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.

After reading the new eldar codex and several posts on these forums, I have asked myself the question: Given the exarch's "Skyleap" ability, when fielding swooping hawks without the intention of using an exarch (not relying on his abilities) how many models must be included in the unit before it is more cost effective to instead field a smaller unit with skyleap for the purpose of repeated bombings?

A squad of 5 hawks, containing exarch with only Skyleap costs 135 points
6 Hawks: 129
7 Hawks: 150

The option of using a squad with minimal exarch is most directly comparable with a squad of 6 hawks, but may only be used to replace a squad of at least 7 in an already composed list.

This diliberation must first objectively identify what inclusion of the exarch gains. In a best case scenario, the squad will enter play on turns 2, 4, and 6. Therefore the two uses of grenades are allowed that would otherwise be impossible.
Likewise, by removing the unit before it is able to fire on turns 3 and 5, the firepower of the squad is lost. The firepower of any swooping hawks not fielded beyond the minimal number of 5 is also lost, on turns 2, 4, and 6.
Firepower can for ease of analysis be measure in unit turns (Like man hours)
Squad Size:      Loss: (in unit/turns)
6                        15
7                        20
8                        25
9                        30
10                      35

Multiply that number by and you get the number of lasblaster shots foregone.
In any case, these numbers represent the best case scenario, and in the best case scenario they are offset two S4 AP5 Large Blasts, with no limitation on range, but scatter 1d6 inches 66% of the time.

I don't care what anyone else has to say on this subject - for me the numbers speak volumes: Even in the best case, removing the models for such a large portion of the game is WAY too expensive. Furthermore, consider the fact that if the first reserves roll is failed, the squad would be entering play for its second bombardment on turn 5, making a third attempt impossible, and leaving the squad in play at a small size for turns 5 and 6, making it more vulnerable in terms of eligability to hold an objective.

Not to say that fielding an exarch, or using this ability is a bad idea - its just a bad idea to use the squad in such a limited capacity.

Anyone else care to draw a different conclusion from the data?

Zak

I think you posted this in the wrong part of the forum. This is the Warhammer Fantasy Battle part.

No it's not

Was anybody actually going to do this anyway? I hear a lot of talk about trampoline hawks, but in actual gameplay they seem to be as rare as the much-touted "snakes on a plane" (which I've also never actually seen).

But, to be fair, the gimmick was based on having 2-3 hawk units and baharroth to saturate the opponent with templates. In these quantities, the economy of scale kicks in.

Posted By Brother Bartius on 01/19/2007 6:48 PM
No it's not

It was in the wrong place until I moved it.

As for the actual topic of discussion, I'm on much the same page as Flavius.  It's not much of a tactic, more of a theoretical discussion than something you're going to see in play often.