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.
BlaxicanX wrote:The question is, what unit fills the holes in your list?
Which is my entire point.
You already have to bring a huge pile of anti-infantry weapons. If anti-infantry is a hole in your list, something else is going very wrong.
Meanwhile, once you have a strong troops section that's good against infantry, the thing you're going to need next is something that's good against monstrous creatures, vehicles, and the like. There are tons of good HS options here to handle this. Meanwhile, other slots handle this poorly. Why waste HS slots on something that other slots that you already have to take can do just fine, while stranding said choices by not taking the kinds of things required to support them?
What kind of list needs wyverns? What kind of list doesn't need something with serious hitting power like the rest of the HS slots can offer?
And even then, wyverns are still low-S (shred doesn't fix this), and they're still bad Ap, and they're still stuck with a small blast template. There are serious holes in even the one thing it pretends to be good for, much less that huge pile of other stuff it can't even hurt.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Someone said "worthless against anything tougher than a marine". Uh. Got news for you: there arent a ton of those in large numbers in any list. Marines are tough and there's a reason why we measure things against MEQ standards.
clumped, hit 12 times with Prescience? so yeah. Not good.
Tell that to every Nurgle player and bike players. these things exist and should be noted....... that and knowing that besides from the occasional deep striking, and people that know better, will basically never let you have more than 2 hits per blasts..
Edit: Speaking of prescience why are you prescience them? they already have twinlinked....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/04 21:10:05
BlaxicanX wrote:The question is, what unit fills the holes in your list?
Which is my entire point.
You already have to bring a huge pile of anti-infantry weapons. If anti-infantry is a hole in your list, something else is going very wrong.
Meanwhile, once you have a strong troops section that's good against infantry, the thing you're going to need next is something that's good against monstrous creatures, vehicles, and the like. There are tons of good HS options here to handle this. Meanwhile, other slots handle this poorly. Why waste HS slots on something that other slots that you already have to take can do just fine, while stranding said choices by not taking the kinds of things required to support them?
What kind of list needs wyverns? What kind of list doesn't need something with serious hitting power like the rest of the HS slots can offer?
And even then, wyverns are still low-S (shred doesn't fix this), and they're still bad Ap, and they're still stuck with a small blast template. There are serious holes in even the one thing it pretends to be good for, much less that huge pile of other stuff it can't even hurt.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Have you even used a Wyvern or is this another one of the 'mass guardsmen win everything, always' sort of arguments I see a lot of.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Give it a rest. If you want to deny your own experience, be my guest. I'll laugh all the way to the winners circle against guys who do that. then you can tell me how "anecdotal" my win was. Lol.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Have you even used a Wyvern or is this another one of the 'mass guardsmen win everything, always' sort of arguments I see a lot of.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Give it a rest. If you want to deny your own experience, be my guest. I'll laugh all the way to the winners circle against guys who do that. then you can tell me how "anecdotal" my win was. Lol.
Why are you presciencing them anyway? They already have twin-linked
But I do know. I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Yeah, it seems you dont really KNOW...given the fact that you use prescience on twin-linked weapons...
Wyverns are good, but only against infantry. Like Ailaros, I believe there is plenty of anti infantry stuff in guard (and its called "lasgun"). Units that troubles me are tanks - like wave serpents, storm ravens(flying tank) and lately even land raiders - and monstrous creatures - daemon flyers, tyranid flyers, wraithknights, riptides...So i rather use those points in wyverns to buy something AT like. From my experience, there is never enough anti tank.
Someone may say that wyvern can do much more damage than its points worth of guardsmen...Guys, you should also take into account, that wyvern can not withstand almost any enemy fire with its armour 12-10-10 and being open-topped...on the other hand, blob of infantry can survive quite a lot of firepower.
Someone said "worthless against anything tougher than a marine". Uh. Got news for you: there arent a ton of those in large numbers in any list. Marines are tough and there's a reason why we measure things against MEQ standards.
clumped, hit 12 times with Prescience? so yeah. Not good.
Tell that to every Nurgle player and bike players. these things exist and should be noted....... that and knowing that besides from the occasional deep striking, and people that know better, will basically never let you have more than 2 hits per blasts..
Edit: Speaking of prescience why are you prescience them? they already have twinlinked....
Their heavy bolters arent twin linked. 9 Heavy Bolter shots adds a lot to the picture. So yes. I do know.
And as for these tough units you mention: Amen. And when EVERY army I face takes them every time, then I'll start writing concession speeches o nthe subject. But the reality as borne out by the recent toruney standings says i wont have to worry about that nearly as much as you do!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/04 22:13:16
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
And as for these tough units you mention: Amen. And when EVERY army I face takes them every time, then I'll start writing concession speeches o nthe subject. But the reality as borne out by the recent toruney standings says i wont have to worry about that nearly as much as you do!
I'm interested (genuinely, not internet-style) to know which ones you're referring to.
You already have to bring a huge pile of anti-infantry weapons. If anti-infantry is a hole in your list, something else is going very wrong.
Meanwhile, once you have a strong troops section that's good against infantry, the thing you're going to need next is something that's good against monstrous creatures, vehicles, and the like. There are tons of good HS options here to handle this. Meanwhile, other slots handle this poorly. Why waste HS slots on something that other slots that you already have to take can do just fine, while stranding said choices by not taking the kinds of things required to support them?
Defining things in terms of 'what' they kill without including 'how' and 'when' is pretty one dimensional thinking. In otherwords, lasguns and multilaser's are only good when in range and LOS. By then it is often too late. That's what they wyvern are for -- killing far off/hidden troops from turn 1.
Also not sure why you need HS for anti-MC or tanks? Are you seriously just bringing infantry platoons with lasguns?
snoogums: "Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely."
Iorek: "Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away."
Also, I think literally anything else in the army would be better suited getting prescience cast upon it. I mean, I guess if you had a single techpriest somewhere, maybe not. You're getting up to three twin linked heavy bolters. That's not particularly impressive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: So my anecdotal experiences are worth less than yours?
Really?
because until every top 10 Tourny players starts taking 100% of what was listed it doesn't mater?
For what it's worth, I've not seen AM placing very highly in the few tournaments we've had since, even as allies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/04 22:18:45
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Have you even used a Wyvern or is this another one of the 'mass guardsmen win everything, always' sort of arguments I see a lot of.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
For 65pts, that's a highly respectable hit rate.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Jancoran wrote: I've had them used on me multiple times and I KNOW they are excellent with Prescience.
Congratulations, your subjective experiences have transcended into absolute truth?
Have you even used a Wyvern or is this another one of the 'mass guardsmen win everything, always' sort of arguments I see a lot of.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
Back to the OP.
Overall, I like the Wyvern, it's cheaper than a blob and can put the same amount of wounds on a large, scary or not scary unit of infantry. Two and three Wyverns I think enter the realm of overkill in some situations, but hell, that's what Guard is all about anyway.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
Vaktathi wrote: For 65pts, that's a highly respectable hit rate.
That's a different conversation all-together though.
How often do you get the most optimal rolling often enough for it to be worthwhile? My dice hate me, but I have a pretty good grasp on what should happen. My problem is that any time I bring something scary to the table in the form of a bunch of blasts, I have people spread out to the full limit of coherency. It's difficult to even get that many at that point..
Vaktathi wrote: For 65pts, that's a highly respectable hit rate.
That's a different conversation all-together though.
How often do you get the most optimal rolling often enough for it to be worthwhile? My dice hate me, but I have a pretty good grasp on what should happen. My problem is that any time I bring something scary to the table in the form of a bunch of blasts, I have people spread out to the full limit of coherency. It's difficult to even get that many at that point..
I've found that the barrage portion of the weapon helps with this immensely, but I've had those instances as well. Gotta love playing an Ork player that takes the time to 2" every model...
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
And as for these tough units you mention: Amen. And when EVERY army I face takes them every time, then I'll start writing concession speeches o nthe subject. But the reality as borne out by the recent toruney standings says i wont have to worry about that nearly as much as you do!
I'm interested (genuinely, not internet-style) to know which ones you're referring to.
Example,. The Bay Area Open this year. A DISTANT 11th place was the first time "Chaos" appears on the placing list (Bob Kelly's list Chaos + Daemons list with Belakor I think) with 55 points compared to 100 for the first place finisher Not even close. Dual Chaos marine list made 16th (Ben Vaughn who got "Best Chaos Space Marine, whatever that meant ) and then you gotta go all the way to 26, 27 and 32, 51, 55 and so on for more examples.
Lets look at a different biggee: NOVA open. Out of 223 players, there were just 16 Chaos Space marine Generals. SIXTEEN!. Now let me ask you: when someone gets on a forum and tyells me "nuh uh because Nurgle bikers", am I laughing or crying? As if ASTRA MILITARUM dont have firepower coming out of its yin and its yang that ARENT Wyverns?
Anywho, I think some of these arguments come from one simple truth: people feel like they are a lot better at 40K than they really are and those people cant be taught anything.
I stand on my record. So do they. But the diff is I'm not above learning new things. You dont hear me Poo poo'ing things that clearly work or those who try and explain why. RAERe is the unit i dont think has a purpose. Let me tell ya: 3 Wyverns is indeed EXCELLENT.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/08/04 22:40:55
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/04 22:51:42
Seriously pointing out that a unit with a bunch of bolter blasts that have ignore cover and shred would have major issues against relatively high T and good armor saves suddenly suddenly makes me a unteachable know it all?
Example,. The Bay Area Open this year. A DISTANT 11th place was the first time "Chaos" appears on the placing list (Bob Kelly's list Chaos + Daemons list with Belakor I think) with 55 points compared to 100 for the first place finisher Not even close. Dual Chaos marine list made 16th (Ben Vaughn who got "Best Chaos Space Marine, whatever that meant ) and then you gotta go all the way to 26, 27 and 32, 51, 55 and so on for more examples.
Lets look at a different biggee: NOVA open. Out of 223 players, there were just 16 Chaos Space marine Generals. SIXTEEN!. Now let me ask you: when someone gets on a forum and tyells me "nuh uh because Nurgle bikers", am I laughing or crying? As if ASTRA MILITARUM dont have firepower coming out of its yin and its yang that ARENT Wyverns?
Anywho, I think some of these arguments come from one simple truth: people feel like they are a lot better at 40K than they really are and those people cant be taught anything.
I stand on my record. So do they. But the diff is I'm not above learning new things. You dont hear me Poo poo'ing things that clearly work or those who try and explain why. RAERe is the unit i dont think has a purpose. Let me tell ya: 3 Wyverns is indeed EXCELLENT.
NOVA hasn't actually happened yet, so I'm not honestly sure that counting the number of players on any side does much other than gauge vague confidence. We'll have to see in a month.
...I'm kind of feeling like this is turning into the 5th edition heavy bolter vs autocannon holy war.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
Spoiler 'cuz ALL THE QUOTES.
Fair points all, I apologize for the gakky response, bad day and all that.
You're right though, a legitimate mathhammer of Wyvern shooting would be nice, it would make for easier discussions on whether or not it's comparable to an ordered, prescience'd platoon.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
Ailaros wrote: Wyverns do what your massive pile of lasguns or free chimera heavy weapons do. Except they waste an HS slot doing it.
If you really need more of what the only thing wyverns are good for, just take more troops choices.
To be fair, the Wyvern is completely self-contained as an anti-infantry platform with all of its force multipliers built-in (reroll to hit, reroll to wound, ignores cover). The other options need psyker support and/or orders to match the same efficiency which means more points spent elsewhere that could be spent on more firepower.
I personally really do not like fighting Wyverns. One of our local guard players tends to bring a trio of them in his lists and they cause nothing but grief, to the point that people have moved away from including much in the way of infantry at all in their lists. The biggest issue is that there is no way to really mitigate the damage caused by a Wyvern outside of destroying said Wyvern. While Lasguns and tank-based weapons generally will allow for cover or at the very least have difficulty hitting and/or wounding, Wyverns have none of these exploitable weaknesses (against infantry at least), leaving spreading out the only real option to mitigate damage and even then they get enough shots to generally make up for it.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
THIS BIT IS A QUOTE BUT HAS NOT APPEARED AS SUCH:
Spoiler 'cuz ALL THE QUOTES.
Fair points all, I apologize for the gakky response, bad day and all that.
You're right though, a legitimate mathhammer of Wyvern shooting would be nice, it would make for easier discussions on whether or not it's comparable to an ordered, prescience'd platoon.
END QUOTE
MATHHAMMER TIME!
I'm going to make one big assumption here that people may have issue with. I'm going to assume due to model spread and twinlinked, that each blast covers an average of 2 models. Otherwise this wpuld be impossible to calculate. Some would believe it to be higher than 2 on average, some, less than 2. There will be some scenarios that effect this such as a unit having deepstruck and shot, or a unit cramming into cover, boh reasonably common, but I shall ignore these.
Also assuming that the hb is in range and can see the target (and the target is not in cover - if the target is in cover they are probably getting more than 2 hits a blast anyway).
Id like to state I have never used or fought a wyvern so I am impartial.
T4/3+
(1/2 x 1/3 + 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) x2 = 0.5 per blast
0.5 x 6 = 3 killed by 3 wyverns
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 9 = 1
So 3 wyverns using the above assumptions kills 4 meq a turn.
T4/2+
Will therefore result in 2. As their saves are twice as likely.
T4/4+
3 ÷ 1/3 × 1/2 (meq divided by meq failed save multiplied by failed 4+ save)
= 4.5
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 9 = 3
So 7.5 kills
T4/5+ or 6+
(1/2 + 1/2 x 1/2) x 2 = 1.5 per blast
1.5 x 6 = 9
Hbs = 3
So 12 kills.
T3/3+
(2/3 x 1/3 + 1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.59 per blast
0.59 x 6 = 3.56
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 1.25
So 4.81 kills
T3/4+
3.56 ÷ 1/3 x 1/2 = 5.34
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 9 = 3.75
So 9.09 kills
T3/5+ or 6+
(2/3 + 1/3 x 2/3) x 2 = 1.78
1.78 x 6 = 10.67
Hbs = 3.75
So 14.42 kills
T5 3+ (for the sake of bikers and nurgle)
(1/3 x 1/3 + 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.37
0.37 x 6 = 2.22
Hbs: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 9 = 0.75
So 2.97 kills.
It should also be noted a wyvern has 48" when not counting the hbs, can sit out of sight and also can barrage snipe models.
If you believe that 2 is not the number I should have used, divide my results (for the stormshard mortar) by 2 and multiply by the number you believe it should have been. For example if you thought it would hit 2.5 on average, divide by 2 then multiply by 2.5. If you are thinking about shooting at deepstrikers in a huddle or units on multiple ruin levels and think you will get 5 hits on average, divide by 2 then mulitply by 5 (or just multiply by 5/2).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/05 05:20:08
Where's all this talk of "Wyverns waste HS slots" coming from? Can't you take them in Squadrons? Can't you also take LRBT's in Squadrons? So you can take 3 Wyverns in a Squadron and still have enough HS slots for another 6 LRBTs (2 squadrons of 3). Not to mention you can also take another 3 LRBTs in the HQ slot. Ok, so squadrons are restricted to shooting at the same target, but still...
GoonBandito wrote: Where's all this talk of "Wyverns waste HS slots" coming from? Can't you take them in Squadrons? Can't you also take LRBT's in Squadrons? So you can take 3 Wyverns in a Squadron and still have enough HS slots for another 6 LRBTs (2 squadrons of 3). Not to mention you can also take another 3 LRBTs in the HQ slot. Ok, so squadrons are restricted to shooting at the same target, but still...
Not with a tank commander ;-). Then they can shoot at two!
Frankenberry wrote:First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
winterman wrote: By then it is often too late. That's what they wyvern are for -- killing far off/hidden troops from turn 1.
When is this needed, though? When do you absolutely have to kill tightly-clustered light infantry turn 1?
I'm not denying that the wyvern can be okay in it's niche role, I'm just wondering why that niche needs to be filled in the first place. After all, "nothing is so useless as something done efficiently that should never be done at all". Just because it can do something doesn't make it all that worth taking. Especially when you consider other things, like, as we've been talking about, what else you could use those HS slots/points for.
winterman wrote:Also not sure why you need HS for anti-MC or tanks? Are you seriously just bringing infantry platoons with lasguns?
No, but I would note that an infantry squad with a meltagun is 90% anti-infantry, 10% anti-tank.
It's possible to have enough anti-tank with just infantry squads, but by that point you have a hundred lasguns and a wyvern is far less than needed.
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
THIS BIT IS A QUOTE BUT HAS NOT APPEARED AS SUCH:
Spoiler 'cuz ALL THE QUOTES.
Fair points all, I apologize for the gakky response, bad day and all that.
You're right though, a legitimate mathhammer of Wyvern shooting would be nice, it would make for easier discussions on whether or not it's comparable to an ordered, prescience'd platoon.
END QUOTE
MATHHAMMER TIME!
I'm going to make one big assumption here that people may have issue with. I'm going to assume due to model spread and twinlinked, that each blast covers an average of 2 models. Otherwise this wpuld be impossible to calculate. Some would believe it to be higher than 2 on average, some, less than 2. There will be some scenarios that effect this such as a unit having deepstruck and shot, or a unit cramming into cover, boh reasonably common, but I shall ignore these.
Also assuming that the hb is in range and can see the target (and the target is not in cover - if the target is in cover they are probably getting more than 2 hits a blast anyway).
Id like to state I have never used or fought a wyvern so I am impartial.
T4/3+
(1/2 x 1/3 + 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) x2 = 0.5 per blast
0.5 x 6 = 3 killed by 3 wyverns
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 9 = 1
So 3 wyverns using the above assumptions kills 4 meq a turn.
T4/2+
Will therefore result in 2. As their saves are twice as likely.
T4/4+
3 ÷ 1/3 × 1/2 (meq divided by meq failed save multiplied by failed 4+ save)
= 4.5
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 9 = 3
So 7.5 kills
T4/5+ or 6+
(1/2 + 1/2 x 1/2) x 2 = 1.5 per blast
1.5 x 6 = 9
Hbs = 3
So 12 kills.
T3/3+
(2/3 x 1/3 + 1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.59 per blast
0.59 x 6 = 3.56
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 1.25
So 4.81 kills
T3/4+
3.56 ÷ 1/3 x 1/2 = 5.34
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 9 = 3.75
So 9.09 kills
T3/5+ or 6+
(2/3 + 1/3 x 2/3) x 2 = 1.78
1.78 x 6 = 10.67
Hbs = 3.75
So 14.42 kills
T5 3+ (for the sake of bikers and nurgle)
(1/3 x 1/3 + 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.37
0.37 x 6 = 2.22
Hbs: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 9 = 0.75
So 2.97 kills.
It should also be noted a wyvern has 48" when not counting the hbs, can sit out of sight and also can barrage snipe models.
If you believe that 2 is not the number I should have used, divide my results (for the stormshard mortar) by 2 and multiply by the number you believe it should have been. For example if you thought it would hit 2.5 on average, divide by 2 then multiply by 2.5. If you are thinking about shooting at deepstrikers in a huddle or units on multiple ruin levels and think you will get 5 hits on average, divide by 2 then mulitply by 5 (or just multiply by 5/2).
I'm not spoilering this because it's awesome. Thanks!
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
It's reasonably easy to write off the opinion of someone who's argument is that twin-linked weapons, when you cast a psychic power upon to give the ability to reroll the scatter, get even better. It doesn't take anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Seriously though. They're blasts. This is the same argument that people made with the executioner back in the day, saying it was amazing, and then making the assumption that it always lands some crazy 12 hits.
No, no it doesn't. Your meta is jacked up. Against someone adequately skilled and genuinely AFRAID of the blasts, you'd get 5-6 if you had the most optimal rolling, tops.
First, I was asking him if he'd actually used the unit. If he hasn't, how does he qualify to even comment on the output of the Wyvern?
Well, because we've been down this road before. Again, consider the Executioner. Points aside, there was endless conversation about how effective it was, and every anecdote I'd ever read seems to far overestimate the number of wounds caused by one. I'm not saying Executioners aren't good, or weren't back then. I still enjoy mine. I just don't have the points to bring it to a game anymore. Here's what I do know. A blast is 3" wide. You have to place it over a model. Assuming someone has optimal spread on models, you're looking at 1 wound per blast, 2 if you get lucky and it scatters to the middle point between two models. Four wounds to most orks/nids/guard is basically nothing. Four wounds to almost anything else has a decent armor save. The primary way you'd get more wounds is because your opponent let you. You'd almost always have to risk rerolling the scatter and hoping you get more even if you get a direct hit. That's a result I gotta imagine would come up empty more than it wouldn't.
Second and third, thankfully you know every game outcome ever so why bother arguing, thanks this post saved us at LEAST another three to four pages of good, old fashioned discussion. You should be proud of such a skill, omnipotence isn't something you see every day.
I'm not omnipotent. I may just play people who are more accustomed to overcoming such an attack. Snark aside, someone smarter than me REALLY needs to come up with a better way of modeling probability of wounds with blasts. This comes up too often for us to never have a good way to show the outcome.
Also, I think you're thinking of omniscience. Were I omnipotent, I'd be rolling sixes every time and my opponents would be floating in midair.
THIS BIT IS A QUOTE BUT HAS NOT APPEARED AS SUCH:
Spoiler 'cuz ALL THE QUOTES.
Fair points all, I apologize for the gakky response, bad day and all that.
You're right though, a legitimate mathhammer of Wyvern shooting would be nice, it would make for easier discussions on whether or not it's comparable to an ordered, prescience'd platoon.
END QUOTE
MATHHAMMER TIME!
I'm going to make one big assumption here that people may have issue with. I'm going to assume due to model spread and twinlinked, that each blast covers an average of 2 models. Otherwise this wpuld be impossible to calculate. Some would believe it to be higher than 2 on average, some, less than 2. There will be some scenarios that effect this such as a unit having deepstruck and shot, or a unit cramming into cover, boh reasonably common, but I shall ignore these.
Also assuming that the hb is in range and can see the target (and the target is not in cover - if the target is in cover they are probably getting more than 2 hits a blast anyway).
Id like to state I have never used or fought a wyvern so I am impartial.
T4/3+
(1/2 x 1/3 + 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) x2 = 0.5 per blast
0.5 x 6 = 3 killed by 3 wyverns
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 x 9 = 1
So 3 wyverns using the above assumptions kills 4 meq a turn.
T4/2+
Will therefore result in 2. As their saves are twice as likely.
T4/4+
3 ÷ 1/3 × 1/2 (meq divided by meq failed save multiplied by failed 4+ save)
= 4.5
Hbs: 1/2 x 2/3 x 9 = 3
So 7.5 kills
T4/5+ or 6+
(1/2 + 1/2 x 1/2) x 2 = 1.5 per blast
1.5 x 6 = 9
Hbs = 3
So 12 kills.
T3/3+
(2/3 x 1/3 + 1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.59 per blast
0.59 x 6 = 3.56
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 1.25
So 4.81 kills
T3/4+
3.56 ÷ 1/3 x 1/2 = 5.34
Hbs: 1/2 x 5/6 x 9 = 3.75
So 9.09 kills
T3/5+ or 6+
(2/3 + 1/3 x 2/3) x 2 = 1.78
1.78 x 6 = 10.67
Hbs = 3.75
So 14.42 kills
T5 3+ (for the sake of bikers and nurgle)
(1/3 x 1/3 + 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/3) x 2 = 0.37
0.37 x 6 = 2.22
Hbs: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 9 = 0.75
So 2.97 kills.
It should also be noted a wyvern has 48" when not counting the hbs, can sit out of sight and also can barrage snipe models.
If you believe that 2 is not the number I should have used, divide my results (for the stormshard mortar) by 2 and multiply by the number you believe it should have been. For example if you thought it would hit 2.5 on average, divide by 2 then multiply by 2.5. If you are thinking about shooting at deepstrikers in a huddle or units on multiple ruin levels and think you will get 5 hits on average, divide by 2 then mulitply by 5 (or just multiply by 5/2).
I'm not spoilering this because it's awesome. Thanks!
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points) 
