Post by coredump on Jul 17, 2013 23:29:51 GMT
To an extent, you can do the same limiting with a shellrant.
Against ground fire at AP3, (assume auto wound for simplicity), 6 shots against a flyrant will score 1 wound from shooting, and another .277 from grounding). Against a Shellrant, it will score .66 wounds (MEq) or .5 wounds (GEq).
Against things with skyfire at AP4/5/6; the flyrant will take twice as many wounds from shooting, plus the grounding checks.
Against things with skyfire at AP3 (including vector strike). The flyrant will take 6 times the number of wounds from shooting, plus the grounding tests.
OTOH, for ground fire at AP2, the Shellrant will take 3 or 4 (GEq/MEq) the number of wounds as the flyrant
For ground fire at AP4/5/6; the shellrant will take 1.5 or 2 times the number of wounds as the flyrant.
Now you need to consider a few more variables.
How many wounds are usually caused by each of these categories? If doubling of wounds goes from .1 to .2, who cares. If it goes from 2 to 4 wounds... thats important.
How much does grounding matter? Not only does it possibly take a wound, but it makes a flyrant much easier to shoot, and assault. The Shellrant is always 2++, even in CC.
How well can you stay on the outskirts to avoid some incoming fire? Flyrants are more mobile, but they are also more restricted in allowed movement direction/distance. (On the other hand, a shellrant on the flanks has a much harder time moving to the center if needed
And there are concerns beyond resiliency.
Shellrants are much easier to keep with a group; so more units can benefit from synapse or Old Adverstay (for example)
Flyrants are more mobile, so can have more options for units to target
Flyrants get skyfire,
Flyrante mobility also allows for hitting rear armor, or targetting specific models.(sometimes)
All said, I think the flyrant is the better choice, not for resiliency as much as mobility and skyfire.
(Unless, of course, I completely boofed my math again...)
Against ground fire at AP3, (assume auto wound for simplicity), 6 shots against a flyrant will score 1 wound from shooting, and another .277 from grounding). Against a Shellrant, it will score .66 wounds (MEq) or .5 wounds (GEq).
Against things with skyfire at AP4/5/6; the flyrant will take twice as many wounds from shooting, plus the grounding checks.
Against things with skyfire at AP3 (including vector strike). The flyrant will take 6 times the number of wounds from shooting, plus the grounding tests.
OTOH, for ground fire at AP2, the Shellrant will take 3 or 4 (GEq/MEq) the number of wounds as the flyrant
For ground fire at AP4/5/6; the shellrant will take 1.5 or 2 times the number of wounds as the flyrant.
Now you need to consider a few more variables.
How many wounds are usually caused by each of these categories? If doubling of wounds goes from .1 to .2, who cares. If it goes from 2 to 4 wounds... thats important.
How much does grounding matter? Not only does it possibly take a wound, but it makes a flyrant much easier to shoot, and assault. The Shellrant is always 2++, even in CC.
How well can you stay on the outskirts to avoid some incoming fire? Flyrants are more mobile, but they are also more restricted in allowed movement direction/distance. (On the other hand, a shellrant on the flanks has a much harder time moving to the center if needed
And there are concerns beyond resiliency.
Shellrants are much easier to keep with a group; so more units can benefit from synapse or Old Adverstay (for example)
Flyrants are more mobile, so can have more options for units to target
Flyrants get skyfire,
Flyrante mobility also allows for hitting rear armor, or targetting specific models.(sometimes)
All said, I think the flyrant is the better choice, not for resiliency as much as mobility and skyfire.
(Unless, of course, I completely boofed my math again...)