Void Raven Bomber

Completely agree ^

Basic maths says that 3 S8 lances are better than 2 S9 - which means jack in the game. Luck is a factor...

That said, TLOS give the S9 lances a much better shot at working

Sure. And I suppose a shredder has a chance of shooting down a flat-out Stormraven, too. The fact that it's theoretically capable of doing it doesn't mean it's a good tool for the job. And we rely on mathematics (or trial and error) to tell us which tools are better at accomplishing a given goal.

You can argue luck all you want, but ignoring basic mathematics is just putting you at a statistical disadvantage -- and the law of large numbers will bear that out in the long run.

Quote :

What the void raven is actually better for believe it or not is getting more reliable pene's on av 11-12, (especially 12) you can just spam DL's against 13-14.

What does that even mean? Ipso facto a void lance would be better at getting more reliable pens on ALL armor, since lance means that armor higher than 12 counts as 12. By saying "especially 12" you invalidate your own argument...

If you suffer the darklight curse, like I do, that one extra str works great, since you auto glance 10's (still have no idea where the idea that DL will glance 50% more often than VL came from). and against armor value 12+ you have 66% chance (or so) of at least glancing, of which 50% would be a pen, as compared to the 50% chance of of which only about 35% will result in a pen.

If you run up against armor 12+ in your local meta on a regular basis, I think it would be entirely worth the points to field 3 voidravens, since, on a point by point basis, if you are capable of smacking down a landraider with each one of them, you earn your points back, not to mention the points you get from the missiles if you happen to pay for those. At 10 points per missile, if you kill a single model of almost any army, you earn your points back, for those armies where models are less than 10 points per model, you're more likely to kill multiple models with a single missile, so you should earn you points back. Also since all but the implosion missile costs 10 points each, you can pick which ones you want without the extra extra cost...

Summary: against lower armor (AV 11 and 10) which is more common anyway, ravagers work better because of sheer number of shots... against more quality armor, you should go for more quality shots.

Even if I only get to have one Void Raven and have to take 2 Ravagers, it'll be worth it. I'll sink a few extra points into the Raven to give it Night Shields and Flickerfields, and as my opponent is distracted by this flyer threatening his big tanks, my Ravagers will be the ones doing the sweeping.

I predict, however, that the Voidraven Bomber and Razorwing Jetfighter are going to become much more useful in the coming months, whether it's special rules in 6th edition, or the resurgence of Land Raiders as the popular way to transport things.

Ruke wrote:

If you suffer the darklight curse, like I do, that one extra str works great, since you auto glance 10's (still have no idea where the idea that DL will glance 50% more often than VL came from).

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the argument. A single dark lance will certainly not glance 50% more often than a void lance. On the other hand, three dark lances will most certainly give more glances than two void lances. Against (effective) AV12, Ravagers and Voidravens are equivalent in penetration, but the Ravager gives more glances.

Void lances are 50% more likely to penetrate against AV12, but Ravagers get 50% more shots. This cancels out with respect to penetration rolls, but the Ravager will still glance more often.

DrBored wrote:

Even if I only get to have one Void Raven and have to take 2 Ravagers, it'll be worth it. I'll sink a few extra points into the Raven to give it Night Shields and Flickerfields, and as my opponent is distracted by this flyer threatening his big tanks, my Ravagers will be the ones doing the sweeping.

Or...they could recognize that the Voidraven is simultaneously harder to kill (closed-topped) and has less firepower (explained above). There's nothing "distracting" about a flyer to a seasoned, rational opponent. It might look big and threatening, but it's still governed by its stat block, just like every other unit in the game.

corollax wrote:

Sure. And I suppose a shredder has a chance of shooting down a flat-out Stormraven, too. The fact that it's theoretically capable of doing it doesn't mean it's a good tool for the job. And we rely on mathematics (or trial and error) to tell us which tools are better at accomplishing a given goal.

You can argue luck all you want, but ignoring basic mathematics is just putting you at a statistical disadvantage -- and the law of large numbers will bear that out in the long run.

Now before I get into this discussion, I will say I am a huge mathhammer supporter. That being said let me continue.

Mathhammer is not the end all be all in this game. Sure you have to look into the "statistical" avantages, but you also have to look into the practical avantages as well. A ravager is much lower to the ground than a Void Raven (supposeably, as we have no official model, but you would think its on the same stand as the razorwing and storm raven) meaning it is easier to claim cover from the Ravager than the Void Raven. So when you add in that 50% chance to ignore your 3 dark lances to the mathhammer equation, what comes out on top now? Well lets see... Known factors are all shots against AV12

Ravager- 3*.666*.5*.5=.499 damage results.

Void Raven- 2*.666*666=.887 damage results.

Well now that makes a difference right? Oh. Lets continue with the fact that it is closed top. Meaning there is less of a chance of a bad result when pened. infact the lowest result a Ravager can get is a Stun if penned, anything 2+ hurts its effectiveness for the rest of the game, while a Void Raven it takes a 3+ for the same result. That being said its practical disavantage is the fact that it is so high up off the ground. Meaning itself is very hard to claim cover. On top of that there is a "Fear Factor" about such a plane. Sure they are more commonplace now, but there are still only 2 variants available (that we have models for) and 3 variants in total that use those types of stands (outside of Apoc... but seriously who plays that) Many people just see them and it crys "shoot me T1 please" That is a huge disavantage imho, and is one of the reasons I dont use it.

Quote :

Many people just see them and it crys "shoot me T1 please" That is a huge disavantage imho, and is one of the reasons I dont use it.

If there is a good argument against using a void raven, this is it... But it's also a good argument against a RJF, and people field those much more often... I think that if you're going to invest the points in a RJF, you'd be just as well off investing points into a fully loaded VRB.

I have lost count of the amount of times people shoot my Razorwing sans missiles before shooting my Ravagers.

Sky Serpent wrote:

I have lost count of the amount of times people shoot my Razorwing sans missiles before shooting my Ravagers.

If you're talking about particularly poor anti-tank weaponry, this can make sense. Because the Razorwing is AV10, relative to the Ravager's AV11, it can make sense to direct moderate strength (~S6 weaponry) to the Razorwing instead of the Ravager.

I get the impression that that's not the circumstance you're talking about, though -- in which case, the opponent has made a genuine tactical error. I think most people will argue you shouldn't build your lists on the assumption that your opponent will screw up. Winning against an intelligent general is hard enough as it is.[/quote]

Ruke wrote:

If there is a good argument against using a void raven, this ["Shoot me please"] is it... But it's also a good argument against a RJF, and people field those much more often... I think that if you're going to invest the points in a RJF, you'd be just as well off investing points into a fully loaded VRB.

Actually, I came to the opposite conclusion. Voidravens are marginally more durable than the functionally equivalent Ravagers. If the enemy is doing you a favor by shooting them first, any motivating factor for that decision is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I once dropped a void mine on 6 tzeentch termies, no scatter. 6 wounds, none saved.

Due to this discussion I shall incorporate a VR into my local tourney this weekend (June 16) ...I shall let y'all know the results!

Where should i start? I usually use 2 implo.ravens. That being said, yes i take implosion missiles. While we may argue on claiming cover or not for VRB and RJF, i use both
so no i dont claim cover for my heavy support. Instead i come up from reserves and load out my rockets, and after that, the 2 lances a vehicle ARENT as threatening, so they usually turn to my raiders loaded with troops...in cover. As cover can screw with our lances, it can screw with the enemies shots as well.

Argument on lance effectiveness, while debatable, is irrelevant.

My Implo bombers usually take out 5-8 termies, wound or kill most of the xv88s, razorwings shatterfield, for the enemy will have saves against you, no reason not to take reroll failed to wounds, will clear larger blob of infantry, and for the reason my "flyers" have used most of their weapons are not that threatening, as i said, they can blow up one thing or two, befor the enemy realises it is still there and shoot them off.
By that time, i get cc unites into his/her shooties, and if my bombers still stand and lost a few lances...well theres alwayse the bomb.

As said above, a venom geting out of the way and a bomb on the enemy squad is a thrillfull load of painfull screams befor the enemy falls to quantum particles. Realy sweet.

We can debate that DL or VL is better result vs amount. Mathematically yes, you get more glances than with a VL. But mathematically glances wont kill a landraider loaded with las weapons. Pens will.