Land Speeder Squadrons

[breng77]

If you are taking 6 speeders then taking them in Squadrons is the obvious (and only) choice. I only run 3 in my list and as such would rather have 3 separate speeders, than 1 squad of 3.

 

Also the cover benefits while helpful often mean that one of your 2 speeders is not shooting, and if if can the same cover can be achieved by one speeder.

 

There are reasons for both configurations. If I had points I might go with 2 squads of 2 Typhoons, but my current list only has room for 3.

[Captain Idaho]

I beg your pardon people, I was of course wrong about shaken results, only counting stunned as shaken. But the point is still valid in that not being made to remain stationary greatly assists a squadron's over all survivability, especially late game when units are close and personally (you ain't going to avoid the enemy forever and I've lost more vehicles to being immobilised/stunned the turn previous and assaulted the next turn).

 

Anyway, the firepower of a squadron does work out more successful than same numbers of solo Landspeeders. It's nothing math-hammer can prove, it's more of a case where you roll quantity to overcome results that aren't statistically likely but turn up every game.

[breng77]

Anyway, the firepower of a squadron does work out more successful than same numbers of solo Landspeeders. It's nothing math-hammer can prove, it's more of a case where you roll quantity to overcome results that aren't statistically likely but turn up every game.

 

This is only true if you have more speeders total. Which is obviously True. Otherwise shots are shots. What you are refering to is the law of large numbers, which states that the more times you perform and experiment (in this case rolling dice) the more likely you are to recieve the expected result. i.e. if you roll three 3+ armor saves it is entirely possible that you will faill all 3, if you roll 3000 armor saves you are likely to save 2/3rds of the results. Therefore the more dice you roll the more likely you are to roll odds. However, 2 solo speeders roll the same number of dice, as 2 squadroned speeders, therefore this does not apply in this case. As far as damage output and odds 2 speeders are 2 speeders, regardless of whether they are in a squad or not. Rolling more dice at one time does not effect this at all.

 

AS for ignoring stunned it is certainly nice, but you are just as likely to be immobilized which in a squadron = dead. Both set ups have their advantages, but given the same number of speeders damage output is the same (unless you are using templates /blasts on small squads). The only difference comes in that 2 separate speeders can threaten more targets simultaneously. They also take more squads being dedicated to killing them to kill them in one turn (one squad can kill a squad of speeders, but cannot kill 2 separate speeders, unless that squad is long fangs.)

[Brother Captain Michael]

Your mathhammer, Breng, is correct. But consider your statistics in a different light. First, let us agree that landspeeder is 50% effective against target. Second, let us assume that the dice results are average. Idaho's squad of 2 achieves it's desired effect (2 @ 50% = 100%) against a single target. Your individual speeders should have the same effect against a single target (same math as you've pointed out), but can engage two targets. Should you engage two targets, probability suggests that you will achieve your desired effect once and the second target will be unscathed. While it is entirely possible that you will achieve two desired results, the odds are just as likely that you will achieve zero desired results.

 

Anyone would prefer one effective unit to two ineffective units, just like anyone would prefer two effective units to one effective unit. Idaho wants 100% effectiveness. You prefer to gamble, taking a spread of 200% - 0% (which averages at 100%) over Idaho's (not actual) guarantee.

 

My opinion regarding the original post is that MM speeders should be in teams of one because their threat is significant even when solo and small arms fire is bad news for squads. Typhoons, with their greater range can avoid small arms but must still be wary of massed medium to heavy firepower.

[breng77]

Except the math does not work out like that. Lets consider shooting at A rhino. A typhoon ML has a 22% chance of Destroying said rhino (lets assume for this argument that this is the desired result.) So 2 Typhoons have about a 44% chance of achieving this result. Still not all that likely. But in the rare event that the first Typhoon ML, destroys that Rhino, now my other Speeder has can shoot at another Rhino and possibly (About 1 out of 5 times) destroy it as well, whereas in the squadroned case, I kill one rhino and have no more shots. Now the odds of destroying both rhinos is exceedingly rare about 1.2%, but it is still greater than zero. Now if I definitely want to destroy the Rhino I will have the same exact odds if I choose to fire both, but now I have the option to achieve more.

 

It comes down to this we both kill the Rhino 44% of the time, but 1.2 % of the time I kill 2 Rhinos.

 

Now what if I am happy with that same Rhino not moving (assuming no EA), I can do this 26% of the time with 1 Typhoon (52% with 2). And 6.7 % of the time I will stop both.

 

The final word is that I can achieve the exact same odds of achieving my goal, and maintain the ability to do more.

 

What it comes down to is that you are assuming I am deciding to split fire before I shoot, now maybe I will, but I can also shoot one speeder, see what happens, and then shoot the other (at whatever target I choose assuming I have LOS). SO If I shoot a target, and fail, I can shoot the same target again. So using your math, I have 100% success on the first speeder, but 50% of the time I have Success on the target and then have 50% on another target. So 25% of the time I achieve double success. Meaning that i always have 125% success vs his 100%, because 100% of the time I will be successful on target one, and 25% of the time I will also be succesful on target 2. The real math is much lower as I pointed out, but in no way does giving up the ability to shoot multiple targets make you more effective. The only thing that does this is positioning yourself in such a way where you are locked into separate targets.

 

I do agree that MM speeders in teams is a good idea as when you are getting that close, you are likely to want to make sure you kill what you shoot at, and you only have 1 shot each (in most cases), and if you fail, your speeder will likely die.

[breng77]

I do agree that MM speeders in teams is a good idea as when you are getting that close, you are likely to want to make sure you kill what you shoot at, and you only have 1 shot each (in most cases), and if you fail, your speeder will likely die.

[DarkGuard]

I do agree that MM speeders in teams is a good idea as when you are getting that close, you are likely to want to make sure you kill what you shoot at, and you only have 1 shot each (in most cases), and if you fail, your speeder will likely die.

 

Even then having a squadron of two MM/HF speeders doesn't do much better against a Land Raider. My inability to roll well with meltas and against vehicles lead to them doing nothing, and the assault cannon on the Raider wiped them out in one turn of shooting. Sometimes I wonder why I even try with fast melta :).

[breng77]

That is true, most people act like melta is auto death for vehicles, but that is hardly the case it is just the most effective short range anti-vehicle weapon.

 

A melta, in 2D6 range has about a 39% chance of penetrating a landraider and a 9% chance of glancing, so 48% of the time you will achieve some result with a melta gun. Less than half the time. (which means statistically 2 MM speeders should achieve a damage result). However, if your goal is to destroy the Land raider, you only have about a 21% chance, or about 1 out of every 5 shots, which means 2 speeders are still fairly unlikely to destroy a land raider (42%). Now this is better than most other weapons, and things like taking Vulkan raise the odds quite a bit. (With twin linking the odds of penetrating goes up to 52%, and glancing up to 12% so you are 16% more likely to achieve a damage result, and 7% more likely (28%) to destroy said land raider.

[DarkGuard]

39% chance? I was under the impression that the average roll on 2D6 was a 7, thereby meaning a penetrating hit. Sure, you may roll less every once in a while, but once you penetrate you've got a 50% chance of blowing it up. I'm pretty sure melta is a little higher than you're saying it is Breng

[breng77]

Except that you only actually hit the Vehicle 67% of the time. and then penetrate 58% of those shots, so it is 39% (2/3*7/12=14/36 or 7/18=38.8889%)

[DarkGuard]

Except that you only actually hit the Vehicle 67% of the time. and then penetrate 58% of those shots, so it is 39% (2/3*7/12=14/36 or 7/18=38.8889%)

 

Fair enough, Mathhammer's not really my thing. All I know is that from experience single melta shots miss more than they should, and even when in pairs one will always miss while the other will fail to penetrate :lol:

[captain sox]

What about 3 Speeders in a Squad? IF you went with 2 Typoons and 1 HB Speeder. Is this a good setup or a waste of points?

 

Thanks

[LardO'Blood]

Well the typhoons will want to take out armor and the heavy bolter will want to take out infantry. It could work, but isn't a good synergy.

[DarkGuard]

What about 3 Speeders in a Squad? IF you went with 2 Typoons and 1 HB Speeder. Is this a good setup or a waste of points?

 

Thanks

 

I've heard of this one before, and the whole idea being that hits are allocated to the normal Speeder first, obviously the nastiest hits (like AP1 penetrating hits) are first to go on this Speeder. This protects your Typhoons from the first few shots in the game, unless those first few shots come from a Rifleman dread or another Typhoon squadron rather than single lascannon Razorbacks.

 

Personally, I'd only take it if I had a spare 50pts, meaning I wouldn't try and fit the extra Speeder in, but I'd keep it at the back of my mind.

[Captain Idaho]

I got a little lost on the Math-hammer, but isn't two 22% chances NOT the same as a single 44% attempt at something? I'm all but certain a single 44% works out better. It's certainly better to have a good chance of destroying something than two meagre attempts of destroying 2 separate attempts.

 

If that is the case, then a pair of squadroned Typhoons are definitely than solo Typhoons at killing armoured units in one go.

[LardO'Blood]

I think I can see where you're confused. It's not that you can "reroll" the failed 78% but that you have two tries. In slightly more "visual" terms, if I kick a book with a 10N force, the same force is applied if I have a friend kick it with me and we both kick it and apply 5N. Since both times 10N are applied, the book will move the same distance (If you negate that the feet are striking at different points and may perhaps unbalance the direction of the force book, etc.).

 

At least I'm 99% sure that's right.

[Tech Brother Torgo]

I'm pretty sure the math-hammer works out that separate and identical volleys with Krak at vehicles are the same. Either way it's 4 missiles launched, no more no less. The only difference from an attacker's standpoint is you have the option to fire 2 at a target followed by 2 at either the same or a different target vs. 4 at one target. Only difference on the attack is flexibility.

[Tech Brother Torgo]

I'm pretty sure the math-hammer works out that separate and identical volleys with Krak at vehicles are the same. Either way it's 4 missiles launched, no more no less. The only difference from an attacker's standpoint is you have the option to fire 2 at a target followed by 2 at either the same or a different target vs. 4 at one target. Only difference on the attack is flexibility.

[Captain Idaho]

I dunno, Im fairly sure that measuring statistical probability and the physics of kinetic force and enegery are a little tenuous.

 

Regardless, we have some Math-Hammer wizards here who are dying to help us out, right? I know I've sparred with a few on this very forum! (wink wink)

 

***EDIT*** had a little go on math-hammer, don't know if I got it right, but I make it a 0:87 chance to destroy a vehicle with for Krak missiles fired simultaneously. I make it 0.43 to do so with 2 Krak missiles. I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure you don't just double 0.43 as it is a separate event.

[LardO'Blood]

Erm. Mind showing your math? We are assuming it is a rhino's front armor aren't we?

2/3 (hit) * 1/2 (penetrate) * 1/3 (destroy/explode) = 2/9 = 22.222222% to destroy or explode a rhino firing a single krak missile at it's front armor and you have 4 tries either way so, 22% + 22% + 22% + 22% = 88%

[breng77]

Nope there is no way that is the probability. Also, 4 Shots and 2 x 2 shots are exactly the same probability wise. It is a case of an "Or" statement in compound probability (being a former math teacher comes in handy for some things after all ;) )

 

Here is the breakdown. A Krak missile fired at any target by a space marine has a 2/3 chance to hit. Against an AV 11 Rhino (you need the specific vehicle or at least armor to do the math) A S 8 shot glances on a 3 and penetrates on a 4, 5, or 6. If we are looking at destroyed then we need only concern ourselves with penetrating (unless we want to get really complex and look at the odds of doing enough Weapon destroyed and immobilized results in one shot to cause a vehicle destroyed (which is 3 results for an un-upgraded rhino)). Anyway, if we look just at penetrating there is a 1/2 chance on a D6 that I will roll a 4, 5, or 6. Finally for a destroyed result, I will need to roll either a 5 or a 6 on the vehicle damage table, which is 1/3rd of all results. Thus, the probability of a single krak missile destroying a vehicle is 2/3*1/2*1/3 = 2/18 or 1/9=11.1111%.

 

Now we need to look at multiple shots, and we want to find out the probability of either: first shot destroys OR second shot destroys OR third shot destroys OR fourth shot destroys. For an OR statement in probability we add the individual probabilities up so we get 1/9 + 1/9 + 1/9 + 1/9 = 4/9 or 44.4444%. It is irrelevant whether I roll one handful of 4 dice, or 2 handfuls of 2 dice, or 4 handfuls of one die each, or 1 die, followed by 3 die. The groupings do not matter.

 

Consider the 2 separate speeders either the first speeder destroys (2/9) OR the second speeder destroys (2/9)= 2/9 + 2/9 = 4/9. The probability is the same. The only thing that effects this is if you fire more missiles on the target than I do, which is not the case in this instance.

[Disruptor_fe404]

I am wondering how you justify having two MM on a speeder if it can only use one at a time, if you move? Is there some new rule???

 

Move 6", fire both. I'm the guy that zooms up 24" behind a building one turn, then next turn pops 6" out and craters something. Hard.

[Mysticaria]

I am wondering how you justify having two MM on a speeder if it can only use one at a time, if you move? Is there some new rule???

 

Move 6", fire both. I'm the guy that zooms up 24" behind a building one turn, then next turn pops 6" out and craters something. Hard.

It takes the first weapon destroyed out of play somewhat.

 

Also... just caught up with this thread and wanted to point out that Breng is right on with the mathhamer. He's got a good grasp on probability.

 

-Myst

[breng77]

Thanks Myst :huh:. To all others, don't take my math as to that you should never run squaded speeders, they have their own advantages (getting cover, keeping moving, etc.) and some people are more comfortable rolling large handfuls of dice (some how if feels better when your squad of speeders succeeds at something, then when 1 speeder succeeds and the other fails...though it feels better when both succeed ;) ) . Again if I had points to take more speeders in m current list I would run a squadron or 2, but I don't have the points to spare, and would rather run them separate until I get to at least 4 speeders total, b/c in my opinion, for 3 or fewer speeders the advantages (mathematically and otherwise) of single speeders, out weight those of the squadron.

[Captain Idaho]

You know breng77, it could be that very same thing; I do feel better having a posititve result for both my Landspeeders, rather than having one flump it's attack and the other do more!

 

I don't doubt yours or anyone elses math (I know when math looks right to me, my eyes start to glaze when trying to comprehend it!).

 

For the record, here is what I worked out:

 

4x krak missiles against AV12 in the open.

 

4x missiles hitting 2/3 of the time = 2.64 hits (multiplied 4 by 0.66)

 

2.64 hits chance of getting penetrating hits 1/3 of the time = 0.87

 

I realised I never calculated the chance of destroyed results, which using my method is 0.28.

 

So is this right? What am I doing wrong if I am?

 

Using this method, 2 missiles have half the chance. But I'm sure I read somewhere that probability doesn't stack, so doing 2 missiles twice doesn't give the same result as 4 straight off. I mean, we have played computor games where chance was part of it and the 14% chance happens too rarely to be useful in our game plan, whilst the larger percentage becomes useful.

 

If I'm completely off the mark here then just tell me!