Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys,

After doing some number crunching for a list I came up short the points to put holo fields on my prisms and was wondering; are holo fields really required? If anyone out there skilled in the ways of math hammer would be so kind as to give me the exact percentages of what holo fields can do for you I would much appreciate it.

Thanks

Maleficorum wrote:Hey guys,

After doing some number crunching for a list I came up short the points to put holo fields on my prisms and was wondering; are holo fields really required? If anyone out there skilled in the ways of math hammer would be so kind as to give me the exact percentages of what holo fields can do for you I would much appreciate it.

Thanks

Short version:

No Holofields: 33% of penetrating hits destroy the vehicle (50% if it lacks Vectored Engines & moved too fast).

Holofields: 11.1% of penetrating hits destroy the vehicle (25% if it lacks VE & moved too fast).

Ok can't be bother to explain how to work this out ... I've gone along the line that a stunned and shaken result are good any thing else is bad (i've made all the fraction out of 36 for ease of reading)

(VDT mod*) (With) (Without)
---------------------------------
-3_________35/36__30/36
-2_________32/36__24/36
-1_________27/36__18/36
_0_________20/36__12/36
+1.________11/36___6/36
+2 & above...Its gonna hurt ether way

*Vehicle Damage Table Modifier

edit ... damn shouldn't have spell checked ...

hope that's useful

Thanks much guys thats a great help

Janthkin wrote:
Short version:

No Holofields: 33% of penetrating hits destroy the vehicle (50% if it lacks Vectored Engines & moved too fast).

Holofields: 11.1% of penetrating hits destroy the vehicle (25% if it lacks VE & moved too fast).

Even more concise:

as long as the vehicle in question is more than 159 pts, the holofield should pay for itself. less than that, take it anyway, because why wouldnt you?

Holo-Fields on a Prism = Yes
on a Wave Serpent = No


That's all you need to know

As Janthkin has already stated, the chances to be destroyed are:

With Holo-fields: 1/9 (penetrating hits)
Without Holo-fields: 1/3 (penetrating hits)

If the vehicle has moved Flat Out in its previous movement phase (excluding cover save) OR the firing weapon has an AP of 1:

With Holo-fields: 1/4 (penetrating hits) and 1/36 (glancing hits)
Without Holo-fields: 1/2 (penetrating hits) and 1/6 (glancing hits)

When your vehicle has moved Flat Out in its previous movement phase (excluding cover save) AND the firing weapon has an AP of 1:

With Holo-fields: 4/9 (penetrating hits) and 1/9 (glancing hits)
Without Holo-fields: 2/3 (penetrating hits) and 1/3 (glancing hits)


Using these numbers, you can calculate how many points the vehicle should cost before adding the Holo-field, if you want the Holo-field to be worth it.

In the first case, without any damage table modifiers, the difference between the two cases is 2/9. Therefore the points cost of the vehicle should be 157,5 (35 / (2/9)) or more points, if you want it to be worth it.
For the other three cases, you would have to know the ratio in which the vehicle suffers glancing and penetrating hits, which we can't do as we don't know the strength of the firing weapon.
The points value calculated using the numbers from the normal situation (no damage table modifiers) are fairly accurate though. Therefore, Fire Prisms should not have Holo-fields.

Well the math hammer numbers posted so far are correct, but I would beg to differ a bit about what they mean. In particular, I point to the conclusion that tanks of 157 points or more should have holo fields while ones of lesser value should not. While this is a good off the cuff suggestion, I don't think it's the final word in the issue. The reasoning behind this is that sure, if you buy 2 fire prisms, you can put holo fields on them or you can save the points and be well on your way to getting a third prism. In that situation, it's far more efficient to just buy the extra prism. However, this isn't always an option, primarily due to heavy support slots being limited. If you are in a situation where you have maxed out your heavy slots (and you don't have other places in the army to add fire power) it may very well be worth the points to outfit your fire prisms with holo fields and greatly increase the likelihood of them living. Now this won't always be the case, but it is an option worth considering since points are not the only resource you are spending on prisms when you buy them.