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.

1. I would say the shield should be 3d6+1 all the same rules, but A one shot item. This means that it can still kill flyers but will loose its shield for the rest of the game.
2. Give them 36" range instead of 60" (and maybe cap them to 3/4 per detachment)
3. Make them recharge on a 5+

"Why do they need long range / 36" range at all for an weapon of absolute last resort as specificed in the Codex, no recharge for same reasons, why does it need to be another AAA choice - its a trasnport not a gunship - or should be if the rules matched the fluff"

As for AA eldar are a race that specializes we should have a dedicated AA unit. They do - not only do they have the Firestorm they have a dedicated and extremely powerful air supperiority fighter - which is the best way to contact the air
rest seems ok at first glance.

Warp spiders should loose rending
War walkers Scat should go up 5 points per model
Jet seer should limit to only eldar Codex. (this stops 2++ re-rollable)
Increase Jetbikes by 5-10 points
Autarch should be able to take a path and pick exarch gear/rules from that path, also make the path troops for 2 slots. (they walked the path, they should have access to all the gear) +1/-1 to yours and , opponents roll for reserves. (make sure theirs come in and yours come after)
Fire prisms are good. Right down the middle maybe +1 strength on shots
Falcons should get Dedicated slot or better fire power. Maybe aa system for 15 points.
All eldar cc needs boost...
Scorpions can infiltrate but get annihilated by any good opponent. Point reduction or Assault vehicles fix them but they still don't hit hard enough to survive or even be called dedicated CC units.
Maybe a 6++ save.
Banshees just need a vehicle for assault. Give them grenades and on the charge +1 to the ap of their weapons. (3 goes to 2)
Harlequins need +1 to invulnerable save. Auto pass their test. Reduce rending to 3points instead of 4.
Fire dragons give the exarch split fire for 5 points. (give us a reason to take him)
Hawks are middle.
5++ save on all pheonix lords (+1 to asurmen). Come on they need it.
Wraithlords need +1 wound and maybe 6/5+ fnp. ( they suck next to the wraith Knight
Wraith Knights maybe a couple of points increase, not to much.

Thats all i can think of for balancing. Tell me what you think in a logical response without but hurt or radical nerf hammering.

Firestorm is a forge world unit.
36" is to match the other guns.
IT is a high power energy field being propelled forward. It should be destructive, but a One shot, or long time recharge.
Saying our AA is the crimson hunter is not good enough. We need a ground to air that can intercept. While crimson hunters are great AA, but they can be countered by fire warriors...
the 3 options are relative with fluff. (the 36"/3/4 per detach is the only exception.)

Its not "just" a transport, either by fluff or points. It's also not supposed to be the gunboat it currently is.

It's supposed to be an extremely hard-to-damage transport relying on tech and mobility to save it (4+ jink and defensive Shells do that well), instead of strong armor. It's still very vulnerable to a Krak grenade from behind or anything in melee, but those sea-slime large lasers and missiles shouldn't be its bane. It should have decent options for support heavy weapons (it already does), but it shouldn't be a long-range gunboat.

Giving it the 3d6+1 shots, even on a one-use, substantially improves its alpha strike, at the expense of its sustained capabilities. This is Eldar we're talking about. An incredibly short range (6-12"), however, makes it a viable ohcrap option without otherwise improving its alpha. Too much of the game, especially Tau and Eldar, is all about the long range alpha, where positioning and movement aren't as involved. This change would just exacerbate that.

Who would let a serpent get within 6-12" of them and not have it destroyed?
Against both Tau and imperial guard wave serpents are easy pray and getting any closure than 30"/36" is suicide. 36" should be the shortest range on the gun.(maybe 24" but that's pushing it.)

k- Maybe 2d6+1 1 shot at 36".

 Slayer222 wrote:
Who would let a serpent get within 6-12" of them and not have it destroyed?
Against both Tau and imperial guard wave serpents are easy pray and getting any closure than 30"/36" is suicide. 36" should be the shortest range on the gun.(maybe 24" but that's pushing it.)

k- Maybe 2d6+1 1 shot at 36".

If it was a guinship maybe yes that sort of range - but thats the point - its a transport not mobile artillery/anti-tank/AA/etc etc as it is and you seem want to keep it?

Saying our AA is the crimson hunter is not good enough While crimson hunters are great AA, but they can be countered by fire warriors

]If they are great than there is no problem - if they are shooting at the super maneuverable flyer - what are the not shooting at?

EVERYTHING can be countered by something - why do you feel that Eldar should have loads of AA options when pretty much everyone gets SFA - I'd love to the have the Hunter(or in fact ANYTHING) option for my Sisters, Why do you feel they need a point and click win unit in this area as well as all the other stuff they have?

All eldar units should be point and click=win but if you point them the wrong direction they should get destroyed.
Sisters isn't a real codex so comparing anything to them is crap(white dwarf book)
All the new armies get a flyer and some get specialized ground to air. Eldar as a point should have had that even if it was something like the hydra
The Crimson hunter is complete bs and goes against fluff. Eldar love survivability and everlife is important. The crimson hunter has almost no defense over than speed. And even then it is not a supersonic flyer. It should have gotten something to make it atleast resistant to bolters. They love defence not offense. (and speed)
I would have actually loved it even if the serpent shield was a one shot deal
If you want to make it more eldary make it an extra save on a 5+ a pen/glance doesn't loose hp.

Also eldar have no ignore cover other than the serpent.

Sorry just no

The Crimson Hunter is a brilliant interceptor - I have seen it in action and its great - and as said before makes more sense than using a transport vehicle as a AA platform. If you want to cotnrol the skyies - you do it with aircraft and the Ch is one of the best at this with Vector Dancer (wich my Dark Eldar fighter would kill for), good guns that re-roll to hit against flyers.

Sisters IS a real Codex - Its released as a digtial article, I paid for it and GW consider it so - the WD article is no longer current.- get your info up to date.

All the new armies get a flyer and some get specialized ground to air. Eldar as a point should have had that even if it was something like the hydra

Ok so the Eldar got 2 flyers -= Check and Anti-aicraft missiles - so same as the Chaos Marines and Dark Angels - Check? No issue then.

Also eldar have no ignore cover other than the serpent.

So what - they can't have everything - most codexes don't get psudo-rending on their basic infantry weapons - should we all be moaning that we don;t have that in our codexes.

CH is an interceptor, not a fighter. Sure, it has a decent chance to drop that helldrake *if* the drake comes in first, but it dies quickly to Scouts with bolters. Or most of the basic troops in the game.

Our other flyer is just as made of paper, only without descent AA, and with the added benefit of being *completely unable* to fire it's main gun on the turn it arrives. On an av10.

They both have their uses, but neither will reliably handle a helldrake, much less two.

Bharring wrote:
CH is an interceptor, not a fighter. Sure, it has a decent chance to drop that helldrake *if* the drake comes in first, but it dies quickly to Scouts with bolters. Or most of the basic troops in the game.

Our other flyer is just as made of paper, only without descent AA, and with the added benefit of being *completely unable* to fire it's main gun on the turn it arrives. On an av10.

They both have their uses, but neither will reliably handle a helldrake, much less two.

I have seen CH in action - very powerful combned with Vector Strike - I simply have not seen and don't believe that scouts or similar units regular shoot down Crimson Hunters - thats the whole point of flyers they are hard to kill, except by dedcated AA and ther flyers - otherwise why do the Eldar need them at all - you can't have it both ways.

So its not about general air cover - just helldrakes? So to handle a specific unit that may be OP you think another army should have an OP unit of its very own? Unlike everyone else?

Again why does the Edlar need better stuff in air cover than anyone else considering the other huge advantages of their Codex?

Bharring wrote:

They both have their uses, but neither will reliably handle a helldrake, much less two.

What anti-air defense unit that isn't a Vendetta will?

 koooaei wrote:
Wave serpents need a nerf. Or point increase.

Not a point increase. That makes them even more unfeasible for their supposed actual role as a transport. Honestly I'd like to see them focused on that role whereas at the moment people buy the squads just to get the transport. I like them being decent tanks, don't get me wrong but lets nerf the shield rather than raise the price.

Would it off the wall to change the way the shield worked entirely and to be more like the original wave serpents in Epic? Basically you can still fire them, but they do a large blast template and everything covered by it is moved randomly (or by attacking player, but random seems fairer) to represent the force shield flinging people out if the way. Everyone under can take an S3 hit to represent being flung around by the roiling energy with AP - , meaning light troops might lose the odd casualty but marines, et al. are probably fine.

So basically it is no longer a multi-firing powerful gun, but something tactical and fluff fitting. (the original shield is just a force field that can be projected forward). If we want to keep the shield from being super-nerfed, then it could do D3 large blast templates that must be positioned touching. Would be wonderfully fun and fluffy as it makes the Wave Serpent a properly Eldar attack vehicle, e.g. for flinging people out of cover so that DAs can pile out and start shooting at them. If we did the D3 version, I'd actually be tempted to keep the points cost as is.

Good or too radical for people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slayer222 wrote:
The Crimson hunter is complete bs and goes against fluff. Eldar love survivability and everlife is important. The crimson hunter has almost no defense over than speed.

That's entirely fluffy for Eldar and practically their modus operandii. Holo-fields, fast lightly armoured banshees and Harlequins, slenderly build titans and wraithknights. These things are equivalently tough due to Imperials due to Eldar technology but look at these things - if the eldar believed in strength through solidity they could make blocky things like land raiders that were even tougher but they don't. Fast and hard to hit is practically a core tenet of Eldar warfare.

 Slayer222 wrote:

Also eldar have no ignore cover other than the serpent.

There's too much ignore cover in the game already. I'm happy with my units as is, fir the most part.

knas ser wrote:


Would it off the wall to change the way the shield worked entirely and to be more like the original wave serpents in Epic? Basically you can still fire them, but they do a large blast template and everything covered by it is moved randomly (or by attacking player, but random seems fairer) to represent the force shield flinging people out if the way. Everyone under can take an S3 hit to represent being flung around by the roiling energy with AP - , meaning light troops might lose the odd casualty but marines, et al. are probably fine.

So basically it is no longer a multi-firing powerful gun, but something tactical and fluff fitting. (the original shield is just a force field that can be projected forward). If we want to keep the shield from being super-nerfed, then it could do D3 large blast templates that must be positioned touching. Would be wonderfully fun and fluffy as it makes the Wave Serpent a properly Eldar attack vehicle, e.g. for flinging people out of cover so that DAs can pile out and start shooting at them. If we did the D3 version, I'd actually be tempted to keep the points cost as is.

Good or too radical for people?

I like the idea, but part of why Lash was so hated was that it allowed your enemy to move your models. It doesn't really matter if you move everything properly in your phase when the enemy can just throw them out of cover or completely screw over the firing arc of a heavy weapons team, for example.

On Firestorm: have seen it in action, it's surprisingly meek considering it costs nearly the same as a Land Raider. I have no imperial equivalent to compare it to, since I don't know of a single unit I'd say costs 50% too much while still not able to do the job it's meant for.
To sum it up: Firestorm underperform for it's role and cost too much for it's intended performance.

On Flakk Missiles: they have a design problem in that they are strength 7 and heavy 1, not to mention that they aren't ap3. No army likes these and the game as a whole would benefit if these were improved to be S8 AP3 across all armies.
For Codex Eldar they are stupidly expensive. While true for most armies, to illustrate: it costs 15 points to upgrade a Shuriken Cannon to a Missile Launcher (every other heavy weapon costs 5 points) and then you need to pay 10 points to get a missile that doesn't do it's job. Iron Arm is standard for FMC, and so is armour 3+. For flyers you need to deal with AV12, since the AV10 flyers are better dealt with by means of massive amounts of S4-6 fire (these kinds of weapons are more versatile than a missile launcher).
To sum it up: Flakk missiles underperform and cost too much. (For all armies)

Regarding Crimson Hunters: Yeah, they are great with a massive weakness for the opponent to exploit. However, an opponent do not need dedicated anti-air to deal with Crimson Hunters, but the Crimson Hunter is necessary to deal with AV11+ air for the Eldar Codex. This is an eschewed situation and more a product of overarching game design. They sort of exist in a realm of instability. Locally they are perfect, but if viewed as a part of the whole they are a bad solution to the problem that is the flyer implementation.
As it is, if you know your friends use Vendettas, Heldrakes or any similar AV11+ nonsense, TWO Crimson Hunters are mandatory (they seem to fail if going solo).
Mandatory models aren't good. Also it locks up Fast Attack, severely limiting army building.

Regarding Sororitas: They are a real codex, but they are a 5th edition codex. Yes, they deserve a Hunter and it's cousin. So do Dark Angels. I really think both should get them.

Regarding Lash of Submission / Shield Push: This game really has too few force-moves, the problem with lash was that it was fairly easy to use and moved models in a very predictable way - and that daemons were the only ones to have something like that.

Being a blast and then have models under it move directly away from the centre would be an interesting mechanic. Not sure I like it on a transport, though.

Not seen the Firestrom in action...

Flakk Missiles: 1st as you note everyone who has them has the same "problem" ............ Agree is a game issue not an Eldar one
Dark Reaper missile upgrades cost +10 for missile and +10 for extra Flakk missiles in My Codex. And you can have Exarch with fast shot.

Crimson Hunters - the problems are the two units people think are either OP or overcosted - again Game issue not an Eldar one. If the latter two units are also fixed - the issue goes away...............

Codex: Adepta Sororitas is 6th Edition - its not perfect and has the gaps but its fullly current.

Flakk on Reapers: That's Exarch only. It's not exactly optimal since you'll have to waste the rest of the unit's shooting to target the aircraft (unless you're shooting at Eldar or Dark Eldar aircraft)

Sororitas: it is? Wow, I'm out of touch with that side of the Imperium.

Your paying 70Pts plus the 2 other models that go along with the reaper for 2 strength 7 shots that will probable not do much damage.
All the other codex's could at least take a unit of flak, though over costed they at least had the option.
Other armies don't need anti AA to deal with our flyers, but we need them to deal with theirs. We have to take an Autarch to make them viable and then if the opponent has more flyers than we do the CH dies, and even then a couple of tactical squads could take it out. Orks can kill it with no problem with just boys...

 Slayer222 wrote:

Your paying 70Pts plus the 2 other models that go along with the reaper for 2 strength 7 shots that will probable not do much damage.
All the other codex's could at least take a unit of flak, though over costed they at least had the option.
Other armies don't need anti AA to deal with our flyers, but we need them to deal with theirs. We have to take an Autarch to make them viable and then if the opponent has more flyers than we do the CH dies, and even then a couple of tactical squads could take it out. Orks can kill it with no problem with just boys...

Sorry but from games expereince and obbservation of the Eldar - I disagree. What has your actual expereince been - how many Crimson hunters have you lost to speclative fire form Scout squads - although you have now said "several tacical squads"...............

Not everyone can take Flakk missiles and they are not exactly a perfect option - again why exactly are the Eldar deserving of special treatment in this area?

Because everyone are deserving better flakk options. Not just Eldar.

But that's outside the intent of this thread. Oh, and my Crimson Hunters usually die to Tactical Marines using Bolters. I've got two Crimsons and it's gotten to a point where I avoid using them, gambling on my enemy not taking air.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Because everyone are deserving better flakk options. Not just Eldar.

But that's outside the intent of this thread. Oh, and my Crimson Hunters usually die to Tactical Marines using Bolters. I've got two Crimsons and it's gotten to a point where I avoid using them, gambling on my enemy not taking air.

How many bolters are thet throwing at you with 6 to hit, 6 to damage and jink save? Have they not done any damge to the enemy air - The ones we use tend to swoop on and kill stuff dead. Last time I played against A CH wth Sisters could not even hit the thing.

Yes to all getting better AA options

Doesn't take all that many. Naturally, the average is 36 shots per hull point, but if you couple it with a heavy bolter chances are you will force me to evade at which point the aircraft is neutered for an entire turn (which means I zoom out from the board since that's a lot more safe than trying to hit with 6s).

Truth be told, I prefer the Nightwing, even if my dice are cursed whenever it tries to shoot.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Doesn't take all that many. Naturally, the average is 36 shots per hull point, but if you couple it with a heavy bolter chances are you will force me to evade at which point the aircraft is neutered for an entire turn (which means I zoom out from the board since that's a lot more safe than trying to hit with 6s).

Truth be told, I prefer the Nightwing, even if my dice are cursed whenever it tries to shoot.

Common misconception. I'm thinking perhaps that I should start a Maths thread here for those that are interested. In order to score a six then a six, you will get that on average once per 36 rolls, that is correct. However people are misusing that statistic in this case. The misuse is that people assume that if you average one hit in 36 rolls, you need to roll 36 times. That is incorrect in the case of one trial because you stop once you have your first hit.

Think of it this way: if you average one hit in every 36 rolls, where in those 36 rolls is the hut most likely to occur. You are as likely to get the hit on the first roll as on the last, correct? Therefore on average, if you're just trying to get one wound on the target, you'll get it in the middle of those 18 rolls. I.e. there's a 50:50 chance it will occur in the first half. So 18 bolters. 9 if Rapid Firing. Perfectly possible with a Tactical Squad.

The 1/36 means if you roll 144 dice, you expect 4 hits on average. It doesn't mean if you're after one hit you have to roll 36 times.

I actually lost my crimson hunters once to sisters. Limited terrain that could block my flyer from view, and to stop the heavy stuff from hitting them i had to place it next to 2 squads of basic sisters. ! hunter got a hull point lost from an aegis when they came in. And both died, 1 each to squads of sisters. You may say it is bad luck but when it continuously happens and you have no choice to survive the heavier artillery but to move next to weaker squads that shouldn't be able to do anything to flyers but kill our hunters. This may seem like one instant but it continuously happens and at 2k points games its hard to be out of range of everything. If you play against orks their planes are as deadly as ours are. The basic boys can shoot our planes down. The crimson hunter should have had dodge, holofields, or at least +1 av to front and side Armour.

It's also very common for those who've studied probability to assume others have not or that others can not grasp probability's application to reality

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
Because everyone are deserving better flakk options. Not just Eldar.

But that's outside the intent of this thread. Oh, and my Crimson Hunters usually die to Tactical Marines using Bolters. I've got two Crimsons and it's gotten to a point where I avoid using them, gambling on my enemy not taking air.

How many bolters are thet throwing at you with 6 to hit, 6 to damage and jink save? Have they not done any damge to the enemy air - The ones we use tend to swoop on and kill stuff dead. Last time I played against A CH wth Sisters could not even hit the thing.

Yes to all getting better AA options

I just picked up my Crimson Hunter a couple of weeks ago, and I've only played a couple of games with it. One in which it kicked face. Neither game did it get shot down, but in one game that was because I was wiping the floor with my opponent, and he had a billion other things to shoot at. The other game was because my opponent was wiping the floor with ME and we decided to not even play the next turn!

HOWEVER, I've played lots of games with the Ork Dakkajet. The Dakkajet has the same defense as the Crimson Hunter... nothing.

I've had my Dakkajets shot down by bolter fire more times than I can count. In my experience, they're so weak that my opponent would RATHER shoot bolters at it and shoot it down that way than use a dedicated anti-air unit or anti-vehicle unit at it. Just fire Bolters, and you'll get at least a couple of 6's. That's all it takes to bring one down.

I had a unit of Termigaunts shoot it down once.

I can appreciate that the Crimson Hunter is armed to the teeth, and is very maneuverable. However, I still think for the amount of points you pay for the Crimson Hunter, you should have SOME defensive abilities. Even the ability to take Holofields would be nice.

 Mahtamori wrote:
It's also very common for those who've studied probability to assume others have not or that others can not grasp probability's application to reality

No problem. I realize that you wrote average of 36 shots per hull point but your reply was to someone asking how many bolters it took to damage the craft so it's natural to think you were replying that it would take 36 shots. And really it is wrong what you wrote because you stop rolling once you've got the last hull point so it really is less than 36 shots per HP. You're making a statement based on a fixed number of trials, whereas in fact it is a fixed number of successes in this context. They are related but different problems and your statement pertains to the former. Apologies if my original post came across as lecturing, it really wasn't meant as such. But this really is a common misconception here.

knas ser wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
It's also very common for those who've studied probability to assume others have not or that others can not grasp probability's application to reality

No problem. I realize that you wrote average of 36 shots per hull point but your reply was to someone asking how many bolters it took to damage the craft so it's natural to think you were replying that it would take 36 shots. And really it is wrong what you wrote because you stop rolling once you've got the last hull point so it really is less than 36 shots per HP. You're making a statement based on a fixed number of trials, whereas in fact it is a fixed number of successes in this context. They are related but different problems and your statement pertains to the former. Apologies if my original post came across as lecturing, it really wasn't meant as such. But this really is a common misconception here.

Ok, ok, time to ease up on the difficult english

You missed a small thing in your math post, by the way, 18 S4 shots have a 40% chance of scoring one or more hull point damages - not the implied 50%.

 Mahtamori wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
It's also very common for those who've studied probability to assume others have not or that others can not grasp probability's application to reality

No problem. I realize that you wrote average of 36 shots per hull point but your reply was to someone asking how many bolters it took to damage the craft so it's natural to think you were replying that it would take 36 shots. And really it is wrong what you wrote because you stop rolling once you've got the last hull point so it really is less than 36 shots per HP. You're making a statement based on a fixed number of trials, whereas in fact it is a fixed number of successes in this context. They are related but different problems and your statement pertains to the former. Apologies if my original post came across as lecturing, it really wasn't meant as such. But this really is a common misconception here.

Ok, ok, time to ease up on the difficult english

You missed a small thing in your math post, by the way, 18 S4 shots have a 40% chance of scoring one or more hull point damages - not the implied 50%.

Wait, how? 18/6/6 is 0.5, no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
It's also very common for those who've studied probability to assume others have not or that others can not grasp probability's application to reality

No problem. I realize that you wrote average of 36 shots per hull point but your reply was to someone asking how many bolters it took to damage the craft so it's natural to think you were replying that it would take 36 shots. And really it is wrong what you wrote because you stop rolling once you've got the last hull point so it really is less than 36 shots per HP. You're making a statement based on a fixed number of trials, whereas in fact it is a fixed number of successes in this context. They are related but different problems and your statement pertains to the former. Apologies if my original post came across as lecturing, it really wasn't meant as such. But this really is a common misconception here.

Ok, ok, time to ease up on the difficult english

You missed a small thing in your math post, by the way, 18 S4 shots have a 40% chance of scoring one or more hull point damages - not the implied 50%.

Wait, how? 18/6/6 is 0.5, no?

Each shot has a 35 in 36 chance of missing. You shoot 18 shots. (35/36)^18=60,23% chance of missing all shots.

Edit: rounding error

 Mahtamori wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
It's also very common for those who've studied probability to assume others have not or that others can not grasp probability's application to reality

No problem. I realize that you wrote average of 36 shots per hull point but your reply was to someone asking how many bolters it took to damage the craft so it's natural to think you were replying that it would take 36 shots. And really it is wrong what you wrote because you stop rolling once you've got the last hull point so it really is less than 36 shots per HP. You're making a statement based on a fixed number of trials, whereas in fact it is a fixed number of successes in this context. They are related but different problems and your statement pertains to the former. Apologies if my original post came across as lecturing, it really wasn't meant as such. But this really is a common misconception here.

Ok, ok, time to ease up on the difficult english

I'm not sure what you mean by "difficult English". I'm not sure what part of it isn't clear but I'm happy to clarify. But then you added a smiley face so maybe you don't find it difficult but then I'm confused as to why you'd remark such in the first place. I honestly can't see any obscure words or unclear phrasing. Perhaps "trials"? That's the mathematical term used in Probability for the number of times you make the roll (or flip the coin, etc.). You implied that you'd studied Probability however so I figured the terminology was familiar. And I think it's clear from the context anyway.

Honestly, it's odd to have to say all that, but there's no "difficult English" in what I wrote and I'm honestly getting a bit of an argumentative vibe off you by this point what with your 'ease off' and your pointed comments about me being not the only one who's studied Probability. Of course I'm nit, I was just pointing out a flaw in what you said. I thought I was being helpful.

 Mahtamori wrote:
[You missed a small thing in your math post, by the way, 18 S4 shots have a 40% chance of scoring one or more hull point damages - not the implied 50%.

EDIT: Misunderstood what Mahmatori was getting at. Yes, it's 40%. I was trying to just explain the general principle that if it takes 36 shots on average to score one hit, then you don't expect that hit to occuring on the last roll. It has the same chance of happening on any of those rolls so on average it will happen in the middle of those rolls.

1/36 chance of glancing is pretty awful. The real problem the Crimson Hunter has is a Stalker or Quad gun has a reasonable chance of glancing it out in one volley, and it has a nearly 100% of dying on the second valley.

Compare to helldrake that can take quad gun volley after quad gun volley after volley.