Land Speeder Squadrons

[Meatman]

I'm afraid, Captain Idaho, I can see where you are coming from, however, breng77 is correct.

 

2 lots of 2 dice yields the same as 1 lot of 4, but if those first 2 achieve the result, then the second 2 can be directed elsewhere. Such as the occupants of said rhino.

 

 

 

I always take my speeders in squadrons, but breng77 is correct this time.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't doubt he isn't right, I just don't understand why, ha!

 

Don't waste your time explaining, I will just accept it like I accept that my TV works. I'm a word-smith, not a mathagician!

[breng77]

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?

 

The destroyed result at 28% sounds about right for AV 12, using 4 missiles. But you are wrong about the difference of doing 2 missiles twice and 4 missiles together. Here is where I think the confusion is.

 

I'm looking at an either or situation, in that case the probabilities are added, I think you are remembering a case where and "AND" is being used. The probability of 4 missiles destroying a vehicle is higher than 2 missiles destroying a vehicle and 2 other missiles destroying a vehicle. Much higher in fact (using your case 2/3(hit)*1/3(penetrate)*1/3 (destroy)=2/27*2shots=4/27, for an and to happen I need both things to happen and it is 4/27*4/27 or 16/729=2.1%). Probabilities don't stack if you are looking for multiple successes, however, if I just need one successful result out of 4 tries, each try increases my odds. It does not matter if I use all my chances in one shot or separately.

[Captain Idaho]

Thats cool, I'm not a complete idiot then! Will try and remember that probabilities don't stack for separate events, but on the same one they do.

 

Cheers!

[Brother Tual]

I dont like the squadron rules so I avoid it if I can... At the end of the day typhoons shoot and all squadron rules do is decrease my shooting... an immobilised speeder can shoot... a squadroned one cant... everything else is the same. Mobility does not keep a typhoon alive. Its range does.

 

I dont like math hammer..., it is mis-leading... a die is a random generator, not a mathematical equation. You cant work it out... much like roulette... grumble

[breng77]

I dont like math hammer..., it is mis-leading... a die is a random generator, not a mathematical equation. You cant work it out... much like roulette... grumble

 

Except that you can work out Roulette using probability, hence why some bets have better returns than others (I believe any number is 35:1 and betting Red or black is 1:1, the odds against winning on a number are greater so the casino pays you more if you do). A dice is not a random generator, it can only generate the numbers 1-6 and each with an equal chance (assuming a fair dice). Therefore it is safe to assume, that you have a 1/6 chance of rolling any one number. You can say that mathhammer is misleading, but that is only because you probably don't understand its application. Mathhammer presents the odds of something happening. This is only useful over a larger sample(law of large numbers mentioned earlier), but if gives you a decent idea of your chances of being succesful at something, this type of analyisis does not in any way take the place of experience. It does however, help get around the early assumptions that people make ("I have a melta gun so I should be able to easily kill that land raider"). The issue people have with math hammer is that while a single event(say making a 2+ armor save) may seem great( you make that save about 83% of the time) on any one roll failure is still possible. Any game in generall has too few rolls to guarantee the statistical average.

 

Going back to Roulette. The odds of hitting any one number is 1/37, which suggests that that number will come up one out of every 37 spins of the wheel, the problem is that even if you spin the wheel 37 times, there is no guarantee that you will get that number. However if you spun the wheel say 1,000,000 times the results would bear out that 1 out of 37 spins will be the given number. That number might appear several times in a row, and then not again for a while.

 

I'm sure we've all had games where a squad dies down to one guy failing more saves than they should have, but then that one guy makes 10 saves in a row to live.

[Panda_]

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%

Wrong. 2/3 (hit) * 1/2 (penetrate) * 1/3 (destroy/explode) = 1/9

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%

Wrong again.

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%.

Wrong again, while you have a good grasp of probabilities. It's the same mistake as above.

 

Let me explain this is from 2 different angles:

• This first explaination is merely to state how absurd that result is. You say that a SM firing a Krak missile have 1/9 chances to destroy a Rhino. You say that 2 Kraks have 2/9 chances to destroy a vehicule... that 4 kraks have 4/9 chances to destroy a vehicule... You say that 9 kraks have 9/9 chances to destroy a vehicule... you say that 10 kraks have 10/9 chances (111%) to destroy a vehicule. Doesn't something troubles you ? Yes a probability goes from 0 to 1. It can't be negative, nor over 100%.
  You can't add individual probabilities if they share a common possibility (in this example, 2+ kraks destroy the vehicule). In 40k, never add probabilities together. What you can do however is multiplying them together. That's what happens when you say AND. As an example: Probability that A and B happens (A and B distincts) is pAB = pA * pB.
  
• A single Krak missile have 1/9 chances to destroy the Rhino. That means that a single Krak Missile have 1 - 1/9 chances not to destroy it. That's precisely 8/9. What's the probability that a Rhino survive 4 kraks (baring the destroyed result cumulatives: Immobilised + Weapon destroyed, that's a little more complicated).
  You've got it in the bull's eye: (8/9) * (8/9) * (8/9) * (8/9).
  Now that you know if survivability chances you can get it's chances to be destroyed by 4 kraks Missiles: 37% = 1 - (8/9) * (8/9) * (8/9) * (8/9)
  By the way, the chances that 10 Kraks Missile destroy a Rhino are : 69% = 1 - (8/9)^10
   
  The events "a Krak Missile doesn't destroy a Rhino" are independant from each other.
  

 

[Edit] Bolding results

[Brother Tual]

I get that math hammer is a system of working out probability.. I have played enough games to know that unless you can predict exactly a dice roll (wooo...) then you are largely wasting your time because, as you said...

on any one roll failure is still possible. Any game in generall has too few rolls to guarantee the statistical average.

and without enough rolls (unless you play mobs of 30 orks) generating a statistical average you are largely trying to predict a RESULT or the PROBABILITY of a result using something that generates a RANDOM number between 1-6 (seriously, are you saying a die is not a random generator because it is bound by the number of sides it has?)

 

If a die rolled a single time had a average I would agree with it as a system but since I am just as likely to roll a 1 or a 4 I am not going to count the odds. Same as roulette, yes, there are odds to attract bets, but every time the wheel is spun the 'odds' of a number/colour are re-set and the previous spin has no bearing on if it is going to be red/green/black. People count cards.. not roulette or dice games.. Thats how I see it... I am happy if math hammer is a system that works for you... but rolling the dice and counting the odds just frustrates me... more so when I fail 4 out of 5 2+ saves knowing full well that I had a 2% chance of getting that result.. (I just made that 2% up...)

[breng77]

Looking at it Pandas System is actually more accurate, than my own (figuring out durability of the target and working in reverse, something I had not considered, I'm awy too out of practice with my probability I guess) fine work sir in either case the probability remains the same regardless of how you group your shots.

 

If a die rolled a single time had a average I would agree with it as a system but since I am just as likely to roll a 1 or a 4 I am not going to count the odds. Same as roulette, yes, there are odds to attract bets, but every time the wheel is spun the 'odds' of a number/colour are re-set and the previous spin has no bearing on if it is going to be red/green/black. People count cards.. not roulette or dice games.. Thats how I see it... I am happy if math hammer is a system that works for you... but rolling the dice and counting the odds just frustrates me... more so when I fail 4 out of 5 2+ saves knowing full well that I had a 2% chance of getting that result.. (I just made that 2% up...)

 

No one is saying you must use math hammer only that it has, a use. Just like in Dice or Roulette(or insurance for that matter), that information can be used to inform your betting. If I have a choice between 2 bets with the same payoff (which is often the case in 40k), I'll take the one with better odds. If you chose not to, that is fine as well. Basically given a choice of a multimelta shooting at a land speeder and a bolter, I'll take the melta. Not that you need math hammer for this, and if you have the practical experience you can get by on that just as well because you know what works, in gerneral and for you specifically. What I generally use math hammer for is to check myself, and information from others. I also use it to make caluclated risks. Again something you can learn through experience, something that obviously works for you.

 

Also, while dice are indeed random they are with in the realm of being able to accuratley predict a set of results, not individual results.

[Mysticaria]

I think we should clarify "never add probabilities". Check here for the wiki on probability

 

The probability that at least one of series of events occuring, some event "OR" another, is P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B). This is in fact adding probabilities. You want to know how likely it is to roll 3+ you need to add probability for rolling a 3 to the probability of rolling a 4, etc... Each result is likely to occur 1/6 of the time so through addition we get 4/6 probability.

 

However, when A and B are not mutually exclusive (i.e. when they share the same results) the probability becomes P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A+B). This is where I think Breng went wrong, since he didn't reduce the overall probability for those times when multiple missiles would produce kills. For example, the second missile in the volley normally has an 11% chance to wreck a rhino.... but only on those times when the rhino isn't already wrecked. Well, if the first missile has already been fired we can assulme that 11% of the time it isn't going to wreck the rhino since it is already wrecked. The second missile has .11 * .89 probability to kill the rhino (i.e. about 9.8%). This is still adding the two probabilites (11% + 9%), but it doesn't include the likliness of mutual exclusivity (11% + 11%). This should account for the difference between 37% and 44% in the math on 4 krak missiles.

 

Panda's method uses the Complementary Event method to rephrase the probability question from one of 'OR' to one of "AND. This changes the equation to P(A + B) = P(A) * P(B). Hence, the math of .89 * .89 * .89 * .89 is correct. In fact, this could be the simpler way to solve this problem since it effectively takes away the need to calculate mutual exclusivity. Simple, effective, and also the same line of thinking we normally use to calculate things like vehicle wrecks (chance to hit + chance to pen + chance to wreck requires all three so this is an "AND" probability question) so I think I'm going to use this route from now on.

 

Still, I want to point out that the "never add probability" rules is a simplification and not strictly accurate. When computing "OR" you definately add (and not multiply) probabilities. Breng was right on with the equation, and the problem wasn't with addition versus multiplication, it was with mutual exclusivity.

 

-Myst

[Captain Idaho]

I think what Brother Tual is saying is he doesn't like playing 40k purely based upon what events he stands most chance of achieving, rather playing a risk and reward and tactical choices in game. To be honest I still agree with him, as that's how I play. Of course we are both are aware of how likely you are to acheive an action in the game, that chance just doesn't govern our decisions on the table.

 

Taking what Panda said about math-hammer probabilities, can I assume everything else is the same? 4 krak missiles are still the same liklihood of destroying a vehicle as 2 fired twice (separately).

[Mysticaria]

I think what Brother Tual is saying is he doesn't like playing 40k purely based upon what events he stands most chance of achieving, rather playing a risk and reward and tactical choices in game. To be honest I still agree with him, as that's how I play. Of course we are both are aware of how likely you are to acheive an action in the game, that chance just doesn't govern our decisions on the table.

 

Taking what Panda said about math-hammer probabilities, can I assume everything else is the same? 4 krak missiles are still the same liklihood of destroying a vehicle as 2 fired twice (separately).

 

Are you saying that you chose events that are "less likely to happen" in game for some reason? Are you playing for fluff? Trying to pull off EPIC moves? Or just pursuing a high risk-reward option? I think your personal experiences having played a lot of games has probably ingrained a 'felt understanding' of probabilities, and your knowledge of what units can do is probably giving you a solid grasp of what to kill and what to ignore. Some players, especially those without the years of experience, need to calculate those probabilities since they haven't the depth of game experience to lean on when playing. To me, that's where the math helps out. I know my opponants threats are tough, but if I am much more likely to kill one then the other... it helps me decide what to shoot at.

 

And yes... the probabilities are the same if you are talking about killing only 1 target. The difference only comes in when that 20% of the time that the first two missiles were enough to kill the target, you don't have to waste the second two missiles if you don't want to. Technically, you have about 20% chance to kill the rhino with the first two shots so by extrapolation the second speeder would be that much more effective if it wasn't in a squadron.

 

Just a disclaimer... I play two typhoons in my tournament list as the only fast attack choice and I squadron them. I like rolling 4 dice at a time, and I like the squadron rules for typhoons (since an imob speeder is not that useful in my opinion, since kill points count, and since weapon destroyed results hurt typhoons and I can stack them onto one speeder keeping one missile launching longer).

 

-Myst

[breng77]

However, when A and B are not mutually exclusive (i.e. when they share the same results) the probability becomes P(A or :P = P(A) + P(:huh: - P(A+B). This is where I think Breng went wrong, since he didn't reduce the overall probability for those times when multiple missiles would produce kills.

 

Yup that is exactly my mistake.

 

Taking what Panda said about math-hammer probabilities, can I assume everything else is the same? 4 krak missiles are still the same liklihood of destroying a vehicle as 2 fired twice (separately).

 

Yes they are, it is 37.5 % either way.

 

I think what Brother Tual is saying is he doesn't like playing 40k purely based upon what events he stands most chance of achieving, rather playing a risk and reward and tactical choices in game. To be honest I still agree with him, as that's how I play. Of course we are both are aware of how likely you are to acheive an action in the game, that chance just doesn't govern our decisions on the table.

 

Well to some extent I would hope that the chance does govern your choices at times, as it does mine. For example, you are likely not going to charge a squad of 9 Orks with a single space marine attack bike under most circumstances, because it is fairly likely that you will lose the bike, and pretty unlikely that you will do much damage. However, their are circumstances where I have done just that inspite of the odds, but only when the possible gain outweights the probable loss. I.e. if you don't charge you definitely lose the game, but charging gives you the chance to win if you get lucky.

[Captain Idaho]

To explain further how I make my decicions, I play the odds as best I can but some times I need to destroy something that is statistically less likely.

 

Also, sometimes it is pointless firing at a target despite it being the best target for you to deal with. An example is that unit of full Tactical Marines with heavy bolter hiding in a Rhino on an objective I can never reach vs a combi-Predator (front armour). There is nothing I can do to deal with those Tactical Marines since they can hide behind the Rhino & I'm never going to finish off the squad. So I may as well shoot at the Predator instead of the Rhino, because I will at least stand a chance of stopping those guns destroyinh something of mine.

 

Of course that example is loose, but you get the point.

[breng77]

Of course that is called target priority, which if you are a good player should never revolve around what you are most likely to kill. It is more that you should choose the best unit for a job, under the circumstances.

[Zynk Kaladin]

This discussion on probability has been really enlightening. It always confused me until now. Thanks guys!

 

I still think putting the typhoons in squadrons is a better idea because you only get 3 fast attack force org slots. Personally, I want more than 3 landspeeders in my list.

 

 

Just for fun I wanted to see the chances of a typhoon stunning or better a land raider. This is my first attempt at Mathammer so correct me if I'm wrong:

 

2/3 (hit) * 1/6 (glance) * 1/2 (stunning/weapon destroyed/immobilized) = 1/18

 

Survivability of the land raider : 17/18 or .944

 

Chances to stun or better with 4 Krak Missiles: 1 - [ 0.944 * 0.944 * 0.944 * 0.944 ] = 20.44%

 

Hah this is pretty fun...

[breng77]

I still think putting the typhoons in squadrons is a better idea because you only get 3 fast attack force org slots. Personally, I want more than 3 landspeeders in my list.

 

absolutely if you want more Land speeders, or otehr FA choices. Given that I run a Bike army, I find that I don't really need the extra FA slots (nor do I have the points, if I move my list up to 2k or higher I may add more speeders.)

[Panda_]

Just for fun I wanted to see the chances of a typhoon stunning or better a land raider. This is my first attempt at Mathammer so correct me if I'm wrong:

 

2/3 (hit) * 1/6 (glance) * 1/2 (stunning/weapon destroyed/immobilized) = 1/18

 

Survivability of the land raider : 17/18 or .944

 

Chances to stun or better with 4 Krak Missiles: 1 - [ 0.944 * 0.944 * 0.944 * 0.944 ] = 20.44%

Correct.

[Brother Tual]

If math hammer works for you, thats great. Math hammer is fine if it your system... I dont think it takes into account outside things like threat level, positioning etc etc and to me, at the end of the day it means little because you are just as likely to roll a 1 as you are 5 despite the odds of a result. I understand that it may help with target priority vs unit application and yes, you can say that odds effect my gaming (shooting a plasma cannon at a pred vs a group of termies) but that is just plain simple..

 

 

back on topic...

 

if you are running 4 or more typhoons you have to squadron some of them... simple..

 

if you have maxed out your FA you might have to squadron...

 

otherwise I cant see the value in it. I dont think that the rules were designed to increase effectiveness but designed to reduce it (much like multiple heavy weapons cost more in devs etc) because otherwise it would not be a fair option..

 

1) - actual survivability - The rules dont make speeders more survivable at all. infact, it does the opposite as a glace (barring ap1) has 0% chance of killing a single speeder (unless it is multiple glances). At the most basic level, a squadron will not keep any speeder alive for longer.. it will kill them off quicker.

 

2) - multiple hits - 2 speeders are 2 threats where as one squadron of 2 speeders is still one threat. It is easier to deal with one threat than two as two threats will inevitably draw more resources to kill. It also brings into play multiple shots (say a rapid fire tact squad or dakka pred) being able to destroy both threats in one shooting phase rather than having to spend 2 phases to get the same result. The only time a squadron may help is when taking a single shot as you can allocated the hit on an already damaged speeder but this is highly situational (I have a damaged speeder and I am now taking a single shot - not very common..) I dont think it is worth it.

 

3) - stunned v shaken - If played at range (typhoon) this makes almost no difference. The effect that is important is no shooting... sure you can move the speeder behind something ready to shoot next turn but what ever shot at your speeder is now shooting at something else because YOU have denied the target threat... Just the same as you I dont like my speeders being shot at but drawing a lasconnon away from my actual game winning units (rhino + tacts or vindi or dreads) has some value (remember that a lascannon has less than 50% of killing a speeder and is comparable to the odds of busting open a dread..- some one want to math it out?)

 

4) Immobile vs dead - obvious winner here - I some times put my typhoons in terrain so I may not move them till late game anyway.. a well positioned speeder (even a MM/HF) is still a threat even if immobile. Sure it is easier to deal with but it will require SOME resources to remove and it is still a threat.

 

5) Kill points - Squadrons are stronger here but only because it is harder to remove two speeders at once rather than removing only one.. however, it is harder to remove two single speeders than to remove two speeders in one squadron.. Fetching the two kill points is going to be harder despite giving away one easier... if that makes sense?

 

I havent spoken much about offensive output as multiple units of single speeders will always beat single units of multiple speeders in any situation. (maybe template love and wound allocation may suffer a little bit, but really.. not a game winner)

[breng77]

If math hammer works for you, thats great. Math hammer is fine if it your system... I dont think it takes into account outside things like threat level, positioning etc etc and to me, at the end of the day it means little because you are just as likely to roll a 1 as you are 5 despite the odds of a result. I understand that it may help with target priority vs unit application and yes, you can say that odds effect my gaming (shooting a plasma cannon at a pred vs a group of termies) but that is just plain simple..

 

I would certainly never advocate using mathhammer as the only method for determining things in a game. It is just another tool in my tool box, and not even the most useful. And yes you are just as likely to roll a 1 as a 5, but not as likely as rolling a 3+ :lol:

 

That said I agree with your assessment of speeders, it is pretty much the same as mine, 2 separate speeders = 2 threats > 1 threat.

[Mysticaria]

Brother Taul: you make really good points but I want to point out that with Typhoons the squadron can help keep a typhoon launcher around longer by stacking weapon destroyed results. If a single speeder takes a weapon destroyed, now it's down to one heavy bolter. Meanwhile, the squadron now has an ablative wound attached to it so that other weapon destroyed results can stay away from the other typhoon(s). Wound allocation tricks aren't too common, but they do happen enough to point out that it is a small advantage of squadrons.

 

-Myst

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I dont like the squadron rules so I avoid it if I can... At the end of the day typhoons shoot and all squadron rules do is decrease my shooting... an immobilised speeder can shoot... a squadroned one cant... everything else is the same. Mobility does not keep a typhoon alive. Its range does.

 

I dont like math hammer..., it is mis-leading... a die is a random generator, not a mathematical equation. You cant work it out... much like roulette... grumble

I get that math hammer is a system of working out probability.. I have played enough games to know that unless you can predict exactly a dice roll (wooo...) then you are largely wasting your time because, as you said...

on any one roll failure is still possible. Any game in generall has too few rolls to guarantee the statistical average.

and without enough rolls (unless you play mobs of 30 orks) generating a statistical average you are largely trying to predict a RESULT or the PROBABILITY of a result using something that generates a RANDOM number between 1-6 (seriously, are you saying a die is not a random generator because it is bound by the number of sides it has?)

 

If a die rolled a single time had a average I would agree with it as a system but since I am just as likely to roll a 1 or a 4 I am not going to count the odds. Same as roulette, yes, there are odds to attract bets, but every time the wheel is spun the 'odds' of a number/colour are re-set and the previous spin has no bearing on if it is going to be red/green/black. People count cards.. not roulette or dice games.. Thats how I see it... I am happy if math hammer is a system that works for you... but rolling the dice and counting the odds just frustrates me... more so when I fail 4 out of 5 2+ saves knowing full well that I had a 2% chance of getting that result.. (I just made that 2% up...)

 

Mathammer is not misleading. Mathhammer is enlightening ;) People are misleading :P

Now I am assuming that you like to work on educated hunches, so forgive me if I am off base here, and you feel mathhammer takes some magic out of the game, cool.

However, when people start to say that mathhammer says this is the best and this is weak, then they are misunderstanding how to apply mathammer and mathhammer gets a bad wrap. Because mathhammer indicates this, it doesn't mean that it shall be so.

 

Mathhammer 'should' be generally coinciding with what you, as an experienced gamer, feels like should happen. The more dice rolled means the more likely for things to average out. Yes of course things will go awry but then do your hunches work 100%? Surely not.

 

Would you then say that those 4 dead Terminators now equates to the unit being a poor one that shouldn't be taken? Of course not. Dice happen. But mathhammer tells you that Termies are twice and survivable against small arms fire and so quite tough, especially when used wisely and not allowing the foe to throw handfuls of dice to get them from the table.

Mathhammer tells you that Termies are tough. Experience just told you that Termies are flimsy....

 

You cannot be saying, forget mathhammer, las cannons are just as killy of tanks as multi-meltas are.

Or, I know what mathhammer says, but I only pick s10 TWC because I 'feel' they are a good unit at killing AV.

That is just silly.

 

Dudes say, Grey Hunters are really good in combat, etc. Mathhammer tells us otherwise. They are competent, not good. "But in my experience, they take heads." Yes, and?

 

Relying on hunches really isn't the best way to go. You need to know the mathhammer, have game experience [which gives you hunches] and give the dice a chance, even if it isn't 'likely'.

Blend the three. That is the key ;)

 

Science is excellent, especially when people apply it with hunches.

Maths says this stock is good to buy, but I know [through] experience that now is not the right time. Experience wins.

Maths says this is good ground to build on, but experience tells me that this area is a bad place for a shopping centre as it is out of the way. Experience wins

Maths tells me that this ground is poor, though I feel the area could do with a shopping centre. Science wins and so we look for an area that can be built on economically, but still in the area, to cash in on the 'knowledge'

 

Do you see what I am saying?

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water :)

 

+++

 

On the Typhoons, where ever possible, field them as singles. However, if you want more Speeders than slots allow for, and you are taking both Typhoons and Tornados, then Typhoons become squadrons.

 

Squadrons are less tough than singles, although you can use the majority rule to get them both cover by only having one in cover [50% obscured] to somewhat offset the weakness.

Squadrons allow you to pack in more heat, which is helpful when you want to go slot X heavy or are playing in a large game and still use the one force chart. This is probably the domain of 2K+ point tournaments.

 

Typhoons are not survivable only because of the range of the MLs. It is also because of the manoeuvrability of of them.

Fangs can be advanced towards. Range does not keep them alive as it gets used up.

Tornados are fast. However, they need to get close and this puts them into danger.

 

The Typhoon, on the other hand, has both of these strengths. It has greater reach and can retreat just as, or nearly, as fast as it can be advanced upon. Combination.

That is why two Fang MLs cost half of what 2 ML shots on the Typhoon costs :)

[Brother Tual]

Myst - You are right, you can stack hits much like ablative wounds but you allocate the pens/glance.. not the actual results. For all the times I have used squadrons compared to when I havent I have prefered not using them. The ability to stack hits on damaged speeders is not offset, in my opinion, by loosing them on a 4+ rather than a 5+ (I am sure the math hammer here is fairly significant) and the fact that (given most low str AT weapons are multi shot - Ass. Cannon, multi laser, scatter laser, pulse laser, autocannon etc etc) I would rather not risk two or more speeders when only one needs to take the risk.. However, I concede that if you favour squadrons because it fits your list or playstyle better than go for it. Not squadronning is my favoured way of deploying and using speeders with the above being my reasons why.

 

Wilhelm - You hit it on the head, my bug bear with math hammer is that is all to often presented as fact and without a supporting 'hunch' or experience (we both know that experience doesnt mean that in one game my termies took on 70 wounds etc but means expected results or similar) So far the math hammer presented in this thread has been equating the output of 2 x typhoons compared to a squardon of 2 typhoons vs a rhino.. I see absolutely no value in this and I argue that it should not be a consideration at all when selecting the unit.. All that is important to know is that a typhoon CAN take out a rhino and is generally a good option vs AV 12 or less. Squadronning has no effect on either of these two considerations.

 

Cover is easy to get without hiding a model out of sight or similar. Denying LOS to a pred annihilator whislt taking a shot at a short range dread from beyond ITS range is far more of a survivable prospect.. 2 speeders are almost always going to give that annihilator a shot as you cant easily hide both speeders completely. I know there is more to it such as other units etc - but being able to pick my priorities or more to the point influence enemy threat so I can pick my priorities is how I play the game. (read my tactica - link in sig.)

[DerekLee688]

If I only ran 2-3 typhoons I'd want them on opposite sides of the board. However, the firepower they offer is too much for me to take less than 2x2. Squadrons are unavoidable, but my frag templates hit harder this way.

 

I perfer typnoons over MM/HF because they don't contribute to the "parking lot syndrome". When I got bikes + and an armored spearhead I don't need to maneuver around speeders on a board with the proper 25% terrain. I don't have alot of Land raiders in my meta, for me Str:8 Krak is just as good as Str:8 MM. That and I want to kill transports ASAAP(As Soon As Astartes Possible).

[Captain Idaho]

I'm now tempted to try a couple solo Typhoons, to see how they go. But I haven't had any bad experiences with them squadroned so far.