PDA

View Full Version : Falcons in 5th ed (mathhammer)



Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2008, 20:09
I heard an awful lot for a long time about Falcons being "nerfed" in 5th edition. I had a conversation recently about how falcons got nerfed, and we'll be seeing waveserpents on the tables. Now I've got my rulebook finally, is that really the case?

Let's say I've hit with a lascannon, and the Falcon is in the open.

4th ed
Falcon (with holofield) moving 6-24". 2/3 chance of glancing, 1/3 chance of killing it but have a reroll.

Probability of killing the falcon = 2/3 * 1/3^2 = 2/27 = 7%

However, if you do suffer a destroyed result, the troops inside suffer a 3/4 chance of taking a hit.

5th ed
Falcon (with holofield) moving 0-12". 1/6 chance of glancing (which cannot destroy the tank and only a 1 in 12 chance of actually damaging it) and 1/2 chance of a penetrating hit (1/3 chance of killing it but have a reroll).

Probability of killing the falcon = 1/2 * 1/9 = 1/18 = 6%

If it's in cover you can halve that probability.

Now, a tank that moves flat out:
P = 1/2 * 1/4 *1/2 = 1/16 = 6%

So, while it makes very little difference, a falcon is slightly better of staying still out in the open than flat out.

The troops inside, incidentally, are virtually immune to damage. Want to know the probability of shooting a lascannon at a falcon and hurting the troops inside? 1 in 72. (Make that 1 in 144 if SMF) Talk about safe!

While we're at it, I've heard that people are far more keen on waveserpents...

Probability of killing a waveserpent (<12") = 1/3 * 1/3 = 1/9 = 11%

Flat out = 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/12 = 8%

So you're best off going flat out with serpents, and they're nearly as tough as falcons when doing that. That said, that includes the 1/18 chance of a lascannon blowing it up and hurting the transported troops.

Of course vectored engines make things more complicated (although I'll wager we'll see more serpents with vectored engines and less falcons with vectored engines...)

The above don't take melta weapons into account (which are undeniably vastly better in this edition, especially against skimmers like the falcon), but as I see it, whether standing still or moving flat out, holofield falcons have got tougher in this edition, and still trumph waveserpents, although the distance has closed now.

The Song of Spears
16-07-2008, 20:35
str 9 ap2 vs falcon

1 hit = 50% chance to pen

on a pen 1/2 of the results will down a falcon, as immoblized will essentially take it out the game. so with lascanon hit and a roll of 4+ we get a 50% chance to down the falcon. but we have holofields, so we only take the lowest of 2d6. each d6 has a 50% chance, that means over all we should have a 25% chance to get a 4+ on both of the two dice. But if we get the 4+ cover then half of those hits are ignored. So we get about 12% for a skimmer moving top speed to get a hit to matter.


before : as long as i moved over 6" all hits were glancing where the chance to get a destoryed was 1/3 as immoblized would still take the falcon out of the game. with holofields we only take the lowest of 2d6 with each d6 having 1/3 chance to get a good result. So it was a bout a 1/12 chance to have both dice coem up with a result of 5+, or about 8%.

Falcons got worse, but not by much, and its a fair nerfing if you ask me as it wasn't that big a downgrade. Especially being able to fortune them and make them neigh invincible.

Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2008, 21:06
1 hit = 50% chance to pen

on a pen 1/2 of the results will down a falcon, as immoblized will essentially take it out the game. so with lascanon hit and a roll of 4+ we get a 50% chance to down the falcon. but we have holofields, so we only take the lowest of 2d6. each d6 has a 50% chance, that means over all we should have a 25% chance to get a 4+ on both of the two dice. But if we get the 4+ cover then half of those hits are ignored. So we get about 12% for a skimmer moving top speed to get a hit to matter.
50% chance to pen x 25% chance to destroy x 50% chance of not saving
1/2 x 1/4 x 1/2 = 1/16 = 6.3%
That said, if you count "immobilised" as "good as dead", (or if we are talking about a SMF crashing in the new rules) you need to add that probability from a glancing hit
1/6 x 1/36 x 1/2 = 1/432 = 0.2%

So the total probability of immobilising or destroying is 6.5%. The 12% you calculated is right, but doesn't take the 4+ save you mentioned into account - and that only applies for Falcons that are considered destroyed by immobilised but don't get a saving throw.


before : as long as i moved over 6" all hits were glancing where the chance to get a destoryed was 1/3 as immoblized would still take the falcon out of the game. with holofields we only take the lowest of 2d6 with each d6 having 1/3 chance to get a good result. So it was a bout a 1/12 chance to have both dice coem up with a result of 5+, or about 8%.
So 2/3 (chance of glancing) x [1/3 x 1/3] (chance of rolling a 5+ on both dice)
2/3 x 1/9 = 2/27 = 7.4%

So IF you consider that immobilised falcons are dead but get a 4+ save, they're still better.

The Song of Spears
16-07-2008, 21:25
Um.. i dont think thats quite right.

str 9 vs. av 12 = 50% chance to pen

destroyed results are 1/3 of the options on a d6, so thats 33%

holofields make us take the lowest of 2d6 of those 1/3 pen results

half of those can be saved via cover for moving fast

50% x 33% x 50% x 50% = 4% = chance to get a destroyed result from a single lascanon hit if skimmer moved fast.

Which seems disgustingly low. But since these results dont take into account for standard deviation, the real result is actually much higher as the mean will lie closer to the 96% we are missing rather than the 4% we are hitting. I would put it closer to 4% + (1% to 43%) = chance to down a falcon once considering standard deviation.

Grand Master Raziel
16-07-2008, 21:31
So, basically what you're saying is that Falcons are still overpowered, and that Holofields need to be nerfed or go the way of...gah, I don't remember the name of the upgrade: the thing that let Eldar vehicles pull the Move-Shoot-Move trick, back in the previous edition of Codex: Eldar.

Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2008, 21:34
Um.. i dont think thats quite right.

50% x 33% x 50% x 50% = 4% = chance to get a destroyed result from a single lascanon hit if skimmer moved fast.
Firstly, the chance of (once you've got a penetrating hit) of rolling two 5's or 6's (i.e. rolling a 5+ on 2-dice-choose-the-lowest) is 1/9 (i.e. you have to roll a 5+ with the first dice [1/3] and a 5+ on the second dice [1/3] so 1/3x1/3 is 1/9)

But you've got a Falcon that's moving fast, so it is destroyed on an immobilised, so the it should be killed on a 4+, not a 5+. Which gives you what I worked out above (i.e. 50% x 25% x 50% or 6.5% chance).


Which seems disgustingly low. But since these results dont take into account for standard deviation, the real result is actually much higher as the mean will lie closer to the 96% we are missing rather than the 4% we are hitting. I would put it closer to 4% + (1% to 43%) = chance to down a falcon once considering standard deviation.
Standard deviation doesn't work like that. We have an absolute probability. You have a 6.5% chance of taking down the falcon with a lascannon. It's a binary result (either you take the tank down or you don't) - at least, the way we're looking at it is.


So, basically what you're saying is that Falcons are still overpowered, and that Holofields need to be nerfed or go the way of...gah, I don't remember the name of the upgrade: the thing that let Eldar vehicles pull the Move-Shoot-Move trick, back in the previous edition of Codex: Eldar.
I didn't say they're overpowered (although I think holofields are drastically underpointed for what they do). I was just pointing out that Falcons have most assuredly not been "nerfed". They might not have gotten quite as much tougher as other vehicle have (the Monolith is just absurd now), but they're still damn tough even out in the open.

I'm not sure why I'm set on pointing it out though. Perhaps we should leave Eldar players thinking their Falcons have been "nerfed"? :angel: Quick, delete the thread!

Wraithbored
16-07-2008, 21:43
I have to say as an eldar player I don't think Falcons didn't get at all nerfed, they are still awesome tanks, just less of a no brainer as it should be :)

The Song of Spears
16-07-2008, 21:44
So, basically what you're saying is that Falcons are still overpowered, and that Holofields need to be nerfed or go the way of...gah, I don't remember the name of the upgrade: the thing that let Eldar vehicles pull the Move-Shoot-Move trick, back in the previous edition of Codex: Eldar.

Crystal Targeting Matrix? Aww i miss those! I lurved my JSJ falcons! :p

Again, i dont think the odds are as grim as they look due to standard deviation.

If it were truly a pure 4 or 6% chance to down a falcon i would loose one falcon perhaps every other games unless someone had a ton of lascannons. But as the case is i always loose at least one of three falcons on the table. So i think the skew puts it closer to 15 - 25% per turn of shooting three las canons at a falcon. Buts thats just a ball park guess.

Kyrolon
16-07-2008, 21:51
Those percentages sound tiny, but let's compare them to something else. What is the chance of a single shuriken catapult shot killing a marine?

BS 3= 50% to hit
S4vsT4=50% to wound
3+ Armor=33% to fail save

So 1 x .5 x .5 x.33= .0825

A single shuriken catapult shot has a 8.3% chance to kill a marine. A 6% chance on a falcon doesn't seem so bad after all does it? And yes, I know shuriken catapults shoot more than a lascannon, but there are fewer falcons on the table than there are marines in comparison.

The general point is, once you start adding up the numbers the chances of ANY single shot killing something get pretty low. (Marine vs Concealed guardian = 14%)

And no, falcons aren't nerfed either. (I do wish they were more mobile again though...then again I wish that for ALL vehicles. I thought they had the amount of moving and firing right in 4th. They needed the survivability of 5th with the firepower of 4th.)

I just wanted to put some perspective on it.

Dan

The Song of Spears
16-07-2008, 21:57
Good point Kryolon.

its also something to be said that a autocanon has a 0% percent chance no matter how you roll, of penetrating a landradier, where as a falcon can still be penetrated by this weapon. So much more than a single type of gun with a single shot should be considered here.

Lootas - instant fried falcon

Landradier - instant smooshed lootas

:p

Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2008, 22:13
Those percentages sound tiny, but let's compare them to something else. What is the chance of a single shuriken catapult shot killing a marine?

BS 3= 50% to hit
You're counting the "to hit" roll in there, which we weren't for the Falcon calculations. But to put it in perspective, assuming a hit by a S9 lascannon and all 3 vehicles are stationary and in the open:
Probability destroyed/immobilised
Falcon 5.5%/8.3%
Chimera 17%/5.5%
Land Raider 5.5%/5.5%
(The probabilities are additive, so if you want the probability of destroyed OR immobilised you can just add these probabilities together)

The new and improved Land Raiders are really formidable, but the holofielded Falcon still stands up there in terms of sheer survivability. If this doesn't seem that big a deal - remember we're talking about a stationary falcon in the open! :eek:

Lotan
16-07-2008, 23:03
Although numbers like this are mathematically sound, I tend to get annoyed when people start throwing them about. It makes me all the more annoyed when a cadian sergeant shoots my terminator in the eye with his las pistol.

Kyrolon
17-07-2008, 17:57
You're counting the "to hit" roll in there, which we weren't for the Falcon calculations. But to put it in perspective, assuming a hit by a S9 lascannon and all 3 vehicles are stationary and in the open:
Probability destroyed/immobilised
Falcon 5.5%/8.3%
Chimera 17%/5.5%
Land Raider 5.5%/5.5%
(The probabilities are additive, so if you want the probability of destroyed OR immobilised you can just add these probabilities together)

The new and improved Land Raiders are really formidable, but the holofielded Falcon still stands up there in terms of sheer survivability. If this doesn't seem that big a deal - remember we're talking about a stationary falcon in the open! :eek:

This seems to prove that falcons aren't broken at all. According to your own math they have the same survivability as a land raider. Big Deal. They should. They cost about the same, and the Land Raider carries more, has a whole boatload of special rules that it doesn't need to buy as vehicle upgrades, and in several armies can be taken as a TRANSPORT (no HS slot wasted). I really do not feel any sympathy here. (especially if half of the rumors about the Land Raider in the new marine dex are true.)

I won't even go into the fact that the LR is totally immune to being destroyed on a single shot by anything that is not a lance weapon and under str 9. You think Lascannons are expensive, try putting bright lances in your army sometime. They are twice the cost of a marine lascannon and only BS3. They even cost more than a Lascannon in an IG Anti Tank Platoon, a specialized weapons squad.

Though I know it will never stop, I am tired of all the falcon whining from both sides. It's not broken, it's not nerfed. It works just like it always has, but some people love to complain about Eldar (ref. Starcannon) until GW does break them. Fortunately this time GW said fine, but we'll apply the changes to all vehicles. Funny how THAT makes people complain.

catbarf
17-07-2008, 18:09
Again, i dont think the odds are as grim as they look due to standard deviation.

Standard deviation does not apply in any way, shape or form to any of the math in this thread. What the numbers show is accurate.

Klam
17-07-2008, 18:22
Although numbers like this are mathematically sound, I tend to get annoyed when people start throwing them about. It makes me all the more annoyed when a cadian sergeant shoots my terminator in the eye with his las pistol.

Thats why its just probability. Those maths are true but tend to not come with the result from Mathammer in a 4 or 6 turns game. If you had 100 turns a game then Maths would be that only result.

Lord Inquisitor
17-07-2008, 18:37
Ah, but if you play 20 games then that would be 100 turns.

The point about probability is that it gives you chance of any given thing happening. It doesn't mean that if there's a 6% chance then 6 times out of 100 it will work - but averaged over enough games it will be.

Sure, random freak luck (or unluck, in my case) happens. In the last three games I had, I had a defiler get hit, blow up and take an entire 5-man squad of raptors with him, I had a dreadnought that blood-raged or firefrenzied 75% of the time, I had a squad of terminators with plasma guns hit six times and wound not once.

That in no way invalidates the value of probability. When making tactical decisions, you have to weigh up what the odds of any given action succeeding are, and gut feelings can often be wrong. Most people would think a Falcon stationary in the open would be a sitting duck (pun unintended) but armed with the probabilities above, you can say it is not such a risk after all.

The Song of Spears
17-07-2008, 19:33
Standard deviation does not apply in any way, shape or form to any of the math in this thread. What the numbers show is accurate.

Yes it does, see below


Ah, but if you play 20 games then that would be 100 turns.

The point about probability is that it gives you chance of any given thing happening. It doesn't mean that if there's a 6% chance then 6 times out of 100 it will work - but averaged over enough games it will be.

Sure, random freak luck (or unluck, in my case) happens. In the last three games I had, I had a defiler get hit, blow up and take an entire 5-man squad of raptors with him, I had a dreadnought that blood-raged or firefrenzied 75% of the time, I had a squad of terminators with plasma guns hit six times and wound not once.

That in no way invalidates the value of probability. When making tactical decisions, you have to weigh up what the odds of any given action succeeding are, and gut feelings can often be wrong. Most people would think a Falcon stationary in the open would be a sitting duck (pun unintended) but armed with the probabilities above, you can say it is not such a risk after all.

Standard deviation is the calculation of these oddities that LI is describing here. So while a 6% chance to do something is its base odds, SD helps us find out how likely we are to deviate from that 6%. Sometimes Skewness is also taken into account in statistics, which is exactly what we are discussing.

Lord Inquisitor
17-07-2008, 19:54
Nevertheless, standard deviation is not a factor here. It doesn't increase the probabilities in any way. We aren't doing any calculations involving means or statistics. There is no distribution here - it is a binary result (the falcon is alive or it is dead). This is probability theory, not statistics.

Now we could do more statistics which would involve SD and measure the average deviation you actually observe from the expected number of shot-down falcons, the distribution should be normal (assuming no crooked dice). But there is no skew here, certainly nothing that would push the probability up. It is still a 6% chance every time you fire the lascannon. The probability is discrete and has no standard deviation, only the observed number of shot down falcons (i.e. the statistics).

catbarf
17-07-2008, 19:58
Standard deviation is the calculation of these oddities that LI is describing here. So while a 6% chance to do something is its base odds, SD helps us find out how likely we are to deviate from that 6%. Sometimes Skewness is also taken into account in statistics, which is exactly what we are discussing.

For the purposes of finding the chance to kill on a single shot, standard deviation has no use. Standard deviation only comes into play when we are talking about multiple shots. Multiple trials of a scenario only serve to refine the probabilities, but standard deviation itself applies to the results when using more than one attempt.

The 6% doesn't deviate. Standard deviation is used to determine, say, the chance of three guns all achieving that 6%.

The Song of Spears
17-07-2008, 20:39
Standard deviation is used to determine, say, the chance of three guns all achieving that 6%.

Correct, which is part of what i was trying to add to the discussion ;) the chance that multiple gun will be on the table is high, so i was bringing up the idea that it might not seem so bad (hard to kill a falcon) if you have multiple lascannons and by me mentioning SD, as you also state, we could discuss the chance of multiple shots, rounds and games giving us a picture of how likely we may be to shoot down a falcon and what kind of firepower is needed to get the job done quickly.

As usual it is just a misunderstanding, SD does come into play in this discussion, if we want to further our test of a falcons durability under a battery of results from multiple situations. But if no one wants to go that far then fine, it was just a suggestion anyway. :p

Amnar
17-07-2008, 22:55
I really disliked the Falcon in 4th, and thought it was overpowered and a no brainer. While it's still pretty much as resilient, I don't mind it anymore, for the simple reason that other tanks got buffed.

What initially rubbed me the wrong way was when I'd compare a Falcon to a LR. Now that the LR got buffed, the relative advantage of Falcons in 5th compared to other tanks isn't nearly what it used to be in 4th edition.

Lord Inquisitor
17-07-2008, 23:07
This seems to prove that falcons aren't broken at all. According to your own math they have the same survivability as a land raider. Big Deal. They should. They cost about the same, and the Land Raider carries more, has a whole boatload of special rules that it doesn't need to buy as vehicle upgrades, and in several armies can be taken as a TRANSPORT (no HS slot wasted). I really do not feel any sympathy here. (especially if half of the rumors about the Land Raider in the new marine dex are true.)
I didn't say it was broken. Falcons certainly didn't receive as much of a boost as other vehicles, but then again, they're still better than they were. Yes, both Land Raiders and Falcons have advantages over each other. What I said was the holofields are underpointed. You'd be mad not to take them.

One reason I really prefer the new skimmer rules is that, while Falcons have actually got tougher against conventional weapons like lascannon, they're far more vulnerable to dedicated anti-tank weapons like meltaguns. Whereas before meltas were pretty much useless against Falcons now the odds of killing a falcon have dramatically increased (letsee... assuming short range, need a 5 to penetrate - 30/36 - and assuming SMF so 2/3^2 chance of destroying it and a 4+ save so another 1/2 ... that's 5/6 x 4/9 x 1/2 = 19%) which is dramatically better than a lascannon.

Used to be, you needed to blat Falcons with lots of hits and armies that relied on things like multi-meltas or meltaguns were really up the creek when facing falcons (like the Inquisition), now, Falcons are much more vulnerable to such dedicated anti-tank (and well they should be!)


The 6% doesn't deviate. Standard deviation is used to determine, say, the chance of three guns all achieving that 6%.
No, that's still just a raw probability calculation. In this case it would simply be multiplying the probabilities together (if you're interested, the probability of killing three speeding falcons with three lascannon shots would be 0.065^3 or 0.03% chance, good luck!)

The reverse is also true. We can't calculate how many lascannon it will take to shoot down a falcon, but we can make propability distributions. I can tell you what the probability of NOT shooting down a falcon is, equally.

The first column is the probability (%) of NOT shooting down a falcon with the numner of lascannon shots in the second column. So if you fire 2 lascannons, there is an 87% chance you won't take it down.

94 1
87 2
82 3
76 4
72 5
67 6
63 7
59 8
55 9
51 10
48 11
45 12
42 13
39 14
37 15
34 16
32 17
30 18
28 19
26 20
24 21
23 22
21 23
20 24
19 25
18 26
16 27
15 28
14 29
13 30
13 31
12 32
11 33
10 34
10 35
9 36
8 37
8 38
7 39
7 40
6 41
6 42
6 43
5 44
5 45
5 46
4 47
4 48
4 49
4 50
3 51
3 52
3 53
3 54
3 55
2 56
2 57
2 58
2 59
2 60
2 61
2 62
1 63
1 64
1 65
1 66
1 67
1 68
1 69
1 70
1 71
1 72
1 73
1 74
1 75
1 76
1 77
1 78
1 79
0 80

So you'd have to fire 80 lascannons to increase the probability above 99% of killing the falcon!

Now, this is fairly simplistic (it assumes you're going to fire all lascannons at once - which is realistic up to about 4, the most lascannons you'd be likely to fire at once) as obviously you wouldn't keep firing at it if you killed it. You could compute more sophisticated probs but I'm not doing that!


As usual it is just a misunderstanding, SD does come into play in this discussion, if we want to further our test of a falcons durability under a battery of results from multiple situations. But if no one wants to go that far then fine, it was just a suggestion anyway. :p
We can do that, but unless the dice are dodgy, it won't deviate (given enough trials or a freakish result) from the expected 6% per gun, which is what you were suggesting. More than that, for every "lucky" game odds are you'll have an "unlucky" one (despite the fact that I seem to get more of the "unlucky" ones (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139400)...:rolleyes:)

catbarf
17-07-2008, 23:10
TSoS: Yeah, you're right, I misunderstood and I apologize. I've seen my fair share of 'interesting' mathematical interpretations on these boards, and immediately jumped to conclusions. But yes, I think you're very right in that we should see if we can simulate three or so Lascannons firing. I'll type up a program later tonight to test it.

catbarf
17-07-2008, 23:12
Stuff

I'm fairly good with maths, so I understand multiplying the decimals together. What I meant was that with a larger sample size, we need to look and see what the curve is in either direction. Averages don't tell the whole story, so it'd be interesting to see other possibilities. It'd also be nice to see how close the results usually fall (how tight the deviation is).

The Song of Spears
18-07-2008, 15:07
TSoS: Yeah, you're right, I misunderstood and I apologize. I've seen my fair share of 'interesting' mathematical interpretations on these boards, and immediately jumped to conclusions. But yes, I think you're very right in that we should see if we can simulate three or so Lascannons firing. I'll type up a program later tonight to test it.

Thats fine :) this is all in good fun anyway. I can't count how many times my falcon has been shot down by the first two plasma shots of the game, or how many times my falcon as been hit with a dozen lascanon shots over a few rounds only to ever be shaken.

There was a guy that had a thread about dice and their build/design and how it altered their probability, i never got around to verifying his work, but it was a interesting thought.

On another note, i noticed that in the Designers notes Alessio Cavatore (the guy who butchered the chaos dex and subsequently got to design the 5th ed 40k book) made mention of percent odds in his reasoning for certain rules changes. So maybe the guys at GW do a little work like this on their own, and then the question comes up, since the falcon has remained durable for several editions now, what do they think about the reliability odds of each vehicle in the game?

And on a personal note, i love the new vehicle damage system, it makes penetrating hits as they should be, and glancing hits as they should be IMHO.

Lord Inquisitor
18-07-2008, 15:39
In the thread I linked to before, I found a significant difference in the rolls between an opponent and myself, presumably something to do with his dice. Never could take his blasted Falcons down either.

I think we're definately going to see more melta weapons. I've a feeling the humble multi-melta might finally have its day as the points cost for that weapon have been dropping with every Codex because noone ever uses them.

I hope that GW does take probability theory into account when designing the games! That said, I do know full well that nothing really beats playtesting. Oddities do tend to crop up - even before I played the current Eldar I was sure holofields would still be a problem (which is one case where the probabilities really help), while just hearing about the lash made me think "what? That sounds incredible!" (which is something that comes from years of wargaming experience).

AngryAngel
18-07-2008, 15:43
Does any of this really even matter ? What are we learning ? That the flacon is still gods chosen vehicle ? How amazingly surprising. I must say I'm shocked. Though in reality, sometimes peoples guy feelings are driven by casual sizing up of probabilities in the game. You don't need to break down all the exacts to use mathhammer. You just need half a brain. Just don't be a slave to it. Afterall sometimes doing the things not shined on by probability can lead to the most dramatic, and unexpected results. In a battle, those moments can mean the diffrence between victory or death.

Hellebore
18-07-2008, 16:00
The problem I have with the rules is AV vs SMF. All skimmers have artificially lowered AVs because their speed was supposed to protect them. Most skimmers in the game are AV 10-11 with eldar and tau at the highest end of the skimmer armour values.

Compare this to 13-14 on many ground vehicles. This was fine because in return for the vulnerability of being a ground vehicle you could get high AVs whilst a skimmer with the vulnerability of low AVs got SMF.

However now those AV14 vehicles can get 4+ svs by themselves, and the 4+ save has become the replacement for the SMF rule.

So now ground vehicles have both the advantages of high armour AND the SMF equivalent.

Skimmers on the other hand have their artificially deflated AVs and cover saves.

This is my problem. They've reduced being a skimmer to a special kind of move, which is fine except that inherent to the design of skimmers since 3rd edition is those abominably low AVs.

So skimmers can either stay around stationary and get a 4+ cover save like that AV14 tank on the other side of the table, or (for the Fast ones at any rate - the Tau got BONED with this rule because they can't even GO flat out) they can forgo any offensive capability to get exactly the same save which will probably not put them outside the enemy's heavy weapon range anyway and means they HAVE to stay away from terrain in case they get immobilised (because an immobilised skimmer going Flat Out blows itself up).

See what I'm saying?

By changing the SMF rule to a cover save and allowing all vehicles to get cover saves you disproportionately buff high AV vehicles and punish low AV vehicles.

Considering that ALL skimmers are low AP vehicles they got the short end of the stick. They've also been priced at SMF levels, I guarantee tau vehicles cost more than they are worth now that imperial Leman Russes have exactly the same advantages + better armour.

Imagine if Land Raiders could get SMF just by moving quickly. They already have the resilience of AV14.

With the rules as they are there is no reason for the game not to have AV14 skimmers because SMF is now just a cover save and NON skimming AV14 vehicles can get that anyway.


Hellebore

AngryAngel
18-07-2008, 16:06
The Tau don't get boned actually. The disuption pods, anything shooting from over 12 inches away counts it as obscured. So the tau, as long as they keep a distance from incoming fire of at least 12 inches always get their 4+ save.

Lord Inquisitor
18-07-2008, 16:32
The problem I have with the rules is AV vs SMF. All skimmers have artificially lowered AVs because their speed was supposed to protect them. Most skimmers in the game are AV 10-11 with eldar and tau at the highest end of the skimmer armour values.
I'm not sure that's necessarily entirely correct though. The skimmers always did just get the benefit of SMF being the same as cover (although in 4th it was better than cover, with the corresponding issue that skimmers tended to be slightly better). Besides, Land Raiders and rhinos always could get the SMF benefit by firing their smokes. The cost/benefit always was that skimmers moving fast are harder to hit, but once hit, more likely to crash.

Eldar vehicles always were meant to be weakly armoured, while their speed and agility benefitted them they also are protected by forcefields and holofields to make up for their lack of armour, while the tau have thicker armour (AV13 is nothing to be sneezed at).

Besides, Waveserpents and Devilfish are far tougher than imperial transports: rhinos and chimera. So I don't really follow that skimmers are "low" armour either.

However, your comparison also doesn't take into account the fact that SMF can get that 4+ save anywhere from any angle. With the new TLOS rules, actually hiding 50% of the Land Raider is going to be nigh-on impossible.

Hellebore
18-07-2008, 16:47
Well all that tells me is that no skimmer is actually worth taking unless you load up on all the upgrades they can take.

I don't need any upgrades on a predator or land raider, but I do on a Falcon.

You should be able to take all of those choices without upgrades viably. The cost of them without those upgrades is too high for their vulnerability and so everyone loads them up with spirit stones holo field etc.

The only thing I ever saw on tanks regularly was smoke launchers, something that is now a standard feature in the wargear for marine tanks anyway.

The land raider has an AV14 rear so it doesn't MATTER which side it's shot from, whilst skimmers don't want to expose their rears to enemy fire (even WITH a 4+ cover save).

I doubt you will see any eldar skimmers going Flat out in 40k unless they are delivering their passengers. Sitting in a piece of terrain and firing all your weapons and getting a 4+ cover save is infinitely perferrable to moving 13"+ and not being able to do anything hoping your rear armour is now not facing the enemy. Why would you do that? You waste your turn when you could be sitting in terrain getting the same cover save anyway.

Which to me is dumb considering the background for eldar skimmers revolves around fast moving.

Hellebore

Lord Inquisitor
18-07-2008, 17:04
Completely agree with you about the points cost thing. With the mechanic as it stands, they need to do the exact same thing as they did with Marine vehicles - extra armour on rhinos was an absolute no-brainer, but rhinos were about right for the points they cost. So drop the cost of the vehicle and up the cost of the upgrade. Although I'm not entirely convinced Falcons with fields aren't too good for the points anyway.

That said, I don't like the holofield mechanic at all anyway. They're supposed to make the vehicle harder to hit, not tougher if you do hit them. A much better mechanic would be something like +1 to cover saves or a 5+ save if no cover applies.

As for movement, it's not quite as bad as all that. Fire prisms can still move 12" and fire, and even falcons firing one weapon isn't all that bad. Besides, it encourages use of terrain, which is no bad thing for Eldar as it will be more tactical (I'm tired of seeing eldar vehicles just charging right at me).

Yeah, I agree with you about being static, but I think that's a failing of the vehicle rules in general. With the exception of my Defilers, which now have no reason to stand still.

But from what I've seen, while eldar falcons acting like gunships might stay still, infantry transports are going to be as fast-moving as ever, powering over to the other side of the board to take objectives or crush enemy troops and the falcon will be just as good at this role as ever, better in fact due to the lack of entanglement and the vastly reduced chance of injury when crashing.

Horus38
18-07-2008, 17:34
Especially being able to fortune them and make them neigh invincible.

I was under the impression fortune does not affect vehicles even though they now can get cover saves. Is this true that you can fortune tanks and walkers? If yes, that's awesome! :p