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.

As someone who has to deal with Wave Serpents, they'd be totally manageable if it wasn't for the cover saves. I can deal with having to get 3 glances, but making me have to get 6 on average per Wave Serpent can be infuriating.

I would always take Holofields where I can. Your survivability goes from 33% to 50%; as you pass 1/6 more saves, you pass 2/6 before and now pass 3/6 which is a 50% increase in survivability (number of successful saves you make) when you get to take a cover save at all.

 Daba wrote:
I would always take Holofields where I can. Your survivability goes from 33% to 50%; as you pass 1/6 more saves, you pass 2/6 before and now pass 3/6 which is a 50% increase in survivability (number of successful saves you make) when you get to take a cover save at all.

This is a pretty useless metric, though. I don't care how likely I am to make a save, per se; I care how likely I am to fail a save. Ignoring AP, improving an armor save from 3+ to 2+ is a much bigger deal than improving an armor save from 6+ to 5+, even though it only gives me a 25% better chance of saving (compared to a 100% better chance of saving). A better way to look at it this is to say that the 3+ to 2+ improvement halves the likelihood of failing a save (50% reduction) whereas the 6+ to 5+ improvement is only a 20% reduction in the number of failures. Probably the best way to look at it is to say that a 2+ save expects to survive twice as many shots as a 3+ save (+100% survivability) while the 5+ save only survives 25% more shots than the 6+. Focusing on the chance to succeed at a particular roll ignores how improved odds mean that you're going to be taking more rolls.

To be clear, I think Holofields are pretty good for up to 4 or 5 skimmers if you're not up against lots of Ignores Cover type attacks. They still improve survivability by 33%, in the sense that the enemy needs, on average, 33% more firepower to down them.

pantsonhead wrote:

 Daba wrote:
I would always take Holofields where I can. Your survivability goes from 33% to 50%; as you pass 1/6 more saves, you pass 2/6 before and now pass 3/6 which is a 50% increase in survivability (number of successful saves you make) when you get to take a cover save at all.

This is a pretty useless metric, though. I don't care how likely I am to make a save, per se; I care how likely I am to fail a save. Ignoring AP, improving an armor save from 3+ to 2+ is a much bigger deal than improving an armor save from 6+ to 5+, even though it only gives me a 25% better chance of saving (compared to a 100% better chance of saving). A better way to look at it this is to say that the 3+ to 2+ improvement halves the likelihood of failing a save (50% reduction) whereas the 6+ to 5+ improvement is only a 20% reduction in the number of failures. Probably the best way to look at it is to say that a 2+ save expects to survive twice as many shots as a 3+ save (+100% survivability) while the 5+ save only survives 25% more shots than the 6+. Focusing on the chance to succeed at a particular roll ignores how improved odds mean that you're going to be taking more rolls.

To be clear, I think Holofields are pretty good for up to 4 or 5 skimmers if you're not up against lots of Ignores Cover type attacks. They still improve survivability by 33%, in the sense that the enemy needs, on average, 33% more firepower to down them.

Does not the holo field go to a 3+ save when your moving flat out? Going from a 4+ to a 3+ is pretty good.

The fewer WS you have, the more that holo-field would be.
Lots of WS means you have redundancy, and you can leave a squad or two behind.

Lots of WS doesn't make it redundant. You're paying the same price for the same thing.

IcyFireKnight wrote:
Lots of WS doesn't make it redundant. You're paying the same price for the same thing.

Again, only if all of your Serpents are getting shot down in the same turn. If I pay for Holofields and the Serpent they're on gets shot, I benefit from a 33% increase in survivability. If I pay for Holofields and the Serpent they're on doesn't get shot, I get no benefit at all. If the enemy only has enough firepower to take down ~1 Serpent per turn, the only thing your extra Holofields are doing is making the enemy indifferent between various targets. This is a little valuable, since if you have Holofields on one Serpent but not another the enemy is likely to just shoot the one without Holofields, but either way when you have multiple Serpents you're paying for some Holofields that aren't going to have any direct impact on the game until later turns.

Pros of holo fields: It takes an average of 6 glance/pens to wreck a wave serpent instead of 4.5, so it's basically 1.5 more hull points for 15 points on a unit that pretty much has to be destroyed by stripping hull points.

Cons of holo fields: They might be the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to an opponent's target priority. Look at your list and ask 1 simple question "Do I want my opponent to shoot at my wave serpents instead of another squishier target?" If the answer is no then by all means buy holofields. If the answer is yes then holofields might be that one last final straw that talks an opponent out of shooting your wave serpents and going for a squishier target.

It's not a binary question, though. By that same idea of target priority, you can have some of your WS with Holofields and some without. The ones with Holofields can be frontrunners, the ones that need mobility for your troops to eventually land on objectives. The ones without can be backfield holders, where you're pretty much in position on turn 1 for your own placed objectives.

That way, when an opponent decides to take a WS out, you're not stuck with a troop that's out of position for the remainder of the game.

Do you guys also buy the shuriken cannon upgrade, or is that kind of a waste, seeing as how they are short range...?

Although Off-Topic (I'm not going to me TFM ), yes, shuriken cannons are great. Because, after moving 12" you can only fire 2 weapons. I'd say it's safe to assume that those 12" was going to be rapidly moving forward. Moving forward puts the WS at great risk, so you WOULD want the shield up, therefore you'd be in range for the TL scatter lasers and shuricannon.

If you only moved 6" to reposition or not at all, then yes, fire all your weapons.

I played my first game with Holo-fields on Saturday, I would definitely say they are worth the points.

My opponent was playing with SW and BA. He had two long fang squads and a dev squad fire everything they had at one waveserpent and it only took one glance.

It survived 12 Krak missiles and 2 lascannons, got penned, but that was reduced after my 2+ save.

Opponent bitched about it, but I pointed out the three drop pods he dumped in my deployment zone at the start of his first turn cost less and didn't have to weather two turns of firing before getting to where they wanted to be.

The look on his face after it survived that round of shooting and then down graded his pen to a glance was worth the 15pts

The Wave Serpent is considerably better than the drop pod. And Eldar weapons make a mockery of meqs. Expect more frustration from marine opponents in the future, right or wrong.

Thanks IFK - on both counts. ;-)

Martel732 wrote:
The Wave Serpent is considerably better than the drop pod. And Eldar weapons make a mockery of meqs. Expect more frustration from marine opponents in the future, right or wrong.

Yeah, Eldar do 'counter' Marines in a way (their weapons are really good against them, and Marines don't get Tau tricks to nullify Eldar advantages or sheer numbers Guard get), but one does get 4 drop pods for the price of 1 Wave Serpent. They're completely different deployment methods (in fact, the Serpent is more of a tank that transports rather than a delivery mechanism) so they aren't really comparable anyway.

It is hard to compare them. It's really moot until the new C:SM codex comes out to even analyze. If the marines getting dropped become more efficacious, then the drop pods start looking better.

Play a few games with and without the holofields. In the games with the holofields, are your serpents significantly more difficult to take down? In the games without the holofields, where all your serpents wretched? In the games without the holofields, did those 15pts put somewhere else matter?

What are you going to be using those 15 extra points on?

Gapow wrote:
I played my first game with Holo-fields on Saturday, I would definitely say they are worth the points.

My opponent was playing with SW and BA. He had two long fang squads and a dev squad fire everything they had at one waveserpent and it only took one glance.

It survived 12 Krak missiles and 2 lascannons, got penned, but that was reduced after my 2+ save.

Opponent bitched about it, but I pointed out the three drop pods he dumped in my deployment zone at the start of his first turn cost less and didn't have to weather two turns of firing before getting to where they wanted to be.

The look on his face after it survived that round of shooting and then down graded his pen to a glance was worth the 15pts

When anybody actually seriously bitches about something it's worth almost any amount of points to watch them get proven wrong.

In all seriousness the HoloFields really are a good buy. It's so low cost, that you would need at least 7 Serpents before the collective HoloFields could be replaced with some meaningful squad. Mind you, you could switch out 4 HoloFields for an MSU of Avengers but, I said -meaningful- replacement in my not-so-humble opinion.

HoloFields Because HoloFields.

The real value of holo-fields does not become apparent until you are reducing cover saves to a 3+ by being behind ruins or to a 2+ for being behind a fortification
Also night fighting becomes pretty awesome when your rocking a 2+ save.

This is because of the Rule of Resilience. Increasing the save from a 4+ to a 3+ have a greater effect than increasing the save from a 5+ to a 4+. Going from a 3+ to a 2+ save DOUBLES your durability.

I have a tactic in mind against a gunline army (non-tau). I flatout my serpents 12-18'' to my opponents deployment zone turn 1. They then have a single turn to shoot everything at my tanks, which are sporting a 2+ cover save - in the open. Jink+flatout+holofield+stealth (Eldrad's warlord trait or Asurmen rolls it with one of his 3 traits). Turn 2, I can unload all of my guardians/avengers and shuriken down all those hiding guardsmen, while the serpent shields go to town on the side armour of tanks.

But yes, I take holofields as standard. Doesn't matter if i'm taking one, two or five. All my serpents cost 145 points. Always.

No love for spirit stones? Sucks to not be able to fire all those shots... It is just that you need them too infrequently for the cost?

What about the Ghostwalk matrix? It seems pretty good to be able to park it anywhere with no fear difficult terrain tests...

I put wraiths in my serpents. The shields are worth it.

If I have 5 dire avengers in the serpent.. The shields are worth it!

I personally want my serpents to soak up fire like candy. I don't have troops to throw to the wolves once their transport goes down. Factor that into your cost equation.

That is all, lol.

Belly wrote:
All my serpents cost 145 points. Always.

Today was a good day