RE: [Epic] Revenants vs. Warhounds

From: Ken Taborek <oberon_at_...>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:01:58 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, James Nugent wrote:

>
> Warhounds shoot first - Around 70% likely that there will be one badly
>
> ~70% chance: 1 undamaged warhound, 1 slightly damaged warhound, 2 dead
> revenants
> ~30% chance: 1 undamaged warhound, 1 dead warhound, 2 dead revenants
>
> Revenants shoot first - Around 50% likely that there will be one dead
>
> ~50% chance: 1 undamaged revenant, 1 dead revenant, 2 dead warhounds
> ~25% chance: 1 undamaged revenant, 1 badly damaged revenant, 2 dead
> warhounds
> ~25% chance: 2 undamaged revenants, 2 dead warhounds
>
> [------->] All in all, nice job. I guess you showed why warhounds cost
> more than Revenants. Basic conclusion being that Revenants are better
> armed, but Warhounds are more survivable.
> They both roll the same number of dice(vs troops/vehicals in the open). For
> warhounds you have
> 24 fp or 12 dice, while Revenants have 8 fp-->4 dice and 8 AT shots.
> Basicly, if 2 revenants firing at 2 warhounds would do more damage than 2
> warhounds firing at 2 warhounds, but the warhounds have a better chance of
> surviving the return fire. Stupid eldar, isn't that always the way...they
> can dish it out, but they can't take it.

OK, this is a better late than never email.
Much better analysis of the Warhound vs Revenant.
I'll feel better paying for my Warhounds now!

--Ken Taborek oberon_at_...
"Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change."- random fortune
Received on Sun Aug 03 1997 - 11:01:58 UTC