I've been crunching numbers for a thread on crisis suit configurations, and an odd realization struck me:

A Hammerhead which moves fast (i.e. over 6") is more likely to be destroyed by an autocannon than is a Predator. It's almost twice as likely, in fact.

Anyway, this isn't not much. I just found this amusing, given all the crap that skimmers take for their Skimmers Moving Fast rule, and I thought I'd share.

Skimmers are inherently good, but there is a weakness incorporated in the benifit. In rare cases, it will actually be worse for them to be skimmers.

Meh, only slightly more likely. You have to figgure most people will take decoy launchers so you must reroll immobilized results, while the predator is just immobilized and thus not scoring and 1/2 points. Its a tradeoff in that situation.

Meh, only slightly more likely. You have to figgure most people will take decoy launchers so you must reroll immobilized results, while the predator is just immobilized and thus not scoring and 1/2 points. Its a tradeoff in that situation.

After taking decoy launchers into consideration, the Hammerhead is still going to be destroyed 3.67% of the time, while the Predator will be destroyed only 2.76% of the time.

You're right that, after decoy launchers, the pred is more likely to be immobilized, but even so: The Skimmers Moving Fast rule makes glancing hits more dangerous to skimmers, and so weapons that can only get glancing hits will actually perform better against skimmers than against regular tanks.

well, using an autocannon (or any other weapon Str 7) which is unable to penertrate either tank, then a non skimmer would be better, but there is is so many more weapons that are higher strength, its a moot point.

Anything Str 9+ (including Lances or melta types) will significantly favour the skimmer, espeacially if they are AP 1. I would say 8 times out of 10 it would be better to be a skimmer, considering they get that extra rule essentially points free, it's not bad.

Lastly if your a skimmer driver, facing of against a wall of Str7 and below, you always have the option to just not drive fast...

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Hammerhead has Side Armor 12, while the Predator has only SA 11. S6 weapons can an penetrate the Pred, but not the HH, and S5 can only harm the Pred.

Now, to kill Eldar skimmers...

The kill stats on a Hammerhead are a bit misleading as it has only one significant weapon--the Railgun--whereas most other battle tanks have at least two S7+ weapons. Counting a weapon-destroyed as a 'mission kill' puts the odds of a glance taking out a 'Head at just under 50/50...very manageable.

Anyway, the true strength of skimmers has always been the ability to move 12" over all terrain and still get their shots off before you can respond to the threat. I know the most survivable vehicles are skimmers--Monolith and Falcon--but they're survivable more for their special rules/wargear than their skimmer status.

The kill stats on a Hammerhead are a bit misleading as it has only one significant weapon--the Railgun--whereas most other battle tanks have at least two S7+ weapons. Counting a weapon-destroyed as a 'mission kill' puts the odds of a glance taking out a 'Head at just under 50/50...very manageable.


Really?

I can think of a couple, but, really, the vast majority don't.

Fire Prisms? Nope

Falcons? Not often.

Predators? Two of four do, and they're the less common ones.

Leman Russes? Nope, none of them do.

Land Raiders? Oh, here's one.

Monoliths? Nope.

Battlewagons? Nope

Defilers? Nope, though maybe the CC ability counts.

Dreads? Not really battle tanks, but I'll chalk these up, for you.

Exorcist? Nope.

Hammerheads? Nope

Skyrays? Yes, actually.

Vindicators? Nope.

Whirlwinds? Nope.

Bassies? Nope.

Hellhounds? Nope.


Actually, um, you're pretty much just wrong. A staggering majority of tanks don't have multiple main weapons, and the few that do tend to be either bad, uncommon, or something other than a main battle tank.

Thanks for playing, though =P

Anyway, fine! I thought it was neat, but if you don't, feel free to just ignore my little thread and go about your business. I posted a simple factoid that I found interesting. No need to start a discussion about whether skimmers are good or not and why--that's been done in plenty of other places.

Err...
How would a glancing hit be worse for it?
Decoy launchers only work on glancing immobilise.

So glancing hit has, after reroll, a 22.20778% chance of dying, cutting it off.
Penetrating is just a straight 66.66% chance.

Care to explain?

Really?
Hammerheads? Nope


But these all have one good weapon at least!

Hammerheads yes, vindicators yes, Fire prisms yes, Bassies yes, Russ's yep preds yep (Theres more that 4 btw) etc etc

Thanks for playing, though =P
I don't get it? Playing What?

oddly maths tends to go out the window when you play the game, I have to assume you are not trying to start a flame war, if my space marine commander takes off his terminator armour, drops his weapon and puts on a blind fold then he is likely to get killed by a grot, on the other hand, I dont think he will, most hammer heads are equipped to survive, they are better at this than preds

Err...
How would a glancing hit be worse for it?
Decoy launchers only work on glancing immobilise.

So glancing hit has, after reroll, a 22.20778% chance of dying, cutting it off.
Penetrating is just a straight 66.66% chance.

Care to explain?

If you read carefully, I said that a Hammerhead was more likely to die to an autocannon than a Predator is. this is because the Autocannon can only glance either tank.

If it could penetrate the Hammerhead, then yes--of course--the Predator would be easier to kill. We all know that reducing a Penetrating Hit to a Glancing Hit can be a lifesaver.

My point was that, against weapons which are only strong enough to glance the tank anyway, being a fast-moving skimmer is actually a small disadvantage, since the normal tank will only be destroyed on a glancing six, while the skimmer will be destroyed on either a five or a six.

But these all have one good weapon at least!


Well of course, they do. If you read carefully, you'd note that Intrepid stated (and I quote) whereas most other battle tanks have at least two S7+ weapons

Most battle tanks, in fact, only have one S7+ weapon, and that is what I was pointing out.


oddly maths tends to go out the window when you play the game, I have to assume you are not trying to start a flame war, if my space marine commander takes off his terminator armour, drops his weapon and puts on a blind fold then he is likely to get killed by a grot, on the other hand, I dont think he will, most hammer heads are equipped to survive, they are better at this than preds

Sheesh. I don't think I've ever had a post so thoroughly misunderstood. I made a very simple observation--against weapons which are only strong enough to glance a tank, a fast moving skimmer is more likely to die than a non-skimmer. That is true. It is even true for Hammerheads with Decoy Launchers.

Of course the Hammerhead is a more resilient tank than a Predator. That is entirely divorced from the point. I was just pointing out a small quirk in the interactions of the rules, where some weapons will be sufficiently low strength that they actually work better against fast moving skimmers (normally the tougher type of tank) than they do against normal tanks, because of the penalty included in the Skimmers Moving Fast rule.

I'm not trying to start a flame war--I didn't start out by insulting anyone or even being particularly contrary. What I stated was a true but obscure caviat of one particular set of rules which I had never before noticed and which I found to be funny. Since I found it to be funny, I decided to share it.

Since sharing it, I have gotten basically nothing but crap from any number of people who have blatantly misread my post. If anything, you people are trying to start a flame war, by replying to my thread as if I were saying something entirely separate from what I am actually saying.

Of course the Hammerhead is a more resilient tank than a Predator. That is entirely divorced from the point. I was just pointing out a small quirk in the interactions of the rules, where some weapons will be sufficiently low strength that they actually work better against fast moving skimmers (normally the tougher type of tank) than they do against normal tanks, because of the penalty included in the Skimmers Moving Fast rule.

I have to agree with this. when you can only get glancing hits anyways the strength isn't anywhere near as important. plus lower strength high strength weapons (hahahaha wow) get more than 1 shot too.

but then its harder to kill a wriathlord or carnie than any tank.

give me a leman russ to shoot at rather than anything with a T over 5 and multipul wounds!

If you read carefully, I said that a Hammerhead was more likely to die to an autocannon than a Predator is. this is because the Autocannon can only glance either tank.
and if you had said that with the stress then you would have a valid point but you didnt, you also went on with a general statement about the "crap skimmers get about moving fast", asside from one unstressed mention of autocannon the bulk of the content either directly states or infers that hammerheads are more vulnerable than preds

That is why you have been misinterpreted, it is not that people are doing it deliberatley but that you worded the thing badly, and whilst we are on the subject, please watch the language

Sheesh. I don't think I've ever had a post so thoroughly misunderstood. I made a very simple observation--against weapons which are only strong enough to glance a tank, a fast moving skimmer is more likely to die than a non-skimmer. That is true. It is even true for Hammerheads with Decoy Launchers.

no as above, you mentioned this only in one part of one of three paras

Of course the Hammerhead is a more resilient tank than a Predator. That is entirely divorced from the point. I was just pointing out a small quirk in the interactions of the rules, where some weapons will be sufficiently low strength that they actually work better against fast moving skimmers (normally the tougher type of tank) than they do against normal tanks, because of the penalty included in the Skimmers Moving Fast rule.

I'm not trying to start a flame war--I didn't start out by insulting anyone or even being particularly contrary. What I stated was a true but obscure caviat of one particular set of rules which I had never before noticed and which I found to be funny. Since I found it to be funny, I decided to share it.

Since sharing it, I have gotten basically nothing but crap from any number of people who have blatantly misread my post. If anything, you people are trying to start a flame war, by replying to my thread as if I were saying something entirely separate from what I am actually saying.
no you need to be clear when you state something on an electronic forum, without the nuances of vocal stress and body language it is open to different interpreation, since nearly everyone who has responded has read your post in the same way, which was not what you intended, you have to assume that it is not everyone else, but you. I would suggest you edit the first post to remove second and probably third para and add the stress you put on autocannon you have above, however at that point you are back to my point above, where I obviously had read your post, that you are dealing with such a constrained and minute set of the rules that its abnormality is nothing unusual

Yeah realistically, you said things wrong.
The way you said it, glancing hits on a skimmer are worse than penetrating hits.

Please be more careful with your wording, try reading it over.

Another point is that a lascannon is outright better against a falcon than an autocannon.

I'm sorry, Cheredanine, but there really is no lack of clarity in my post. I don't know why so many people have managed to misread it, but, for your sake, I'll go through it point by point.

I've been crunching numbers for a thread on crisis suit configurations, and an odd realization struck me:

A Hammerhead which moves fast (i.e. over 6") is more likely to be destroyed by an autocannon than is a Predator. It's almost twice as likely, in fact.


Alright, here is. This is the claim.


Anyway, this isn't not much. I just found this amusing, given all the crap that skimmers take for their Skimmers Moving Fast rule, and I thought I'd share.


This is the reason I posted the claim.


Skimmers are inherently good, but there is a weakness incorporated in the benifit. In rare cases, it will actually be worse for them to be skimmers.


This is a brief summary and explanation of why the claim is true.

no as above, you mentioned this only in one part of one of three paras

I mentioned it in only one of three paragraphs. That being said, the construction of those three paragraphs clearly places this as the thesis and the others as support. Combined with the fact that the others contain nothing much in the way of stated claims and that they are phrased in a manner as to support the original claim, I just don't think your complaint is legitimate.



Yeah realistically, you said things wrong.
The way you said it, glancing hits on a skimmer are worse than penetrating hits.


This is just false. Nothing that appears in my post even remotely suggests the notion that glancing hits are worse. Not one thing. This, Cheredanine, is why I think people are just misreading me.

It is an error, plain and simple, to interpret any part of my post in this manner.



no you need to be clear when you state something on an electronic forum, without the nuances of vocal stress and body language it is open to different interpreation, since nearly everyone who has responded has read your post in the same way, which was not what you intended, you have to assume that it is not everyone else, but you. I would suggest you edit the first post to remove second and probably third para and add the stress you put on autocannon you have above, however at that point you are back to my point above, where I obviously had read your post, that you are dealing with such a constrained and minute set of the rules that its abnormality is nothing unusual

I maintain that I was perfectly clear, that your complaints are misfounded, and that the nature of people's misunderstanding (for example, that of Winterous, who presumed that I was saying that glancing hits were more worse against skimmers than penetrating hits) indicates that neither is the result of a failure in my writing.

This sort of misinterpretation cannot be attributed to the way in which I wrote my post in any legitimate fashion. Furthermore, my writing is not constructed in such a way that it relies on inflection of body language. I'm actually well aware of the limits of written communication, and the methods for getting around those limits. Adding artificial stress to the second paragarph is not necessary. The first sentence does nothing but introduce the second, and the second is clearly presented as the point. The others contain little of substance--certainly nothing to promote the notions which some people here have been spouting. The manners in which it has been misread have little or nothing to do with how it has been written. I say this as someone who has majored in writing.

You're welcome to disagree, but one point remains true: I have done nothing inappropriate in this thread, while others have. I am not going to edit my post, because, despite your claims to the contrary, it is properly constructed for getting the point across. I am disappointed that it has failed, but, ultimately I am not willing to take responsibility, and your attempt at analysis has not convinced me otherwise.



To Winterous:
I'm sorry that you misread it. I have read it over, and it is worded correctly. I cannot find even the tiniest amount of justification for your interpretation in either the words I have written or the manner in which those words were written. My original post does not even mention penetrating hits. The word 'penetrating' is not in there, anywhere. The word 'hit' isn't in there, anywhere. The word 'glancing' isn't in there, anywhere.

In fact, the relavent claims I make in that post are these, and only these:

-The Hammerhead is more likely to be destroyed by an autocannon than is a Predator.
-Skimmers are inherently tougher than non-skimmers.
-In some situations, it is worse to be a skimmer than to be a non-skimmer.

That's it. Not one thing about penetrating hits.



To Onlainari:
I have not actually worked up numbers for a lascannon vs. a Falcon, but it would be my assumption that you are correct.

To everyone:
I'm sorry I posted this. I do not feel that it was poorly written, but it has resulted in little more than error and confusion. I have been personally and erroneously attacked, and I have had my writing poorly criticized. I am upset, I have upset others, and neither was the point. At this point, I would really just like to let it drop, and I would request that this thread be closed

Ok you win, reading over it again I just missed a word or two.

Anyway, it's fun to have meaningless arguments.