it, you are missing anti-infantry from the rest of your list for some reason, and/or you expect a TON of infantry regularly.
I'd run Thunderfires in a marine list, and a Wyvern is the IG thunderfire really....but I don't know if I'd run Wyverns
But I do know. I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience. The trouble is, theres no way to know how many models you'll hit nor when and how many situations come up per game that increase or decrease it. So "Top shelf debating" that would require knowing variables you cannot know and should not selfishly try to predict.
So. My answer was very appropriate. It neither invited further comment nor tried to string together some spurious amount of supposition to make the point. The bottom line is, you KNOW this or you dont. Youve seen it or you haven's. If you "wouldnt" use them cool. Ten different ways to sakin a cat. But to suggest that they "waste" a slot? Just no.
Carnage43 wrote: Way to contest his point. That's some top shelf debating there.
He's not wrong. Wyverns cover anti-infantry, and do it fairly well. The thing is....so does pretty much everything else in the codex, and pretty much every other. There are very few units that aren't at least passable at anti-infantry, and dedicating a heavy support choice to it in a TAC list is probably unwise unless it is extremely good at it, you are missing anti-infantry from the rest of your list for some reason, and/or you expect a TON of infantry regularly.
The problem with this argument is that it's a false equivelency.
"Wyverns are good anti-infantry in a codex that has lots of anti-infantry".
Okay. So? There is no one unit in the codex whose role can't be performed by another unit in the codex. Vanquisher provides decent anti-armor? So does an infantry blob with three or four lascannons. Better anti-infantry actually, because you can at least give tank hunters or ignores cover to an infantry blob. Infantry blob provides good anti-infantry? So does a Punisher, especially a presciened Punisher or a Pask punisher.
etc. The Guard is a very good, perhaps even the BEST codex in the game in regards to having multiple options for how to handle a specific threat- the Guard codex is one of the few codices where there is no such thing as a mono-build. So many of our options are redundant.
The question is, what unit fills the holes in your list? Lasguns may technically fulfill the same function as a wyvern, but what if you dont have enough guardsmen in your list to do that? What if you're taking mostly veterans and you don't have enough orders to go around to give them all ignores cover? Suddenly, having a 36'' ignores cover weapon with shred is useful.
Ailaros wrote: Wyverns do what your massive pile of lasguns or free chimera heavy weapons do. Except they waste an HS slot doing it.
If you really need more of what the only thing wyverns are good for, just take more troops choices.
4 Blasts, S4 ignore cover, twin-linked, re-roll to wound, AND a heavy bolter; and twice the range, and the ability to fire indirectly.
Somehow that equates to 10 lasguns... in what world?
If you're running veterans for troops, and going with lots of vehicles, a few wyverns are really good.
If your infantry platoons are toting heavy weapons for anti-tank, then you cannot use the lasguns for killing infantry.
If you are running mostly infantry, you don't need wyverns.
Their are plenty of build options for IG, and wyverns do fit into a several of them.
The Wyverns are far more effective than lasguns or chimera guns will be, point for point, slot for slot, and unit for unit, at engaging enemy infantry. The average number of casualties inflicted, coupled with being able to hit targets out of LoS, is simply astounding.
The only thing that's an issue is that HS slot, you may just need it for other things if nothing else in your list was built to take on tanks or MC's. But I wouldn't consider it a waste of an HS slot by any means.
Of course, with 7th, the HS slot also matters less than it ever has before, given the army construction rules.
Mad_Proctologist wrote: If you're not careful, wyvrens will make people hate you.
I've been limiting myself to one unit of two because I feel like a jerk when I play more.
Armored transports are little help, as they break and juicy targets fall out. Especially against your chimeras, rhinos wil not last long.
Wyverns are basically auto-take, they're cheap and devastating, but they do engender hatred. A guy at my local game store fields basilisks, mortars, and wyverns en masse, and every time he lays the blast templates he'll roll one, then lean back, ask about the rules, ask how many more he needs to roll, then leans in and rolls the next one. It drags the shooting phase on and on and on. When I field a Wyvern, I announce what I'm doing and I do it quickly "rolling for scatter, re rolling with twin linked, I see three guys hit, rolling for second shot..." I get it done quickly and take it easy when determining who is hit. If a model is debatably under the template, I just let it go. The model is already over powered for cost, I'm not going to aggravate my opponent by piling on and fudging over millimeters.
I've started running a unit of 2 wyverns in my Necron list. Their sole purpose in life is to deal with infantry going to ground behind an ADL or in a ruin - especially the ones who get a 2+ cover for doing so. This thing will make mince meat out of fire warriors just as my wraith units and CCBs are rolling up on their lines which will leave me only a couple of riptides and a unit of broadsides to deal with usually. It's all of the small arms fire coupled with the ethereal that is the bane of my wraiths existence.
I should also mention that I used chimeras and a Stormlord for my anti-infantry in the last game I played, with a 30 man blob inside the Stormlord. It worked quite well.
Wyverns are devastating against light infantry, and due to the number of wounds they can inflict, they can even take out heavy infantry. If the hassle of templates is the only thing keeping you from using them, I say go for it!
daedalus wrote: Well, they're better than hydras, at any rate.
I still can't fathom why they did what they did to that poor thing...
Despite knowing that they would change the rule that interceptor would no longer allow skyfire units to shoot at ground targets in 7th, GW do not have the forethought to think ahead ONE month and give the hydra the rule it really needed.
Silly really - if for one month the hydra had interceptor in 6th (and squadrons) so it could also target ground targets, quite a few people would have impulse bought it before they nerfed interceptor. Would have made them a fair few quid.
The Hydras are what I use them as, but if you've put one together, you find that the conversion to one and another takes like.. 30 seconds for all three!
The proliferation of skimmers and Flyers is what makes the Hydras good. They cant explode anything because of their AP, unless it's open topped, but they are still quite capable of Stunning and immobilizing their prey, so i put the Hydra into the Disruption category. Unfortunately against armies that have no flyers nor skimmers... It's a lot of points for nothing. But if your army is already good against other types of vehicles, the heavy bolter, tank walling and tank shocking is a secondary fun use for them and for the points, its definitely no worse than a Rhino really.
The Vyvern though... if you can pop people from transports with regularity the Wyvern is devastating.
Someone said "worthless against anything tougher than a marine". Uh. Got news for you: there arent a ton of those in large numbers in any list. Marines are tough and there's a reason why we measure things against MEQ standards.
clumped, hit 12 times with Prescience? so yeah. Not good.
BlaxicanX wrote:The question is, what unit fills the holes in your list?
Which is my entire point.
You already have to bring a huge pile of anti-infantry weapons. If anti-infantry is a hole in your list, something else is going very wrong.
Meanwhile, once you have a strong troops section that's good against infantry, the thing you're going to need next is something that's good against monstrous creatures, vehicles, and the like. There are tons of good HS options here to handle this. Meanwhile, other slots handle this poorly. Why waste HS slots on something that other slots that you already have to take can do just fine, while stranding said choices by not taking the kinds of things required to support them?
What kind of list needs wyverns? What kind of list doesn't need something with serious hitting power like the rest of the HS slots can offer?
And even then, wyverns are still low-S (shred doesn't fix this), and they're still bad Ap, and they're still stuck with a small blast template. There are serious holes in even the one thing it pretends to be good for, much less that huge pile of other stuff it can't even hurt.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Someone said "worthless against anything tougher than a marine". Uh. Got news for you: there arent a ton of those in large numbers in any list. Marines are tough and there's a reason why we measure things against MEQ standards.
clumped, hit 12 times with Prescience? so yeah. Not good.
Tell that to every Nurgle player and bike players. these things exist and should be noted....... that and knowing that besides from the occasional deep striking, and people that know better, will basically never let you have more than 2 hits per blasts..
Edit: Speaking of prescience why are you prescience them? they already have twinlinked....
BlaxicanX wrote:The question is, what unit fills the holes in your list?
Which is my entire point.
You already have to bring a huge pile of anti-infantry weapons. If anti-infantry is a hole in your list, something else is going very wrong.
Meanwhile, once you have a strong troops section that's good against infantry, the thing you're going to need next is something that's good against monstrous creatures, vehicles, and the like. There are tons of good HS options here to handle this. Meanwhile, other slots handle this poorly. Why waste HS slots on something that other slots that you already have to take can do just fine, while stranding said choices by not taking the kinds of things required to support them?
What kind of list needs wyverns? What kind of list doesn't need something with serious hitting power like the rest of the HS slots can offer?
And even then, wyverns are still low-S (shred doesn't fix this), and they're still bad Ap, and they're still stuck with a small blast template. There are serious holes in even the one thing it pretends to be good for, much less that huge pile of other stuff it can't even hurt.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Have you even used a Wyvern or is this another one of the 'mass guardsmen win everything, always' sort of arguments I see a lot of.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Give it a rest. If you want to deny your own experience, be my guest. I'll laugh all the way to the winners circle against guys who do that. then you can tell me how "anecdotal" my win was. Lol.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Have you even used a Wyvern or is this another one of the 'mass guardsmen win everything, always' sort of arguments I see a lot of.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Give it a rest. If you want to deny your own experience, be my guest. I'll laugh all the way to the winners circle against guys who do that. then you can tell me how "anecdotal" my win was. Lol.
Why are you presciencing them anyway? They already have twin-linked
But I do know. I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Yeah, it seems you dont really KNOW...given the fact that you use prescience on twin-linked weapons...
Wyverns are good, but only against infantry. Like Ailaros, I believe there is plenty of anti infantry stuff in guard (and its called "lasgun"). Units that troubles me are tanks - like wave serpents, storm ravens(flying tank) and lately even land raiders - and monstrous creatures - daemon flyers, tyranid flyers, wraithknights, riptides...So i rather use those points in wyverns to buy something AT like. From my experience, there is never enough anti tank.
Someone may say that wyvern can do much more damage than its points worth of guardsmen...Guys, you should also take into account, that wyvern can not withstand almost any enemy fire with its armour 12-10-10 and being open-topped...on the other hand, blob of infantry can survive quite a lot of firepower.
Someone said "worthless against anything tougher than a marine". Uh. Got news for you: there arent a ton of those in large numbers in any list. Marines are tough and there's a reason why we measure things against MEQ standards.
clumped, hit 12 times with Prescience? so yeah. Not good.
Tell that to every Nurgle player and bike players. these things exist and should be noted....... that and knowing that besides from the occasional deep striking, and people that know better, will basically never let you have more than 2 hits per blasts..
Edit: Speaking of prescience why are you prescience them? they already have twinlinked....
Their heavy bolters arent twin linked. 9 Heavy Bolter shots adds a lot to the picture. So yes. I do know.
And as for these tough units you mention: Amen. And when EVERY army I face takes them every time, then I'll start writing concession speeches o nthe subject. But the reality as borne out by the recent toruney standings says i wont have to worry about that nearly as much as you do!
And as for these tough units you mention: Amen. And when EVERY army I face takes them every time, then I'll start writing concession speeches o nthe subject. But the reality as borne out by the recent toruney standings says i wont have to worry about that nearly as much as you do!
I'm interested (genuinely, not internet-style) to know which ones you're referring to.
You already have to bring a huge pile of anti-infantry weapons. If anti-infantry is a hole in your list, something else is going very wrong.
Meanwhile, once you have a strong troops section that's good against infantry, the thing you're going to need next is something that's good against monstrous creatures, vehicles, and the like. There are tons of good HS options here to handle this. Meanwhile, other slots handle this poorly. Why waste HS slots on something that other slots that you already have to take can do just fine, while stranding said choices by not taking the kinds of things required to support them?
Defining things in terms of 'what' they kill without including 'how' and 'when' is pretty one dimensional thinking. In otherwords, lasguns and multilaser's are only good when in range and LOS. By then it is often too late. That's what they wyvern are for -- killing far off/hidden troops from turn 1.
Also not sure why you need HS for anti-MC or tanks? Are you seriously just bringing infantry platoons with lasguns?
Also, I think literally anything else in the army would be better suited getting prescience cast upon it. I mean, I guess if you had a single techpriest somewhere, maybe not. You're getting up to three twin linked heavy bolters. That's not particularly impressive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: So my anecdotal experiences are worth less than yours?
Really?
because until every top 10 Tourny players starts taking 100% of what was listed it doesn't mater?
For what it's worth, I've not seen AM placing very highly in the few tournaments we've had since, even as allies.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Have you even used a Wyvern or is this another one of the 'mass guardsmen win everything, always' sort of arguments I see a lot of.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Have you even used a Wyvern or is this another one of the 'mass guardsmen win everything, always' sort of arguments I see a lot of.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
Back to the OP.
Overall, I like the Wyvern, it's cheaper than a blob and can put the same amount of wounds on a large, scary or not scary unit of infantry. Two and three Wyverns I think enter the realm of overkill in some situations, but hell, that's what Guard is all about anyway.
Vaktathi wrote: For 65pts, that's a highly respectable hit rate.
That's a different conversation all-together though.
How often do you get the most optimal rolling often enough for it to be worthwhile? My dice hate me, but I have a pretty good grasp on what should happen. My problem is that any time I bring something scary to the table in the form of a bunch of blasts, I have people spread out to the full limit of coherency. It's difficult to even get that many at that point..
Vaktathi wrote: For 65pts, that's a highly respectable hit rate.
That's a different conversation all-together though.
How often do you get the most optimal rolling often enough for it to be worthwhile? My dice hate me, but I have a pretty good grasp on what should happen. My problem is that any time I bring something scary to the table in the form of a bunch of blasts, I have people spread out to the full limit of coherency. It's difficult to even get that many at that point..
I've found that the barrage portion of the weapon helps with this immensely, but I've had those instances as well. Gotta love playing an Ork player that takes the time to 2" every model...
And as for these tough units you mention: Amen. And when EVERY army I face takes them every time, then I'll start writing concession speeches o nthe subject. But the reality as borne out by the recent toruney standings says i wont have to worry about that nearly as much as you do!
I'm interested (genuinely, not internet-style) to know which ones you're referring to.
Example,. The Bay Area Open this year. A DISTANT 11th place was the first time "Chaos" appears on the placing list (Bob Kelly's list Chaos + Daemons list with Belakor I think) with 55 points compared to 100 for the first place finisher Not even close. Dual Chaos marine list made 16th (Ben Vaughn who got "Best Chaos Space Marine, whatever that meant ) and then you gotta go all the way to 26, 27 and 32, 51, 55 and so on for more examples.
Lets look at a different biggee: NOVA open. Out of 223 players, there were just 16 Chaos Space marine Generals. SIXTEEN!. Now let me ask you: when someone gets on a forum and tyells me "nuh uh because Nurgle bikers", am I laughing or crying? As if ASTRA MILITARUM dont have firepower coming out of its yin and its yang that ARENT Wyverns?
Anywho, I think some of these arguments come from one simple truth: people feel like they are a lot better at 40K than they really are and those people cant be taught anything.
I stand on my record. So do they. But the diff is I'm not above learning new things. You dont hear me Poo poo'ing things that clearly work or those who try and explain why. RAERe is the unit i dont think has a purpose. Let me tell ya: 3 Wyverns is indeed EXCELLENT.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
Seriously pointing out that a unit with a bunch of bolter blasts that have ignore cover and shred would have major issues against relatively high T and good armor saves suddenly suddenly makes me a unteachable know it all?
Example,. The Bay Area Open this year. A DISTANT 11th place was the first time "Chaos" appears on the placing list (Bob Kelly's list Chaos + Daemons list with Belakor I think) with 55 points compared to 100 for the first place finisher Not even close. Dual Chaos marine list made 16th (Ben Vaughn who got "Best Chaos Space Marine, whatever that meant ) and then you gotta go all the way to 26, 27 and 32, 51, 55 and so on for more examples.
Lets look at a different biggee: NOVA open. Out of 223 players, there were just 16 Chaos Space marine Generals. SIXTEEN!. Now let me ask you: when someone gets on a forum and tyells me "nuh uh because Nurgle bikers", am I laughing or crying? As if ASTRA MILITARUM dont have firepower coming out of its yin and its yang that ARENT Wyverns?
Anywho, I think some of these arguments come from one simple truth: people feel like they are a lot better at 40K than they really are and those people cant be taught anything.
I stand on my record. So do they. But the diff is I'm not above learning new things. You dont hear me Poo poo'ing things that clearly work or those who try and explain why. RAERe is the unit i dont think has a purpose. Let me tell ya: 3 Wyverns is indeed EXCELLENT.
NOVA hasn't actually happened yet, so I'm not honestly sure that counting the number of players on any side does much other than gauge vague confidence. We'll have to see in a month.
...I'm kind of feeling like this is turning into the 5th edition heavy bolter vs autocannon holy war.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
Spoiler 'cuz ALL THE QUOTES.
Fair points all, I apologize for the gakky response, bad day and all that.
You're right though, a legitimate mathhammer of Wyvern shooting would be nice, it would make for easier discussions on whether or not it's comparable to an ordered, prescience'd platoon.
Ailaros wrote: Wyverns do what your massive pile of lasguns or free chimera heavy weapons do. Except they waste an HS slot doing it.
If you really need more of what the only thing wyverns are good for, just take more troops choices.
To be fair, the Wyvern is completely self-contained as an anti-infantry platform with all of its force multipliers built-in (reroll to hit, reroll to wound, ignores cover). The other options need psyker support and/or orders to match the same efficiency which means more points spent elsewhere that could be spent on more firepower.
I personally really do not like fighting Wyverns. One of our local guard players tends to bring a trio of them in his lists and they cause nothing but grief, to the point that people have moved away from including much in the way of infantry at all in their lists. The biggest issue is that there is no way to really mitigate the damage caused by a Wyvern outside of destroying said Wyvern. While Lasguns and tank-based weapons generally will allow for cover or at the very least have difficulty hitting and/or wounding, Wyverns have none of these exploitable weaknesses (against infantry at least), leaving spreading out the only real option to mitigate damage and even then they get enough shots to generally make up for it.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
THIS BIT IS A QUOTE BUT HAS NOT APPEARED AS SUCH:
Spoiler 'cuz ALL THE QUOTES.
Fair points all, I apologize for the gakky response, bad day and all that.
You're right though, a legitimate mathhammer of Wyvern shooting would be nice, it would make for easier discussions on whether or not it's comparable to an ordered, prescience'd platoon.
END QUOTE
MATHHAMMER TIME!
I'm going to make one big assumption here that people may have issue with. I'm going to assume due to model spread and twinlinked, that each blast covers an average of 2 models. Otherwise this wpuld be impossible to calculate. Some would believe it to be higher than 2 on average, some, less than 2. There will be some scenarios that effect this such as a unit having deepstruck and shot, or a unit cramming into cover, boh reasonably common, but I shall ignore these.
Also assuming that the hb is in range and can see the target (and the target is not in cover - if the target is in cover they are probably getting more than 2 hits a blast anyway).
Id like to state I have never used or fought a wyvern so I am impartial.
T4/3+
(1/2 x 1/3 + 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) x2 = 0.5 per blast
0.5 x 6 = 3 killed by 3 wyverns
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 9 = 1
So 3 wyverns using the above assumptions kills 4 meq a turn.
T4/2+
Will therefore result in 2. As their saves are twice as likely.
T4/4+
3 ÷ 1/3 × 1/2 (meq divided by meq failed save multiplied by failed 4+ save)
= 4.5
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 9 = 3
So 7.5 kills
T4/5+ or 6+
(1/2 + 1/2 x 1/2) x 2 = 1.5 per blast
1.5 x 6 = 9
Hbs = 3
So 12 kills.
T3/3+
(2/3 x 1/3 + 1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.59 per blast
0.59 x 6 = 3.56
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 1.25
So 4.81 kills
T3/4+
3.56 ÷ 1/3 x 1/2 = 5.34
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 9 = 3.75
So 9.09 kills
T3/5+ or 6+
(2/3 + 1/3 x 2/3) x 2 = 1.78
1.78 x 6 = 10.67
Hbs = 3.75
So 14.42 kills
T5 3+ (for the sake of bikers and nurgle)
(1/3 x 1/3 + 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.37
0.37 x 6 = 2.22
Hbs: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 9 = 0.75
So 2.97 kills.
It should also be noted a wyvern has 48" when not counting the hbs, can sit out of sight and also can barrage snipe models.
If you believe that 2 is not the number I should have used, divide my results (for the stormshard mortar) by 2 and multiply by the number you believe it should have been. For example if you thought it would hit 2.5 on average, divide by 2 then multiply by 2.5. If you are thinking about shooting at deepstrikers in a huddle or units on multiple ruin levels and think you will get 5 hits on average, divide by 2 then mulitply by 5 (or just multiply by 5/2).
Where's all this talk of "Wyverns waste HS slots" coming from? Can't you take them in Squadrons? Can't you also take LRBT's in Squadrons? So you can take 3 Wyverns in a Squadron and still have enough HS slots for another 6 LRBTs (2 squadrons of 3). Not to mention you can also take another 3 LRBTs in the HQ slot. Ok, so squadrons are restricted to shooting at the same target, but still...
GoonBandito wrote: Where's all this talk of "Wyverns waste HS slots" coming from? Can't you take them in Squadrons? Can't you also take LRBT's in Squadrons? So you can take 3 Wyverns in a Squadron and still have enough HS slots for another 6 LRBTs (2 squadrons of 3). Not to mention you can also take another 3 LRBTs in the HQ slot. Ok, so squadrons are restricted to shooting at the same target, but still...
Not with a tank commander ;-). Then they can shoot at two!
Frankenberry wrote:First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
winterman wrote: By then it is often too late. That's what they wyvern are for -- killing far off/hidden troops from turn 1.
When is this needed, though? When do you absolutely have to kill tightly-clustered light infantry turn 1?
I'm not denying that the wyvern can be okay in it's niche role, I'm just wondering why that niche needs to be filled in the first place. After all, "nothing is so useless as something done efficiently that should never be done at all". Just because it can do something doesn't make it all that worth taking. Especially when you consider other things, like, as we've been talking about, what else you could use those HS slots/points for.
winterman wrote:Also not sure why you need HS for anti-MC or tanks? Are you seriously just bringing infantry platoons with lasguns?
No, but I would note that an infantry squad with a meltagun is 90% anti-infantry, 10% anti-tank.
It's possible to have enough anti-tank with just infantry squads, but by that point you have a hundred lasguns and a wyvern is far less than needed.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
THIS BIT IS A QUOTE BUT HAS NOT APPEARED AS SUCH:
Spoiler 'cuz ALL THE QUOTES.
Fair points all, I apologize for the gakky response, bad day and all that.
You're right though, a legitimate mathhammer of Wyvern shooting would be nice, it would make for easier discussions on whether or not it's comparable to an ordered, prescience'd platoon.
END QUOTE
MATHHAMMER TIME!
I'm going to make one big assumption here that people may have issue with. I'm going to assume due to model spread and twinlinked, that each blast covers an average of 2 models. Otherwise this wpuld be impossible to calculate. Some would believe it to be higher than 2 on average, some, less than 2. There will be some scenarios that effect this such as a unit having deepstruck and shot, or a unit cramming into cover, boh reasonably common, but I shall ignore these.
Also assuming that the hb is in range and can see the target (and the target is not in cover - if the target is in cover they are probably getting more than 2 hits a blast anyway).
Id like to state I have never used or fought a wyvern so I am impartial.
T4/3+
(1/2 x 1/3 + 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) x2 = 0.5 per blast
0.5 x 6 = 3 killed by 3 wyverns
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 9 = 1
So 3 wyverns using the above assumptions kills 4 meq a turn.
T4/2+
Will therefore result in 2. As their saves are twice as likely.
T4/4+
3 ÷ 1/3 × 1/2 (meq divided by meq failed save multiplied by failed 4+ save)
= 4.5
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 9 = 3
So 7.5 kills
T4/5+ or 6+
(1/2 + 1/2 x 1/2) x 2 = 1.5 per blast
1.5 x 6 = 9
Hbs = 3
So 12 kills.
T3/3+
(2/3 x 1/3 + 1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.59 per blast
0.59 x 6 = 3.56
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 1.25
So 4.81 kills
T3/4+
3.56 ÷ 1/3 x 1/2 = 5.34
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 9 = 3.75
So 9.09 kills
T3/5+ or 6+
(2/3 + 1/3 x 2/3) x 2 = 1.78
1.78 x 6 = 10.67
Hbs = 3.75
So 14.42 kills
T5 3+ (for the sake of bikers and nurgle)
(1/3 x 1/3 + 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.37
0.37 x 6 = 2.22
Hbs: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 9 = 0.75
So 2.97 kills.
It should also be noted a wyvern has 48" when not counting the hbs, can sit out of sight and also can barrage snipe models.
If you believe that 2 is not the number I should have used, divide my results (for the stormshard mortar) by 2 and multiply by the number you believe it should have been. For example if you thought it would hit 2.5 on average, divide by 2 then multiply by 2.5. If you are thinking about shooting at deepstrikers in a huddle or units on multiple ruin levels and think you will get 5 hits on average, divide by 2 then mulitply by 5 (or just multiply by 5/2).
I'm not spoilering this because it's awesome. Thanks!
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
THIS BIT IS A QUOTE BUT HAS NOT APPEARED AS SUCH:
Spoiler 'cuz ALL THE QUOTES.
Fair points all, I apologize for the gakky response, bad day and all that.
You're right though, a legitimate mathhammer of Wyvern shooting would be nice, it would make for easier discussions on whether or not it's comparable to an ordered, prescience'd platoon.
END QUOTE
MATHHAMMER TIME!
I'm going to make one big assumption here that people may have issue with. I'm going to assume due to model spread and twinlinked, that each blast covers an average of 2 models. Otherwise this wpuld be impossible to calculate. Some would believe it to be higher than 2 on average, some, less than 2. There will be some scenarios that effect this such as a unit having deepstruck and shot, or a unit cramming into cover, boh reasonably common, but I shall ignore these.
Also assuming that the hb is in range and can see the target (and the target is not in cover - if the target is in cover they are probably getting more than 2 hits a blast anyway).
Id like to state I have never used or fought a wyvern so I am impartial.
T4/3+
(1/2 x 1/3 + 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) x2 = 0.5 per blast
0.5 x 6 = 3 killed by 3 wyverns
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 9 = 1
So 3 wyverns using the above assumptions kills 4 meq a turn.
T4/2+
Will therefore result in 2. As their saves are twice as likely.
T4/4+
3 ÷ 1/3 × 1/2 (meq divided by meq failed save multiplied by failed 4+ save)
= 4.5
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 9 = 3
So 7.5 kills
T4/5+ or 6+
(1/2 + 1/2 x 1/2) x 2 = 1.5 per blast
1.5 x 6 = 9
Hbs = 3
So 12 kills.
T3/3+
(2/3 x 1/3 + 1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.59 per blast
0.59 x 6 = 3.56
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 1.25
So 4.81 kills
T3/4+
3.56 ÷ 1/3 x 1/2 = 5.34
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 9 = 3.75
So 9.09 kills
T3/5+ or 6+
(2/3 + 1/3 x 2/3) x 2 = 1.78
1.78 x 6 = 10.67
Hbs = 3.75
So 14.42 kills
T5 3+ (for the sake of bikers and nurgle)
(1/3 x 1/3 + 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.37
0.37 x 6 = 2.22
Hbs: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 9 = 0.75
So 2.97 kills.
It should also be noted a wyvern has 48" when not counting the hbs, can sit out of sight and also can barrage snipe models.
If you believe that 2 is not the number I should have used, divide my results (for the stormshard mortar) by 2 and multiply by the number you believe it should have been. For example if you thought it would hit 2.5 on average, divide by 2 then multiply by 2.5. If you are thinking about shooting at deepstrikers in a huddle or units on multiple ruin levels and think you will get 5 hits on average, divide by 2 then mulitply by 5 (or just multiply by 5/2).
I'm not spoilering this because it's awesome. Thanks!
IG knock people out of transports with regularity. Terrain choke points: common. Then 12 blasts and 9 Heavy Bolters go off and gnashing of teeth is heard. I don't know a DARN PERSON who won't sphincter up when that time comes. Bad luck is always a possibility with blasts but for that price: I'll take my chances. it's a dice game.
If you are immune to such trivialities as 12 blasts and 9 Heavy Bolter shots, I'm impressed. Truly.
As for the NOVA and BAO, I was referring to the fact that someone cited high toughness Chaos Marines as some answer to why NOT Wyverns. My response? Show me the high toughness Chaos Army that's winning and that IG are going to be losing to all the time. Cause they aren't at the major events that I could see.
IG have other weaknesses, but Wyverns aren't why they lose.
EVERY army has some anti-horde capability built into it (or should). So this happens to be an IG one. It's like suggesting that a GREAT anti-tank tool shouldn't be used because you might run into a horde. If you then play a horde with it, the anti-tank was suddeny a "terribad" idea? No. So neither is having Wyverns against an army that happens to have some toughness to it. Other tools will be needed in order to help tip the balance but its not like you wont be doing any damage.
Shred helps a lot with toughness btw. It shouldn't be underestimated like its being. But after thinking about it, here's what I should have said all along:
"cool yeah those Wyverns are no bother at all so uh... Its my turn right?".[b]
Jancoran, you should try to play against Eldar with their wave serpents, who will laught at you and your wyvern, or tyranids/daemons and their flying circus, which wound ask why do you even bother to roll with that thing.
You have said, that " It's like suggesting that a GREAT anti-tank tool shouldn't be used because you might run into a horde". The problem is you dont see a horde army these days. And every army always has weapons good against infantry from the start (because basic infantry always has anti infantry weapons and tanks also have anti-infantry weapons from the start).
I'm going to make one big assumption here that people may have issue with. I'm going to assume due to model spread and twinlinked, that each blast covers an average of 2 models. Otherwise this wpuld be impossible to calculate. Some would believe it to be higher than 2 on average, some, less than 2. There will be some scenarios that effect this such as a unit having deepstruck and shot, or a unit cramming into cover, boh reasonably common, but I shall ignore these.
Also assuming that the hb is in range and can see the target (and the target is not in cover - if the target is in cover they are probably getting more than 2 hits a blast anyway).
Id like to state I have never used or fought a wyvern so I am impartial.
T4/3+
(1/2 x 1/3 + 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) x2 = 0.5 per blast
0.5 x 6 = 3 killed by 3 wyverns
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 9 = 1
So 3 wyverns using the above assumptions kills 4 meq a turn.
Wyvers have 4 blasts each. If you assume 2 hits per blasts, you are looking at TWICE as many blast kills as you calculated.
2 hits per blast is 7 MEQ killed.
Basically you need to double all the wyvern kills in your math (leave heavy bolter kills as is).
For 65 points its an absoloute steal and should be included in every IG army.
Even if it kills a 5 man scout squad (which it will) it'll make its points back. Almost every army has some infantry, and you can point the Wyvern at them.
I'm going to make one big assumption here that people may have issue with. I'm going to assume due to model spread and twinlinked, that each blast covers an average of 2 models. Otherwise this wpuld be impossible to calculate. Some would believe it to be higher than 2 on average, some, less than 2. There will be some scenarios that effect this such as a unit having deepstruck and shot, or a unit cramming into cover, boh reasonably common, but I shall ignore these.
Also assuming that the hb is in range and can see the target (and the target is not in cover - if the target is in cover they are probably getting more than 2 hits a blast anyway).
Id like to state I have never used or fought a wyvern so I am impartial.
T4/3+
(1/2 x 1/3 + 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) x2 = 0.5 per blast
0.5 x 6 = 3 killed by 3 wyverns
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 9 = 1
So 3 wyverns using the above assumptions kills 4 meq a turn.
Wyvers have 4 blasts each. If you assume 2 hits per blasts, you are looking at TWICE as many blast kills as you calculated.
2 hits per blast is 7 MEQ killed.
Basically you need to double all the wyvern kills in your math (leave heavy bolter kills as is).
-Matt
Do they? I have the AM dex but thought it was just 2 twinlinked blasts. I'll have to check when I get home. Not that I don't believe you - I just like to check. If that's the case it will make a considerable difference!
Lothar wrote: Jancoran, you should try to play against Eldar with their wave serpents, who will laught at you and your wyvern, or tyranids/daemons and their flying circus, which wound ask why do you even bother to roll with that thing.
You have said, that " It's like suggesting that a GREAT anti-tank tool shouldn't be used because you might run into a horde". The problem is you dont see a horde army these days. And every army always has weapons good against infantry from the start (because basic infantry always has anti infantry weapons and tanks also have anti-infantry weapons from the start).
Oh you think i should try to uh...play against Eldar? Oh ok. Maybe I'll try that.
You dont see Horde armies? Oh okay. Ill disregard any that I DO see.
And since Im doing that I'll also maybe look into playing against Space marines too. I heard they were popular. Not that I'd know.
A leman russ executioner, which is about the same number of points, with the same magical scattering as the mathhammer above does 5 dead T4. Not as good for MEQ, but better on termies/MCs. Certainly more consistent output, until you run into cover, I guess.
Pask in a punisher gets weird. 11.8 wounds from the big gun, but 1/5th of those rend, so you get about 2.3 ignoring armor, then you get 4 more dead between the heavy bolter and the rest of the big gun wounds, assuming marines.
30 man plasmagun blob with FRFSRF gets 4 from lasguns, and about 2.5 from the plasma.
Assuming you get closer to my estimate for hits, you wind up with 7 dead marines, and that's assuming each blast gets 1 guy. I'd call that optimistic, really*, but since you're twin linked, it's might be realistic for an average. I still note that no one is talking about the possibility of MISSED blasts, which seems odd.
Okay, lets go to an extreme: Stormlord with sponsons is 530. If it doesn't move, it hits with the main cannon 15 times, wounds 12.5 times, no armor for marines. It could then average 1 kill with lascannons, and 1.5 kills with its heavy bolters.
So you're doing 195 points for 7 kills, or 0.0358 kills per point per turn. Stormlord is 530 points for 15 kills, or 0.0283 kills per point per turn. With all these assumptions in place, I can't think of a direct fire unit that actually does better, I suppose, though a lot of other units are close, and make up for the lack of kills with other benefits.
I still don't think they're the end all people think they are. They're not very survivable. And they're don't really interact significantly with any force multipliers, which is what the army is kind of made of at this point. Prescience gives any of those other things above effectively 50% more kills for 50 more points. That'd throw the kills per point ratio above the wyverns for basically anything i mentioned above. The blob with presecience kills accounted for and an extra 50 points figured it winds up with 0.0415 kills per point per turn. Stormlord would be 0.0401. I mean, I know that I'm tossing more points at the mix, but my ratio takes that into account. Your lack of force multiplier is the hidden cost of the wyvern not put on paper.
* Most likely single outcome on scatter is a direct hit. If you're going to scatter, your most likely scatter is 4", with more or less being more improbable the further away from that range you get. Ergo, you're either going to direct hit something (and likely only get one target) or you're going to scatter 4", which could be more or less good, depending on where it goes. You're not hitting the original target at that point though.
With it being twin linked barrage though, you can reliably walk it around the unit. The 48" range and ignores cover should also be taken into account in conclusions.
Against ork boyz for example you are looking at 21kills. That is pretty neat.
Against a guard blob it goes upto 25 kills.
Tau suffer 14 even with their 4+.
And 3-4 termies for something which isn't meant for killing termies is very nice.
LoW will almost always outgun something point for point against their optimum targets, its the benefit you get for putting all your eggs in one basket.
Don't get me wrong I totally get what you are saying, and they do fill a role that may not necessarily need filling, but since matt and desubot pointed out to me that each one gets FOUR blasts, I've been blown away. That is insanely awsome.
The question is, do you upgrade your anti infantry from adequate to excellent, or do you spend the points elsewhere? It all depends on your list I suppose.
Even the 30 man blob outperforms it assuming you have orders and prescience, at least against marines. I'd have to run the numbers, but I gotta imagine that worse armor saves probably reflect just as favorably for blobs as they do the wyvern.. Cover could make a difference though, I suppose. Does it completely ignore cover or just ignore LOS cover by virtue of the barrage rules?
Something I had forgotten to take into account was the barrage rules on walking the blasts back, but that could also hurt on a distant enough miss. Like I said earlier, this stuff is really hard to model. I'm kind of interested on seeing what you could do comparably with a manticore. Large blast can get 4 guys on the most lucky shot possible even if they're spread to max distance, assuming they're spread in a grid, and not a line.
You're right it is very difficult to model a mathmatical situation based on this. Its ignores cover rule btw not just via barrage.
I'm slightly leaning more towards the wyvern than not the wyvern now, but the point you make is valid about most of the army being able to achive tye same role. Remember though that you will also have to buy psykers and roll a successful wp2 power for prescience whereas the wyvern has it built in.
daedalus wrote: Even the 30 man blob outperforms it assuming you have orders and prescience, at least against marines. I'd have to run the numbers, but I gotta imagine that worse armor saves probably reflect just as favorably for blobs as they do the wyvern.. Cover could make a difference though, I suppose. Does it completely ignore cover or just ignore LOS cover by virtue of the barrage rules?
Something I had forgotten to take into account was the barrage rules on walking the blasts back, but that could also hurt on a distant enough miss. Like I said earlier, this stuff is really hard to model. I'm kind of interested on seeing what you could do comparably with a manticore. Large blast can get 4 guys on the most lucky shot possible even if they're spread to max distance, assuming they're spread in a grid, and not a line.
Yeah, if you got the psyker, get the power off, and are in range.
The amazing part of the wyvern isn't the damage output, it's the the damage output at the range.
You pay out the nose for lascannons because of the range.
For 130 points (sure, just take 2), you have a very good chance at killing pretty much everyone who just disembarked from the transport that the guard blob popped.
Because of the range, and lack of need for line of sight, you don't have to move or commit to a target during movement.
Is your opponent going to put everything at 2" dispersion because you brought a wyvern? Great! That means that 2/3rds of his army is further away than it would otherwise be.
daedalus wrote: Even the 30 man blob outperforms it assuming you have orders and prescience, at least against marines. I'd have to run the numbers, but I gotta imagine that worse armor saves probably reflect just as favorably for blobs as they do the wyvern.. Cover could make a difference though, I suppose. Does it completely ignore cover or just ignore LOS cover by virtue of the barrage rules?
Something I had forgotten to take into account was the barrage rules on walking the blasts back, but that could also hurt on a distant enough miss. Like I said earlier, this stuff is really hard to model. I'm kind of interested on seeing what you could do comparably with a manticore. Large blast can get 4 guys on the most lucky shot possible even if they're spread to max distance, assuming they're spread in a grid, and not a line.
Orders and prescience and a 30 man blob squad in range? When does that happen? And how many more points will all of those assets cost compared to wyverns?
The problem is not wyverns killing power, its the durability. Which is close to zero in these days. Thats why i think its beter to invest in infantry squads. But yeah, one or two in1850 list is ok and can be helpful.
HawaiiMatt wrote:
Is your opponent going to put everything at 2" dispersion because you brought a wyvern? Great! That means that 2/3rds of his army is further away than it would otherwise be.
Assaulty armies would not be very hurt by 2" spacing, and they're generally the horde armies you'd really want the wyvern for.
TheSilo wrote:
Orders and prescience and a 30 man blob squad in range? When does that happen? And how many more points will all of those assets cost compared to wyverns?
Power blobs come to mind. They also get OS, so there's that added bonus too.
I'm not a fan of the Wyvern. I will preface this by saying that I recognise it's a good tool for killing infantry, somewhat more reliable than most artillery, and above all dirt cheap.
BUT:
As has been pointed out, anti-infantry is something that Guard bring in spades just by virtue of turning up to the battle, be it massed Lasguns or a ton of Chimera weapons, or even both in larger lists. The core of a Guard army is generally built around shooting, and shooting infantry at that. They can out-shoot most armies in the 12-24" range, and definitely at closer than that. (FRF means they basically get Rapid Fire at full range, making them twice as dangerous per point as similar rapid-firing weapons at that range)
Secondly, there is an opportunity cost to fielding them. Yes, the two other HS slots can get me 6 more Russes, but generally I'll take as many single Russes as possible before I start squadroning them. Given the choice between 6 in 3 squadrons or 6 in 2, I'll take the former every time. This is not to mention the excellence that is the Manticore, which I think outclasses the Wyvern completely against infantry. Yes, it's more expensive, but it has a far wider target profile, better range (although that's rarely an issue), can do more than scrape the paint off vehicles and can really force the enemy to disperse over a wider area thanks to the larger blast area.
There may be an advantage to killing infantry at extreme range, but to be honest, in the opening turns I'd rather focus on taking out the enemy vehicles and heavy hitters than their grunts, which I know my infantry will be able to handle from T3-4 onwards. The opening moves are usually about eliminating the enemy damage potential, and most of the time, tanks hit harder than infantry.
So yeah, the Wyvern is good, but somewhat redundant in the face of better, more versatile and more durable options.
I'm seeing so things mentioned that while they sound good for a argument are not always the case like they're being made out to be.
1. Proper spacing will destroy the killing potential of the wyvern.
2. Its only viable against hordes
3. You waste a heavy slot by taking them.
First off, will your opponent ALWAYS have infantry spaced out? Probably not. If you run in a hardcore competitive meta where units are always max distance, well more power to you but that is by no means a standard. More often than not terrain and maneuvering can and will leave units clumped up, if they are spaced out then there are bound to be some unit in LOS out of cover and therefore vulnerable to other sources along with almost guaranteeing some hits as often it is much hard to miss spaced out units than a cluster.
Secondly, as it has been shown numerous times the wyvern can punch above its weight, yes its str 4 but it does what guard does best, forcing your opponent to roll large amount of saves due to volume of fire. Is it a sure fire way to bust terminators? No. But if you pile on the plates like a wyvern is able to, cracks will start to form and it takes very little for a wyvern to earn back its points, and being able to earn back its points -consistently- make it good and worth the buy in my book.
Thirdly and last, how often do you completely fill your heavy slots? In all honesty, in the six years I have been playing guard, never once have I completely filled my heavy slots. And now that we have tank commanders, we have literally been given and 4th slot.
All I'm trying to say is that yes the wyvern is not the best but neither is it impractical or a waste. Its solid in what it does, taking out cover camping infantry that is normally outside the range of other guns without needing orders or a psyker that could be used elsewhere. Can it do other things? Yes. But first and foremost it is a long range infantry cover buster. If you need that, take it. If not then don't.
HawaiiMatt wrote:
Is your opponent going to put everything at 2" dispersion because you brought a wyvern? Great! That means that 2/3rds of his army is further away than it would otherwise be.
Assaulty armies would not be very hurt by 2" spacing, and they're generally the horde armies you'd really want the wyvern for.
Right, the idea of "but it forces them to displace!" holds very, very little water.
Firstly, ANYTHING with a blast or template weapon will cause displacement. There is nothing special about the wyvern at all in this respect. Secondly, displacement isn't actually that serious of a disadvantage thanks to a little thing called the movement phase. Thirdly, a squad may very well want to be spread out anyways to soak up more field position, which is especially useful for super-scorers (the intended target of wyverns).
The best answer to the fact that wyverns cause stuff to be spread out is "so?"
Wyvers have 4 blasts each. If you assume 2 hits per blasts, you are looking at TWICE as many blast kills as you calculated.
2 hits per blast is 7 MEQ killed.
Basically you need to double all the wyvern kills in your math
And yet the math is still off.
The math presented (corrected for the proper number of shots), says that three wyvern hitting 2 models apiece kills 29 models. I'll just let it sink in for a moment. How do you get 29 kills with, AT MOST assuming you roll completely perfectly, 24 hits?
In the world of reality, not every shot hits, and not every shot wounds. Even assuming that you get two shots per hit, the real amount of damage you're going to do is much closer to
(12 * 2) * ~.6 * .84 which gives us a number much closer to 12
If you need to waste an HS slot on a few bits of open-topped artillery just to kill a guard squad in a turn, I seriously question what's wrong with the rest of your list. Or your opponent's understanding of what 2" coherency means.
HawaiiMatt wrote:
Is your opponent going to put everything at 2" dispersion because you brought a wyvern? Great! That means that 2/3rds of his army is further away than it would otherwise be.
Assaulty armies would not be very hurt by 2" spacing, and they're generally the horde armies you'd really want the wyvern for.
Right, the idea of "but it forces them to displace!" holds very, very little water.
Firstly, ANYTHING with a blast or template weapon will cause displacement. There is nothing special about the wyvern at all in this respect. Secondly, displacement isn't actually that serious of a disadvantage thanks to a little thing called the movement phase. Thirdly, a squad may very well want to be spread out anyways to soak up more field position, which is especially useful for super-scorers (the intended target of wyverns).
The best answer to the fact that wyverns cause stuff to be spread out is "so?"
I'll agree to that to an extent. It's a disadvantage if you can get them to go more than 3 ranks deep. Granted, even on an ADL, that's still like, what, a unit greater than 30 guys? ADL is 18" long, fully extended, right? I don't have one in front of me.
If I was running a list with a lot of Guardsmen - foot horde, mechanised, etc, I would not bring Wyverns. I have enough anti infantry, and need more AT.
To be perfectly clear, I would not run Wyverns in this kind of list because the vast majority of my guardsmen are already stuck in a bracket where they cannot hurt vehicles, or wound MCs reliably. Ergo, my HSmust cover this weakness sufficiently. Wyverns do not do this effectively.
Wyverns and Guardsmen both suffer from the same weakness: they cannot wound the same certain targets effectively.
If I am running ABG, I would bring Wyverns.
- S4 Templates can't hurt my LRBTs on a bad scatter.
- No worries about HS slots and OS.
- The rest of my list is already good against hard targets - Heavy infantry such as MEQ and TEQ, MCs and Vehicles. - Wyverns let me bully troops popped from their transports by other vehicles more effectively by virtue of IC, barrage and multiple templates.
I think a lot of people are overstating the use of the Wyvern here. However, it can't be denied that it's effective for its points value.
HawaiiMatt wrote:
Is your opponent going to put everything at 2" dispersion because you brought a wyvern? Great! That means that 2/3rds of his army is further away than it would otherwise be.
Assaulty armies would not be very hurt by 2" spacing, and they're generally the horde armies you'd really want the wyvern for.
Right, the idea of "but it forces them to displace!" holds very, very little water.
Firstly, ANYTHING with a blast or template weapon will cause displacement. There is nothing special about the wyvern at all in this respect. Secondly, displacement isn't actually that serious of a disadvantage thanks to a little thing called the movement phase. Thirdly, a squad may very well want to be spread out anyways to soak up more field position, which is especially useful for super-scorers (the intended target of wyverns).
The best answer to the fact that wyverns cause stuff to be spread out is "so?"
Wyvers have 4 blasts each. If you assume 2 hits per blasts, you are looking at TWICE as many blast kills as you calculated.
2 hits per blast is 7 MEQ killed.
Basically you need to double all the wyvern kills in your math
And yet the math is still off.
The math presented (corrected for the proper number of shots), says that three wyvern hitting 2 models apiece kills 29 models. I'll just let it sink in for a moment. How do you get 29 kills with, AT MOST assuming you roll completely perfectly, 24 hits?
In the world of reality, not every shot hits, and not every shot wounds. Even assuming that you get two shots per hit, the real amount of damage you're going to do is much closer to
(12 * 2) * ~.6 * .84 which gives us a number much closer to 12
If you need to waste an HS slot on a few bits of open-topped artillery just to kill a guard squad in a turn, I seriously question what's wrong with the rest of your list. Or your opponent's understanding of what 2" coherency means.
The maths is not off. The maths showed that with 2 models hit per blast against t3 5+ models would kill 10.67 with 6 blasts. Since it is 12 that will kill 21.31 with the blasts. The hbs kill 3.75. You DONT double the hb shots. So that leads to 25.06 kills NOT 28. Look at the maths. You will see it is correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Note again 24 covered by 12 blasts with my estimate. Maths says of those 24, 21.31 will die. Lets look at that:
Wounds on a 3+ with reroll so chance of making a kill is...
2/3 + 1/3 x 2/3 = 88.89%
24 x 0.8889 = 21.3336 (slight error due to early rounding)
Automatically Appended Next Post: 2/3 represents wounding on a 3+. 1/3 × 2/3 represents failing to wound and then wound on the reroll.
Multiplied by 0.8889 as this is the decimal equivalent of 88.89%.
Multiplied by 24 because I am calculating how many of the 24 hit are wounded on a 88.89% chance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want to say the maths is wrong please point to the part of the equation which you think is incorrect.
Well, you can, it's just that the results will skew based on the assumptions.
In this case, assuming that a wyvern will just hit with all it's shots is roughly akin to saying a guardsman will just hit with all its shots. You say 3 wyverns puts down 24 hits for 21 killed GEq, well, that's like saying that a 30-man guard blob with attending PCS will pass FRF for 93 hits which kills 31 GEq. And they score to boot!
But we know that you don't, in fact, hit with every shot. If you're going to assume that they do, though, then you need to compare it to other things with the same assumptions in place.
To be fair even if all you did by bringing the wyvern is cause your enemy to not hug cover and be easier to kill for your other none ignore cover big guns it has made back its points. Combining a wyvern or two with some Leman Russ main battles and you can make them have to decide if they want to optimize cover against the large blasts or risk being destroyed by the Wyvern. Points spent to disrupt deployment can still be worth it.
White Ninja wrote:To be fair even if all you did by bringing the wyvern is cause your enemy to not hug cover and be easier to kill for your other none ignore cover big guns it has made back its points.
But this is just psychology. You are hoping that by bringing a wyvern your opponents will make decisions that put them at more overall risk.
I don't know how much I'd rely on my opponents being that... generous.
White Ninja wrote:To be fair even if all you did by bringing the wyvern is cause your enemy to not hug cover and be easier to kill for your other none ignore cover big guns it has made back its points.
But this is just psychology. You are hoping that by bringing a wyvern your opponents will make decisions that put them at more overall risk.
I don't know how much I'd rely on my opponents being that... generous.
Im not hoping that they will do anything. The wyvern basically still forces players to have to chose if they want a good cover save verses none blast shooting or if they want to let the wyvern be able to potentially do a lot of wounds to that unit. The point is that regardless of which choice they make I can gain from it.
I did a serious attempt at mathhammering the Wyvern when it first came out (6th ed rules), trying to make assumptions that give a pessimistic but useful result. I don't have a 7th ed rulebook handy at the moment, but barring rules changes I think the reasoning is still valid.
Poly Ranger wrote:If you want to say the maths is wrong please point to the part of the equation which you think is incorrect.
We can start with the part where you assume a 100% hit rate from what is essentially a twin-linked BS2 weapon.
Yes, it is in fact impossible to compare a lasgun to an indirect fire blast, without making some big assumptions.
It's better to make basic assumptions, and that will tell you where both are good.
Wyverns want bunched up enemies, but have no problem with range (48"), line of sight (barrage) or cover (ignore cover).
Infantry squads have problems with all three of those. Orders can help with the cover, but does nothing for range or line of sight.
If your opponent has troops in transports, wyverns are golden.
Step 1, pop rhino.
Step 2, swivel battle cannon toward rhino wreckage and tell opponent to disembark within 3" of access points (opponent will usually hide behind rhino).
Step 3, drop 4-12 wyvern blasts on tight~ish cluster of guys behind rhino.
Step 4, profit.
A pair of wyverns seem to be enough. You can exploit where the enemy failed to spread out (or was forced to cluster, like when forced to bunch up in combat), without being too stupidly expensive.
Really, 130 for finishing a squad forced out of transport, or hitting out of sight enemies camping behind LOS blocking terrain, and so on.
Anyone who doesn't need effective long range, indirect fire is playing a different game than I am playing. Or maybe they are playing with a lot less terrain.
Troops in general fear the Wyvern.
even those with good armor are vulnerable from the sheer number of wounds that can be stacked on. a 2+ save can only be made so many times before things start dieing.
There is a saying in the Guard.
"Oh you can make a 2+ armor save? MAKE THAT 50 TIMES!!!"
The Wyvern personifies that saying.
Are they the best on the planet? No, other units can do their job with more brute force, better AP, range ,blast radius and ST but fewer wounds (relatively). Like say a Basilisk will do fewer wounds (due to single shot) but its higher ST and better AP have a chance to do more/equal damage to troops but will hit at longer ranges to a Wyvern.
If you got FW, make a Trojan tag along and watch the hilarity ensue with Preferred Enemy (Everything) even though it can only give it to 1 Wyvern at a time.
I did it to an Ork player just today with a single Wyvern and a Trojan following it. Mauled every single Ork in a 20 man blob even with 'eavy armor on. stacked so many wounds that he simply couldn't save enough.
Poly Ranger wrote:If you want to say the maths is wrong please point to the part of the equation which you think is incorrect.
We can start with the part where you assume a 100% hit rate from what is essentially a twin-linked BS2 weapon.
Ah so the maths is not incorrect then. You are now trying to cover the mistake you made in accusing me of a mistake. You told me that id calculated there would be 28 hits from the blasts which I've just shown is not true - nice deflection btw.
I said from the very start that I would be basing this on 2 hits per blast. The reasons: twin linked blast hits 5/9 of the time. If it scatters you will have a high chance of scattering onto other models as you are shooting at infantry. Furthermore it is barrage which give you further control. Lastly it is possible, especially with blobs, units in cover and units having deepstruck to get far more than two blasts. Since I was not going to use these direct scenarios I estimated the average to be 2 hits per blast. Some blasts would not hit. Some would hit more than 2. I estimated THE AVERAGE to be 2.
Without doing such the maths would have been impossible.
I put this disclaimer in at the start and said some people would not be happy or agree with this assumption. I then explained how to adapt the result if you thought it would only hit 1.5 models etc.
So do not try and deflect the issue that you accused the direct maths of being incorrect and have now tried to claim you meant something else which I covered from the very start of the post with the calculations.
That would be disingenuous.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again: If you believe it to be more like 1.5 hits per blast then divide the kills per blast by 2 then multiply by 1.5 then add the hb kills.
I am not going to do this for every average model per blast people want to assume, as I have shown how people can do that themselves.
You're welcome for the effort of the statistics though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact, just realised, it is a 23/36 chance of a direct hit not 5/9. As you have bs3.
Okay, so, I have actually gone from simply abstract visualization to actually putting physical models down and grabbing a small blast.
I've also re-familiarized myself with the barrage rules.
The way you rob wyverns of their supposed effectiveness is to spread out. I've said that many times, but I haven't said how is the BEST way, because I wasn't sure of the best way to do it yet. An exact 2" grid like I suggested earlier is fast and easy, but it doesn't actually get you optimal results. Conga line means you get at MOST 2 hits per blast, and that's if you roll a direct hit. You have about a 90 degree arc with which to get one model on the scatter, from either side of the line around you. You can further bend the conga line at semi-regular intervals around the basis that you never let more than two other models get within 3" of each other, and you still have that magic 90 degrees. It requires a lot of spacing, but should be doable by the start of turn 2 for anyone who actually cared enough to do so. Just doing a quick test here at my desk, I can get two rows of people that would be impossible to get more than two on without meeting the above angle estimates, and it only be somewhat less compact than the 2" grid method. I could probably do this and still keep at least 15-20 models reasonably close behind an ADL.
So what're the odds of direct hitting/scattering conveniently? Well, your first shot can direct hit on, as Poly mentioned, at about 23/36, or 64%. That only gets you one unless you conveniently scatter the first shot between two models, but the odds are much greater you'll get the direct shot so we'll stick with that. Each additional barrage has about a 1-(2/3 * 2/3), or 55.5% chance of rolling a hit, because they're twin linked. The odds a resulting outcome of a scatter die roll scattering in the direction that gets you one wound is (1 - (270/360 * 270/360) * 2/3 [because you direct hit 1/3 of the time]) or 29.17%. You have roughly an 84.67% chance of hitting something altogether.
Based upon this, I think 1 model per blast is still accurate. Lets try to find out. If you have one wyvern, you get 4 blasts. Lets say you get a direct hit on the first one, so that we don't need to worry about those times where you scatter so far you miss everything, now 3 blasts left, 1 wound. From there, 55.5% of those blasts hit two models. Hurray. That's 3 * 0.555 * 2, or 3.33 more hits. What happened to the other 1.335 blasts? Lets find out. 1.335 * 0.2917 = 0.389 hits. Total hits are 1 + 0.389 + 3.33 = 4.719, or 1.180 hits per blast. Better than I thought, I'll give you that. Assuming space marines, you'd get 75% of those to wound, and they'd save 66% of them, so 3.539 wounds with 1.2 unsaved wounds.
That's pretty close to the math in Poly's mathhammering, with the general assumptions amended, so I think it's right. More work could probably be done on my scatter model, but I think it's reasonable at least for the conga line assumption. Feel free to correct me on something. I haven't had to do that much math since college. My head hurts, and I need coffee.
White Ninja wrote:To be fair even if all you did by bringing the wyvern is cause your enemy to not hug cover and be easier to kill for your other none ignore cover big guns it has made back its points.
But this is just psychology. You are hoping that by bringing a wyvern your opponents will make decisions that put them at more overall risk.
I don't know how much I'd rely on my opponents being that... generous.
You know its easy to say that on forums but what I have found is that even the best generals know a touch of panic anytime a massive damage dealing weapon system like that shows up.
Part of it is that it disrupts the enemy deployment and some battle plans DO call for or at least certainly benefit from certain formations. Examples: the Dark Angels shield wall, assault forces wherein getting a larger number of models into the fight matters and of course line of sight blocking, which reduces the efficacy of fire power. All those things are factors when you can't be as close as you'd prefer.
No General wants his plan pinched and he may be willing to exert some real effort to alleviate those strictures on his movement. Choke points become very dangerous. If he's relying on transports to get him there then he ALWAYS must risk getting blown out and Wyverns are just flat out unforgiving when you get blown out. That 3" isn't as far as you'd think when the template is 3"! Of course you do your best but you KNOW some death is about to occur when you get popped.
