[Proiteus]

I'm currently building a mech guard army which features: 6 Chimera mounted squads, Hellhound, Banewolf, Manticore, Leman Russ and One Valkyrie.

Someone recently commented that taking just one is suicidal and that it will be targeted quickly and destroyed. I’m mean given it size and that it’s flying above everything else it sounds right.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

[Ravendove]

I agree, taking just one Valkyrie is just asking for it to be shot to pieces on turn one. You can't hide it behind cover, so you're limited to keeping it in Reserve. Either I take two, or I take none.

 

[Grey2321]

I get by fine on one Valkyrie in my 1850 list. What I usually do with it is stick a melta squad in there and Outflank it. This gives me the ability to hit enemy artillery or tanks in the early game, or if it comes in later it's great for contesting or capturing objectives.

 

[grotsnik]

same tactic as grey, but with addition of an astropath.
and it's was more times on the board at the end than any other unit of me

 

[rafis117]

With the Imperial Guard, taking one of any type of unit heavy tanks, (viz a viz Leman Russes), chimeras (including but not limited to chimeltas), foot-sloggers, Hellhound variants, Valkyries, etc, is an easy way to get that unit targeted. If you can use your list and the terrain to make that less likely, by all means limit it to one Valkyrie. If you are really worried that your space helicopter is going to get sniped no matter where you deploy it (plausible), double up. The survivability of any single unit of a set of similar units (ex; space helicopter army) goes up at least at the rate than its cost does.

Let's run a theoretical, inherently generalized and non-specific example, that does handily show the potential benefit of taking two Valkyries (or any unit). This probability experiment assumes that there is a constant ratio of anti-armor units to Valkyries.

Let's assign an arbitrary probability that a Valkarie survives a round; 1/6. That's pretty bad, but it'll get better.

So let's imagine that we take two Valks. The probability that exactly one survives is 10/36, approximately 1/3. The probability that both survive is 1/36. Now the probability that a Valkyrie survives a single round is 11/36, a little less than 1/3 still. That's a lot better than one. In fact, it's almost exactly double the probability. You paid for twice the effectiveness.

Now let's imagine that we take three Valks. The probability that none will survive is 125/216, or about 5/9. The probability that exactly one will survive is 75/216, or about 1/3. The probability that two will survive is 15/216 or about 1/18, and the probability that all three would survive is 1/216. The probability that a Valkyrie will survive is 91/216, slightly more than 5/12.

Now, this seems fairly linear, until we take a look again at the assumption we made at the beginning; a constant ratio of anti-armor to Valkyries (in order to produce a constant survivability). If your opponent devotes the same amount of anti-armor to two or even three Valkyries, the rest of your tanks will run rampant over his army. If he does not keep devoting so many anti-armor units to your Valkyries (because he's worried about your tanks too or because he simply doesn't have that much anti-armor), then the probability of them surviving goes up further, more than a linear cost-to-survivability ratio. That is a good thing.

This method is reasonably expensive, though, and is termed "overloading" because you have overloaded the opponent's capacity to take down armor effectively. However, you were already using this strategy in the form of your chimeras.

EDIT: Your opponent's cost in points of anti-armor goes up proportionally with your cost in Valkyries. That quite quickly adds up to some large costs on his part.

Alright... main point of that wall of text... more Valkyries = more survivability for themselves
or other armor.

 

[SimSnow]

I'd try to fit in another one. I'm sure you can have success with just one, but they are cheap enough that there aren't a lot of reasons why you shouldn't take 2, other than not wanting to revise your list.

 

[Proiteus]

Damn as with all my armies I'm torn between effectiveness and display.
While I'm sure another Leman Russ would be more effective with the points, I really want to convert an airship valkyrie for my WW tech based guard as it would make a great centre piece for the army. But I don't wanna put so much effort into creating something if it's gonna be shot down in the first turn of every game.

 

[rafis117]

But I don't wanna put so much effort into creating something if it's gonna be shot down in the first turn of every game.

Then take two. Statistically, the more you take, the more likely they are to come through. See my above wall-of-text.

 

[Stradius]

Yeah, one can survive - for example, Outflanking every game. On the other hand, two gives you more options, and imagine how cool having two on the board would look!

 

[Mastershake]

If by one Valkyrie you mean 3 Vendettas, then yes, it's enough. Valkyries just don't fill a role the army is in terrible need of, the Vendetta is 140 pts of vehicle murder and still switch hits infantry nicely with heavy bolters. Minimum 2, 3 for best effect. There are other good fast choices, but all overshadowed by the Vendetta.

 

[IronWeevil]

Yeah, one can survive - for example, Outflanking every game. On the other hand, two gives you more options, and imagine how cool having two on the board would look!

holding them in reserve and deepstriking later can improve survival odds, and leave your opponent between a rock and a hard place mid game.