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.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
The strangest part about having a weapon so cumbersome to use is that it's also so bad. You spend all that time rolling and rerolling scatter dice and rolling and rerolling wounds, and after all the dust has cleared, and after five minutes is blown... two or three space marines are dead.

And other than the time factor, how is that bad again?



I'm sorry aileros, you really have to start making actual arguments or points. Like x is bad when compared to y, or x will never be as good for the points as y.

The wyvern would have to be bad at something specific, just using general subjective adjectives is meaningless.

It seems like the rules should work to streamline the game, not make it excessively time-consuming and cumbersome.

Certainly but it has been aileros contention from the get go (not just this thread) that wyverns are "bad"... whatever that means. It's about as useful as saying the model is ugly, I won't be taking one. Which is fine, to each their own.


If aileros were to clearify and say "it's bad for timely enjoyment of the game" I would agree, in that aspect and that aspect alone it's bad.

Crablezworth wrote:The wyvern would have to be bad at something specific, just using general subjective adjectives is meaningless.

It's the other way around. It's not good at anything. That makes it bad at everything.

Outside of tightly-packed Sv6 models, of course. It's the responsibility of someone saying that something is good to prove it, not to the doubters. No amount of attempting to shift burden of proof will change that.

It's good at putting wounds on models. Want evidence? How bout an entire thread dedicated to sheer amount of time it takes to figuer out just how many wounds your unit took from a 65pts model or scarier, multiple 65pts models that can be squadroned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:The wyvern would have to be bad at something specific, just using general subjective adjectives is meaningless.

It's the other way around. It's not good at anything. That makes it bad at everything.

Outside of tightly-packed Sv6 models, of course. It's the responsibility of someone saying that something is good to prove it, not to the doubters. No amount of attempting to shift burden of proof will change that.

Actually you should probably support your contention that it's not good at anything, perhaps also exemplifying what would be better. Oh wait, last time you tried you were claiming punishers were a better and somehow cheap alternetative....

Crablezworth wrote:It's good at putting wounds on models.

When they're clustered together and not embarked or in ruins, yes. I don't doubt that it is possible to come up with a situation in which they could be useful given enough creativity. I doubt that whatever tortured requirements are needed to make it look good will happen with any serious degree of frequency.

And just being able to put wounds on models is only one part of the story. If you have to focus that narrowly on just one small part in order to find something good to say, that only fuels doubts about it being good in a broader context.

Stop making an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Do it one blast at a time instead of all at once.
Speeds things up, still works.

Have to disagree with the Wyvern being a "bad" choice. For x3 of these in a battery for only 195pts. you are dropping x12 small blast templates a turn (and even then its really not that hard to Add up the number of wounds now is it?) or in other words "accuracy by volume" of hits you are inflicting. I watched a few days ago a battery of x3 absolutely wreck a Tau Gunline army, the poor guys Pathfinders and Fire Warriors didn't stand a chance. I can agree that against MEQ armies there may be better choices but against most Xenos armies this tank is pretty dang good.

If it can kill 2-3 space marines a turn for 65pts that's pretty good. And how many times do people actually run fully mechanized armies in 6th? I haven't seen too many. You can always fire manticores or basilisks and pop some transports first anyway.

Quad launcher/thudd gun batteries have done inordinately well in tournaments when spammed against most any army, even marines, not just those with 5+ saves. Look at that one guy at the most recent LVO.
So how is a wyvern bad just for a loss of a point of strength (but gains shred which makes it better against T5 or less models)?

 AegisGrimm wrote:
At least with the old Thudd Gun in 2nd edition, it had four interconnected blast templates, each with the scatter directions printed on it. Once you had decided where the four shots landed, they formed a chain, and then you rolled for everything under all of them at once as if you might with one huge template. I thought it was pretty damn cool in it's implementation.

Pretty sure you mean to say AWESOME!! , cause it was.

I have (and always will) prefer the Humble Griffon Heavy Mortar vs. the new Wyvern.

The Griffon fires a large blast vs. 4x small blasts, is Ordnance (so 2D6 vs. armor, take the highest roll), same range, better strength and AP (St:6, AP:4) and is also essentially twinlinked by default (accurate bombardment rule - means I can re-roll the scatter dice). All those benefits (Ordnance, better St/AP, and large blast) for just 10 more points per tank.

I'm not saying the Wyvern is bad, or a bad option for the points. It certainly can put a lot of wounds on infantry, and is very good at dealing with certain infantry types that are typically dug into cover, but for my points I'd rather have a Griffon all day long if given the option. Two Griffons costs the same a single Leman Russ MBT, and the number wounds they can generate on a single squad dropping a pair of St:6 AP:4 large blast ordnance blasts is, on average, much higher than a pair of wyverns dropping eight small blasts. It's also MUCH more expedient to work out two twin-linked large blasts vs. 8 twin-linked small blasts.

Just my opinion on that. Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Now let's watch as GW makes an apocalypse formation from these things.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
and the number wounds they can generate on a single squad dropping a pair of St:6 AP:4 large blast ordnance blasts is, on average, much higher than a pair of wyverns dropping eight small blasts.

That depends on spread, against a tightly clumped up unit, a small blast may get almost as many hits as a large blast, and x8 instead of x2 is a pretty huge multiplier. Likewise, against a very spread out unit, 2x griffon mortars, assuming they can only hit 3 guys each, will only hit 6 dudes, while a small blast that can only hit one or two has a much higher damage potential.

that multiplier is huge.