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.

You're kind of coming off as a bit crazy accusing people of being internet bullies when all the did was post math.

I use the DS from Stormraven in conjunction with locator beacons quite frequently. Works well for things like cent devs.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Well, the dropping of troops during the movement phase by deep striking them is something that most players dont do. the idea is to come on, do your shooting and position yourself to drop them on turn 2 (or if the enemy skyfire stuff is taken out, fly about doing damage with shooting and drop them on the last turn to claim an objective. Getting past that all important interceptor shot when you come in allows you do do this.

So you actually hover to drop off your guys without deep striking them?
... interesting.

as we have seen, we can discount the fake math that others are using to say that a shot that has been fired and hit it's target is more likely to pen if the BS of the model firing the shot is higher and the fake math that others are using to say that a shot that has hit and penned is more likely to do more damage if the BS of the model firing the shot is higher.

Could you misrepresent my arguments more?
There is no fake math in this thread. I resent the accusation. Attack the equations please - prove that they're "fake".

The actual math supports me on this along with the rulebook. As long as internet bullies want to put up lies and fake math based on the lies, I will keep reposting the truth. If need be till the thread is hundreds of pages long or longer, i refuse to lie just to make someone else feel more important.

You've refused to show any actual math so far. Would you mind doing so?

However, the entire point is moot because as the quad is the better "overall" weapon in terms of being a jack of all trades and serving other purposes and against the lower armored flyers, that is the weapon most often taken in take all comers lists anyway. It is what I usually take anymore.

Please check out the site rules.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/354859.page

 EVIL INC wrote:
Edited by Manchu

Personal attack. Reported.

However, the entire point is moot because as the quad is the better "overall" weapon in terms of being a jack of all trades and serving other purposes and against the lower armored flyers, that is the weapon most often taken in take all comers lists anyway. It is what I usually take anymore.

So still no on topic response to my question of "Is there any flaw in the math I've shown? Do you have any math to support your argument?"

"Personal attack. Reported. " the mods will get agood laugh at that as it is not an attack of any kind. t is not even referencing anyone. Had I used a name, then it would have been. Read the rules a little more carefully before you make wild accusations like that and waste the mods time with fake reports.

yes, Usually I try to take out the enemy skyfire gun on turn one, or turn 2 at the latest. I usually dont disembak troops until I need to. even then, I do the math to see what exactly the unit is going to wipe out and whether or not it is worth the risk of going into hover mode. ideally, I keep them embarked until the end of the game and use them as objective takers/deniers or simply being in the enemy deployment zone. Double tasking if I can.

attack the math and the rulebook, not the poster. This is something i have always done. you might try it sometime. You claim that your math says that a shot that has been fired and hits it's target is more likely to pen the armor based on BS. You also claim that your math chows that a shot that has been fired, hit and penned the target will do more damage based on BS instead of AP. I call this fake math. it has no basis in the rules or even truth. Unless of course, you can cite where the rulebook shows that BS actually does those things as you claim..
I have shown my math that is based in the hruth and the rulebook.
i would also like for you to provide citation to support your claim that you can save the pre-emptive strike shot to use in your opponent's later turns if the flyer is out of range of the quad gun on the turn it comes into play.

Believe what you like and spam the thread forever if you like, I will continue to stand by the truth which has been backed up by the actual math and been shown to be factual through actual in-game results, and I will continue to come along and repost the truth as long as I have to.

the end result remains the same, the LC is better at the single role f destroying av12 flyers in the pre-emptive strike shot but is the weaker overall weapons because it is not as versitile as the quad gun.

It's not a belief if the math shows something to be true.

My belief is then vindicated as fact because math showsit to be true.

 EVIL INC wrote:
attack the math and the rulebook, not the poster. This is something i have always done. you might try it sometime. You claim that your math says that a shot that has been fired and hits it's target is more likely to pen the armor based on BS.

That's incorrect - I do not claim that. I've corrected you once before.

You also claim that your math chows that a shot that has been fired, hit and penned the target will do more damage based on BS instead of AP. I call this fake math. it has no basis in the rules or even truth. Unless of course, you can cite where the rulebook shows that BS actually does those things as you claim..

That's incorrect - I do not claim that. I've corrected you once before.

I have shown my math that is based in the hruth and the rulebook.

Which post? I must have missed it.

i would also like for you to provide citation to support your claim that you can save the pre-emptive strike shot to use in your opponent's later turns if the flyer is out of range of the quad gun on the turn it comes into play.

My claim? Where have I ever claimed that?

Believe what you like and spam the thread forever if you like, I will continue to stand by the truth which has been backed up by the actual math and been shown to be factual through actual in-game results, and I will continue to come along and repost the truth as long as I have to.

I don't require your belief. I do expect you to actually show your math or show the errors in my equations that I've posted. One other person attempted and we actually came out with the same numbers (or near enough to not make a difference).

the end result remains the same, the LC is better at the single role f destroying av12 flyers in the pre-emptive strike shot but is the weaker overall weapons because it is not as versitile as the quad gun.

Absolutely false - the LC is not better at destroying AV12 flyers in Interceptor. There is about a 1.5% difference which is marginal enough to be discounted.

rigeld2 wrote:
Absolutely false - the LC is not better at destroying AV12 flyers in Interceptor. There is about a 1.5% difference which is marginal enough to be discounted.

Particularly when you consider that the quad-gun is much more likely to achieve other useful results on the damage table. You might not have managed to kill the Heldrake -- but if you destroyed its baleflamer, that's probably worth more than the slim chance you would have blown it up with the Lascannon.

Corollax wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Absolutely false - the LC is not better at destroying AV12 flyers in Interceptor. There is about a 1.5% difference which is marginal enough to be discounted.

Particularly when you consider that the quad-gun is much more likely to achieve other useful results on the damage table. You might not have managed to kill the Heldrake -- but if you destroyed its baleflamer, that's probably worth more than the slim chance you would have blown it up with the Lascannon.

Sure - the 1.5% difference is only when considering explosion results. If you count anything 4+ on the table the Quad Gun has a significant advantage over the LC.

generally, the quad gun is the better weapon to take. Especially if you are making a take all comers list. The only think that makes the LC stand out is the "essentially" unlimited range in normal games and the ability to take av12 flyers out faster on the pre-emptive strike (as has been shown through the math).

This is why after doing the math and finding it to be correct through actual usage of both in games, I usually stick with the quad gun because of it being the jack of all trades and serving more and multiple uses.

 EVIL INC wrote:
generally, the quad gun is the better weapon to take. Especially if you are making a take all comers list. The only think that makes the LC stand out is the "essentially" unlimited range in normal games and the ability to take av12 flyers out faster on the pre-emptive strike (as has been shown through the math).

To clarify - are you claiming the ~1.5% difference to support the bolded statement?

 EVIL INC wrote:
My belief is then vindicated as fact because math showsit to be true.

Didn't the math just show it to be false?

No it did not. it vindicated me.
The math does not allow you to "save' intercepter shots to be used in later turns when the target is in range. The math does not show that a higher BS makes a shot that hits more likely to pen. The math does not show that BS causes a shot that pens as more likely to destroy a target.
The rules and the math DOES show that AP DOES make a shot that pens more likely to destroy a target. the rules and the math DOES show that you are not able to "save" intercepter shots to be used in later turns. the rules and math DOES show that you have z-e-r-o chance of hitting, penning or destroying a target that is out of range. It also DOES show that a single penning shot from a LC is more likely to get the results you desire than a single glance (pen if the player is super lucky) from an autocannon.

it also DOES show that the quad gun is the better weapon to take in a take all comers list (and in most other lists as well) because of it's greater versitility and overall usefuless.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The math does not allow you to "save' intercepter shots to be used in later turns when the target is in range. The math does not show that a higher BS makes a shot that hits more likely to pen. The math does not show that BS causes a shot that pens as more likely to destroy a target.

Strawman arguments - no one has said those things are true.

It also DOES show that a single penning shot from a LC is more likely to get the results you desire than a single glance (pen if the player is super lucky) from an autocannon.

So you are actually using the ~1.5% difference to make your argument? Seriously? It's a yes or no question.

again, the rules do not allow you to "save" intecepter shots for use in later turns.
they also not not give a hit from a higher BS models any more likely to pen. They do not cause penning hits to do any more damage based on on BS.
The rules DO allow for a AP2 weapon to do more damage when it pens.
the rules also do not allow a quad gun to shoot at, pen or damage targets that are out of range.

So I will repeat the important part that the thread 's OP is asking....

The quad is the better "overall" weapon in terms of being a jack of all trades and serving other purposes and against the lower armored flyers, that is the weapon most often taken in take all comers lists anyway. It is what I usually take anymore.

 EVIL INC wrote:
again, the rules do not allow you to "save" intecepter shots for use in later turns.
they also not not give a hit from a higher BS models any more likely to pen. They do not cause penning hits to do any more damage based on on BS.
The rules DO allow for a AP2 weapon to do more damage when it pens.
the rules also do not allow a quad gun to shoot at, pen or damage targets that are out of range.

Straw man arguments - every single one. No one is saying otherwise.

Please answer my question.

The math showed that the quad gun and icarus are in a statistical dead heat for a one volley kill. I have no idea what this "saving interceptor" stuff is about. 48" range might as well be infinity on most tables. Looking at it again, the Icarus isn't even twin linked, so to hell with that weapon.

Provide citation please. BS simply does not cause a hit to be more likely to pen nor does it make a pen more likely to do damage. Page 74 DOES show where a higher AP makes a pen more likely to destroy a target. page 38 shows that the interceptor shot can only be fired on the turn the flyer enters play.
The range on the profile of the quad gun on page 114 shows that a flyer entering play and ending it's turn more than 48" from the gun cannot be fired at by that gun using interceptor fire.

so once more, to answer the OP...
The quad is the better "overall" weapon in terms of being a jack of all trades and serving other purposes and against the lower armored flyers, that is the weapon most often taken in take all comers lists anyway. It is what I usually take anymore.

Martel732, that was in response to postings of the quad gun being able to destroy flyers entering play at the end of the opponent's movement phase when it ended it's entry turn movement phase out of range of the quad gun.

And another thread is derailed into Evil Inc with his head in the sand yelling about arguments that were never brought up.

OT: the better gun for all concerns except a 1.5% difference is the quadgun.

It is better at damaging an AV12 flyer on interceptor and on subsequent turns. Yes it has a 1.5% less chance to explode but it will do more damage on average then the lascannon for all intents and purposes

The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

Yes, but don't worry! You still have Tau allies, right?

Logged in JUST in the hopes of clearing this mess up.

Evil - The remarks of higher BS weapons causing more penetrating hits than lower BS weapons is due to higher BS weapons hitting more. The scenario in question is - a BS3 weapon and BS4 weapon of the same Str and AP fire at a target. Due to landing more shots, the BS4 weapon results in more glances/pens than the BS3 weapon.

Further, the remarks on the range of the quad gun. On a 6ft (72in) by 4ft (48in) table, placing the quad gun the maximum 12'' up assuming a short-edge deployment and in the middle of the deployment zone (24'' from either table end) gives it a 60'' coverage of the board. To enter outside of this zone is possible, but would neuter the effectiveness of the flier in question. It effectively will have done nothing for two turns minimum (one turn in reserves, one turn entering but remaining 48'' away from the Quad gun).

Nobody is saying BS affects the damage result of a shot after it hit.

Nobody is claiming you can reserve Interceptor shots.

Nobody is claiming you can fire Interceptor in any turn other than when the flier entered play.

Martel732 wrote:
The only caveat is that the quad gun is essentially useless against helldrakes.

They do not add that caviot. Supposedly, the quad can easily take it out on the pre-emptive strike shot as easily as an av 11 flyer.

The point is that when you have twin linked BS plays a lesser role. So as most players put a BS 5 model firing the gun, the effectiveness of the LC goes up when compared to puting a BS 3 or 4 model on the gun. "doing the math" with a bs 3 or 4 gives you different results than whe you 'do the math" with a bs 5 or better models firing it. In this way, a person can artifically alter the results to favor one over the other that does not match actual usage of the BS 5 that is usually used.

re-read the thead, you wil see that those claimshave been made in some cases and implied in all of them.

of course, you COULD always allow me to have the right to use the quad gun in my army when i build a list because I feel that it is the better of the two weapons overall, just as i allow you (i dont have the right to tell you what to use or not use) and let me make my own choices in building my armies.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Provide citation please. BS simply does not cause a hit to be more likely to pen nor does it make a pen more likely to do damage. Page 74 DOES show where a higher AP makes a pen more likely to destroy a target.

Reported for trolling. This thread is absurd, and should be locked. If EVIL INC had some sort of problem with basic math, that would be one thing, but that doesn't explain the repetitive posts ignoring everything that resembles an honest discussion.

If BS doesn't matter, why don't you put a BS3 mook on your lascannon instead of wasting a BS5 character? If it does matter, why don't you respond to the repeated civil questions and points that have been raised regarding your "math"?

rigeld2 wrote:You've refused to show any actual math so far. Would you mind doing so?

rigeld2 wrote:So still no on topic response to my question of "Is there any flaw in the math I've shown? Do you have any math to support your argument?"

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
generally, the quad gun is the better weapon to take. Especially if you are making a take all comers list. The only think that makes the LC stand out is the "essentially" unlimited range in normal games and the ability to take av12 flyers out faster on the pre-emptive strike (as has been shown through the math).

To clarify - are you claiming the ~1.5% difference to support the bolded statement?

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
The math does not allow you to "save' intercepter shots to be used in later turns when the target is in range. The math does not show that a higher BS makes a shot that hits more likely to pen. The math does not show that BS causes a shot that pens as more likely to destroy a target.

Strawman arguments - no one has said those things are true.

It also DOES show that a single penning shot from a LC is more likely to get the results you desire than a single glance (pen if the player is super lucky) from an autocannon.

So you are actually using the ~1.5% difference to make your argument? Seriously? It's a yes or no question.

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
again, the rules do not allow you to "save" intecepter shots for use in later turns.
they also not not give a hit from a higher BS models any more likely to pen. They do not cause penning hits to do any more damage based on on BS.
The rules DO allow for a AP2 weapon to do more damage when it pens.
the rules also do not allow a quad gun to shoot at, pen or damage targets that are out of range.

Straw man arguments - every single one. No one is saying otherwise.

Please answer my question.

 EVIL INC wrote:

They do not add that caviot. Supposedly, the quad can easily take it out on the pre-emptive strike shot as easily as an av 11 flyer.

The point is that when you have twin linked BS plays a lesser role. So as most players put a BS 5 model firing the gun, the effectiveness of the LC goes up when compared to puting a BS 3 or 4 model on the gun. "doing the math" with a bs 3 or 4 gives you different results than whe you 'do the math" with a bs 5 or better models firing it. In this way, a person can artifically alter the results to favor one over the other that does not match actual usage of the BS 5 that is usually used.

Which is precisely the point. Utilizing the same BS, the Quad is better than the Lascannon. This had been repeatedly proven. The only benefit to the Las over the Quad, assuming both hit, is a 1.5% better chance at an explosion result.

re-read the thead, you wil see that those claimshave been made in some cases and implied in all of them.

I've read the thread. In it's entirety. None of this has been stated by anyone but yourself.

of course, you COULD always allow me to have the right to use the quad gun in my army when i build a list because I feel that it is the better of the two weapons overall, just as i allow you (i dont have the right to tell you what to use or not use) and let me make my own choices in building my armies.

asking for citation of a rule is hardly trolling. if it were, you would need to report almost every single member of the site, including the mods and admins.

check the math, a bs3 model (i refuse to use your racist term) on a quad gun hits an average of 3 times. 4 if he is lucky. a BS guy of 5 hits an average of 4 times. So you are only adding a +25%. On the LC, the BS of 5 hits on anything but a one so you are adding a 33.3333 chance of hitting.
After that, the chances of penning and damaging remain the same regardless of BS according to the rulebook. That 8+% increase makes the difference and tips the scales.

If you are going to call one "side" for being repetitive, you need to point the finger at the other "side" as well for doing the exact same thing.
i have been courteous and polite through the whole thing despite being called names and personally attacked. I will continue to remain 100% within the site rules, remain courteous nd polite, but I will also stand by the truth.
I will maintain that although the LC may be better at popping AV 12 on the pre-emptive strike, it is the lesser weapon in terms of looking at the big picture. The jack of all trades quad gun is just more usefull overall.

Guys, after reading this train-wreck of a thread, I would like to point out that maybe (and this is not a personal attack, just a hypothesis based on evidence in this thread) EVIL INC does not actually know math very well and doesn't understand what everyone is saying?

Fair enough. Hanlon's Razor agrees with you. But then we either need to catch him up on a decade of basic math instruction, or agree to ignore him so as to avoid having our threads derailed.

Evil INC has, in a past thread, mentioned being on the Autism Spectrum which helps explain his difficulties in expressing himself relative to the discussion. This doesn't excuse his refusal to answer questions, provide evidence, or his tendency to create strawmen, but it does explain it.