Night Shields effectiveness

There is an issue with trying to apply maths to a chaotic and random event. I think you can either take the side of Statistics where there is a 17% reduction in failure per jink taken with NS and if that additional 17% is worth the 15 points. Or you can look at it from a more lateral perspective and how the game develops and if that 3+ can give you an edge over the entire coarse of the game.

You cant combine them both unless you have a lot of time and a very powerful computer. But that would be dull and playtesting would be far more interesting and fun!

Aurynn, I started out agreeing with you, but as I worked out the math to support your theory, it didn't work out that way, and the math changed my mind.

Night shields are worth 15 points.
There are still plenty of vehicles/situations where you probably shouldn't buy them.

I agree with tittiewinks on the subject of night shields for a ravager. I think a lot of you are dismissing it because you don't want to jink with your ravager, but when I field one now I use it more like one of my chaos predator tanks and I sit it in cover and keep the movement to a minimum. Simple ruins, rubble, a forest, or even just intervening models let you enjoy a nice cover save without having to jink at all which is where the night shields become valuable for them.

The only other unit I find worth it to night shield up is the expensive WWP units I drop in behind the enemy and keep bouncing around in their ranks whether it be a unit of blasterborn, fire dragons, or medusae. I wouldn't do it with most other vehicles because I tend to focus on using range and los to protect the rest of my fleet.

Okay. I propose an experiment. In your battles, please take notes about how much firepower your NS-equipped vehicles are facing and how many times did the NS actually save your vehicle.

By saving a vehicle I mean rolling a "3" on jink or for example "4" in ruins cover - you get my meaning - AND preventing a loss of the vehicle. Which means - A Wave Serpent shot me with SL and Shield, rolled poorly and NS prevented the third HP loss or an explosion or second immo that would kill the vehicle. Preventing an explosion or second immo and loss of the vehicle from HP loss anyway does not count.

That should be fun enough. :-)

aurynn wrote:

Okay. I propose an experiment. In your battles, please take notes about how much firepower your NS-equipped vehicles are facing and how many times did the NS actually save your vehicle.

By saving a vehicle I mean rolling a "3" on jink or for example "4" in ruins cover - you get my meaning - AND preventing a loss of the vehicle. Which means - A Wave Serpent shot me with SL and Shield, rolled poorly and NS prevented the third HP loss or an explosion that would kill the vehicle. Preventing an explosion or second immo and loss of the vehicle from HP loss anyway does not count.

That should be fun enough. :-)

Defeats part of the point of them though. If my enemy has to fire another unit at the vehicle to destroy it thanks to Night Shields, then that's an alternative unit he's not shooting at and thus the night shields can earn back their points from more than just keeping one particular vehicle alive.

OFC. It boils down to the fact that even the brightest cannot possibly calculate all ends. Math is only as good as how deep it goes. The math I did does not go deep and value is not only in the "chance of being useful". It will fall on every Archon, Succubus and Haemi to weigh their effectiveness for their own. I myself find them lacking coz I can't fool with them anyone I play with as they are those who made me realize the numbers. And they dont kick in for me often enough either as I play really cheap units.

aurynn wrote:

OFC. It boils down to the fact that even the brightest cannot possibly calculate all ends. Math is only as good as how deep it goes. The math I did does not go deep and value is not only in the "chance of being useful". It will fall on every Archon, Succubus and Haemi to weigh their effectiveness for their own. I myself find them lacking coz I can't fool with them anyone I play with as they are those who made me realize the numbers. And they dont kick in for me often enough either as I play really cheap units.

Indeed, and it's one reason why I would never pick an army or upgrades based on mathammer alone. I think it's also why there will never be agreement between everyone on whether an upgrade like this is a good investment (consider camo netting on a wyvern for example, some will take it in some instances, others won't, but it will always be a judgement call based on your own army selection, the army you're facing, whether or not you're writing a TAC list or tailoring, which unit is actually in the vehicle etc)

lessthanjeff wrote:

I agree with tittiewinks on the subject of night shields for a ravager.  I think a lot of you are dismissing it because you don't want to jink with your ravager, but when I field one now I use it more like one of my chaos predator tanks and I sit it in cover and keep the movement to a minimum.

True, but due to the nature of the Ravagers weapon layout and the very narrow fire arcs its not that easy to find suitable cover in positions of value.
One of the best (if not cheapest) ways to protect them is a LOS Blocker like a Raider.
Hide Ravagers behind a Raider. In your movement move the raider away. In your shooting phase wreak havoc with your ravagers and after they did so turboboost the raider back to block LOS to your ravagers again.

Well I find it difficult to completely cover the Ravager with a Raider. But truth is that in every battle there are some redundant or not-ideal units that you can use as walls.

"Hellion-Wall" will be the new flickerfield

Grub wrote:

"Hellion-Wall" will be the new flickerfield

OOOOOH! That is what they are for! :-D

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

lessthanjeff wrote:

I agree with tittiewinks on the subject of night shields for a ravager.  I think a lot of you are dismissing it because you don't want to jink with your ravager, but when I field one now I use it more like one of my chaos predator tanks and I sit it in cover and keep the movement to a minimum.

True, but due to the nature of the Ravagers weapon layout and the very narrow fire arcs its not that easy to find suitable cover in positions of value.
One of the best (if not cheapest) ways to protect them is a LOS Blocker like a Raider.
Hide Ravagers behind a Raider. In your movement move the raider away. In your shooting phase wreak havoc with your ravagers and after they did so turboboost the raider back to block LOS to your ravagers again.

I've been trying to decide on a fortification to use for comms relay and potential AA, and one of the criteria I'm trying to include in the decision is if any of the fortifications would cover enough of the ravager for a cover save and still let it fire its weapons over the battlements unobstructed. I can't find anyone that has an assembled imperial bunker or firestorm redoubt, but I've already ruled out the aegis for that as it's too short.

In the meantime, I've always been able to deploy into a suitable forest or behind some ruins on a table, but in times of desperation I have used reavers and venoms for what you're describing. For the dilapidated wall terrain pieces and forests, my club plays that when you're in or touching the cover you can shoot out of it regardless of exactly where the barrel is positioned since they are adjustable.

lessthanjeff wrote:

but I've already ruled out the aegis for that as it's too short.  

You know, I was thinking about this the other day: Is there anything that stops you from stacking sections of aegis line on top of each other?

You could easily modify them to fit together that way without having to play the balancing act, and I believe it would satisfy the rules as far as how they must be placed in contact with one another, but I admittedly haven't looked up the wording since considering this.

The official rule is that you need to set them up during deployment like your army models.

Oddly, there is no actual rule denying you the ability to set up models on top of each other during deployment.

There is a basic movement rule that denies you the ability to move through (aka - occupy the same space) as another model.

There is also a reasonable argument that deployment = movement and must abide by all of the rules thereof.

I'd say there's a reasonable argument that such Aegis deployment would be illegal in that sense, but it could probably be argued. I would be of the belief it would qualify as an illegal deployment myself.

as someone else has said....

I think the worth of night shields isnt in the Jinking, but in the normal cover save. Having a 4+ for being behind anything isnt bad at all.. Changes your statistics from a 1/3 chance to save, to a 1/2 chance to save.

Though I also think it all depends on what you take it on. Probably not on fliers, ravagers are kind of iffy, and probably on full raiders.

Fliers usually dont wanna jink, and usually wont have cover otherwise... Ravagers I'm iffy on because they are a bit more expensive, and you can hide them behind other things..but otherwise...

Raiders though...you'll usually have 200pts+ invested in whatever unit is in them, and usually in something that 1) isnt useful unless you are closer to your opponent and 2)isnt effected by Jink... So having a 2/3 chance of saving a glance/pen on a unit of warriors that can put out 24 TL poison 4 shots is worth it to me

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

lessthanjeff wrote:

but I've already ruled out the aegis for that as it's too short.  

You know, I was thinking about this the other day: Is there anything that stops you from stacking sections of aegis line on top of each other?

You could easily modify them to fit together that way without having to play the balancing act, and I believe it would satisfy the rules as far as how they must be placed in contact with one another, but I admittedly haven't looked up the wording since considering this.

I never considered stacking them, but I did consider making a custom dark eldar aegis that would be a little taller and maybe not as long to compensate. I wanted to see if my opponents thought that was fair. Plus, I really don't like hiding my DE behind those imperial logos.

lessthanjeff wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

lessthanjeff wrote:

but I've already ruled out the aegis for that as it's too short.  

You know, I was thinking about this the other day: Is there anything that stops you from stacking sections of aegis line on top of each other?

You could easily modify them to fit together that way without having to play the balancing act, and I believe it would satisfy the rules as far as how they must be placed in contact with one another, but I admittedly haven't looked up the wording since considering this.

I never considered stacking them, but I did consider making a custom dark eldar aegis that would be a little taller and maybe not as long to compensate.  I wanted to see if my opponents thought that was fair.  Plus, I really don't like hiding my DE behind those imperial logos.

Turn it around, pretend like it was their aegis line and you've killed everyone manning it... you could even model some corpses round the base if you really wanna go to town!

Say I have a raider full of troops, and I need to get them from point A to point B as quickly as possible, in an unexploded state. I see this as being the primary job of a Raider. Points spent on a Night Shield will (maybe, probably) help me do that. Points spent elsewhere will not.

Theoretically, I could bring a whole other Raider, and use it to screen the first Raider. But if I need to deliver two Raiders worth of troops to different places, that breaks down a bit.

I don't think I'd take it on a Ravager.

I also think the Night Shield is overcosted or underpowered. I just haven't had my mind changed yet about taking it anyway.

It breaks down into what you want to play... as tough things as possible or target saturation?

15 points doesnt help your target saturation.

I usually run 3 Raiders with HS. (2x Blasterborn + 1x Archon + Grots).
For the same price of these 3 upgrades you get 3 naked Reavers.
Thats not helping at all.

What I meant is that it will largely be dependent on your playstyle and gut feeling. You can go NS everywhere if you like to have that extra bit of toughness or nowhere for target saturation or anything you like in between. I just didnt want to put it into that many words as I considered it clear enough.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

15 points doesnt help your target saturation.

I usually run 3 Raiders with HS. (2x Blasterborn + 1x Archon + Grots).
For the same price of these 3 upgrades you get 3 naked Reavers.
Thats not helping at all.

It is helping if you already had 70 points left (also a useless amount) and then add in that difference.
Point savings and saturation is a game you play across the army list and though there are certainly examples where you might as well take the NS, there are also examples where not doing so can help you bring another full unit or more. Each occurrence existing does not invalidate the chance of the other existing nor being viable build concept.

At it's simplest what each side is saying is this;

"I think nightshields offer enough protection to be worth it"
"I think nightshields fail to offer enough protection, and I see a more valuable use for those points"

Both statements hold value, and though one is probably provable on some level as 'more right' a lot of it will depend on what type of army is being built in any case.
I would note, that most people who favor target saturation, will probably have more than 3 raiders in their list (I, personally, usually run 6+ Raiders at 1500 points). Now, at 1500 points, 6 Raiders equates to 90 points of nightshields. That is not a small number, and if my goal is to work saturation it is *very* logical for me to consider shaving a few upgrades here and there to get an extra 25 points and then field an additional Raider w. blaster warriors. That helps my strategy and list better than slightly more survivable Raiders.

Conversely, if you build very few Raiders and like big Gunboats or power assault units in them, the value of nightshields is greater because more of your shooting is not affected by jinking, and also you have more points tied up in the passengers than in the vehicle, so the purpose of the vehicle is to aid the passengers, whereas in a saturation list the vehicle is of equal value to the passengers most of the time.

If you're taking everything in a vehicle, you might consider using an extra 15 pts on a night shield. However, if you are taking anything outside of a vehicle, approx. 15 points will get you 2 warriors, a naked reaver, Mandrake, Hellion, scourge, court or beast squad members, various upgrades, etc. At 30 points, you can get 3 wytches, 3 wracks, most of a grotesque.... 70 points gets you a whole double splinter cannon Venom (empty) and even a whole haemonculus..
The more I think about it, unless its just 15 points for one of them (say on a raider full of troops) then I'd rather just spend the points on models. two night shields+5 points and I can get a 3 wound toughness 5 model (which will for me...will be going with a WWP behind enemy lines with my warlord, so its kind of a big deal)

Thor has hit the nail on the head. Depends on what you could save which depends on your list. If you run a few important vehicles, then the benefits of NS are greater and the potential savings less. You conversely run cheap units in lots of raiders, then the impact of that 3+ is negligible and the potential point savings high. So why would you take them?

Sounds pretty reasonable to me!

Thor665 wrote:

There is also a reasonable argument that deployment = movement and must abide by all of the rules thereof.

I, being the type of guy who looks for the cheese available in any given ruling, would be happy to follow that ruling, as it would also mean that our transports don't ever mishap when deep striking.

The only argument that stops our skimmers from being able to deep strike without mishap is that deployment, and by extension deep strike, is NOT movement. If a TO ruled the way you're suggesting, they're basically setting a precedent for this second ruling.

I would really LOVE to get a definitive answer on this. If it IS the case, then I would heavily alter my preferred playstyle, and I think it would seem WAY more Dark Eldarish. I can see it now. Null deployment, then turn 2, it's raining raiders and venoms! It'd be GLOOOOOOOORIOUS!

Grub wrote:

If you run a few important vehicles, then the benefits of NS are greater and the potential savings less.

I don't exactly agree with this. If you are running full gunboat spam, night shields would likely be worth it for a number of reasons. First, the occupants aren't effected by jink, so you can literally jink every single turn for 3+ without sacrificing much. Further, the occupants never really have much reason to exit the transport in a gunboat, so likely will be using the night shield for the entirety of the game, or until their transport is destroyed, which increases it's value. It protects them for longer.

On the flip side of that argument, I'd almost never use them on a high value melee unit like grots, because it would be my intention to flat out towards the enemy on turn 1 with such a unit. The speed of our vehicles means that in most cases, with max movement plus flat out, we're basically in the enemy deployment zone in turn 1 with most deployment layouts. Once that happens, I don't care too much if my grots raider is destroyed.